Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/16/1991 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1991 Board Members Present: Chairman, Gerard P. Goehringer Members: Doyen, Grigonis, Dinizio and Villa Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 35 persons in the audience. Appl. No.: 4066 Applicant!s): Pellegrini Winery Location of Property: N/S Main Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 County Tax Map No.: 1000-109-1-8.7 The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a ~ax map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I have a survey, site plan rather, developed by Samuels and Steelman revised 10/30/91 indicating the nature of this application and the placement of the respective buildings and their location on the property. And I'd like to ask I assume Mr. Pellegrini or Ms. Steelman who would like to speak. Okay unfortunately that mike is not working so we're going to have you to use this one over here. MS STEELMAN: My name is Nancy Steelman, I'm with Samuels and Steelman Architects. We are in front of the Board tonight for a special exception for a winery in an agricultural conservation zone. The property is basically as it has been stated on the North Road in Cutchogue. It is generally known in the community with a small white gazebo that's location on the property. The surrounding areas are approximately farms to the south, there's a farm that's also to the east. Environmentals is to the wes~ and there's a small residence and farm also to the west. Within that area there are approximately three wineries that exist within probably about a 5wo mile radius from the proper~y and I think at this point what we're trying to do is continue that use within the areas of Cutchogue. I'd like to show that the property is ~pproximately thirty six acres and it has been, grapes have been planted over approximately about ten years ago. Two thirds of the property is planted so it's a very old set of grapes for this area and they are very good wine producing grape and have been very successful to this point. As you can see most of the proper~y has been planted. The only remaining section is a small corner on the east side of the property on the Main Road, that has not been planted. This Page 2 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Pellegrini Winery Southold Z.B.A. MS STEELMAN, cont'd: was originally a house, a farm houset barns, that were on the property many many years ago. I~m not sure exactly at what point they were torn down. This is really what is remaining, this is where we're planning now for the winery. Most of the property has been planted except this one location in the center of the property which we have found has a very low section and there is some drainage problems and it's also a very cold section within the property and the grapes would not be able to do very in that location. I'll show you a little bit° This is just an enlarged plan of the area on the Main Road. What is being proposed here is basically three buildings with a covered breezeway linking two portions of it. The tasting area is located here with storage and wine making area~ production area down towards the east side of the property. What we've done here is try to keep the edge of the existing grapes and locating parking ~on the west side with a drive-through back for overflow parking and for bus areas. We've found that many of the wineries out there have not designed for that overflow parking on those days in the spring and in the fall and especially during the summer when peeple are coming out tasting there is a lot of cars and people who can't park, parking on the Main Road so we're trying to utilize an area in the rear of the site by removing some of the grapes for this use~ I'll just give you a very brief overview of the floer tense of the project. To orient your self this is the wine tasting room. It is basically these two other buildings that are central to Tommy Court° This court is tied together with trellises on one side~ facing onto the Main Road, and then there is covered walkways that link all the remaining buildings. We've designed it so that they can use set value tours that will walk around the courtyard under these covered walkways into various components of the wine making process. In addition to that~ there's a pass through breezeway that runs out to a small terrace so that people can get a good view of the grapes and sort of include that in sort of their tour. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Can I just ask you a question? MS STEELMAN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does the functional part of the building face the courtyard? MS STEELMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would we see from the Main Road basically buildings? we see windows; from these Would would we see doors? Okay. Page 3 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Peliegrlnl Winery Southold Z.B.A. MS STEELMAN: Let me try to explain this a little bit. What you will see primarily from the Main Road. This is the elevation facing the Main Road. There is a large linking trellis structure, planted probably with grapevine or wisteria that will face directly on Main Road. This is right in the location of where the gazebo exists now. So you can get a sense of how high that is from the Main Road. In this location here, this is the major production area in this wing here. Now this actually drops down and you can see it's dotted to a lower level. We try to maintain a lower profile on the Main Road, the tanks are very high, there almost sixteen feet. We've tried to bring this down by dropping it. Going down with the ramp ~o this lower level. So along the side you'll several windows, the small windows with gable end. This area here is the tasting room. This is a tower that sits room as a corner for the whole building and that's also seen here which would be that other directionals are coming as you're going east on the Main Road here. See this at the corner right as you come into the parking area. This area here is as ramped down, this is actually the east elevation. This ramps down to the crushing pad and some of the actual primary operations of the wine tasting, I'm sorry the wine making. This elevation is looking from the parking area, looking in this is the covered walkway here. Walking directly into the court and then either taking the value to a ramp or into the tasting area. And this is the back elevation with it's pastier freezers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we would say that the orientation is more to the Main Road then it actually is into the winery. MS STEELMAN: Yeah, definitely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. I just wanted to mention to you if anybody that is in the audience that wants to see this that we'll break for a couple o~ moments and let them look at it. But you can continue with your presentation. MS STEELMAN: Okay. I think what I'd like to do now is kind of have Bob Pellegrini come up and just say a few words about his approach to wine making and this community and that will conclude everything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. Thank you. MR PELLEGRINI: Good evening my name is Bob Pell~grini and myself and my wife, Joyce are the sole owners and partners of this entire venture. We both are long time North Forkers in the sense that I've been coming out to the North Fork since Page 4 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Pellegrini Winery Southold Z.B.A. MR PELLEGRINI, cont'd: college. My roommate in college was from Mattituck so i kind of have a long history in coming out to the North Fork. I was first involved out here in 1982 where I came out here specifically to buy land to build a vineyard and a winery and I did eventually in 83 buy land which is now called Gristina Vineyards. I was partners on that venture until 1987 when I anticipated a miss a miss~ how do I explain that. To partners that did not quite get along~ it led to a disillusioned my partnership in that vineyard. The point that I'm making there is that I'm not brand new to this kind of operation involved with the wine industry in on the North Fork since 1983. We purchased a house out in Southold Town in Cutchogue in 84. It is now our permanent residents, but my wife and I lived here permanently, it is a permanent address from Buth over? So we're not~ we're full time residents of the town. After that mishap in the other adventure being a life long ambition to have a vineyard and winery. We spent about two years looking for other lands. If you remember back in that time framer in 87 the prices went crazy out here and I was selling for about $25~000 an acre and it just wasn't feasible at that point. We kept our search and looked fairly excessively for about two years and finally this opportunity came about a year ago~ I took advantage of it and bought this property~ closed on it last April. With the intend tot since it is a ten year old vineyard and has wonderful grape growing potential. The grapes from that vineyard were always sold to other wineries, mostly on the North Fork and up into Connecticut area and Rhode Island. But always a very fine wine was made from the grapes in that vineyard~ so I saw it as a great opportunity to get involved through the quick jump~ might starts right back where I left off° I purchased the property like I said back about nine months ago~ with the full intent since it was a growing vineyard to start legally pursuing the goal of creating a winery which is why we're here tonight. The economics involved unfortunately in this day and age is that just grape growing by itself is especially at the prices one pays in 1991 is marginal at best. You really to get your, to make it a viable business venture~ by business venture meaning to make the full property work and to hopefully keep it as a vineyard and agricultural plan you really have to wind up making wine~ Because that brings the value per acre to a point where you can afford to keep that venture going. That's not the main reason that I want to do it, I want to do it because it's been my ambition to get a winery and ~operate and run it myself~ which is what I'm going do. My wife and I are going to participate and be basically running it ourselves° Not hire anybody outside. We're going to obviously hire wine maker and a manager and so forth but basically we are here to run the vineyard ourselves. Page 5 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Pellegrini Winery Southold. Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where do you house the equipment now Mr. Pellegrini? MR PELLEGRINI: The actual wine making equipment? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. The actual equipment for running the vineyard itself. MR PELLEGRINI: Well the tractor, there are two tractors and there is the spray equipment and there is a couple of that were pre-existing when I bought the property, some I guess they are temporary or movable truck bodies it's not a situation that I'm crazy about. But that was there and right now they function to keep the rain off the equipment, it's a little tool area. I'd like to get rid of that as soon as possible, as soon as obviously that would be part of this whole proposal here. In fact there is some, if you visited the proper~y it is not visible from the Main Road, it's sort of tucked into a corner. There is this big truck bodies. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. FiR PELLEGRINI: The winery we're going to make is going to be primarily, by primarily meaning mostly from the grapes grown on that vineyard. Like in mentioned, Nancy mentioned it happens to be a really good site and the grapes in that particular site have been claimed as being high quality. The size of the operation just to give you a sense of it is appropriate to that use to try to make it economically feasible. It's about the size of a Lenz winery or a Gristina winery rather than a much larger one. I would call that medium size I guess. But that's the way it's planned. And I'm committed to the opened space concept of the North Fork and what I~m getting at, that's the reason why that I'm actually tearing out grapes and vines ~o accommodate that overflow parking situation. Because I don't like the going on the Main Road either and get held up by cars parking on the Main Road creates some sort of a hazard. So I think we've accommodated that to the best of our ability, giving the particular site in question. We also chose to do three separate buildings to sort of an open space in between because that the part that Nancy called the courtyard is not covered. It's just a walkway in between the building is Covered for obvious reasons so people can walk .in one building to another in inclement weather. But the majority of that big square you see or square is not covered it's to sort of give it sort of an airier feeling so it doesn't look like one big huge building. We hope uo it will appear maybe not in that kind of flat drawing but appear more three dimensional and have some light and air in between it rather Page 6 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Pellegrini Winery Southold Z.B.A. MR PELLEGRINI, cont'd: than one big massive structure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the approximate square footage of the three buildings? Main buildings. MR PELLEGRINI: Well the actual floor space itself? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah~ main floor. MR PELLEGRINI: Somewhere around 6,000, 7~000 square feet. The tasting area is about 1,300 square feet, which is small as they go out here. The actual wine making facility the fermentation area ! believe I don't think I'm wrong is about 3,000 square feet. MS STEELMAN: Yeah, fermentation areas. MR PELLEGRINI: And the storage area is the remainder. There is two storage areas. One for empty case storage and one for full case storage and the reason for that is we try to do the entire operation on one site. Rather than have to take wine to Riverhead to various storage facilfties there and to have truck traffic back and forth. We're trying to accommodate the entire yield of the vineyard in one area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. My other question is, do you anticipate building this in a 1~2,3 fashion or are you going to build it all at once? MR PELLEGRINI: Our anticipation is to build it at once yes. To complete it. Rather then in stages. The intent is to have a building upper roof by next crush we'll call it or harvest because unfortunately in the wine business you only have one chance a year. If we don't have our facility up and going and functioning, not necessarily tasting areas so much but the wine making part at least you loose a whole years worth of production. As you can probably imagine the cost that this building plus the equipment that wilt go in it is substantial and to loose one year is kind of, it would be kind of unfortunate. That's why we're trying to plan ahead and trying to get going as quick as possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's my understanding that both the ~ase storage and the fermentation barrel storage and bottle area are both two storage structures, meaning there is one in the ground and one above or one ground level. MR PELLEGRINI: Basically yeah. The intent of that was is to get the maximum square foot usage out of the least amount of visible area on top. Page 7 December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Pellegrini Winery So'uthold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Somewhat like the Gristina with the ten foot ceiling or eleven foot ceiling. MR PELLEGRINI: Having had, I've never seen Gristina's inside so I really don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He's about 5,500 square feet. MR PELLEGRINI: The enuire building? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR PELLEGRiNI: This is a little bigger. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So he tells me. The only reason why we're comparing it is we're running through new fields here so to speak. And I'll use this as an example and I don't wanu to belabor the topic or extend any of the hearings any longer than they should, but if you remember when we first started here in this idea of the special permit we were dealing with existing barns in existing areas. Alright. We have then gone to such things as Gristina and Mattituck Hills which were brand new structures alright, both of which either faced the vineyard or faced the road, based upon the persons liking who was developing or architectually built it. In this particular case that was the nature of the reason for my question. Are we facing the road or are we facing the vineyard. MR PELLEGRINI: You mean the majority of the buildings? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, the majority of the building again appears here Eo be facing the road. MR PELLEGRINI: Well the again the tasting room area is about 24 foot wide and the actual 5ermentation building the part that's closest to the road the building goes back, it's 32 foot wide. And in between is this trellis. So the actual surface area facing the road is 23 foot wide on one end and 70 or 80 feet away is 32 feet also facing the road, in between is a trellis area, the a, in the flat plan the higher building is practically a good 60 or 70 feet back from that. See here we have the three dimensional quality here. Like for instance the trellis here is 60 feet or 70 feet in front of this building back here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No problem° We're just trying to get an orientation because those are some of the things. MR PELLEGRINI: No I undersuand fully. Page 8 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Pellegrini Winery Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only other problem that I have is that based upon the Gristina Winery application again I~m not bringing in past things, but things that people have questioned. I noticed that your crushing pit is within about 20 feet of the property is that correct? MR PELLEGRINI: It's about 25 feet from the eastern property line~ The difference here is is that the crushing pad is below grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. MR PELLEGRINI: So the entire operation or the functioning of the crushing pad would not be visible from ground level. It would be below grade and it would also be decorated or landscaped to a point, it would have a visual screen not only from that property line, which frankly there is four or five trees right in there anyway now anyway but also from the Main Road as well. So the commercial part quote unquote or the machinery part is visible during crushing which frankly is only about five or six days a year. Functioning with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We were more concerned with noise during crushing then we are with actual visibility. MR PELLEGRINI: The most noise complaints I~ve heard out here from the years I've been here are the badgers the noises of the guns going off and all that the bird control° Well I purchased netting for the entire vineyard which was put up this year, so we don't use any noise control at all. We have full netting for the entire vineyard. Every vine in the vineyard is covered right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How much noise is the crushing involved° MR PELLEGRINI: Well the crushing is basically tractors which is agricultural bringing the grapes from the vineyards into the crushing pad. And the actual press itself is minimal amount of noise. It's just that it's not a grinding machine like that at all. It's practically it's a compressor that will be located inside the building that fills a large bladder inside the press that squeezes the grapes against the sides of this cylindrical press. So there is no grinding noise. It gets turned over every so often but that's pretty .much done by hand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the only noise is merely tractor noise? Page 9 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Pellegrini Winery Southold Z.B.A. MR PELLEGRINI: Just tractor noise and so forth to get the grapes from the vineyard into the winery itself. Then there are pumps that pump the wine from augers actually more augers that shove the wine through plastic or whatever plastic hoses that are about ten inches in diameter into the various tanks on the inside. But again those are relatively, those noises are no louder than a car, not even close to a car engine. They're just pumps that move the fluid or the liquid of crushed material from one, from outside to inside. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Have you ever heard a farmer grading his potatoes to a conveyor belt or either a combine operating? MR PELLEGRINI: Yeah, it's less noisy than that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Less noisy than that. Okay, good. MR PELLEGRINI: Again the harvest is, we have chardonay, mallow, cabronay, it's our basic varieties. We have five, four different varieties and for all intensive purposes they're all usually not the machine harvest capability we have out here. They're all harvested more or less within a day or two each variety. I harvested my entire vineyard this year, sold it to a local winery and there were five different harvest days. To do the whole vineyard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MR PELLEGRINI: You're very welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone in the audience who was not able to see these renderings that would like to see them? Okay seeing no hands we will continue with the hearing. Is there anything you would like to see Ms Steelman? MS STEELMAN: Yeah, I think as you can see with 36 acres here requires a winery. This is a prominent piece of property and Mr. Pellegrini is very dedicated to producing a good wine. I think it would be a shame if this was denied and that you- would have to then have to find another means in which to produce his wine. I think it's very fundamental to the North Fork that the wineries starting, wiheries are starting out to be able to preserve some farmland. It is bringing tourists into the area. I think there's many positive things that the wineries in the area can provide for the North Fork. I think it's really also part of the master plan to provide for these types of uses to start to look at how we can preserve some of our rural heritage. And think this is & good solution for it. Page 10 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Pellegrini Winery Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you again. Bob, do you have any questions? MEMBER VILLA: Yeah, I had a question. Mr. Pellegrini said or Nancy you said the farm consists of 36 acres. How much of that is in grapes? MR PELLEGRINI: All but the front part. The front little section which is 2 acres Nancy? MS STEELMAN: Yes about 2 acres maybe even less. MEMBER VILLA: So you haven't about 34 acres of grapes? MR PELLEGRINI: 31 actually. There are alley ways and so forth and then there's a little wet spot in the middle where I've actually, wet years floods. MEMBER VILLA: Now having been on a farmland preservation group we had tried to get this farm into the program with the previous owners and I don't think they ever went through with it. Would you be interested in. MR PELLEGRINI: Well ! have the, the County is really being slow. At the point when I bought the vineyard I notified them that I bought the vineyard and there was a standing offer~ well the previous owners were offered development rights opportunities and I wrote to the County and they're transferring that over to my name. I have not made a decision about whether I'm going to do that or not at this point. I am seeing whether the offer extends to me, which I believe it does. i believe that they will do that. The fact that it's committed to the grape growing capability here and the vines are some of the oldest vines on the North Fork, I intend to keep it agricultural, yes. But I can't answer that other q~estion right now without knowing more. MEMBER VILLA: It's under study because it's next to another piece. The Crosses sold their development rights and of course, they're trying to enlarge those holdings of towns. Thanks. ~HAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: By the way that has no bearing on this permit. MEMBER VILLA: NOo CHAIIANLAN GOEHRINGER: No. Page 11 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Pellegrini Winery Southold Z.B.A. MR PELLEGRINI: It just is enough to see whether or not the County is interested in extending the rights to me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody else have any other questions? Thank Ms. Steelman. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in the audience concerning this hearing either pro or con? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion, oh, there is someone. Seeing no further hands I"ll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER VILLA: Second. All in Favor AYE. Appl. No.: 4067 Applicant(s): Paolo Lavagetto Location of Property: S/S Mason Drive, Cutchogue, NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-63-7-34 & 35 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating this parcel as it presently sits. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indication this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Can I ask you to state your name please for the record. Maybe use the mike if you wouldn'= mind sir. You are... MR PRESTIA: I'm representing Paolo Lavagetto. My name is John Prestia. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nice to meet you sir. MR PRESTIA: This is all new to me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, you can stand there that's no problem. MR PRESTIA: I have some photographs if that's what you need. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. We'll take them. MR PRESTIA: I got them marked here what sides they're on. This would be the northeast side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. It looks familiar. Page 12 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Paolo Lavagetto Southold Z.B.A. MR PRESTIA: Again, you know on the back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. You must have done this on a good day. MR PRESTIA: Yeah. Yeah. Well my wife did it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to state for the record? MR PRESTIA: Just that they wanted permission to, you know, build a garage and storage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. The only question that I have is and let the record show that i'm pointing to the survey. That the applicant wishes to build within, build a six foot six inches addition into the side yard area. And I think you're looking to be what from the property line? MR PRESTIA: I think it was 7, 6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 7~ 6. Okay. MR PRESTIA: Yeah 7, 6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you can't move this over a little bit farther? Is there .... MR PRESTIA: Well, I think there's a Window which was involved and some other CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In the existing bathroom. MR PRESTIA: There's a bathroom and then I guess they've got to go with their fan and... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They didn't want to do that. MR PRESTIA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. That's the only question I have. This is a one story or two story structure? MR PRESTIA: That's going to be two story. Up above is a storage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. What would you say the actual height would be? MR PRESTIA: Well it would be the same height as the addition Page 13 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Paolo Lauagetto Southold Z.B.A. MR PRESTIA, con~'d: that's brought up above it. You know, SO. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But there will be no living area up above it, with mainly storage. MR PRESTIA: No, I, in fact to be honest with you, I think he is a hand radio operator and that's what he'll use it for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. MR PRESTIA: He's got a license for it and all that so he does. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you. We'll see if anything else develops. MR PRESTIA: What will I have do. Do I have to apply for a permit or? LINDA KOWALSKI: I building permit. We'll let you know tomorrow. Give us a call. MR PRESTIA: Okay. Thank you very much. LINDA KOWALSKI: Call in the morning. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody who would lik~ to speak against the application? Any questions, Bob, before we, no, not hearing any further questions I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. All in Favor - AYE. Appl. No.: 4047 Applicant(s): Ethel H. Betz Location of Property: Calves Neck Road, Southold, NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-63-7-34 & 35 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8%08 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Peconic Surveyors P.C. most recent date is 6/3./91. Indicating a house lot which is lot number 35 and the l~t which is the nature of this application, well they both are Page 14 - December 16~ 1991 Public Hearing - Ethel Ho Betz Southold Z.B.Ao CHAIRI~AN, cont'd: that actually, which is lot number 34. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area° Mr. Bruer, would you like to be heard on this application? MR BRUER: Rudolph Bruer, I'm here for the applicant. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board~ on behalf of Ethel Betz asking the Board to grant a re-separation of this property located at Calves Neck in Southold New York. They say a re- division. The property was purchased by both Mrs. Betz and her husband back in the 50's, I believe in the 1951 and then again in 1955 or 56 with the idea and knowledge that they thought at that time that they have two separate lots. Mrs. Betz continued to have that thougkt until she went into a nursing home about a year and a half ago and because of that has determined that it is necessary to sell this property for her maintenance while at the nursing home and the vacant lot. I'm sure you've all been out to the property and you know that the house which is on the property is situated in such a way that it occupies one of the lots. As you can see that when constructed in the 50's it was done with the idea of leaving the other part, the half of the the other lot vacant with the idea that it could be transferable in the future° To support that you'll notice or I'll ask the Town, or the Board to take notice that the Town still issues separate tax bills with respect to both of these properties. The property became merged by way of the zoning ordinance which became effective in the late 1950's. The property as you know has been up-zoned over the years to a point where at one time a few years ago it was two acres it is now back zoned to high density one acre. With respect to the purchase, the because I said the lots were purchased back in 1951 and I think in 1956, I have copies of the deeds and i will submit them to the Board for its file. The key factor here is that the property as merged does not lend itself tO an appreciation in terms of the value of the house~ The house with the vacant lot will not increase the value of the total property at all. Somebody going to buy that property is going to pay the market value of the house property which ~ would guesstimate to be about $500,000. Mr° Cooper from First Towne Realty he'll give you a little update as to the value of the property. The property of the lot as separated would pro~ably worth $200,000. You put the two'of them together ~ou are not going to get a buyer for this'property for $700~000. I doubt if you would get any appreciable price over the value of the house itself. So it's not, it's not a question of saying well if you have the lot it makes the house more valuable and therefore you can get a better price for the house with the property. The necessity here is, the necessity of the sale to pay for the upkeep and the Page 15 December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Ethel H. Betz Southotd Z.B.A. MR BRUER, cont'd: maintenance of this, my client, Ethel Betz. I have here, I'd like to read part of a letter and I'd like to submit the letter as part of the file. A letter her brother sent to me engaging me with respect to this appeal here back in October of 1990. The middle paragraph I'll just read one. I'll ask that the letter become part of the file. It says with a home, with our Southold home now vacant I have open listed it with several Realtors at a price below the appraised value. Because of the present zoning restrictions I am required to included the adjoining vacant lot as part of the package. This has substantially increased the value of the offering and automatically makes the price of the property non-competitive with other offerings. I'd like, again submit this letter in accordance with the notice that the Board submitted to me, and it's kind of an outline of the arguments that are presented here .today. Would you like me to submit these all at once or? CHAIRMAlq GOEHRINGER: Surely, no, I'll take it now. This way we'll digest it individually. MR BRUER: Alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR BRUER: While I'm here I'd like to pass up the copies of the deeds showing when the purchase and the single separate search if you don't have it already in your file. Again I would like to reiterate that the merging of the property by zoning has created a financial hardship uo the applicant as well as the practical difficulties of it. The financial hardship as I Stated is basically that the lot as attached to house is really valueless, in terms of the total package of the house and a buyer and the impact of that. You will see more of what I'm saying by Mr. Cooper's statements that will follow. I'd like to state further for the record on the practical difficulties end of it that as far as the division goes, the property has as you note, it's half acre zoning so the-excuse me- not half acre zoning, the request is to divide property so that effectively it's two half acre lots or a little bit bigger than two half acre lots. They are each 26,097 square feet and one is 29,692 square feet. MEMBER VILLA: Which one has the house on'it? MR BRUER: The house is know as lot number 35 on the tax map which I will submit. I can submit a survey of the two pieces and it also has the stamp of the Suffolk County Health Department with respect to this division. The Health Department approval was dated October 25, 1991. Page 16 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Ethel H. Betz Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR BRUER: Bobby the smaller version, this is the house. I'd also like to point out that the elevation of the lot and where the building envelope would be is quite high. Would not effect the wetlands° There is quite a slope there° It's well above 15 feet elevation. With respect to the Environmental Impact regarding this matter I would like to point out that the Southold Town Planning Board on November 18th and November 19th issued a negative declaration and notice of determination of non-significance with respect to this property. I quote part of the action and I submit the November 18th notice. · Description of the action subdivision with a 55,789 square foot lot into two lots of 26,097 square feet and 29~692 square feet. The reason supporting this determination an environmental assessment has been submitted and reviewed it was determined that no significant adverse affects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. No correspondence has been received from the Department of Health Services in the allotted time therefore it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. And to the best of my knowledge they have not submitted anything to the Planning Board° No correspondence had been received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the allocated time therefore it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. This property and the surrounding area are serviced by the Greenport Village Utility Company~ There are no private wells down gradient of this site. The division of land would not set a precedent because of further subdivision for substandard lots in the area as most lots are already in these size range of 25,000 to 30,000 square feet. For these reasons it is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impact from project density or ground water impact. And also I~d like to submit a letter of the Planning Board dated November 19th when it resolved thab the Southold Planning Board acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act established itself as lead agency~ And as lead agency makes a determination of non-significant and grants a negative declaration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you° MR BRUER: In furtherance in the letter of the Planning Board is stated there I'd also like to submit to the Board for its file and I'm sure you have it. Is a copies of the blown up pictures of the Suffolk County Tax Map and as can be segn the lots arsund this property on Town Creek particularly and across the way are of similar size if not smaller. Although' Page 17 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Ethel H. Betz Southold Z.B.A. MR BRUER, cont'd: there are a couple slightly bigger. CHAIRMAN GOER-RINGER: Thank you sir. I'll pass this around. MR BRUER: In addition to the practical difficulties I believe it is shown that the situation is quite unique, unique in the sense that this is the as to properties on Town Creek there, this is I think the last lot that's available, it fits in with all the other lots on that side on Town Creek. It is not creating any great precedent or new precedent in the sense that it is the last one I believe of this size in that spot. It's not going to change the character of the neighbor. In that as I said the neighborhood is fairly well established and set and the addition of one house is ~not going to make any difference whatsoever. Also as the Board is well aware the enabling statute with respect to the appeals here. Is changing come next July under the revised 267 of the Town Law and I believe the presentation here and the request for the variance here meets the standards of the new statue which comes in effect I think next July. We're in the 267B 3B sets forth the standards that the Board is to take into consideration. Example the, to consider and weigh against detriment of the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. I don't think this is infringing whatsoever on the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood or the community. The statu=e also says that you should take into consideration whether an undesirable change will be deduced in the character of the neighborhood. I don't think that this does that, that this specific piece of property as it's located there. Two whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be TAPE TURNED OVER other than an area variance. .It might be argue that well maybe the property could be half kept with the lot and half maybe sold to a neighbor. I don't think this is feasible in terms of the economic benefit that would be, that the applicant would be deprived and the significance of it being added to the adjoining property owners would be insignificant in terms of the depravation of the value that is needed for this women's support to theiend of her life and it would be a shame that there is no, there is no other way to pursue this. Three, whether the requested area variance is substantial. Well~ maybe if this was ~wo acre zoning it might be, but it's one acre zoning here and everything in this area has pTetty much been decided and set upon to be the half acre as this proper=y divided would be. It"s not going to have a various, number four, an adverse affect or impact on the environmental conditions.as supported by the Planning Board's letters that you have before you. And it's not. a self created situation quite the contrary. The Town created it against the wishes o~ the applicant and her deceased Page 18 ~ December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Ethel H. Betz Southold Z.B.A~ MR BRUER, cont~d: husband. At this point and for the time being i'd ask Mr. Cooper to get up and make a presentation with respect to the values and the financial lose that would occur if this variance is not granted. MR COOPER: My name is Bill Cooper I work for First Towne Realty here in Southold. We've been asked to comment on the market ability of the house. If you consider the listings that are there presently available there's probably between ten and thirteen houses available either on the bay or creeks that are listed somewhere between $450,000 and $595~000~ Over the last year most of those prices have come down probably around $100,000. There has been very few sales. There are several sales that have taken place in Calves Neck~ they are fairly low prices or they would be considered low prices in comparison to two years ago. The house has been on the market since for almost a year. There have been no offers on the house. And basically they are competing against prices that are between $100~000 and $150,000 lower then what's happening. The client who is going to buy the house it's a very unique house~ the taxes on it are higher than comparable in the neighborhood. But it is a very unique house and will appeal to someone. However, the extra lot ~s not necessary for most purposes and the other problem is going to be that it's just not going to command that kind of money in this market~ Se there is a tremendous lose of money~ no doubt about it as far as that's concerned. We've only had two houses sold over there both if they get $500,000 for the house that would be probably somewhere between $50~000 and $75,000 less then they would have gotten a year ago. Just for the house alone~ The longer they wait they longer it's harder to market~ the more money they will continue to lose. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cooper, how much is the house listed for? MR COOPER: $750,000~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: With the lot? MR COOPER: With the lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How much is the lot'worth? MR COOPER: Around $200,000. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. MR COOPER: Thank you. Page 19 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Ethel H. Betz Southold Z.B.A. MR BRUER: Mr Cooper, Bill, could I ask you one question. What value does the lot add to the house piece of property? MR COOPER: At this point almost none. The person who would come in and make an offer now would probably make the same $500,000 , $550,000 and but expect those pieces. There's no real value to the extra piece because they would be so over paying for the neighborhood at this point that it just wouldn't make any sense for them to do that. Separately, if they could buy it an separate it themselves, that would be another thing. If they could never separate it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ~Thank you. MR BRUER: In other words, the value of that lot would be completely lost in terms of its merging with the house piece. MR COOPER: Sure. MR BRUER: Thank you. Just for the record gentlemen I'd like to submit a letter from the Village of Greenport with respect to the availability of the city water. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR BRUER: Sitting here is Mr. Herz, the brother of Mrs. Betz, he'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have only one confidential question and I don't think it's necessary for the hearing, I think you could submit it as a part of the record but I would like to know the age of Mrs. Betz and the approximately monthly costs of the carrying charges in the nursing home if you wouldn't mind. These are questions that I really never ask but since you are discussing the need financially for this particular application I don't think it has a direct relationship to this application but certainly an indirect relationship. Okay? MR BRUER: Yes sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. How do ~ou do, Mr. and Mrs. HBrz, is there anything you would like to'add for the hearing? MR HERZ: I'd like to add just a short statement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. Page 20 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Ethel H. Betz Southold Z.B.A. MR HERZ: I came to these hearings from Delaware and I'm a resident down there and in effect I send my influence over my sister's affairs. I have power of attorney and therefore I'm very much interested in being here and observing what is taking place and I want to thank the Board for the opportunity to listen. CHAIRMAN GOEBRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes sir. I'll just ask you to state your name at the mike~ thank you. MR VAN BOURGONDEIN: My name is Phil VanBourgondein, my wife and It Katherine are the closest neighbors to Mrs. Betz, we are directly adjoining her property of this wonderful women. You couldn't find a better citizen or neighbor or a Southold citizen. We the undersigned respectfully request that the Appeals Board allow the re-zoning of Ethel Betz~s property on Calves Neck Road into two separate lots. This property was originally purchased in two separate parcels. The first parcel, the one on which the house was built by Mrs. Betz and her husband Dr. Philip Betz was purchased some forty years ago and the second adjacent to th~ first was acquired at a later date. Ethel has been in a nursing home for one-and a half years and needless to say it is very expensive. The sale of her property becomes increasing necessary to keep her comfortable to the end of her days. We the undersigned feel also that in as much as Ethel has over the years has given so much of her time and energy gratis, to many organizations in the Town of Southold, namely the Southold Peconic Civic Association~ the Southold Historical Society, the Presbyterian Church to name a few in which she kept the books and was treasurer. It is only fair and just that the zoning changes be granted. It is felt that this may speed up the sale of these properties~ And I have here seventeen signatures of people in the neighborhood, lwho knew her and are directly involved in Calves Neck group. !'d like to submit that to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is {here anybody who would like to speak against this application? How do you do sir? MR ~ORTHAM~ I'm Basil Northam, I live across the street from the property, or catty corner to it. Unfortunately Clara Jerknes couldn't be here tonight, but I do believe she wrote a letter to the Board. I hope you look at her letter, and look it very carefully. She's lived in the neighborhood quite a long time, she's the person who's going to be right next to the open area, not the house area. The open area. Page 21 -December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Ethel H. Betz Southold Z.B.A. MR NORTHAM, cont'd: understand Mr. Bruer said something to the effect that I know you've all been down there. I don't know. If you did go down there you would see a very small place which would not only squeeze a house in but only have to be crammed in. It's a nice little area, it's got some trees, but I don't want to go into emotional things like that. I know the hardship and I know the dignity means so much but let me just regress for a moment. I'm sorry in a way that it had to come to this pass because the Suffolk County Planning Board though ecologically speaking at least that 11-1 or 11-0 it shouldn't have come to this pass. So be it. The dignity and the hardship, honest emotions, honest ideas. But half a million dollars, that's quite a sum and there are other people who aren't here tonight and I'm sure have written letters, I didn't canvas the area. But, I hope you take them into consideration and I just hope that you uphold the law in a case where the site is so small. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Northam. MR NORTHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse us, I don't know where this cold air is coming from but it, it's absolutely we're freezing up here. I asked him to turn the heat on before and he did but I think he turned the air conditioning on. Is there anybody else who would like to speak, either for or against this? Mr. Kramer. How do you do sir? MR KRAMER: Hi, I'm John Kramer, I live eight houses away. I just jotted down a few notes that I hope you'll take into consideration. This was two acre zoned property, now it's one acre zoned property and we're still talking about halfing that again. And I don't think that that's right. Especially when as Basil referred to the configuration of the lot. If you look at the way they propose the house, it's gou to be up toward the road. The beauty of Calves Neck is that it is substantially developed and we really don!t need any more houses. The lot in front of the, the paved surface in front of the house is sixteen feet wide. Servicing the entire Calves Neck Road. It's a long narrow road. I don't think we need more houses, the area doesn't lend itself to affordable housing lot size. There's a problem with the real estate market. It's good property, there's nothing wrong with the real estate. They missed the boom years and they regre~ that they didn't sell when they could have gotten $750,000 and that is indeed unfortunate. But that's the reality, we don't have a problem with real estate, it's good property. There's another point that I'd like'to bring ou~. The house now I don't think has a dock, the person buying it is certainly if Page 22 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Ethel H. Betz Southold Z.B.Ao MR KRAMER, cont'd: they're going to pay those kinds of numbers for house they're certainly going to want to put a dock and a boat in. If we divide it we're going to have two boats and two docks° And this is in a Creek that's already closed to shell fish nine months a year° On the idea of the precedent setting. I don't know what the situation is with the lots across the street from me that are owned by Francisco and were sold by the Estate of Hendricksono I don't know what those sizes are. But if we start cutting a one acre lot into two half acre lots I sure those lots that are now just a big vacant field as you go around the ~UTM could beautifully be cut up into six houses. And I would hate to see that and the only other thought that I have, is that it occurs to me that as I sat here in the McDonald's hearings that the County Health Department and the Town Planning Department and everybody else who gets this stuff before you all do flip flops and everything comes back down to your shoulders. And I would like to thank you for delving into these situations and studying them because it appears to me from the outside that you people are the only people who can stop wanting the intensification of development. Thank you. CHAIP~VLAN GOEHRINGER: Thank your John. As you are aware we have received a letter from a neighbor and she's requesting a recess on this hearing, this Board normally does grant a recess at least one recess and this particular point I will offer to the Board a resolution to recess this hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting and wish you all a very happy holiday season, thank you all for coming in~ JimMy second it. MR BRUER: Before you get into that, two points of rebuttal on the arguments of tonight° I'd just like to point out that I can submit~ I don~t have the copies here of November 19th, the Southold Town Planning Board voted to,quote be it resolved to override the October 3, 1991 Suffolk County Planning Commission report for the following reasons. The division of land would not set a precedent for further subdivision of substandard lots in the area most of the lots within five hundred foot radius are already in the size range of 25,000 to 30,000 square feet° One o%her thing as I have a letter here from, fax~d letter from Celic~Realtors with respect to the price of the lot and Tom Uiinger of that office has estimated that the lot based u~on other comparables in the area would be about $200,000. CHAII~V~N GOEHRINGER~ Thank you.Mr° Bruer. MR BRUER: When would that next meeting be? Page 23 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Ethel H. Betz Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think we set a date yeT. LINDA KOWALSKI: Probably the 23rd. It would be Thursday. MR BRUER: I wouldn't be available. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, then we'll postpone till the following. LINDA KOWALSKI: We'll let you know, in February some time. MR BRUER: Can I call you on that, that date. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR BRUER: Okay, thank you. LINDA KOWALSKI: We'll have to re-advertise it, that's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Can I hear a second on my motion gentlemen. MEMBER VILLA: Second. All. in Favor - AYE. Appl. No.: 4068 Applicant(s): Eleanor Sievernich Location of Property: Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-113-8-5 The Chairman opened the hea~ing at 8:53 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a Survey indicating the parcels in question as they are proposed and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. There is no surveyor shown on the map so therefore I will not mention it. ~ere's the original it was done by Howard Yqung, the most recent date is February 8, 1991. Is there anybody who would like to speak in behalf of this application, prior to recessing t~e hearing? L~NDA KOWALSKI: We have a letter there from the Attorney for the applicant° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. LINDA KOWALSKI: You might want to read that for the re~ord. Page 24 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Eleanor Sievernich Southold Z.BoA. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is to confirm our telephone conversation with the state requesting that the above hearing be adjourned for two reasons. First, the inability to service adjoining owner Frumkin after three attempts and secondly, my ability to attend the hearing at that date. I understand that the hearing will be re-scheduled and will advise me of the new date. Further I understand that you'll notify Mr. Ross of Wickham, Wickham & Bressler with this request. It says Very truly yours~ Anthony Salvatore. Dated today. I offer a resolution recessing this to the meeting in February. MEMBER VILLA: Second. Ail in Favor - AYE. Appl. No.: 4069 Applicant(s): Troy and Joan Gustavson Location of Property: 7785 Main Road, Mattituck, NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-122-6-29.1 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:55 p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a original site plan of this parcel showing the rear of the parcel which is the nature of this application which is the elevated paddle boat court and the nature of course is just what I read in the public notice and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I assume Mr. Bressler you would like to be heard. MR BRESSLER: Yes thank you Mr. chairman for the applicants. Eric J. Bressler of Wickham, Wickham & Bressler P.C.~ Main Road Mattituck, New York. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board this appeal presents the most interesting issue probably one of first impression for this particular Board since you are not aware of the fact that there are other platform tennis courts of a similar nature around the Town of Southold. At least those that have raised these issues. The issue very simply this evening is one of lighting. Is this platform tennis court to get the approval of the Board for the lighting which is an interval part of this court so that it can be used for its intended use or not that's the issue. By way of background, Mr. Chairman, and attached to the appeal papers I only believe one of these letters was attached, but the issue of the platform tennis court in general and the issues relating to the lighting of the platform tennis court first came to the attention of the Town sometime prior to the hearing 1991 when Victor Lessard wrote this Board a letter Page 25 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Troy and Joan Gustavson Southold Z.B.A. MR BRESSLER, co~t'd: advising that an application for a he termed a paddle ball court or properly platform tennis in a business zone. And he goes on to say that accessories are referred back to this zone to 100-31C I would judge this to be tennis court category except the wording has residential inserted, also this application has lighted inserted in its survey which is not normally permitted where upon Mr. Lessard asked for an interpretation from this Board. Shortly thereafter this Board received a letter from Troy Gustavson again outlining exactly what a platform tennis court is; what it consists of; and again referencing the lighting aspects of the court. Thereafter, this Board responded to Mr. Lessard's letter later in June issuing its memorandum concerning ball courts as accessory uses and basically adopting the permission that they would permit under the code and finally the letter of October 23rd to the applicant from Victor Lessard again raising the issue of lighting. I would ask you Mr. Chairman, what as part of the Building Department file these letters are all part of the Board's file now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I believe they are. MR BRESSLER: Okay. So, in short, where we are today is we have a platform tennis court; it's up. I know certain Members of the Board have seen it. It is suitable for use at least during day light hours and we would like it to be suitable for use during all hours. Platform tennis is a game that by its nature it begs to be played in the evening and cooler hours unlike the game of tennis that is played on a smaller inclosed court, unlike tennis the ball tends not to go out when you hit it long; it hits the wire and comes back into play. It is an enclosed game. It is played on an elevated aluminum surface and it tends to be a rather warm game. You can go down and watch people play in tee shirts in the middle of the winter. Whereas tennis is a spring, summer, and fall game. Platform tennis is a fall, winter, and spring game. Necessarily because of the shortness of day light hours it is played in the evening time. I believe that the material which the applicant furnished to the Board reflects the fact that platform tennis is a winter evening type game. The Board makes reference to the drawings and the other material furnished to it regarding the game that you will find that platform tennis courts by definition include lighting and I know the Board in this regard asked for some drawings and construction details. What we have in this regard since the court was purchased by the applicant as a package deal if you will. That it was purchased in pieces and the seller came and assembled it, there are no construction diagrams other than those in the head of the person that constructed it. However, we do have for the Page 26 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Troy and Joan Gustavson Southold Z.B.A. MR BRESSLER, cont'd: Board from the official platform tennis rules book a platform tennis layout which will set forth for the Board the dimensions of the court~ the layout of the court; a picture of a court; and the rules of a court. And i would only know two things in handing this in, the first rule two provides that court fixtures include the lighting poles and lights. That is a defined part of a platform tennis court. And that the picture of the platform tennis court, the Board will note~ is somewhat inconsistent' with the current court. This is for two reasons~ first the court the applicant purchased is an older used court and presumably does not reflect newer technology and the lights as shown on this picture appear to be on elevated stanchions above the court where as the lights in this particular court~ the Board no doubt noted are contained in the perimeter of the upper portion of the fence so I would like to hand this up as the best we have regarding the layout and the construction of the cou~t. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR BRESSLER: Now, there are basically two basis for this particular appeal. One is a rather more technical argument than the other, but I will address them both. The first argument is that we are seeking a variance from the provisions of the zoning ordinance. And the way this argument runs is as follows: A platform tennis court is the equivalent of a tennis court and since tennis courts are specifically permitted as accessory uses in this zone we are entitled to have a platform tennis court. However~ the ordinance goes on to say that lighting is not permitted without a variance in connection with a tennis court. Therefore~ since a platform tennis court is equivalent to a tennis court we have to come to this Board and as for a variance of that particular division of the ordinance. The reason for the application that is with respect to the variance is as I described before° Platform tennis is a game that's played in the evening and during the winter time when it's dark and platform tennis courts contain lighting. The nature of this lighting is around the upper perimeter of the fence hence the light is directed downward into the court. I've been advised by the applicant that several Members of the Board have been down and have viewed this court during the evening hours, when it's dark and have observed the lighting effects of these lights and I think it's a fair statement since I~ve observed them myself to say that the light is fairly well self-contained from these particular units as opposed to say baseball field lighting up on a pole that is designed to flood or wash the entire area~ Page 27 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Troy and Joan Gustavson Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRPLAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler, how high is that fence above the court? MR BRESSLER: Twelve feet. Twelve feet high and I dare say that is considerably lower than any tennis court lighting. More over the difference in lighting is not only with respect to height but it is with respect to the size. The court is considerably smaller in linear dimension than a tennis court. Thus, the light is more concentrated into a smaller area. Exactly one quarter of the size. So your linear dimensions are much smaller; your height is not as large as a result your light spillage is virtually insignificant. Why is this unique, well that's an easy one if you don't have any other platform tennis courts around nor do I anticipate tha~ there will be many more of them built but I maybe wrong. Why would this not change the character of the district, I think that even a brief look at the adjoining property indicates to the Board that you really couldn't find a better place for a court like this. There's a vacant lot on one side and what apparently is to be a used car lot on the other side of the property. Uses that are no~ inconsistent with this particular lighting. I have here several photographs which illustrate these principles. The first picture is a look at the platform tennis court looking to the west and you see this is the back of a commercial area. The other is looking from the other side and you can see that the court is very well screened and that there's virtually no intrusion what so ever. ?777777777: That's actually from the residences behind my used car lot. MR BRESSLER: Right and you can see that you really couldn't pick a better place for a court like this. And I'll hand these photographs up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR BRESSLER: Finally as I alluded to early, it was the applicants understanding from the outset and indeed his revealed position and the documentation that a platform tennis court did include lighting and at all times this fact was known to the various approving agencies and the applicant is in the position now, it's dark out, and he would like to use the platform tennis court and we think it's a matter of fairness that it's appropriate that he be permitted in effect to throw the switch and use the courts in its current configuration. Now the second basis for the appeal, I think, is a little bit more interesting and it calls on the Board to read zoning code in a way that's a little bit different from ~age 28 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Troy and Joan Gustavson Southold Z.B.A. MR BRESSLER, cont'd: the way that apparently it has been interpreted and the argument, the argument runs like this: under Section 100-101E accessory uses are permitted in a B District as indicated. In Section 100-31E 1-8 subject to 100-33. When you go to Section 100-31C you find that platform tennis court can very well fit into the broad based definition of an accessory use. We believe that there is no need to pitch in a hole if you will, a platform tennis court into C 1-8. Although this Board has taken the position in correspondence that it is a permitted use in that it does fall into one of those categories. That is a tennis court, we see no reason why it has to be given that sort of status and we would urge the Board as an alternative to adopt the position that this is a permitted accessory use in that it's customarily accessory to that type of use and treat it as an accessory use other than one specifically enumerated. I think it would be. very easy for the Board'to come up with any number of these things that don't ~all specifically within the C 1-8 laundry list. When the code was being devised it is apparent to me looking at that laundry list that the drafters of the code put forth the general proposition and then listed eight items that they were' generally familiar with. This didn't happen to be one of them and i think that the issue of lighting which is so integral to a platform tennis court where as it is the almost exactly the opposite with the respect to a tennis court. Looking around the Town of Southold we see almost no lighted tennis courts. There is no evening playing tennis probably because being four times as large and needing lights three times as high it's prohibitedly expensive to light a tennis court as well as generative of great light pollution. Where as a platform tennis court lighting is really the name of the game and that's when you use it. So we feel that it can be cubby holed or pigeon holed under the broader based definition of accessory rather than necessarily as a tennis court. If the Board disagrees then we would urge the court to certainly-the Board to consider it as a tennis court and grab variance and say that this really is intrinsical different from a tennis court and that without the lights it's essentially useless because as Troy will tell you nobodies going to be playing during the sun~ner~ They're only going to be playing during the winter, during the summer we all play tennis and sail boats and do other things. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: May I ask you two questions, Mr. Bressler? I purposely have only viewed the tennis court from the road at night when the lights were on. I don't know if anybody was playing or not playing it doesn't make any difference to me. I did go up there on a very cloudy day~ however, and did and I was alone and no one was around and I Page 29 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Troy and Joan Gustavson Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: did turn the lights on. Are those lights sufficient enough to light that court so that anybody can play tennis, I mean are those all the lights that would be there? MR BRESSLER: Absolutely. This apparentl~ was or is the alternative design to the that is shown there and is the one more typically found on older courts and we have gone out and muted correct me if I'm wrong during those particular times at night and the light is sufficient. So no accessory or additional lighting is necessary and in fact it is designed that way. Boom, boom, boom the guy comes in; he assembles it. Turn key operation, that's it. No stanchions or anything like that. CHAIRMAN SOEHRINGER: The second question is a little more involved and it's a question that one of my fellow Board Members also has and that is the issue of the purpose lighting at night. You have told us that the purpose of lighting it is of course so that you may play tennis, platform tennis whatever you choose to play platform tennis. More importantly our concern is regardTess if it is an accessory use or if it is unused under the, you referred to the phrase broad based term of tennis courts. Okay. Is there a club involved with this particular tennis court? I mean are there people paying to play on this or what is the story here? MR BRESSLER: Well story is that unfortunately the applicants for the money for this particular court as a practical matter those who want to play have to chip in. It is a non- commercial venture. But those who want to play have to contribute to the cost of the court. And as such we feel that it falls squarely within the not-for-profit, non- commerical type enterprise and it's a bunch of guys and girls who got together and basically chipped in to make this thing work. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it on a contribution basis or is it clearly stated on an hourly basis, the use oi this? MR BRESSLER: Oh, no. This is not an hourly, this is not an hourly basis type of operation. This is as Troy described it it is for Troy and his invitees and his invitees are respectfully requested to help defray the cost of the court° Basically because you're talking fourteen or fifteen thousand dollars and there had to be sufficient interest for him and his friends basically to get together and so he wouldn't out of pocket the $14,000 or $15,000. And no we don't Troy doesn't have a term style or a token type arrangement. Where Page 30 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing ~ Troy and Joan Gustavson Southold ZoB.A. MR BRESSLER, cont'd: people come in and pay by the hour to play it's not that type of an operation° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why I ask that question is basically because of course that you know that we just sat through approximately eight and half hours of McDonald's hearings and they tell us that when a McDonald's or any other franchise occurs in one specific area than many others also occur and that was what our concern was. if there is one table tennis court there, I~m sorry, platform tennis court there now that maybe there may be more in the future and that was what our particular concern was based upon the fact that it may become a and this has nothing to do with applicants on this project okay° It may become a profitable accessory use and there be more of them involved in the future, not necessarily only on this site but on other sites of similar zoning. MR BRESSLER: We certainly hope so, buts buts it's my understanding that under the code that once these turn from private type enterprises not-for-profit into commercial ventures~ the code is quite specific that it falls within a different cubby hole. And I guess that what we're saying to you is no we don't the applicant does not intend to run this as a fOr-profit or commercial operation and I guess you're just going to have to trust us on that because he~s not doing it. It wouldn't surprise me at all on the other hand if someone were to do just what you described. It would dismay me greatly if they didn't have the courage to come up in front of you and say yeah I'm going to run a commercial operation for-profit down there and this is what I intend to do. May I please have a variance from the zoning ordinances but we're not here'tonight telling you that that's what we're doing down there~ What we're telling you is that if people please him basically and they want to and the other people involved down there and they want to come down and chip into the cost of the court as a private operation ! think that's fine. But as you say when you start to run this as a commercial operation for-profit then I think we fall outside the code and we've got to come back or do something else and if it should turn out that so many people beat down Troy's door that he has to put up another court I daresay that would be the type of operation that we're 'talking about and we would have to come back here and say it's no longer just a group of men and women playing platform tennis together it is now a commercial operation and we and we need some release from the code. MR GUSTAVSON: Can I make two comments about that? I know of no commercial platform tennis venture in the United Page 31 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Troy and Joan Gustavson Southold Z.B.Ao MR GUSTAVSON, con~'d: States. It's a relatively minor sport. You'll only find courts in private residences and basically in Country Clubs. There probably are fewer than a dozen courts on Eastern Long Island, almost all on the south fork. They are either privately owned or at Country Clubs. So if we were to start a con~ercial venture it would be the first such venture in the United States and I just don't think that there's any where in the word it could ever support itself. The other question really goes to the usage and based on the number of people who are involved in our little coalition now about twenty families, I'd say the cour~ realistically would be used no more than maybe four or five hours a week at night. It is unlikely that it will ever be used more than that. The lights are off when it's not in use. It is surrounding by two, surrounded by two commercial parking lots which have fairly intense site lighting; our own lot; and than the lot on the shopping center to the west of us. And those lights basically are on and our lights go off around midnight and the others lights I think may be on all night. Sot I mean the intensity of the use is relatively minor and will continue to be. MR BRESSLER: Because that's the nature of the usage and... MR GUSTAVSON: Also for us to expand it we'd have to be purchasing adjoining property. There's nothing on the acre and a half tha~, no further space on the acre and the half that we own where we could put another cour~ or so. MR BRESSLER: Well as a practical matter I think that's so, we'd have to go back and amend the site plan and knock out all of this parking. MR BRESSLER: Yeah, we'd have to knock out the parking lot to do it and we have no intention of doing that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to ask one other question. The approximate elevation above the ground from site. MR BRESSLER: You mean oi the playing surface. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah. MR GUSTAVSON: Three feet from the ground ~o the deck and then twelve feet from the deck to the top of the fence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is no heating elements in that deck at all to either get rid of any precipitation such as snow or ice or anything? Page 32 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Troy and Joan Gustavson Southold Z.B.A MR GUSTAVSON: There could be and there should be~ but there are not. MR BRESSLER: But there are not. The story on that is, it's a two part answer. If you looked at the court you may have seen that the fencing down at the very bottom is different from that up top. There are fence portions about yea high about a foot high that swing and basically you take your shovels and brooms, these things swing up and. off the snow goes out the very bottom of the fence and then you can play. The second part is yes a more sophisticated arrangements they have heaters under there to prevent the surface from freezing and icing up. We don't have them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which must be very costly. MR BRESSLER: Which yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because I'm sure they're electric heating elements. MR BRESSLER: Some of them are and some. MR GUSTAVSON: They use propane blowers~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Propane blowers~ yeah. MR BRESSLER: That would be rather pricey and because of the letter we don't think, because of the letter we're taking a chance on it yes. The snow last year was nothing to speak of and the times when it rained and froze up were really very, very minimal. MR GUSTAV$ON: We've already had an experience of the two inch snow fall about a week ago. And we were able to sweep it off the court and the court was completely dry within about an hour and a half after that. Because the aluminum basically heats up with any sunlight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Dissipates the moistures. We thank you very much for your opinion, we'll ask anybody else if they have any questions. I just want you to know for the record that we grill everybody and it was nothing intentional. I know nothing about platform tennis and that was the reason why I asked the question. MR GUSTAVSON: Well we know that you've been grilling our neighbors. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to make a statement~ Page 33 - December 16, 1991 Public Hearing - Troy and Joan Gustavson Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Mr. Dinizio would like to. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd just like to state that I did go down there at night and I brought my children down and we did run around the court and I turned it on and I went to both sides of the property actually on the other property and I could not see any of that light washing on to either side. You know there is railroad tracks in the back. It just doesn't seem like this is in any way a hindrance. Other than you could have just as easily had parking lot lighting there on all the time and TURNED TAPE OVER CHAIRFLAN GOEHRINGER: Would anybody else who would like to speak either for or against this respective application? MR BRESSLER: Yes. I guess I might say that if any of the Board Members have any questions about the game itself isn't Saturday morning the or IS it Sunday morning you go down there. MR GUSTAVSON: Generally speaking, Saturday mornings between nine and twelve. We basically have an open house for anybody who Ks interested in learning more about the sport. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Interesting. Very good. MR BRESSLER: And he'll be down there if you want to see what it's like. It's good for old guys to play too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let the record show that Mr. Bressler is referring to the applicant and .... MR BRESSLER: And myself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment. I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. All in Favor - AYE. (Transcribed by tape, was not present at the hearings)