Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/09/1992 HEARING PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 9, 1992 (7:30 p.m. Hearing) P r e s e n t : -HON. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman SERGE DOYEN, Jr. JAMES DINIZIO, Jr. ROBERT A. VILLA RICHARD C. WILTON HARVEY A. ARNOFF, TOWN ATTORNEY LINDA KOWALSKI, Secretary-Clerk to Board APPLICATION NO. 4099 - Application of CHARLENE EDWARDS for A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.A for approval of deck extension between existing deck and stairs along the bluff of the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 880 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-68-3-8.2. The size of this lot has a total area conforming to the requirements for this R-40 Zone District. 7:32 p.m. (The Chairman opened 5he hea~ing and read the LegalNotice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRM3~N: I have a copy of a survey of 1978 giving the approximate placement of the existing dwelling and the existing garage. Then we have a penned area of the existing deck and its platform leading down to the Sound beach, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Miss Edwards? Appearance: Charlene Edwards, Applicant Pro Se and Unidentified Friend MISS EDWARDS: I don't know what I am supposed to do. THE CHAIRMAN: We have had at least one other application with you during the period of the time that you have owned this house or had title to this property, isn't that correct? Page 2 - 11/9/92 MISS EDWARDS: My parents owned the property~ and recently (balan6e of phrase inaudible because applicant refused to use microphone when asked). THE CHAIRMAN: I believe it was for the deck or some extension in that case. The beck, as it exists now, is basically the application that is before us. It is there, it is in, it has been there for a little while and that is it. The purpose of it is what? MISS EDWARDS: There was an existing deck and then there was a space before you got to the stairs that went down the bluff, and my friends and I jus~ built an extension of the deck, not knowing that we had ~o do this stuff, you know, and it was mainly because my mom is sick and in a wheel-chair, so that - she could get to the water. THE CHAIRMAi~: And the steps were always in? MISS EDWARDS: The steps were in, and now the deck is in and in use. THE CHAIRMAN: I remember the property when the prior owner owned it. Is there any anticipation of enclosing the deck or putting any roof over it, any portion of it at this time? MISS EDWARDS: No. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have any particular further questions. I guess we will ask the audience first. Is there anybody else who would like 5o speak in favor of this application? (There was no response.) ~Page 3 11/9/92 T~E CHAIRMAN: Anybody who would like to speak against the application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions? Bob? Jim? MEMBERS OF BOARD: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing ne further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Thank you for coming in and we hope to have a decision for you shortly. Page 4 - 11/9/92 APPLICATION NO. 4134 - Application of INDEPENDENT GROUP HOME LIVING PROGRAM, INC. (IGHLP)appealing the June 30, 1992 Notice of Disapproval issued by the building inspector, for relief under Article XXIII, Section 100-231(B) of the Zoning Ordinance for the placement of fencing at more than the 6-1/2 ft. height limitation (proposed height: 8 ft.). Location of Property: 52550 Main Road~ Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-61-3-1. 7:38 p.m. ( The Chairman opened the hearing and read the LegalNotice and application for the record.) Excuse me, that is in favor. THE CHAIRMAN: I have one letter of objection./ This house is the former Dr. Campbell house. It is on the Main Road and Oaktawn Avenue. The fence is a penned-in fence shown on the survey --meaning penned-in in reference to its placement-- They are requesting an eight-foot-fence where the Zoning Ordinance only requires a six-foot-six fence and leaves no other relief but to come to this Board; and I have a Suffolk County Tax Map, a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding parcels in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? MR. WALTER STOCKEN: When we added onto the back of the house, it is a raised deck 2 and a hali feet high. Our side yard really'overlooks our neighbor's side yard, which is his back yard basically; and, as you know, it is a group home, and ten or twelve people can be ou5 on our deck; and if our neighbor wants to have a quiet dinner out there, our guys are very nice, Page 5 11/9/92 but they tend to look; and I just think it would be nice for all of us ~-I think'you got a letter from our neighbor Mrs.. Fischetti in favor of it-- and the eight-foot fence would give us the separation we are looking for. And the fence can't be seen by anybody except the two parties. You can't see it from the road, the side street. THE CHAIRMAN: Is this a stockade fence? MR. STOCKEN: It is a little better than a stockade fence --stockade type-- but I think it is (word inaudible). THE CHAIRMAN: You don't have a picture of it or anything? MR. STOCKEN: Not with me. THE CHAIRMAN: Could you kind of send us one or fax it to us or something of that nature? MiR. STOCKEN: I will get it to you tomorrow. THE CHAIRMAN: Great. Thank you so much. MR. WILTON: Can you define where the fence starts and ends? There is a very large tree there, to the south and these bushes to the north. MR. STOCKEN: We are not removing anything. It starts behind the big tree, and it goes straight back along the property line, and it is clear there. THE CHAIRMAN: Approximately how close to the property line? MR. STOCKEN: As close as we can go. Whatever is allowable. Page 6 11/9/92 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it is really six inches, but -- MR. sTOCKEN: It will be more than that, but as close as we can get to the line. We have a lot of room. THE CHAIRMAN: So if we set a foot and a half in the decision, that would be right? MR. STOCKEN: Sure. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody else like to speak in favor of the application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRFkAN: Anybody like to speak against the application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions from any Board members? MEMBERS: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in. THE CHAIRMAN: You will fax that to us tomorrow, and we will make a decision. What is your timeliness on this? You want to get it done quickly? MR. STOCKEN: Yes, as soon as possible because (phrase i~audible). THE CHAIR55AN: Maximum height, with the posts, eight feet point zero. That is what you are talking about, right? MR. STOCKEN: Yes. Page 7 - 11/9/92 THE CHAIRMAN: So the scallops are not-- MR. STOCKEN: The scallop is (inaudible). THE CHAIRMAN: All right, thank you. THE CLERK: The scallop is the end, he says? THE CHAIRMAN: The scallop is the peak. It is going to be eight even;- the land there is pretty straight anyway. Page 8 - 11/9/92 APPLICATION NO. 4137 - APPLICATION OF JANE C. PEACE Appealing the October 19, 1992, Notice of Disapproval issued by the building inspector, for relief under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 for the placement of a raised concrete patio extension with awning at a setback of less than the required 35 feet from the front property line along Reydon Drive. Location of Property: 40 Grove Drive at Intersection with Reydon Drive, Southotd, Reydon Shores, Section H,'Lot 23, 24 & 1/2 of 22; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-80-4-17.1. 7:42 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy ofthe survey indicating a two-story frame house, received November 4, 1992 from Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone who would like to be heard? Appearance: Don McGayhey, Esq., for the Applicant MR. McGAYHEY: Good evening. My name is Don McGayley. I am attorney for the applicant Jane Peace, who is seated ~o my left this evening. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. McGAYHEY: I have a similar situation as the Edwards application. My client is under contract to sell the property. She is moving to Ohio. It has come to light that .this patio, raised patio extension and awning, she and her Page 9 - 11/9/92 husband constructed in 1977 required a permit. I would just like to briefly'state when my client purchased the property in 1977, what originally was there was a fairly large stoop in front of the house. It was about four by thirteen foot. Beyond that there was an additional concrete area. I believe it was like 5 by 13. It was two different levels. What they did was merely extend the original stoop out to make it all one level; and Mrs. Peace mentioned to me that the reason that she did it really was for safety reasons. They could put a few chairs there without having people fall. At the time when they did this, I don't believe they really believed that a permit was required or they relied on the contractor and the contractor's advice, to, you know, let them know what kind of permits were required. As you can see from the survey, it is a very narrow lot. For those of you who may have gone up to the property, even though we do not meet the 35-foot setback requirements, the house itself and the patio sets back more than fifty feet from the road. Given this situation, I don't feel that your approval of this variance this evening will have any adverse impact on the surrounding properties. The patio has been there for some fifteen years now; and it is surrounded by shrubbery. You can't even see it from the road. I think it would be more of a hardship for Mrs. Peace, who is moving to Ohio, and expects ~o close in a few weeks, to have to remove this concrete extension. Page 10 11/9/92 I therefore respectfully request that you approve this application. THE CHAIRMAN:. Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? ED MacGURN: Yes, I would like to speak. My name is Ed MacGurn. I am a resident of Reydon Shores. As you know, it is a private community with private roads. I have been a resident there over twenty-five years. I have been an officer of the association probably a total of fifteen to twenty years as a Director, as President, Vice President, as Beach and Parks Chairman, and as Chairman of the Board. In all of the two annual meetings I have always attended and all of the minutes i have read of all the fifty-five years of Reydon Shores, I have never seen or heard any negative response from any of the residents regarding this situation. Another situation on Hope Drive for a variance for a deck in front of the property was granted some years ago, so I believe a precedent was already set. In addition to the fact that Reydon Shores was laid out with 50-foot wide roads but in my view, I don't believe the roads will ever be widened to 50 feet, so the theoretical setback is really, I believe, not appropriate at this point. Again, it is a private community with private roads, and no one ha~ objected; and Jane Peace told me this evening she had not received one single phone call from anybody in Reydon Shores regarding this announcemen= in the Suffolk TIMES. I would strongly request that you approve this request. Page 11 - 11/9/92' THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes? WM. PRICE, JR., ESQ.: I represent Mr. and Mrs° Thomas McCarthy, who are the purchasers of Mrs. Peace's property. I spoke with Mr. McCarthy today. He would like to buy the lot with the deck the way it is. We have a mortgage commitment that expires on November 22nd. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Judge. Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions from Board members? MEFIBERS: No. THE CHAIRMAN: I make a motion granting as applied for. Have a good evening. Page 12 - 11/9/92 APPLICATION-NO. 4098 - Application of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS FOR A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for approval of deck extension (at or near ground level) and fence, as exists, near the L.I. Sound bluff. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-21-2-13o This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. (Hearing was previously postponed for Town Trustwees action on Coastal Zone Permit jurisdiction). 7:50 p.mo (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: This Ks a rehearing which goes all the way back to --or, pardon me, a continuation of a hearing that goes all the way back to May 7, 1992o It concerns a deck in the rear yard of the Kostoulases. We did hold this application in abeyance for some time, bearing in mind that we were waiting for Trustees' approval. Is there somebody who would like to be heard concerning this application? Mr. Moore, how are you tonight? Appearance: William D. Moore, Esq., for the Applicants. MR. MOORE: Not too great. I am suffering from a cold, and I have little voice. I will spare it --or I will share it with you. THE CHAIRMAN: The cold or the voice? ~age 13 - 11/9/92 MR. MOORE: I was in touch with Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas this afternoon, in fact just after your close of offic~ hours at four this afternoon --I am simply requesting a recess of tonight's hearing so I'll get a chance to sit and visit the property more fully and work with them as far as the Trustees approval, which they just got this past week. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. No problem. Very good. Thank you. Is there anybody here who wanted to speak concerning this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, anybody at all? okay. I will make a motion continuing this hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. (Seconded and carried: Recessed to next meeting as requested by William D. Moore, Esq.) Page 14 - 11/9/92 APPLICATION NO. 4136 - Application for GEORGE BITSAKIS AND OTHERS '(Owners)for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A for permission to construct addition and reconstruct existing dwelling structure areas located within 100 feet of the L.I. Sound bluff or bank. Location of Property: 57065 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-044-2-1. This property is nonconforming as to total lot area in this R-40 zone District. 7:55 p.m. (The Chairman opened the he~ring and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey, the original date was February 13, 1992, which indicates a two-story frame home and a garage in the front yard area. The house presently sits approximately 65 feet from the top bank or so. There is a relatively shallow elevation at this particular site toward the sound, and we have before us an application concerning that particular dwelling; and copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? Appearance: Lawrence Feeley of Ward Associates MR. FEELEY: May I present this to the Board? THE CHAIRMAN: Surely. You are from Ward Associates, right? MR. FEELEY: Yes, Lawrence Feeley. THE CHAIRMAN: You look familiar. Page 15 - 11/9/92 MR. FEELEY: I have been here several times.' I should move out here --wonderful. This is just the survey showing not just the existing but the impact of the additions as we have proposed. A picture may help. (Hands up.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. FE~LEY: Basically the Bitsakis family would like to do some modest additions and renovations to the existing house. As you can see by this survey, proposed additions are actually behind, pulling back ten foot off of the existing setback now and increasing the setback from the bluff with the additions; and we are adding approximately 82 square foot of footprint, using most of the existing footprint of the house except for the part we are taking off in the back. The property directly to the east is a home which is actually, I would say similar in character, but is actually closer to the bluff, and it appears to even have some recent additions. The house directly to the east of this property is one which we happen to be involved in. It met all the zoning requirements at the time~ which the newer home (phrase inaudible). Other than that, the only thing we would ask if it were possible, if permission were to be granted, if it could be done an an expedient manner, due to construction time to pour foundation. THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. I have no questions. Anybody that takes ten feet away makes me very happy. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Page 16 - 11/9/92 (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody who would like to speak against the application? [There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from Board members? MEMBERS: No. THE CHAI~: Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. We hope to have a decision for you tonight, so you can give us a call tomorrow morning. Safe home. Page 17 11/9/92 APPLICATION NO. 4132-B - Application of SPECTACLE RIDGE, INC. to include, as ~mended, a reques~ for relief under Article III, Section 100-31A(1) (and/or Section 100-31C pertaining to accessory uses to pedrmit residential second-floor use for family member of a proposed accessory building, in conjunction with the use of the proposed principal single-family residence. Location of Property: 14990 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-084-01-02. This property is located in the "Agricultural-Conservation (A-C)" Zone District, and is presently before the Southold Town Planning Board concerning a change of lot line and Farmland Development Rights on 17+- acres, leaving 2+- acres for one (1) principal dwelling use per two acres of land area. 7:57 p.m. IThe Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: It is a continuation of the last hearing on a technical point that came before us concerning the habitable status of the proposed barn, which is rather an extensive structure on this particular piece of property over in Cutchogue, and, again, the name of the organization is Spectacle Ridge, Incorporated. It is a vineyard and we, therefore, would like to ask Mr. Strang if he would like to continue this hearing. Appearance: Garrett Strang, R.A., for Applicant MR. STRANG: Good evening. Thank you. At the close of the last hearing obviously the Board raised the question with Page 18 - 11/9/92 respect to the use and extent of the use of the second floor of the accessory building~ barn as it were; and I had a Lengthy discussion with my client, and we tried to lay out as best we could what we felt would be the Master Plan, if you will, of all possible uses for that second fIoor area of the accessory building, bearing in mind that what they are creating is basically a family compound on that site which is 20-plus acre site, of which --as has been denoted on the site plan-- an attempt to carve out or break off or set off if you will, two acres of the developmen~ of the primary residence and the accessory building barn. The remainder of the property being sold, development rights to the remainder of the property being sold to the Town of Southold, to remain forever undeveloped and open. It is also, for a point of information, contiguous to another nearby piece that is not owned by these people but that is going to remain or is in the County program of development rights, so it is just kind of adding to the over-all open space aspect of things. But in our discussions of what to do or what would happen with the second ~loor, their "wish list" as it were or requirements is a better term I think-- would be initially we had discussed guest quarters for sleeping accommodations for guests since the barn is relatively a good-sized building-- actually to house on the first floor on grade level the necessary uses for the farm, the agricultural uses of the vineyard. In addition, we are going to have a four-car garage arrangement, so you have got storage of the vehicles and Page 19 - 11/9/9~ implements .of the vineyard as well as the storage of four cars, a typical four-car garage. So you have a relatively big building. By that nature the roof to cover this building warrants a bulk of space on the secondfloor level which they wanted to try to make use of because they have to build it anyhow. Economically it would make sense to try to utilize that space as opposed to building additional space onto the main house at the cost of construction that that is, which is far in excess of what it would be to develop within the roof confines of the accessory building. Getting to the point here -- what they were looking at was several, I should say two guest rooms as well as the plan calls for so as not uo come back before the Board in the future, we wanted to basically lay all the cards on the table. We want to be able to make provision to house a family member, a brother who runs and manages and oversees the operation of the vineyard. They would like to have a small apartment for him as well on the second floor so he could be on-site at all times, and economically. Right now it is necessary for him to rent living accommodations off site also. Helpfully, if he could find accommodations on-site, it makes economic sense. So ultimately I did submit our plan to the Board today earlier hoping you would have an opportunity to take a cursory look at it, which lays out the use of the second floor of the barn. And we are not encompassing --we are not developing the use of the whole second floor over this structure. The first floor area is about 48 feet by 58 feet to Page 20 - 11/9/92 encompass the garage and the farm vehicles. We are using considerably less of that space on the second floor developed for this residential purpose. Essentially we believe that this approach is a sensible one as I mentioned economically. It is a lot less expensive to utilize the space that would exist over the accessory building than it is to build that space onto the main house, and'serves the same purpose. So the cost to do it on the main house, I think, would be considered in a roundabout way a financial burden, if you will. You would have to build that base at $300 a square foot, construction costs primary building. I think, again, that what has to be considered is we have a 20-acre Piece here~ so it is not as if we're doing this on a two-acre piece in the middle of a subdivision. We are doing it on essentially a 20-acre piece which will remain undeveloped; the remainder of it will remain as agricultural, so we think along those lines that it is not at all detrimental to either the site or overdevelopmenn of the site, nor is it out of character with the remainder of the area. If we were to go along with the zoning as it was, this particular 20-acre piece could essentially --although there is no plan to do so-- and never would be-- could essentially, if it were owned by someone else, be cut up into a subdivision of probably close to ten single family lots. In this case we are looking au one single family compound, with a primary house and an accessory use over the barn. Again I think, I would like the Board to take into consideration the fact that this is a family compound. It is Page 21 11/9/92' not as if it is going to be anything other than family members live in it or quests or entertain guests of the family that may be using the guest quarters on an occasional basis; and also the fact that we are looking at the twenty-acre piece in perpetuity, given the fact that further development rights will be conveyed to the Town, so it will remain in an open and agricultural-type of state. THE CHAIRMAN: During your discussion in the last hearing, did you say that they had, that the applicants had anticipated buying another piece from this 20-acre parcel back to County Road 48? MRo STRANG: Well, I didn't wan~ to mislead the Board. This was a discussion that my client and I had at some point in time that if it ev er came to pass --anything that is in contract (phrase inaudible) negotiator's point. I think that was said in response to your concern about there being some sort of a winery development on this site. THE CHAIRF~: Right. MR. STRANG (continuing) And that is something that they strongly feel --and I will reiterate at this point in ~ime-- will not happen. They have no intention in any way, shape or form to develop a winery on that piece or in that structure° THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I don't have any specific questions tonight. We are kind of legislated by our own Code in this particular area, and to what degree we can bend that -- Page 22 - 11/9/92 which is fairly rigid. I mean it is not a malleable area that we can~deal with, but we do appreciate you --and I just say this again: And I wilt say it, Mr. Strang, we do appreciate the candor by which you come before this Board and the information that is always freely given to us because it is that, it is very important, and we do appreciate that. MR. STRANG: I think the only way it can really work is if everybody is fully aware of what is going on, a reasonable decision can be made so that we don't have to come back and ask you for a little bit today and a little bit next month and a little bit next year. This is where we are. This is what we would like to do, and are trying to be "up front" about it. THE CHAIRMAN: And I use the phrase, ~'We will kick it around," we will do the best we can. MEMBER VILLA: May I have a question, Jerry? THE CHAIRMAN: Surely. MEMBER VILLA: You are going to put the house on the property. Is that going to be on a separate lot; are they setting off a lot, or is it going to be on the entire piece with just the farm rights sold off as like an overlay? MR. STRANG: Well, at the moment I believe that they have been advised --and I am not party to this, so I can only say from what I know-- What I have been told is that they were advised it would be in their best interest to break off the two-acre piece and then convey the development rights to the Page 23 11/9/92 remaining 18 acres to the Town, 18 some odd acres. It is less than 19; it is 18 and a piece. MEMBER VILLA: When I sat on a farmland committee, we always had this question, and our concern at that time was that if you see ofi a separate lot, that it could always be sold separately, leaving the farm with development rights sold void of any residential plot, and it was always our feeling that we would rather see the development rights sold off just as an overlay and 2 acres left aside or whatever is left aside, still of the same parcel so that it is always intact. Now with my question, because you are saying that this is going to be two residential structures on 20 acres and if you did it as an overlay, that could be; if you do it as a setoff, then it is not SO-- MR. STRANG: Well, I agree with what you are saying, it comes out as a matter of semantics-- in that on paper there is a single and separate lot that is created, and they were advised to dothis. I was not a party to that advisement, and I am not sure exactly what the history of that advisement may have been; but I think, given the fact that the --if they were going to set off a piece of agricultural property two acres and develop it residential, leave the rest of the property agricultural but no5 transfer the rights to anyone, Town or County, there is always the possibility that that remaining property could be further subdivided. MEMBER VILLA: Oh, ~I know that. Page 24 11/9/92 MR. STRANG (continuing): In this case the fact that the development rights are being transferred to the, being sold to the Town of Southold, there is no way that further development can occur on that lot. So in essence what you really do have, even though there is a line drawn that says there is two acres that has been set off for residential use, you still are not going to develop the total twenty-plus acres more than what we-- MEMBER VILLA: (Interposing) I realize that. I just, if you get a separate deed, you are actually ending up with two pieces of property. MR. STRANG: That is true. MEMBER VILLA: And that is what the Farmland Program never liked. THE CHAIRMAN: In the same token, if you did an overlay, if it was legally possible, then the farm could no~ be sold separately from the house. MEMBER VILLA: That's right, in the Farmland program-~ THE CHAIRMAN: In reality, the other way, of course, if someone wanted to do it, they could in effect sell the house and the barn separately from the farm. MR. STRANG: Yes, this is true if it is broken out of zone. Otherwise, it would have to be sold as one entity, as opposed to the vineyard being sold as one entity and the house --if, in this particular scenario, the possibility, I guess, is if the owners ever decided they wanted to sell the vineyard, Page 25 - 11/9/92 they c~utd do so and still maintain their residence they have, if it Were broken out. Again, I am not sure of what the history of that advisement to break it up was. It stemmed from their discussions and negotiations with the Farmland Preservation Committee or whatever their title is here in the Town, as to how to proceed; and from what I understand, that was the procedure, to break that piece out because apparently in --unlike Suffolk County's preservation program-- Southold Town does not allow for any development at all on any property, the development rights of which have been transferred, because the County allows you to do one. THE CLERK: You can have one house --on I8 acres-- so that would be-- MR. STRANG: You can't do anything. It has to remain-- THE CHAIRMAN: That is no~ ~rue-- UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: (Interposing) Or you can put up any type (indistinguishable word), you can't put up a residence. THE CHAIRMAN: You can'~ pu~ up a residence in the County either. Only an agricultural building. MEMBER VILLA: Right. MR. STRANG: I thought the County allowed you one residence and whatever-- THE CLERK: Neither the Town nor the County did. MR. STRANG: Then that may be a confusion on my part. THE CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to mention that we are --when I refer to the phrase that we are in a steadfast fashion Page 26 - 11/9/92 here-- that is, of course, in reality this is not really a two-family hous6, okay, and that is the area that leads me to the jurisdiction of 120,000 square feet, 180,000, 60,000, pardon me. In this particular situation, we are really dealing with two habitable structures which is basically the same thing; and I know this has been mentioned to you before, and this is the problem we have that we will be kicking around, so excuse me when I use that common jargon-- but I don't see much hope in itt to be honest with you, okay, and I don'% know what to suggest to these people, other'than the fact that more than likely --I just don't understand why they just can't cull out 160,000 square feet and dedicate, you know, 16 acres instead of 18 acres, and then they have got it made. They can plant it in grapes that they just have to pay taxes on it in a different fashion. I think they'd have it then. MR. STRANG: I think the idea or the reason they sort of changed in a backwards sense in that my involvement in this project came after they began their negotiations, or the previous owner actually to the property began his negotiations with the Town to transfer rights and basically what has happened here, I think it has been se~ up in such a fashion that there was going to be two acres that was going to be used for the residential use and the agricultural accessory building or barn, whatever we are going to call it, and that there is negotiations with respect to 18 acres transferred or going to be transferred to the Town. So now it is a matter of changing the program in Page 27 11/9/92 extreme to ~educe it down to 16 acres. Then again the intent of the owner was obviously to convey as many acres as possible or practical to the Town through the program. Again, my only reiteration here is the fact that it is not as if we are dealing with two single family structures or a two'family dwelling or more than one family. We have a single family compound. They are all family members. They are all related. By that, I mean a brother who is going to occupy the apartment over the barn is a relative to the owner, so it is still in the family. It is still single family occupancy of the compound if you will, as opposed to separate families. THE CHAIRMAN: That is absolutely true, excep~ that it is creating another living unit, and that is where the problem is. If you were referring to sleeping quarters over the barn, there is no~ a particular problem with that in the respect that we never grant it, but it is more palatable. We know that for religious purposes, two kitchens are sometimes required. However, they are not used --and I am talking from a Hebrew point of view--. However, they are never used concurrently, and that is the problem. We also know that we have a phenomenal amount of farm structures and dwellings in this area that have summer kitchens and winter kitchens. Again, they are no~ used concurrently. The summer kitchen was used in the summertime, and the win~er kitchen was used when the house was heated. So that is the problem that we have, and I have no idea whether it will cause or will not cause.a precedent, so -- Page 28 - 11/9/92 MR. STRANG: I guess my only position with respect to precedent, I am trying to see it from your side as well as mine, and get the best of both worlds to speak, is the fact that we are looking at the development of a 20-acre piece as opposed to a two-acre piece in essence because of the development rights being transferred and the fact that there is going to be no potential for any further development on this property. So whether we are looking -- again, it could be as you suggest or mention the fact that we could cull out 4 acres instead of two and essentially have the same result~ and all we have done is draw a bigger line. The end result being two less acres being transferred to the Town; but we still have the same end result, SO-- THE CHAIRMAN: You see, if the person had already sold the development rights to the Town of Southold, then you would come to us and say, "Well, we have a hardship. This is what we wanted to do. We didn't anticipate it." It hasn't been done yet, and that is the reason why I find it somewhat difficult to deal with. Not difficult to deal with in the respect of dealing with it, but difficult in making a recommendation to this Board for that particular situation. And, again-- MR. STRANG: I understand what you are saying. And, again, I guess it is a situation where I am trying to put everything in the proper perspective and procedures as opposed to coming to the Board after the fact knowing full well this is Page 29 - 11/9/92 what we wanted to do, to transfer it and come to the Board after the fact and say, folks, we have a hardship. THE CHAIRMAN: You may choose to do that. If we deny this portion of it, you may choose to come back after the thing has been dedicated to the Town. When I say the thing, I am referring to the property. So you now have a hardship. It is self-imposed, but we now have a hardship. Okay. MR. STRANG: We try to avoid that set of circumstances~ This is the scenario and how we proposed to resolve it tonight. And, again, the fact being that it is a single family use even though it is two occupancies, if you will, on one piece; but it is not ultimately on a two-acre piece but on a 20-acre piece since there can be no further subdivision or development. We made our presentation. If there is any questions from the Board, I'd be happy to answer them, and we ask that the Board give it as much consideration as they can. THE CHAIrmAN: Thank you. MR. STRANG: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor? Anybody who would like to speak against? Seeing no hands, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Thank you. Page 30 11/9/92 APPLICATION NO. 4t22-B. RE-HEARING FOR APPLICATION OF ROBERT H. and ~KATHRYN B. DEXTER ~nder~ Article XXIII, Section- 100-239.4B for a rehearing, or in the alternative, new Application for a deck extension, as modified, plus second-story overhang, all to be located within 75 feet of the lower bulkhead along Great Peconic Bay. Location of Property: 8380 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-126-11-20. 8:18 p.m. (The Chairman reopened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: The last hearing is a hearing from the last meeting. I am sorry, a decision from the last meeting. We had the application at the last hearing. I have a copy of the survey, sketch of the survey indicating the modification on this deck which at this time is 55 feet at its closest point; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Dexter and Mrs. Dexter, we would like to welcome you again. Is there something you would like to add to this application? Appearance: Mr. Robert Dexter, Applicant Pro Se MR. DEXTER: Good evening. We tried to address each of the questions that the Board raised and the reasons for the rejection and offer mitigatIng circumstances. As you can see, we modified the deck. We shifted the bulk of the deck to the west so that it would be further back from.the bulkhead. We Page 31 - 11/9/92 shortened the deck from sixteen feet to ten feet on the east end, and we chamfered the corner to achieve the greatest setback we possibly could. The upper deck remained as it was originally shown, which is approximately 57 feet back. In the rejection we noted that the house to the east of us, the Shavone (phonetic, no spelling supplied record) property, is set back 52 feet from the lower bulkhead, and the pool in the property to our west, the DeLay (phonetic, no spelling supplied record) is 55 feet back from the bulkhead, and there is a fence around the pool which would be somewhat less than 55 feet back, so that the houses on either side either have par~ of the house or the structure, some structure on the property, that is close or closer than the proposed modified deck. We also went out for a walk on the beach and noted --and we took pictures of them and submitted them along with, I guess subsequent to our re-application-- indicating that there were three houses actually the third, fourth and fifth house to the east of ours that had decks, two of them with roof structures, that were within 10 to 20 feet of the lower bulkhead, very visible, so we took our pictures right from the beach. We have also been advised that there are other properties to the west of us --not quite as close as that-- but there may be others that we are jus~ no~ aware of, that have decks, and some are fairly centered. One in particular we understand extends from the house all the way to the bulkhead, and there are two others that have decks right on the bulkhead. Page 32 - 11/9/92 · The people .on either side, for the first hearing anyway, I don't know if there is any objection to the latest one --but they have not indicated any objections; the Town Trustees have approved it; and the DEC has indicated that we are not required to obtain a permit from them. We are hoping that the modifications we offered will satisfy the concerns of the Board, and that the fact that there'are other decks much closer, much more visible, than ours in the neighborhood would indicate that our proposed deck would not be changing the character of the neighborhood. And we hope that you will consider these favorably. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Let me ask you a question. You don't have to get up. When you are talking about the second story overhang, you are referring to a deck on the second story, is that correct? MR. DEXTER: That's correct. THE CHAIrmAN: ~I should point out to you that the reason why this Board chose to deny this application without prejudice was because we didn't really want to do the surgical cuts because we had no idea where to cut, when to cut, what was palatable to you people, and so that was the reason for the denial. At this time I have to ask the Board if they want to treat this application as a re-hearing or as a new application. (Consultation among Board members.) THE CLERK: It has to be unanimous~ THE CHAIRMAN: It is screwy the way we do it because we usually don't make a decision the same night. Page 33 11/9/92 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: I was only concerned if he wasn't'there the first, then he wouldn't be able to sit -- get it? THE CLERK: It would be a re-hearing. THE CHAIRMAN: Which you need a unanimous vote to do. As opposed to a brand-new hearing, and Mr. and Mrs. Dexter have been kind enough to give us a check for the new application, and we know this was upsetting ~o them, and a question would only add further upsetment. THE CLEP~K: I need to have a vote for the rehearing. THE CHAIRMAN: That was what we just did. I just polled the Board, so now I will say I make a motion and we are going to give him his check back. I make a motion granting a rehearing. (Seconded.) And here is your check back, sir. MR. DEXTER: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Rather than get into the semantics of that fiasco prior, I thought maybe it would be better if we dealt with it toward the end of the hearing. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in the audience here? CARL AUSTIN: My name is Carl Austin, and I am a broker with (inaudible) Real Estate, and I live (inaudible) about a mile from the applicant. There are numerous deck s~ructures that go straight to the bulkhead and even below the bulkhead on the second bulkhead, as well as decks, bath-houses and screen-houses, pools. Myself, I have a deck that is within 52 feet from the lower bulkhead. My neighbor has a pool which Page 34 - 11/9/92 is about 10 or 12 feet from the upper bulkhead, and there are numerous structures, and I can't see where this would have any adverse effect. THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to mention to you while you are standing and I very rarely mention this, but I will. Mr. Dinizio and myself spent quite a bit of time looking at that situation, Peconic Bay Boulevard. I grew up on Siggsbee, so I ' know Peconic Bay Boulevard very well. We had found that a substantial amount of the construction of some of those decks, particularly to the west of the Dexters property, were done without permits° And this all came to light when we had an applicationf oh, probably about ten houses west of the old Camp Immaculata property, where one neighbor had added three decks on it without a permit, and then the neighbor next door proceeded to ge~ the same waterview, and then came in with the application and was denied. Now, conceivably those people will have to deal with that. That is just one example -- when and if they want to go and sell their property° As you saw what happened with the first application tonight, so what may be there is there but it may not be legal. MR. AUSTIN: I am talking about ones that have been pre-existing for many year~s and also-- THE CHAIRMAN: No question about it. Any questions of Mr. & Mrs. Dexter concerning this application? Any objections from the Board? Page 35 11/9/92 (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: I will make a motion granting this application as it is applied for as long as the lower deck not be enclosed. Any second on that? (Seconded.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming back in. Happy Thanksgiving and safe home.