Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/14/1993 HEARING PUBLIC HEARINGS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 14, 1993 (7:30 p.m. Hearing) HON. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman JAMES DINIZIO, JR. SERGE DOYEN ROBERT A. VILLA RICHARD C. WILTON LIN-DA KOWALSKI, Secretary-Clerk to Board RECEIVED ANDF~.i~ED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOVv~N CLF_~./~ DATE ?~3/~3 HOLm ~:aa~. Town Clerk, Town o~ Southold APPLICATION NO. 4141 - ALICE BENNETT for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33 (and as amended December 4, 1992) for the placement of an accessory garage in the front yard. area with a setback at less than the required 60 feet in this R-80 Zone District. Location of Property: 2725 Soundview Avenue, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-68-1-10. 7:32 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a site plan indicating proposed location of the garage, which is approximately 48 feet from Soundview Avenue and 20 feet from the westerly property line. The garage is, the proposed garage, is 30 feet by 3'4 feet and approximately 17 feet 6 inches to the ridge. The architecture is somewhat that of a small soapbox and I have 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 in behalf of this? How are you again, sir? Could you just state your name for the record? JOSEPH DIAZ, BUILDER: I represent Alice Bennett. THE CHAIRMAN: Okays. MR. DIAZ: The reason why we are asking for this less than the 50 feet is because of the angle of the road. If we go back the required setback, we are going to lose about three or four nice beautiful red oak~, which I don't want to disturb if possible. 1/14/93 Hearings Board of Appeals Page~ THE CHAIRMAN: And you propose to put it on the west side rather than on the east side of the property? I have to know for the record why you don't want to put it on the other side of the property. MR. DIAZ: The other side -- we have the driveway, and another here. If we get into that area, we get into a big bunch of (inaudible). THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. THE CLERK: I would like to be able to pick everything up here (addressing Mr. Diaz, who is speaking inaudlibly for record). MR. DIAZ: Sorry, ma'am. I would like to salvage what I could. THE CHAIRMAN: In looking at the property, there is a similar garage about 600 feet down-- MR. DIAZ: It was a one-car garage which was put into storage for her light crafts and the stuff that she does. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the one over closer to the house, yes. I just meant there is one in the area. MR. DIAZ: There is another garage east that is within 20 foot of the road, which is less than 300 feet down the road. If you want to go west, I think there is another one. I am not positive. There is another one pretty close. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Diaz? Board of Appeals Page 4 1/14/93 Hearings MEMBER VILLA: Yes. I looked at the property and my feeling was that if you pushed it back the 60 feet, which is 12 feet back, further, you have to take less trees down because of the driveway. That whole area is wooded. MR. DIAZ: Well, if you look at the map there, we pushed it back --there is a tree right now which is north of the driveway. If we push it back, it means that tree and the other tree has to go and he did not-- MEMBER VILLA (interposing): What other tree? MR. DIAZ: There is three more trees. MEMBER VILLA: You would only be taking one tree down-- MR. DIAZ (interp6sing): But there is more trees which we don't indicate. MEMBER VILLA: But there is a lot of trees in front of where the garage is placed right now, which would not be taken down. MR. DIAZ: Yes, well you have a 52 foot setback on the east end of the building, and your average is 55 and a half feet, or 55 plus. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, but it is the closest point that you go from. MR. DIAZ: It is an average; and if you go up the road 300 feet, you got a garage that is within 20 feet. I think the Building Department says anything within 300 feet because this is wetlands and front yard-- Board of Appeals Page 5 1/14/93 Hearings MEMBER VILLA: Wouldn't it be more attractive to have the garage closer to the house? MR. DIAZ: It may be, but we are going to lose a lot of trees which we don't indicate on the map. MEMBER VILLA: I looked at it and it is six of one and half a dozen of the other because if you push it further forward, you have more driveway and are taking out more trees in the driveway area. MR. DIAZ: They don't want to get it too close to the house. MEMBER VILLA: Well, it is only 12 feet. MEMBER DINIZIO: I looked at it as a swap kind of thing because the longer the driveway is, the more trees you take out; you push it back, sure, you lose that one tree, but you save all the other trees; so it looks to me like a swap. MR. DIAZ: We are going to take out some trees in the driveway, but they are small pin oaks. MEMBER VILLA: The whole thing is heavily wooded, no question. MR. DIAZ: I will answer to you and go by your decision. I gave you my opinion. THE CHAIRMAN: Is this a higher spot where you propose, Mr. Diaz? MR. DIAZ: Yes. It is more level, less excavation. But if you go to the north of that, there is a hollow there, a Board of Appeals Page 6 1/14/93 Hearings slight hollow that means bringing in fill and (inaudible). It doesn't show all the trees. MEMBER VILLA: I realize that. The whole thing is wooded, so you are losing trees no matter what you do. MR. DIAZ: Well, I am against losing too many good trees. Pin oaks, shrubs, stuff that is not too healthy, fine. But when you got oaks 16 and 18 inches around and 40 feet high and healthy, to me it is ridiculous. MEMBER VILLA: Well, the only problem I have with that is, once you build a building, it is there forever~ and the tree could be there today and we could have a storm, and tomorrow it might not be there. So those things happen. THE CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to ask Mr. Diaz --the upper level of this garage is, it is really a one-story garage~ MR. DIAZ: One story. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any room for any type of storage in that? MR. DIAZ: It is not planned for that. THE CHAIRMAN: It is going to be completely open. MR. DIAZ: Completely open. THE CHAIRMAN: And the only utility is the electricity in the building? MR. DIAZ: That's all. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else on the Board who- has any specific questions? Board of Appeals Page 7 1/14/93 Hearings MR. DINIZIO: If I understand you right, you are here for two feet? THE CHAIRMAN: No, it is a 60 foot setback because it is an R-80 zone. MR. DIAZ: On one end of the garage the road goes on an angle, so we are averaging 55 foot. THE CHAIRMAN: It calls for a 12-foot variance. MR. DINIZIO: I know if you went to the cul-de-sac Dart of this driveway, you could not build. It slopes off pretty good there. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak? Thank you, sir. Anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody who would like to speak in favor of the application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody who would like to speak against this application? Anybody who would like to speak .against the application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comment, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried.) THE CHAIRMAN: We hope to have a decision for you tonight later if you want to sit back for a little while. We are going to play around with it after the other hearings on the calendar. Board of Appeals Pa~e 8 1/14/93 Hearings APPLICATION NO. 4146 of FREDERICK E. HULSE, Jr. and JOYCE HULSE for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate proposed addition with a reduction in the southerly side yard at less than the required ten (10) feet. Location of Property: 235 Sunset Lane, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-33-4-49. The subject premises is substandard in lot area and is located in the R-40 Zone District. 7:35 p,m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record. ) THE CHAIRMAN: The nature of this application is a garage added to an existing garage, and it is to be placed southeasterly corner of the property, adjacent the existing garage, as I just mentioned. The application reads: I need to add 10 feet to the existing garage. There is only 17 on the south side. The variance is to encroach 3 feet into the side yard area; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Hulse~ would you like to be heard? MR. HULSE: Yes. Speaking in favor, of course. This is an area of many 75-foot lots who are entitled to 5-foot side yards. In fact, my neighbors up the road, a few of them do have 5-foot side yards. Also the area is mainly attached garage, not detached garage, and so it certainly will not change the character of the area. If this was not granted, I would have to Board of Appeals Page 9 1/14/93 Hearings put a detached garage in the rear yard going back on that same side, which I believe I can go like two feet off the side yard. THE CHAIRMAN: Three. MR. HULSE: Okay, three. And I would have to go in the back and do that, which certainly would not be keeping with the character of the area. And I can,t see where it would harm anything or devaluate anything. THE CHAIRMAN: This is going to totally conform to the existing garage? MR. HULSE: Exactly. Just going to take that wall and move it 10 feet out, I hope. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone else in favor? UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: This is a very difficult thing for me to do. THE CHAIRMAN: Could you state your name for the record, ma'am? MARGARET T. DEALE: I have already sent a letter to the Zoning Board expressing my opposition to Mr. Hulse's plans, and at that time I made a suggestion which could mitigate my concern. The present plans would not only affect the chances of selling my house but also the price that I might get for it. Either way I could be damaged. Now according to the notice, the side yard requirement is.ten feet; the sketch attached to the notice indicates the proposed garage addition would come to Board of Appeals Page 10 1/14/93 Hearings within 7 feet of his property line, a 3-foot incursion, and that the lot area is substandard. THE CHAIRMAN: What you are telling me, Mrs. Deale, is that you are requesting that Mr. and Mrs. Hulse build a fence; is that what you are requesting? MRS. DEALE: Absolutely. THE CHAIRMAN: And what height is that fence to be? MRS. DEALE: Six feet, and I don't think it is an unfair request. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, before we go back tO the Hulses, does anybody have any specific questions? Of either? Mr. Hulse~ do you have any objection to building a fence? MR. HULSE: Yes. I can see no reason for a fence. And one more structure on the property will certainly change the character possibly of the neighborhood. Besides, as I recall from my days here, six-foot-fences are only allowed in the rear yard area; is that correct? THE CHAIRMAN: I would assume she was referring to the edge of the front of the garage back. MR. HULSE: That is the side yard. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. You can go six feet in that area. MR. HULSE: I see no reason for a fence. It would do absolutely nothing. THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from anybody? No? Do you have any other comments, Mrs° Deale? Board of Appeals Page 11 1/14/93 Hearings MRS. DEALE: I think it is bad in the way of (inaudible). THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you all for coming in. We will close the hearing and deliberate on this later. You are welcome to hang around. It is entirely up to you. If not, give us a call tomorrow. Did you hear me, Mrs. Deale? MRS. DEALE: No. THE CHAIRMAN: I will restate it in a moment. I make a motion closing this hearing and reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried.) THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Deale, we will probably deal with this later tonight. If you would like to call us tomorrow, you are so welcome to in the morning. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming in. Board of Appeals Page 12 1/14/93 Hearings APPLICATION NO. 4145 - of JOHN S. McGEENEY and EDWARD F. RODENBACH(as Trustee) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for approval of a reduction of the 10t area of an existing parcel, with an increase of the lot area of the adjoining parcel~ in this proposed lot-line change. Location of Property: South Side of Crescent Avenue and the north side of Avenue "B," Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID Nos. 1000-6-2-5 and 6. Each lot as exists is shown as substandard in lot area and is located in the R-80 Zone District. 7:45 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area; and I have a copy of a sketch of a survey dated October 21, 1992, by Chandler, Palmer & King of Norwich, Connecticut, with revisions on November 19, 1992, December 2, 1992, and the the most recent one January 6, 1993, indicating lot line change from the lot adjacent to Avenue "B," which consists of two structures, actually two dwellings, and thereby adding to that lot and taking away from the house that fronts on Fishers Island Sound by view which appears, after a physical inspection, to also have a main house and a cottage. Mr. Ham, would you like to be heard? Appearance: Stephen L. Ham III, Esq. 45 Hampton Road, Southampton, NY, Board of Appeals Page 13 1/14/93 Hearings MR. HAM: I appear on behalf of the applicant. Good evening. What we are trying to do here is adjust a lot line by increasing the size of one piece of non-conforming lot and, of necessity, reducing the size of the other. We have -- there are several benefits that are immediately-- that you can see from that-- we are eliminating that encroachment of cottage from the southerly parcel onto the northerly parcel. And we are squaring off the property so that the northerly lot fronts only on Crescent Avenue, and also both lines will be more in conformity with those adjoining on the east anyway. The one On the west is somewhat larger. As an additional benefit, what my clients intend to do --and that is something I have a late development on this-- but what they intend to do right now, as you know, you have seen the pre-existing Certificate of Occupancy. The southerly parcel is legal for two single-family dwellings on an approximately 20,000 square-foot lot, and a zone district that requires not only one single-family dwelling but also minimum lot area of 80,000 square feet. He is willing to abandon that use in order to have this lot line or this variance approved for the northerly parcel. However, he does wish to construct another dwelling after these two non-conforming uses are abandoned --he does want to preserve obviously the viability of the lot for single-family dwelling. However, he may need some relief for the rear-yard setback in order to preserve or to create a view of the water. Board of Appeals Page 14 1/14/93 Hearings THE CHAIRMAN: Let me have that again please. Avenue "B"the house adjacent Avenue "B" which has the no~-conforming--sorry two houses with pre-COTs on them-- MR. HAM: Right. THE CHAIRMAN: He eventually wants to demolish both of those? MR. HAM: That's right. THE CHAIRMAN (continuing): And build one house-~ MR. HAM (continuing): In the northeast corner of that parcel. Looking at the setback requirements, if h~ is held to an R-80, he would have a required 75-foot rear yard on that parcel. If he is entitled to the relief provision under Section 100-2~0B which I don't ~hink technically he would be, without your relief, he would still be held to a 50-foot rear yard. That is the section whereby a pre-existing nonconforming lot which is between the area of 40 and 80,000 square feet, well, no, between 20 and 40 --would require a 50-foot rear yard. He still may need more relief than that. And what I would propose would be that he would maintain --as a condition to your variance, among other conditions it obviously has to be subject to Planning Board approval-- and we are in the Planning Board right now. I would propose that if he maintained a no greater setback than the existing cottage, on the southerly parcel, that he would be entitled to a variance for a rear yard, not for any other side, front, or whatever. Board of Appeals Page 15 1/14/93 Hearings Other reasons of practical difficulty here, he would like to, if he could, and in fact his original proposal to me was to give 30 feet --These parties, by the way, it is single and separate. Edward Rodenbach is Trustee for a Trust under which John McGeeney's children are the beneficiaries. So we have similarly interested parties here, so there is no problem in terms of back and forth. He had originally wanted to give 30 feet to this southerly lot. However, there was a problem with the garden. I know the Planning Board would go crazy if we tried to move a lot line in a jagged way. So we h~ve that difficulty. The utility services here, obviously some of these can be taken down after the two structures are destroyed, but it appears --and this development came late today so I haven't had a chance to investigate whether some of these services would still have to serve this adjoining neighbor. So the farther back he is would not only --is not only the result of the fact that we can't give more property there, but also the. utility problems and also, frankly, the idea that there is a better view from this point to Fishers Island Sound. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you explain to me again how that is two separate lots? MR. HAM: How it is two separate lots? They are different owners. THE CHAIRMAN: That is what I mean. Is McGeeney-- Board of Appeals Page 16 1/14/93 Hearings MR. HA~ (interposing): McGeeney is the parent of the children who are the beneficiaries of the Trust. This lot is held by a Trust. This lot is held by an individual. THE CHAIRMAN: Based upon your presentation here, in my opinion, and only my opinion because I am only one of five members-- I would try to be as liberal as I possibly could because of course we would be vacating one of the pre-existing dwellings and doing away with that so I don't know if this variance can be contingent on any future proposed plan. Certainly we are going to listen to it; we are going to do the best we can. As you know, in your presentation to us in the last situation we had with you, with the tennis court, we did everything we possibly could to get that tennis court in, and we are going to do the same situation here. But I don't think we can contingently place any specific footprint at this particular time without actually seeing a footprint of the house and so on and so forth~ and having the notice from the Building Inspector and blah blah blah. MR. HAM: Well, I agree with you in the sense that in effect we would be asking for an additional variance to what we would be getting here. However, I would ask your opinion as to which setback would apply, were this variance to be granted, as stated, what setback were the owner of those southerly two parcels to remove those lots and apply for a building permit to build on that parcel, for a single-family dwelling which would apply. Now, I have looked at the ordinance, and I mentioned Board of Appeals Page 17 1/14/93 Hearings that section that does give relief to formerly single and separate ownership; but it seems to me anyway that you could argue either way but you certainly could make an argument that he would have comply to R-80, that that would not apply, in which case he would have a 75-foot setback and a 60-foot front yard. So there is not a whole lot of room in there at that point. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to ask another question? MEMBER DOYEN: I suppose you kind of backed into this. What difference would it make if you didn't ~pply at the same time for your new envelope in this change in lot line? MR. HAM: If we just obtained a-- MEMBER DOYEN: You want to be certain that you can place the house where you want it, so if you-- THE CHAIRMAN: He really -- MR. HAM: The answer is that he really would like to move forward with removing these two non-conforming dwellings at this point. THE CHAIRMAN: Then why don't we do this -- Why don't we hold the application in abeyance and we will recess it without a date, and then come back with a new (inaudible) and put the whole-- MR. HAM: I don't disagree with that. THE CLERK: I think he is asking us to put the building envelope on there according to the Code. If he could vary that, then he could come back with another plan. But if he Board of Appeals Page 18 1/14/93 Hearings gives you a new building envelope and it needs variances, he would also have to apply for another application° MR. HAM: I don't think you have jurisdiction on the latest request° It came up later. I would like to put it together as a package though and hold it open. When he decides finally what it is he wants. It seems that every time I am before you, I have gotten some late news. THE CHAIRMAN: Actually that is better news than-- MR. HA~ (continuing): Because he is willing to bind himself to remove those dwellings. THE CHAIRMAN: I propose that you discuss with him where the envelope is to be and then go back to the Building Inspector and be further denied under the new aspect. Put it in in dotted lines over the existing, and then let's go for it. MR. HAM: Would you tell me what my filing fee would be for the new? THE CLERK: If it is one variance, it is $400. If it is more than one, it is $600. When can you file? Two weeks? If you wait, we have to charge the new-- MR. HAM: If I could get it in. THE CLERK: What did you pay on this one? MR. HAM: Three hundred. THE CLERK: The maximum now is $600, so you would pay another $300. MR. VILLA: You mention the gardens. Is it still going to be like a family situation, right? The two lots? Board of Appeals ~Pa'ge 19 1/14/93 Hearings · MR. HAM: Oh, yeah. I think what he ultimately intends to do is to, when his children become of age, that they will take title to the southerly lot and either --whether he is going to build on it immediately, I am not sure. He told me specifically late this afternoon that he is willing to bind himself to remove those two dwellings. In fact, he offered to have one burned for the Fishers Island Fire Department, for practice. MR. DOYEN: I think it would be advisable to have his building permit envelope because once you demolish~ you destroy an existing dwelling, you --the law looks upon it a little differently. MR. HAM: Well, no, I would listen very carefully and hopefully have a part in drafting whatever variance is granted to this to make sure -- MR. DOYEN: Everything should be in place before you remove. MR. HAM: No question. MR. VILLA: My question was, couldn't they shift the lot line north of the garden? So you don't disturb it. And give yourself more latitude for building. MR. HAM: Then you may be affecting marketability of the northerly parcel if the garden is appurtenant to the southerly parcel. Board of Appeals Page 20 1/14/93 Hearings MR. VILLA: I mean that -- the lots are so much different in size that it would seem like it is all wasted space back there to some extent. At least it looks that way. MR. HAM: In an ideal world, if that garden were not there, than I would agree with you, I think under current circumstances, however, that would put a burden on the northerly parcel. THE CHAIRMAN: The only other question is, is the diagonal indication of the word building, which of course appeared to be a shed at one time -- MR. HAM (interposing): The answer to that is the surveyor apparently at a time when the original survey which I had submitted originally, had noted it as a shed and Balbon (phonetic - no spelling supplied record) Services Inc., who is the contractor who applied for the building permit to move that shed, apparently just picked up that terminology. However, that was apparently used for --I guess his kids slept there-- had some plumbing in it. He characterizes it a guest-house. However, he is not asking for something can't do what is on the southerly parcel, namely two rentable single-family dwellings. I mean, you can characterize that as an accessory building if you like. THE CHAIRMAN: What is in there now? Just plumbing and-- Board of Appeals Page 21 1/14/93 Hearings MR. HAM: There is some plumbing and apparently he wants to continue the historical practice of children or someone maybe throwing a sleeping bag in there or something. THE CLERK: I think there is no plumbing, right? MR. HAM: No kitchens. THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't you go down and look at it for us {addressing Mr. Doyen)? MR. HAM: He is doing everything in accordance with the Building Permit. THE CLERK: It is new plumbing though, ri~ght, under an active building permit? THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks so much, Mr. Ham. We hope to see you back again, and safe trip home. MR. HAM: When do I need to get into the next hearing? THE CLERK: Two weeks if you can. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who would like to speak for or against this application? Fishers Island. Seeing no hands, I make a motion recessing this hearing without a date. (Seconded and carried.) Board of Appeals Page 22 1/14/93 Hearings APPLICATION NO. 4144 - of SPECTACLE RIDGE, INC. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31A(1) for permission to establish second residential use in the proposed accessory barn building (located in the front yard area as per Appl. No. 4132A, decision rendered November 9, 1992) as living area for family member or guests, and domestic servant (in one unit). Section 100-3iA(i) provides for single-family use, not exceeding one dwelling per lot. Location of Property: 14990 Oregon Road, Cutchogue; County Tax Map No. 1000-84-01-02. The subject premises is zoned Agricultural-Conservation and contains a total area of 19+- acres. 8:02 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: Again, I have a site plan --sorry, actually it is a survey by Smith and Young, March 3, 1992, and additional data added September 15, 1992; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Let me get the other map out. And I would like to ask the architect if he would like to speak on behalf of the applicant. How are you tonight, sir? Appearance: GARY STRANG, Architect, & for the Applicant MR. STRANG: Good evening. Fine, thank you. Yourself? I believe the Board is relatively familiar with this application based on 0~r previous applications before this Board of Appeals Page 23 1/14/93 Hearings Board. I hope I can address the concerns and issues to the Board. Essentially the application is relatively clear in itself. What we are trying to accomplish here is a family compound on this working vineyard that these people reside in the principal dwelling, and the accessory building barn with the second floor also to be used for residential purposes, specifically as mentioned in the application for an apartment for a brother of the owner, who is also the farm-manager or the vineyard manager, and some guest facilities. My client's preference is to have the guest rooms segregated f~om his own principal dwelling. As pointed out, the property in reality is actually closer to 21 acres and our intention here is to convey the development rights or sell the development rights of the vineyard to the Town of Southold. That is already ongoing and in process with the Town and met with, I guess~ preliminary approval, and it has been before the Town Board at this point for their final action. Essentially, what would be done is, we would be holding out 160,485 square feet for the residential purpose, or purposes in-this case, or essentially four acres, four builder's acres. The remaining land of 17 acres and change would be part of these development rights and would be in the Town of Southold. Again, I believe the Board is familiar with this application and what we are looking to accomplish, and I will be receptive to answer any questions or if the Board has any comments or some feedback. I will try to be receptive to. Board of Appeals Page 24 1/14/93 Hearings THE CHAIRMAN: For the people who have not been privy to this hearing, this is a culmination basically of ongoing discussion. Does anybody have any specific questions of Mr. Strang? MR. VILLA: This differs from the last one in the fact that it is now almost four acres instead of two acres. MR. STRANG: Yes. We are setting off 160,000 feet plus a bit to meet the criteria in essence having two acres for each residential use, although it will be one site. The intention here since it is a family compound, they ~really have no need to subdivide it and break it up into individual lots. But they do respect the fact that the Town has its criteria as to how much land should be dedicated and allocated to residential purposes, and they are willing to meet that requirement by setting it off with metes and bounds and breaking it out from the land that will be conveyed. MR. VILLA: C and R's on that that there will be no further subdivision of that or-- MR. STRANG: It can be. They have no problem with that. THE CHAIRMAN: That is an interesting point. Which land would be the land of subdivision, once you sell the development rights off to the 17 plus acres, or the 16-plus whatever, -- MRo VILLA: No, I am talking about the three acres. Board of Appeals Page 25 1/14/93 Hearings THE CHAIRMAN: I know that; but in reference to the three-acre parcel --You are referring to the three-acre parcel as being no further subdivision. MR. STRANG: I am sorry. Which-- THE CHAIRMAN: Three point six eight. MR. STRANG: On this 160,000 being set off. THE CLERK: It is not really being set off though, is it? It is not being conveyed. MR. STRANG: That is a misnomer. It is not being set off~ it is being reserved, if you will. THE CLERK: Okay, that is what I meant. MR. STRANG (continuing): --As an area to be developed with residential development where the remainder of the land will be conveyed - Development rights conveyed to the Town. Again, there is no intention whatsoever to further subdivide that, break it off and make it into two lots, and it will be no subdivision setoff or anything else. It ~eally isn't their intention. THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask you, Mr. Strang -- The purchase of the other parcel from the Propagation of the Faith, has that been done? MR. STRANG: Yes, it has. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been done. MR. STRANG: That has closed. THE CHAIRMAN: Any other further questions of this agent of the applicant, gentlemen? No? Anybody else like to Board of Appeals Page 26 1/14/93 Hearings speak, either in favor or against? Seeing no hands, I make a motion to close the hearing and reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you so much. We hope to have a decision for you tonight. MR. STRANG: Thank you very much. Board of Appeals Page 27 1/14/93 Hearings APPLICATION NO. 4142 - of ADAM ASSOCIATES INC. for a Variance under New York Town Law, Section 280-A for approval of access for emergency and fire vehicles over a private right-of-way extending off the easterly side of Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, in an east-west direction a distance of approximately 616.30 feet. The subject right-of-way is referred to on the County Tax Maps as part of Parcel No. 1000-113-14-11 and is situated 670+- feet north of the intersection of C.Ri 48 (North Road) and Cox Neck Road. The parcels to which access is requested in this application is identified as County Tax Map Nos. 1000-113-12-10.1, 10.3, 10.2, 9, 8; (and Parcel No. 1000-113-14-11 restricted for park and recreation area use). All areas of access are located in the R-80 Residential Zone District. 8:10 pom. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: The nature of this application is a 280-A access outside of the actual three-lot subdivision. It is a right-of-way which is existing in size. It is probably a fifty-foot right-of-way, of which a portion of it meanders over that right-of-way area; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties. Is there somebody who would like to be heard?~ Appearance: Ruth Engel, Applicant Pro Se Board of Appeals Page 28 1/14/93 Hearings MS. ENGEL: I am Ruth Engel, one of the partners involved. I would like to present the photographs you requested, of the right of way. THE CHAIRMAN: No problem. How are you tonight? MS. ENGEL: Fine, thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: I will pass them right down. May we keep those, Ms. Engel? MS. ENGEL: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anything you would like to state for the record at all? MS. ENGEL: No. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'd like to be heard. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; would you just state your name for the record. MR. AMATO: My name is Bill Amato. I am a property owner adjacent to the right-of-way. I am here neither to speak for or against. I have some concerns I would like addressed by the Board, and that is the main reason I am here. Or the only reason I am here. Right now the road as you said meanders back to the property which Mrs. Engel I guess wishes to develop. I have no objection to it being developed With a road being maintained or upgraded. My concern is what kind of upgrade? Is this going to be made into a 50-foot airstrip? Are you just going to plow down all the undergrowth on both sides, or is it going to be kept to a minimum, the road where it is now, the width, I mean? Board of Appeals Page 29 1/14/93 Hearings THE CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to ask you, Mr. Amato, before I answer that: Are you on the south side or-- MR. AMATO (interposing): Southeast. THE CHAIRMAN: Southeast side. Okay, good. I believe this road is going to service three lots, is that correct? MS. ENGEL: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Normally in most situations we do not follow a pattern that the Planning Board follows in reference to their minimum requirements of a 22-foot macadamized road. We go with the flow, quite honestly. I have been a fire~an in the great town of Mattituck for approximately 25 years, and I know the problems we have with access over dirt roads, in this particular case, semi-paved roads in going to alarms; and', as we have with ambulances also; so there is a great concern on my part in dealing with the over-all conformity of some of these roads. The problem that usually exists is not the maintenance as it exists after the time the decision is rendered. It is usually one that is done during the period of time that the right-of-way exists in years to come. That is~ once you end up with potholes, is the road going to be continually maintained, and so on and so forth? That is one of the problems that the Planning Board doesn't have to deal with when they ask for 22 feet of macadam. Okay? Go ahead. MR. AMATO: Well, I have been maintaining up that 200-foot section myself by putting in what do you call it --bluestone blend-- of that nature to harden it up; and also I Board of Appeals Page 30 1/14/93 Hearings fill in the potholes, but I can't attest to the other part. The going back, I don't know what is going to happen with that. Like I said, my concern is, I am afraid that if the road is made to an extended width, that it is going to lead to more traffic through that right-of-way, in addition to whatever individuals who purchase property back there. I would like to keep the good road to a minimum, and I understand that might be fifteen or sixteen feet. If that be possible, I have no objection to it being upgraded. I also would like it if they could keep it just the way it is. Just open it up a little bit. I s~ould have measured the road now. I don't have that, those dimensions with me. But I assume it is at least ten full feet now. I would like to keep the undergrowth on both sides of the road to keep it as secluded as possible mainly because of traffic flow down Cox Neck Road. As it is now, I'm very visible and I had to go to the extent to put up hedges and evergreens to not only block the land to the visual and the noise. THE CHAIRMAN: My main concern, and you can measure for us and give us a call tomorrow or on Monday-- is the width between the plantings from the property over to the north, who is your neighbor, adjacent where he has that planting area which he uses for storage of that one car and your wooded area or hedged area which is indicated there, because you know that's the minimum area that we have at this point, that may have to be elongated a little bit. Board of Appeals Page 31 1/14/93 Hearings MR. AMATO: Yeah, well, I understand, I am wishing it being elongated widthwise, that it be taken on both sides, not just chopped off one side like my side because he happens to have his plants in. We both have encroached on that 50-foot right-of-way, okay? He has plantings; I have my underground sprinkling system, okay? When I had purchased the property a number of years back, there was no subdivision plan for the back. The reason I purchased the property there, because you called for this- right of way so I would not have to come directly with a driveway onto Cox Neck Road, which'trying to come down Cox Neck Road any time of day or night in the sUmmertime, is like taking your life in your hands. That was the main reason I chose the section of property. Like I said, I would like to keep it down to the minimum size. I have no objection to fire or emergency apparatus going down the road or anything of that nature or the road being (inaudible); but I would like to keep it to a minimum. One more question: If this is upgraded, how does it affect me with regard to the properties in the corner to the northeast? THE CHAIRMAN: The three-lot subdivision? MR. AMATO: Not the three lots there. The other? THE CHAIRMAN: I have no idea. I can't answer that. Except if it came back to us for a further enhancement, the road would have to be upgraded at that time. MR. AMATO: My concern, another concern is: What stops the property owners on the other side of this subdivision Board of Appeals Page 32 1/14/93 Hearings from petitioning the Board for a Variance to gain access over this right-of-way? THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know if they have access over it; that is the problem. They may -- I know there is access to Westphalia. That is my question to you: Do you have a right-of-way over this right-of-way? MR. AMATO: Yes. It is deeded into my property. I have access over the right-of-way. THE CHAIRMAN: You have a driveway which-- MR. AMATO: comes out onto the right-of-way, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: I have no idea -- does anybody else have-- MS. ENGEL: I believe there is a recreation and park area that is on that road, and that is one big subdivision which I think your lot was part of. MR. AMATo: That is four acres back there I believe myself. But besides, further east if you enhance this road, you give access to those property owners to the northeast of that. MS. ENGEL: They have access on that~ they have access on a private road that we have to Westphalia, and access to the right-of-way to the North Road. They have three different access. MR. AMATO: They do have access to that, (inaudible) to their property. THE CHAIRMAN: So I will measure it to the best of my ability on Saturday morning. If you would measure it please, and Board of Appeals Page 33 1/14/93 Hearings then we will compare both measurements and see what we have there, and then we will sit down and discuss what we are going to request for minimum improvements. MR, AMATO: All right, how will I get in touch with you? THE CHAIRMAN: 765-1809. Our fulltima assistant is the lady sitting to my right and your left, Mrs. Kowalski, and I will be down there Saturday morning unless there is a snowstorm or something. MR. AMATO: I'll be there if you want to stop in. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Would anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? (No response.) THE CHAIRMAN: I offer a resolution to close this hearing and render a decision after we have taken further measurements. (Seconded and carried.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in. Board of Appeals Page 34 1/14/93 Hearings APPLICATION No. 4140 - of JOHN CROKOS FOR A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4~(1) for permission to locate structures within 100 feet of the top of the bluff along the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 2110 Grandview Drive, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-14-2-3.11. 8:20 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of several site plans. I have a survey produced by Roderick Van Tuyl dated October 14, 1992, indicating this parcel at 42,134 square feet, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. The nature of this application before the public is a setback from the existing lip of the bluff, and this application will be held in abeyance pending Trustees' approval for anyone that would like to come back. Is there somebody who would like to speak in behalf of this application? How do you do, sir? Your name for the record please? Appearance: John Sandgren, for the Applicant MR. SANDGREN: My name is John Sandgren, of the Architects representing the Crokoses. I would first, if I may, fill out part of the file where Linda had requested certain things. Owner authorizations for us to represent them for one thing. Also, the receipts of mailing to'the adjoining property Board of Appeals Page 35 1/14/93 Hearings owners; deed of the property proving ownership. And also our verbal assessment of why we are asking for this. I would just like to, if I may, leave this with the Board, to just basically understand a little better what we are up against. And I have photographs of the property which are earmarked to the site to give you some idea. In essence, what we have is the home which for most situations is behind the hundred-foot line except for one small corner (indicating). What we are asking here is the pool and the terrace area, due to the fact that we have a fairly narrow lot. It falls between the hundred-foot lin~ and the coastal erosion hazard line. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, just let me ask: Is there anybody that is very interested in this and would like to see this? That is in the audience? (No response.) I'm sorry. MR. SANDGREN (continuing): And, therefore, at this point we feel that this is, that we are far enough back from the actual line here and should be in good shape as far.as the stabilization of this land. We have also contacted the firm of Land Use Company, who will be working on a maintenance program for the bluff over time. Also attached are some exteriors of the home, if you wish to look at them. THE CHAIRMAN: I have a million questions. Do you want to ask any questions first, Bob? MR. VILLA: No, go ahead. THE CHAIRMAN: We have, Mr. Sandgren --first of all, it is a magnificent house. No question about it. A magnificent Board of Appeals Page 36 1/14/93 Hearings piece of property. It is the type of property that, no matter what day you are out there, it is magnificent. I was out there on a day like today, and it is still magnificent. Conceivably,we would do whatever we can to work with you and we want to work with you on this basis. We do have certain precedents that we deal with in reference to setbacks and, as you know as I mentioned in the inception of this hearing, that we are going to hold this in abeyance for a short period of time until the Trustees make a decision. My main concerns are --I know we have a 4,200 plus or minus square-foot house, so are we talking-- MR. SANDGREN: The area of the footprint and terraces in all were about 9.8 per cent lot coverage. THE CHAIRMAN: Anything that is a blade of grass above elevation I would like you to construe to be lot coverage because it really is. MR. SANDGREN: Yes, I agree. THE CHAIRMAN: And so that we don't have any further problems in reference to determining lot coverage and understanding the lot coverage, because the worst possible scenario wo~ld be to grant the application and then have you come back for all the accessory stuff. Or to be deprived of a portion of the accessory structure stuff, you know, that would be involved in something. So the figures that you are giving us include all of the lot coverage, all the decks, cement and pool area. Board of Appeals Page 37 1/14/93 Hearings MR. SANDGREN: And the pool area. THE CHAIRMAN: And the pool area -- all run around, totally taking into consideration in these figures? MR. SANDGREN: Right. The reason why we proceeded by doing this, including a landscape designer, who has worked out the terraces and pool --primarily, just for that reason, that we didn't want to do just a part of this project and then later on figure out what we were going to do with the terraces. We wanted to get the full picture to the Town of Southold so we didn't have any after-the-fact kind of things happen. So that this is ALL that we intend to do on the property. THE CHAIRMAN: We have not deliberated upon this at all. We have visited. We looked at the plan. We have gone out and looked at the property. By the time we finish here, there may be some modifications in reference to setback. That's all I can tell you at this particular time. I know this is about the third redraft that you have done in reference to putting everything into a more condensed version; is that correct? MR. SANDGREN: That is correct. THE CHAIRMAN: This was during the process you were actually filing, during the Christmas holiday? MR. SANDGREN: That's right. THE CHAIRMAN: There may come a time and I am only mentioning this to you -- that we may require that the pool in some way be placed a little closer to the house or a little over to one side a little more or whatever the case might be, so as Board of Appeals Page 58 1/14/93 Hearings to create a greater depth in reference to its proximity to the lip of the bluff. MR. SANDGREN: I understand. THE CHAIRMAN: And that's all I can tell you at this particular time because we are going to take it, we are going to digest it, and then we are just going to wait for the Trustees, and then we are going to ask'you to come back, and then we are going to render whatever we feel is the most (inaudible). Okay? MR. SANDGREN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody have any specific questions? Bob? MR. VILLA: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Jim or-- MR. SANDGREN: Would this be next month? THE CHAIRMAN: Hopefully, yes. As soon as the Trustees have rendered. I understand they are getting close on it. THE CLERK: I don't know if they have all the papers yet. Do they have all the papers in front of them? MR. SANDGREN: I am not sure that they do. THE CLERK: Okay; it takes about a month or so. THE CHAIRMAN: So the quicker you get them to them, we would like to get it taken care of too. MR. SANDGREN: Fine. Will do. THE CHAIRMAN: Very nice to meet you. Anyone who wants to speak for or against this application? Board of Appeals Page 39 1/14/93 Hearings (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I make a motion recessing this hearing without a date. I offer that, gentlemen, as a resolution. (Seconded and carried~) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you again for coming in. Board of Appeals Page 40 1/14/93 Hearings APPLICATION No. 4147 - APPLICATION of DONALD E. FAHEY, JR. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of existing deck constructed almost 20 years ago. This deck, under the current zoning regulations, does not meet the required rear yard setback for a substandard parcel in this R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: 2675 Hobart Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-64-5-32. 8:32 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey produced by Rampart Surveying Inc. dated November 6, 1992, indicating the house and the approximate size of the deck. I have some photos of the deck area. ! have visited the site as well as the Board. The deck in approximate size is ten-three by twelve four and three-quarters inches and it is unroofed. Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of this application? Sir? You are very welcome to. (No appearance listed on record.) UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: I am Donald Fahey, Jr., and I have no other presentation to make, other than what has already been indicated on the forms. But I am here if you would have any questions. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you selling this house? MR. FAHEY: That's correct. Board of Appeals Page 41 1/14/93 Hearings THE CHAIRMAN: So you are just bringing everything right up to present day, and that is the purpose of the application? MR. FAHEY: That's right. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody have any specific objections to this deck? (Board members said No.) THE CHAIRMAN: I offer this as a resolution, gentlemen: To be approved as long as it remains unroofed. (Seconded and carried.) MR. FAHEY: Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. I kind of skipped over people in the audience. I kind of assumed there wasn't anybody who was going to object to it. You didn't look like an objecting group, so--