Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/23/1993 HEARINGAPPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. PLARP,2 S Supervisor Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman ~s Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. RO. Box 1179 Rober~ A. Villa Southold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wil~on Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 23, 1993 (7:30 p.m. Hearing) HON. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman JAMES DINIZIO, JR. SERGE DOYEN ROBERT A. VILLA RICHARD C. WILTON HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ., Town Attorney LINDA KOWALSKI, Secretary-Clerk to Board ECE~VED AND FILED BY I sou :o i To~ Cle~, Town of Sou~hold APPLICATION NO. 4148 CHRISTOPHER AND HEIDEMARIE GRATTAN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3 for permission to construct deck addition to existing dwelling with a reduced (southerly front yard) setback from a private right-of-way which intersects with Horton's Lane. The subject premises is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code and contains a total lot area of 51,603 sq. ft. in this R-40 Residential Zone District. This parcel is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maaps as District 1000, Section 54, Block 7, Lot 18.8 (previously part of 18.5 and 18) and is shown on the Minor Subdivision Map of Louis Ramunni approved May 30, 1973. Property Location: 6305 Horton's Lane, $outhold, NY. 7:32 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have the application and a copy of the survey indicating the existing two-story frame house, which is approximately 82 feet from Horton's Lane. The proposed addition is approximately 22 feet wide, and I will ask the applicant what the distance is from the house and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How do you do, Mr. Grattan? May I just ask you to use the "mike," if you would. How are you tonight? Board of Appeals Hearings 3 February 23, 1993 Appearance: Christopher Grattan, Applicant pro se THE CHAIRMAN: I understand you have been waiting a while to get this project started. MR. GRATTAN: I started in December. THE CHAIRMAN: The approximate size of the addition is what? MR. GRATTAN: 22' by 24. THE CHAIRMAN: And the approximate distance to the actual right of way? MR. GRATTAN: Without the addition? THE CHAIRMAN: With the addition. MR. GRATTAN: With the addition it will be 46 feet. THE CHAIRMAN: And the nature of this application is really a determination, ! assume, by the Building Inspector that you really have two front yards, is that correct? MR. GRATTAN: Yes, that's the case. THE CHAIRMAN: Regardless, whether you agree with that or don't agree, is that right? MR. GRATTAN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: I have absolutely no problems with it. It is a very reasonable request, and we will see what develops throughout the hearing, and we hope to have a decision for you later tonight. All right? MR, GRATTAN: Thank you. Board of Appeals Hearings ~ 4 · 'February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: This is a one-story addition, is that correct, or is it two stories? MR. GRATTAN: One-story, that is correct. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (There was no audible response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody who would like to speak against the application? (There was no audible response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions from Board members? MEMBER VILLA: My only question was the notice of disapproval has seeking a permit to construct a deck addition to dwelling. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that was an error. THE CLERK: That was an error. It is a garage addition. They may add a deck on also. MR. GRATTAN: I would just like to also say we may add a deck at some time. I haven't got the money to do it at this time. I am just going to do the garage. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. GRATTAN: When I was thinking about it, I said if I have to go through this process again, I would rather not, for the same four feet again. If I could get an application that included that, I would be happy. Board of Appeals Hearings 5 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you are going to be running into that problem because you are going to be adding onto the garage probably. You are going to be abutting the deck to the garage? To the rear of the garage? MR. GRATTAN: Yes, it would be the rear of the garage, but it would-be short of the 4 feet probably. It would be even with the garage. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we can probably take care of that tonight, all right? MR. GRATTAN: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. How high is the proposed garage going to be to the ridge? Can you tell us? MR. GRATTAN: No, I can't. It is an attached garage. It is in the plans, the original plans. THE CHAIRMAN: I had probably read it a long time ago. We just have the problem writing decisions when we don't have all that information~ so what you could do, if you wouldn't mind, just give us a call tomorrow with the height to the top of the ridge, the additional, and that would take care of the whole problem. THE CLERK: It is probably less than 18 feet, right? THE CHAIRMAN: What are you going to use the upstairs part --for storage, right? MR. GRATTAN: It could be, up to 35 feet, right? Board of Appeals Hearings 6 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: You just grant it as a one-story and he puts the figure in (apparently addressing Clerk or Board), not to exceed 18 feet. THE CLERK: He can go up to 35. MR. GRATTAN: It is attached to the house, so why limit the size? THE CHAIRMAN: Only for the decision, that's all, you are requesting a one-story. It is a two-story house, right? THE CLERK: He doesn't want a variance for the height. It is for the extension. MR. GRATTAN: It is just the four feet. THE CHAIRMAN: So we won't put it in then. I just wanted to write it in for the decision. That's all. Mr. Dinizio is making the decision to approve it as applied for. Does that include a deck if he so chooses to go ahead? MR. DINIZIO: Yes. (Seconded and carried.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Grattan. It was a pleasure meeting you. If you just would give us a call so that we can embody that in the decision, I would appreciate it. Thank you. MR. GRATTAN: Thank you. Board of Appeals Hearings 7 February 23, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4149 of MARTIN BUSSANICH requesting a Special Exception for an Accessory Apartment in an existing principal dwelling structure all in accordance with the provisions of Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2(B-1) and Section 100-31(B-14). The subject premises is located in the R~40 Residential Zone District and is improved with a single-family dwelling constructed prior to January 1, 1984. Property Location: 430 Grigonis Path, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 70, Block 3, Lot 8; also identified as Lot #8 on the Map of Harvest Homes Estates, Section I. 7:43 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record. THE CHAIRMAN: We have a survey indicating this house which typically looks like and is a high-ranch, and I will concur with you --the house has been there for how long? (Neighbor-interpreter referred question to applicant again.) MR.. BUSSANICH: Nineteen years. THE CHAIRMAN: He intends to use the bottom half of the house for the accessory apartment? (Neighbor-interpreter asks the applicant is the accessory apartment going to be on the bottom? MR. BUSSANICH: Yes, yes. (Neighbor-interpreter asks the applicant if he is going to stay on the top floor.) Board of Appeals Hearings.~ 8:~,~-~ February 23, 1993 MR. BUSSANICH: Yes. No cellar. Not the cellar, just the main floor. INTERPRETER: Not the cellar, just the main floor. And he is living on the second floor. THE CHAIRMAN: Does he have any kitchen there now? INTERPRETER to applicant: On the first floor, you have a kitchen in there now, right? MR. BUSSANICH: Yes, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: But he hasn't rented it at this point? INTERPRETER to applicant: It isn't rented now? MR. BUSSANICH: No, no. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? (No one). Anyone against the application? (No one). Questions from Board Members, Bob? Anybody? (None). Ok. Jimmy, do you have any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: Not at all. MEMBER VILLA: He's not going to change the exterior at all as far as appearance goes? INTERPRETER to the applicant: Are you going to do anything to the outside to change it? It's going to stay the way it is? MR. BUSSANICH. No change. No, no. THE CHAIRMAN: He has two front doors now so. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it's looks~pretty much-- Board of Appeals Hearings 9 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Ok, this may be a precedent tonight. The first floor has a maximum of 1120 square feet. Does anybody want to make a motion on this? (Motion and second to grant as applied for. Carried.) THE CHAIRMAN: This is a milestone in itself -- two decisions, one after another. Usually we wait. OK? So it is approved. We thank you very much for coming in and helping him, and we will go from there. NEIGHBOR INTERPRETER: Thank you. Board of Appeals Hearings~ !Q?i~..February 23, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4150 of ROBERT AND ANNA FINORA for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 (Bulk and Area Schedule) for permission to locate: (1) proposed addition at the west side of existing dwelling with a reduction in the side yard; (2) proposed addition at the east side of existing dwelling with a reduction in the f~ont yard. This property is a corner lot as defined by Section 100-13, is nonconforming as to total lot area, lot width, and principal setbacks in this R-40 Zone District. Property location: 795 East Legion Avenue and bounded on the east by Riley Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 122, Block 3, Lot 32; also shown on the Subdivision Map of Harry DePetris as Lot ~14. 7:45 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: The third hearing of the evening is in behalf of Robert and Anna Finora. I have an original survey from Robert Van Tuyl, P.C., dated January 26, 1993, showing this one story frame house as it exists at this particular time. The nature of this particular application is an addition to the west side of approximately five feet to the east side of 13 feet 5 inches and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. For the Board's purpose, Mr. Finora and his wife own a piece of property adjacent to a piece of property myself and my wife own. It is Board of Appeals Hearings 11 February 23~ 1993 not this piece of property, however. Does anybody have any objection to my sitting on this? Mr. Town Attorney, any problems with this at all? MR. ARNOFF: If no one voices an opinion and there is no objection to this, I have no problem. You made the disclosure. THE CLERK: I wanted to show there is another map here. They have the original, here's the setbacks of the new and proposed areas. THE CHAIRMAN: You are referring to this? THE CLERK: And the one before. They brought the original. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I guess we are on. Mr. Finora, you are ready° How are you tonight, sir? (Both Mr. and Mrs. Finora present.) MR. FINORA: Fine, thank you. I would just like to say I received this piece of property from my dad in a family settlement, and we would like to make an all-year-round home; and that is really what the variance is for. THE CHAIRMAN: For the record, as I think I mentioned to you, I had a discussion with you at least in thought, okay, after you made the renderings you have before us, and I did tell you it was a unique situation, the way the other portion of the avenue cuts around this property and so on and so forth, and we'll see how the Board discusses it during the nature of the BOard of Appeals Hearings. 12~ February 23, 1993 hearing.. Does anybody have any specific questions of Mr. Finora while he is standing? MR. DINIZIO: Other than why such a big house for such a small lot? MR. FINORA: The garage, if you notice it right now, is in the back and right on the line; and I do have a very nice neighbor next door Mr. White (phonetic, no spelling supplied record) and he expressed a couple of times to me: What are you going to do with that garage? And I had said to him over the years, well, if I ever do get this piece of property, I would like to take it down, and he said it would make my view of the creek a little better. Not only that, I think I want a garage anyway, and we would be willing to take that down and just add it to the house in the front, as you see in the sketch. The architect put it in, and we hope we get the right to space to have it. I would be willing to take it down. It is right on the line now. THE CLERK: I am showing the Board the new sketch you brought in today. MR. FINORA: Yes, right. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is, they are having trouble understanding the fact that the house presently from Legion Avenue is what, 30 feet? MR. FINORA: About that, yes. Board of Appeals Hearings 13 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: And the garage that you are proposing to be placed on the front of the house is how big? MR. FINORA: 30 feet. The lot is over 200 feet deep. We can go back a little bit. THE CHAIRMAN: You are going to push the house back? MR. FINORA: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: So what you would be doing then is moving the entire house back on the lot? MR. FINORA: Yes, yes~ We would not be going-- THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): Is there a foundation underneath this house now, Bob? I didnd't notice. MR. FINORA: Blocks. THE CHAIRMAN: It is just sitting right on the ground like a lot of them are up there? Okay. MR. FINORA: Frontier. THE CHAIRMAN: That was the problem. They couldn't figure out how the house in the existing position could be. How a garage could be placed on it without moving the house back, okay? MR. FINORA: I would say we would be leaving probably one of the walls up and putting a regular foundation in. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, Serge? MR. DOYEN: That is 4 foot 6 on one side and 8 on the other? Board of Appeals Hearings l4 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: See, he has the road, if you look at the tax map. It is a rather unique situation here. (Record cannot straighten out overlapping Board discussions.) THE CHAIRMAN: They are still deliberating. I don't know if that is good or bad. Does anybody have any other questions? MEMBER VILLA: We have a little problem with the size of the house on the size of the lot. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER VILLA: You got a 30, 38-foot width on the house. Could that be turned around? So that the 38-foot dimension runs the other way? THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't you go up, Bob? This is Bob Villa. Bob Finora. MEMBER VILLA: You have got your big dimension coming across the lot. MR. FINORA: (Talking at bench and showing Board inaudibly to record) Going this way and the other way. THE CHAIRMAN: Put on the record there was a question of turning the house around, and it can't be done. MEMBER VILLA: I can understand from your viewpoint why it would be more advantageous, but still you got a 4-foot setback from the street. Board of Appeals Hearings 15 February 23~ 1993 (Off-the-record discussion simultaneous and indistinguishable for the record between Member'Villa and Mr. Finora, who was not using microphone.) MEMBER VILLA: I understand this is a dead-end street, but we just had a guy in here, we gave him 4 feet on a 50-foot setback, okay, and you are talking about 3 feet --if you could turn the house around, longer and narrower, you are going to need it on both sides anyway. (Many voices inaudible.) THE CLERK: Is it possible to get this in the mike? I have to record this for the stenographer. I can't have too much off the record like that. THE CHAIRMAN: That was my fault. THE CLERK: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: 0kay, so I guess you kind of get the idea that they are going to --that there'll be some modification of that 4 foot 6 inches and-- MR0 FINORA: There is-- THE CHAIRMAN: Whatever we can deal with, we will deal with, and we will embody that in the decision basically. MR. FINORA: I planned with the architect. He did not say they were final. It is up to you people, he said. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We thank you very much. Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of this application? (There was no response.) Board of Appeals Hearings 16 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to speak against the application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Anything for the record, gentlemen? THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried.) THE CHAIRMAN (addressing applicant): We may not get to this tonight. So we are going to be about two weeks if that is all right with you. We thank you so much for coming in. Safe trip home. Board of Appeals Hearings 17 February 23, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4153 of MR. AND MRS. CHARLES A. BURST for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A and Section 100-33 for permission to locate an accessory garage building in the front yard area with a reduced side yard setback. Location of Property: 705 Windy Point Road (private road ~12), Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 87, Block 4, Lot 6. This parcel is preexisting with nonconformities as to total lot area, lot width and principal setbacks in this R-40 Zone District. 7:57 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have copy of a survey from Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated January 7, 1970. I don't see any updates on it, indicating a one-story frame home which appears to be two-story at this point~ and a copy of Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? How do you do, sir? I ask you to use the mike and state your name. Appearance: Charles A. Burst, Applicant pro se THE CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight? I had a heck of a time finding your property; but I did find it and you nicely staked it out. Had I not gone by it twice, everything would have been fine. I assume the garage you want to build is Board of Appeals Hearings 18 . February 23, 1993 something similar to conform to the house and to the area, and to what we granted with the next-door neighbor? MR. BURST: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: The upstairs storage area that you are referring to is to be used for dead storage only. While you are standing, I will ask the Board if they have any questions of Mr. Burst. Bob, Jim, the gentlemen over here? BOARD MEMBERS: No, I don't. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody have any objection to this application? In reference to either side yard of placement or anything of that nature? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: We are talking approximately 14 feet, is that correct, in reference to height? I see 7 and 7. MR. BURST: Approximately. From the point of the footing. MR. VILLA: 20.6 it says. THE CHAIRMAN: I was just looking. That is to the ridge? Right? MR. BURST: Yes. I wanted to push it over as far as I could so I could (inaudible) accessible. THE CHAIRMAN: The only concern we have is that overhang on the second story. It would have to be 4 feet from that overhang if you were proposing it and the Board so granted Board of Appeals Hearings 19 February 23, 1993 it. So, in other words, it would probably then be 6 feet --the bottom would then be 6 feet, I assume. MR. BURST: The overhang is approximately one foot, I believe. I just didn't want to go right in the middle of the property. THE CHAIRMAN: I understand. Let me just run through, while you are standing there, if anybody has any objections. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody like to speak against the application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, you got over that hurdle. You haven't been reminding me of that. You have been a little lax there, Mr. -r Any further questions of this applicant, gentlemen? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: We are going to close the hearing, and we hope to have a decision for you tonight. We will kick it around and will do the best we possibly can, and we thank you for staking. It made it that much easier for us to visualize it. Hearing no further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later~ (Seconded and carried.) Board of Appeals Hearings 20 February 23, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4155 of MARY P. FURLONG and others for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of a porch addition with an insufficient rear Yard (as built in 1966). Property Location: 1745 Nakomis Road at Laughing Waters, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 78, Block 3, Lot 35, This parcel is preexisting with nonconformities as to total lot area in this R-40 Zone District. 8:00 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in behalf of Mary P. Furlong and others for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance. It is Appeal No. 4155. I have a copy of the survey dated September 28, 1992, indicating the Porch, which is approximately 24 1/2 feet from the rear property line, and has embodied within the legal notice, which it was built in 1966. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody representing Mrs. Furlong? Mr. Bruer, how are you? Appearance: Rudolph Bruer, Esq., for the Applicant THE CHAIRMAN: So nice to see you, Mr. Bruer. You have brought us, I can see, a very easy application. That is so nice of you. Board of Appeals Hearings 21 February 23, 1993 MRo BRUER: Yes, for a change. I think the application pretty well spelled out the situation that exists here. Before I forget, with respect 4o the neighbors, we sent out notices to all the neighbors. I have here a consent from Mr. Concensio. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. BRUER: I spoke to Louis Forer (phonetic, no spelling supplied record), who is really Laughing Waters, too, and he said he had no objections, and I did not hear from the other two neighbors. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. BRUER: What you have is a house that was built in 1966 by a local builder. It was Baker and Fickeissen. Soon thereafter they constructed the porch on top of the concrete patio which existed with the original house. It is concrete I believe. It is seeded I believe, it is screened around it, and it is attached obviously to the house. It was done, based upon the affidavit that is attached to the application, by the people who built the property. It was done, as far as they were concerned, in accordance with the laws at the time. In fact, they were not aware of the fact that it was not properly done until that survey that you mentioned showed that it existed that way, and we went in for a certificate of occupancy for the total property. It was at that time that they said to me that they first learned of the impropriety of the porch, which'is the Board of Appeals Hearings ~ 2~ February 23, 1993 purpose of this application. I believe --without taking too much of the Board's time-- the application fairly fits in with the statute and I don't think we create any undue hardship if the Board grants it. The request is minimal in terms of the property. Conformity to the neighborhood is obvious in that the porch, as it exists, has been there some 25 years, if not more. If you have any questions, Mrs. Furlong is here; and I would be happy to answer anything you might have. THE CHAIRMAN: No, a gentleman was very gracious to show me the place. From the house I walked right through their house and looked at it -- very, very nice. I had no problems understanding it, and we will see what develops. MR. BRUER: Obviously we are in deep trouble, with the Town, with our mortgage, and everything else. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't see that that is going to be a possibility at this point, and I am not speaking for the other four gentlemen on this Board but-- While you are standing there, is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes, the applicant, right? I just have to go through this formality. Sometimes I don't. (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN (continuing): I don't even stop. I just keep on going. Anybody like to speak against it? (There was no response.) Board of Appeals Hearings 23 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hand, I have our newest member to my left and your right, Mr. Wilton. He would like to make a motion. MEMBER WILTON: I move that we approve it as requested. (Seconded and carried.) MR. BRUER: Thank you very much. Board of Appeals Hearings 24 February 23, 1993 APPLICATION NO, 4154 of JAMES R. LEWIS (for EAST END MARINE SUPPLY INC., Tenant). Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XIV, Section 100-142 for permission to locate a new warehouse building for commercial storage in this Light Industrial (LI) Zone District with lot coverage in excess of thirty (30%) percent of the total lot area. Subject premises consists of combined County Tax Map Lot Nos. 1 and 44.1 (Previously referred to as Numbers 2 and 3 and abandoned sections of 8th St. and 7th St.), for a total lot area 67,124 square feet. Street Address: 645 Ninth Street, and Corwin Street, Greenport, Town of Southold, NY. County Tax Map District 1000, Section 48, Block 2, Lot Nos. i and 44.1 (Ail to be combined as a single lot for purposes of zoning). 8:04 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have copy of a site plan brought by Garrett Strang, dated February 4, 1993, indicating that the applicant wishes to propose a one-story storage building on the corner of Ninth Street and Corwin Street, approximately 20 feet from both lot lines, and a building of approximately 40 by 60. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Strang, would you like to be heard? Appearance: Garrett Strang, RA, for applicant. Board of Appeals Hearings 25 February 23, 1993 MR. STRANG: I think the application as presented spells out as clearly as we could not only our intent but the requirement that brought us here, that'being the fact that the Suffolk Department of Health Services in their ongoing program to deal with items that they believe to be of concern has mandated that East End Marine Supply provide the containment facility for their paints and similar products that they warehouse, and that this particular facility meet certain standards and requirements for containment in the event of a spill, and also the fact that it be a can facility that is properly constructed to avoid any potential fire hazard in the event there had been or would be a fire. THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): Is this a steel building, Mr. Strang? MR. STRANG: No, this will be a masonry building. THE CHAIRMAN: A masonry building. With a wood roof? MR. STRANG: No, it will have a metal roof. This wi%l be a non-combustible structure. It sort of --as you can see from the site plan-- we are limited as to where we can site such facility, and this particular location is really the only area left open to us to provide this facility. There were other avenues investigated and pursued at length and in depth, but they did not meet either the criterion of the County or the criteria of the insurance carrier on the property, and we are basically at our last resort at the moment, that being Board of Appeals Hearings 26 February 23, 1993 constructing a new building on the site for this particular purpose m-sort of a Catch 22-- because if we don't provide the containment facility, we have to cease operations, so we are locked into this at this point in time and are asking for consideration of our application. THE CHAIRMAN: To what degree is the building going to contain a containment facility? Is it contained as in a passive sense, or will there be any type of vat or anything that we notice in these buildings would be required here? MR. STRANG: Well, basically the way the building will be constructed, is, there will be a curb --or a slab if you will-- of the facility will be depressed in such a fashion that if there were a leak of the product, it would remain within the confines of this curbed area. THE CHAIRMAN: I see. MR. STRANG: And that, the concrete floor would likely be treated so that it would be leak-proof. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. How high would the curb be above the existing building, or is it just a lip? MR. STRANG: It is basically probably maybe an 8-inch or 12-inch in most curbs, because it is going to encompass the entire building perimeter, so the situation --It would take quite a massive leak of material to even start to come anywhere near the rim of the container. It is only about gallon cans on that area map, not large drums. Board of Appeals Hearings 27 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: I assume this is everything from bottom paint on boats to any other marine articles that they-- MR. STRANG (interposing): Exactly. Anything that is in a liquid type of form. THE CHAIRMAN: When we originally granted this entire project, I can remember quite vividly that a gentleman by the name of Mr. Irving Price came in and presented this, and I think we were about 12 and a half percent over at that point. What are we in, in actual over the 30 percent --of course we were dealing with a different code at that time-- but what are we now with this? MR. STRANG: Well, I do have in the upper left hand corner of the site plan a calculation. At the present time, without this proposed new facility, the lot coverage is 43.1 percent, which would be 13 percent over the 30; and with this facility we are at 46.6. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. That wasn't a bad guess then, was it, twelve-and-a-half? MR. STRANG: No. (Laughter.) THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will see how this goes here, and see if there is any questions. I don't know. MR. STRANG: Mr. Ruroede is here also if there are any questions. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. How high is the proposed one-story building? Board of Appeals Hearings 28 February 23, 1993 MR. STRANG: I would think at this point we are probably going to be somewhere in the vicinity of 18 or 20 feet. I don't know; that sounds about right, doesn't it? (Apparently addressingc Mr. Bart Ruroede.) MR. STRANG: That is what we were just discussing. THE CHAIRMAN: While Mr. Strang is up here, does anybody have any specific questions? MR. VILLA: It is going to be just strictly for storage, no other use? MR. RUROEDE: Strictly storage. It is unoccupied building, strictly another warehouse type of thing. THE CHAIRMAN: There was a concern that the pallets that are existing out there at this time, placed against the fence, would have to be stored in an area other than the area that they are stored, because we would be concerned also from a fire-safety point of view that ingress and egress to mostly all sides of the building were able to be gotten, okay. And that was a concern, so bear that in mind, that if the Board is so inclined to grant this, that will be embodied within that decision, that it has to remain open. MR. RUROEDE: We do have them and have allocated (Phrase indistinguishable) for separation between the two buildings for adequate maneuverability of fire-fighting personnel, whatever, in the event that there were a situation. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board of Appeals Hearings 29 February 23, 1993 MR. ARNOFF: What internal facilities will this have --light-- is that it? MR. STRANG: Lights and some ventilation. MR. ARNOFF: Water? MR. STRANG: Bart, maybe you can answer these questions a little bit more clearly. MR. BART RUROEDE: Yes, sir. MR. ARNOFF: Will there be a sprinkler system in the building? MR. BART RUROEDE: Probably dry chemical. MR. ARNOFF: Would it be fair to say there won't be water? MR. BART RUROEDE: No. THE CHAIRMAN: So the only utility would be electricity? MR. BART RUROEDE: Which would be explosion-proof. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you just state your name for the record please? BART RUROEDE. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. (Murmur among Board.) Heat? MR. RUROEDE: The County hasn't said one way or the other whether they want it heated. We are putting petroleum products in the building, and they don't freeze; but if they do Board of Appeals Hearings 30 February 23, 1993 want heat, we have a way to do it; and it would be explosion-proof also. MR. ARNOFF: You would be keeping some kind of paints in there, wouldn't you? Paints shouldn't be frozen generally. MR. RUROEDE: Yes, well, you can't freeze paints. Even the new paints they are coming up with, you can't freeeze them. We have had the facility there for eight years, ten years now, and the County came in and looked at it and said we don't like the way you are storing paint. We have been in business since the late forties, and we haven't had a problem; but I called the County today and spoke with them, and I called them: We want to get it done as fast as we can. We want to stay in business and have 27 people working and want to stay working. THE CHAIRMAN: We want you to, too. MR, RUROEDE: Thanks. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you so much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody like to speak against it? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried.) Board of Appeals Hearings 31 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: We will kick it around and hope to have a decision for you --if not tonight then within ten days or so, sir. Thank you. Board of Appeals Hearings 32 February 23, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4151 of EDWARD Fo RODENBACH, as Trustee, requesting a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate a proposed new dwelling within a building envelope area having a reduced rear yard setback at not less than 20 feet and conforming side yards and front yard setbacks, after removal of the two existing cottage structures. This parcel is the subject of an application, simultaneously held this evening, for an exchange of property with the northerly lot, to increase the lot area of this parcel from 20,452+- Sqo ft. to 28,957+- sq. ft. Property Location: North side of Avenue B, Fishers Island, Town of Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 6, Block 2, Lot 6 and part of 5. 8:17 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) COMBINED HEARINGS: APPLICATION NO. 4145(continued from 1/14/93) of JOHN S. McGEENEY and EDWARD F. RODENBACH,AS Trustee, for a Variance Under Article III, Section 100-32 to reduce lot area of of combined Lot Nos. 5 and 13 (owned by McGeeney) for an exchange of property with Lot 6 (owned by Rodenbach, Trustee) in this pending lot-line request. The northerly parcel will consist of a total combined area of Nos. 5 and 13 of 61,817 (4356+- sq. ft. and 57,461+-) square feet. The southerly parcel will consist of a total lot area of 28,957+- square feet. Board of Appeals Hearings 33 February 23, 1993 Location of Property: Avenue B and Crescent Avenue, Fishers Island; County Tax Map Parcel ID Numbers 1000-6-2-5, 6 and 13. Combined Lot Numbers 6 and 13 as ex ists is substandard, and Lot ~5 is substandard. Both lots are located in the R-80 Residential Zone District. THE CHAIRMAN: I have copy of the newest map which is dated October 29th with most recent additions February 2, 1993, indicating the nature of ~his envelope as it is mentioned here; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map; and we will ask Mr. Ham what he would like to add to it. How are you tonight, sir? Appearance: Stephen Ham III, Esq., for Applicant MR. HAM: Fine, thank you. May I ask that you open the hearing on the next matter, too? THE CHAIRMAN: Surely, no problem. I was just about ready to do that. MR. HAM: Oh. THE CLERK: We had discussed the last hearing that you were going to keep them separate; you were not going to tie them in together. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any particular reason why you want the next one open? MR. HAM: Well, I did want to combine the two. I had already presented my case on the second matter, so-- Board of Appeals Hearings 34 February 23, 1993 THE CLERK: It is up to you, just what you said at the first hearing. MR. HAM: Just so you can deal with objections as one. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And at the same time we will open 4145, which was recessed from 1/14/93. That's all I have to do. I don't have to read the legal notice. You are on. (Record now refers to both 4145 and 4151.) MR. HAM: What we would like to do here is make a proposal to move the two buildings that are presently on a preexisting nonconforming lot, which is tax lot 6, in exchange for a setback of, a 20-foot rear yard setback, which is 20 feet greater than it is now. It is at zero feet, and would be, if the lot line change were approved, to 17 feet. The idea being to create a greater degree of conformity in this area. Obviously the neighborhood would not be affected by this change. We are increasing the degree of conformity. Also, we are going to need some relief anyway if we remove these buildings, in that the R-80 Zone District on this 20,000 square foot lot roughly are too severe to sustain the construction of the second dwelling (sic). I have sketched out --we have, what we will do is conform to the existing side and front yards for the R-80 District, as you see on your map. I have sketched out what would be required if we had to conform to a 75-foot rear yard, and that leaves a very little --and you can take notice of that-- a very little building area. In addition, I have talked Board of Appeals Hearings 35 February 23, 1993 to Tom Dougherty 6f the utility company, and one of the utility poles --no matter what happens-- if both those structures are removed, the one that is numbered 167 on your map will have to stay. So the idea is to get the building area for a one-family dwelling on this lot back up in the upper northeast corner of the lot; and we feel that this is a big improvement for the neighborhood in that we are eliminating a non-conforming use in the neighborhood and also maintaining or reducing actually the non-conforming setback which is right now, if you approve it the way it is, it would be 17 feet; but as it exists, we have an encroachment on to a neighboring yard, so it is a zero foot setback; and we would ask your indulgence to approve this. THE CHAIRMAN: We normally do not grant building envelopes; you know what I am saying? But if the Board is so inclined, they will grant the setback, and that is, you know-- the rear yard setback. I want you to be aware we don't normally grant building-- MRe HAM interposing): Well, my client is agreeable as to any condition to any variance you may grant-- to agreeing as a condition to that variance, to remove and abandon this non-conforming use. THE CHAIRMAN: Right, okay. Are there any questions on this, gentlemen? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: How wide actually, sir, is Avenue B? Board of Appeals Hearings 36 February 23, 1993 MR. HAM: Avenue B? I don't know what the legal right of way is, but I would say it is no more than sixteen feet. THE CHAIRMAN: Can you get-- MR. HAM (interposing): I guess. THE CHAIRMAN: Just barely? MR. HAM: A little better than that, but I don't think it's more than sixteen feet. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Does anybodyhave any questions of Mr. Ham? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: No? Okay. I guess that will do it, sir. ~R. HAM: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later, as well as the hearing of 4145. (Seconded and carried.) THE CHAIRMAN: Both hearings are closed. Thank you for coming. Board of Appeals Hearings 37 February 23, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4140 of JOHN CROKOS (Hearing continued from 1/14/93). Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A(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. 8:25 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: This is a continued hearing from 1/14/93, and I would like to reopen that hearing and ask if the architect is here or an applicant? How are you tonight, sir? Appearance: John Sandgren, R.A., for the Applicant. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add for the record before I-- MR. SANDGREN: We have not in any way changed the si~e plan since the Board has reviewed it. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We had our Town Engineer review the plan, and he just --There is a little bit of a difference in interpretation-- We just got this. MR. SANDGREN (receiving paper referred to): Fine° THE CHAIRMAN: It is nothing. You can either comment by mail or after you look at ito ~ MR. SANDGREN: I see. Board of Appeals Hearings 38 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to mention to you that sometimes in situations like this it becomes all-encompassing for us to digest a plan of this magnitude, okay. And --I am not trying to be redundant or evasive or anything of that nature. Certainly the ultimate scenario for us would be --or the Utopian scenario would be, to build the house, to build the rear yard porches and garden area, and then to add the pool --because then we could actually digest the whole plan at that point because it is a very extensive plan; it is a very beautiful piece of property, and it is a very beautiful house from what we can see, as I mentioned the last time. So we will do the best we can in what I can tell you in setbacks at this point; and if for any reason the setback restrictions are more severe on the bluff side, I might suggest to you that you hold in abeyance the construction of the pool until the house is built, and then you come back with that, and we will be able to see lt. What I am saying to you is, you presented us the entire application; we will deal with the entire application. We will as five members of this Board so empowered by the Town Board, as we sit in this position, that we have a diversity of feelings concerning projects of this magnitude, and there may be significant setbacks, you know, in reference to placement of the pool at this time because of the magnitude of it. But we will see what happens. Just so that you understand that because you have been very gracious in coming in twice, and we appreciate that. Board of Appeals Hearings 39 February 23, 1993 MR. SANDGREN: Well, I would just like to point out to the Board my normal procedure for doing decks and terrraces would be to construct the home and then to elaborate on staking out the pool and really evaluating the views from the home at that point. We like to also come up on it slowly, and I would certainly like to do that with the Board. If we can move only on the home only, if I understand you correctly, as far as getting a permit to place the home, and then come in under a separate permit for pool and terraces-- THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. SANDGREN: (continuing) --that would be just fine with us. THE CHAIRMAN: That's great. That would make it more interesting to us, too, because-- MR. SANDGREN: We can evaluate then just what our exposure is. THE CHAIRMAN: So we will deal with that and have a decision for you within the next couple weeks. MEMBER DOYEN: What are we talking about the main structure here --How far from the bluff is that? MR. SANDGREN: Actually what we have is, one corner of the home which pierces the hundred-foot line. The greater majority of the home is in excess, at the maximum about 114 feet back from the bluff. The most easterly corner for about ten feet crosses the line, and only a point of.it, a triangle. Board of Appeals Hearings 40 February 23, 1993 MEMBER DOYEN: Is this a hundred-foot line (indicating)? MR. SANDGREN: Yes, it is, that line that runs through there (indicating). THE CHAIRMAN: What I had said to this nice gentleman is that in a plan of this magnitude it is very difficult to place the pool in front of this magnificent looking house, as we sit here and we know the lot and we have all looked at it, but-- you know, we don't know what it is going to look like. MR. SANDGREN: In staking it out we were in very much the same condition. So we would love to have the house there and then creep up on it really. THE CHAIRMAN: Again, we thank you very much for coming. And we will see what develops. I don't know if there is anybody here who wants to talk tonight. Thank you again. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody like to speak against the application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further response, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried.) Board of Appeals Hearings 41 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: I know that everybody here is for the last hearing. So that we can be completely attentive, it requires us to take exactly a two-minute recess; and I assure you it won't be longer than that. I need such a motion (seconded and carried). (Resuming on the record after recess, with members present as listed on title page when first convened this evening.) APPLICATION NO. 4156 - GARDINERS BAY ESTATES CLUB, INC. (record owner as per Deed at Liber 7671 page 415). Application filed by GARDINERS BAY ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION. This is an appeal based upon the February 10, 1993, Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector requesting an Interpretation of Article III, Section 100-31C(3) of the Zoning Code which provides for ".o. docking or mooring facilities for no. more than two (2) boats other than those owned and used by the owner of the premises for his personal use." Applicant is proposing to construct new dock areas with multiple boat facilities at the community beach of Gardiners Bay Estates. Location of Property: Part of Private Road knownfas Dogwood Lane situated along "Spring Pond," an estuary of Orient Harbor; also shown on the Map of Gardiners Bay Estates, Section 2, filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office as Map No. 275, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map ID Nos. 1000-37-1-part of 23 (private road), and part of 17 (underwater land). Board of Appeals Hearings 42 February 23, 1993 8:35 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have copy of the survey dated Janu- ary 6, 1992, from Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, which depicts that particular area which we are concerned with as the nature of this interpretation, and that is the end of Dogwood Lane, and that docking facility as it exists as I just mentioned on this plan; and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I believe Miss Ongionl is representing the Association? Appearance: Ongioni and Borelli, Esqs. (By Carmella Borelli, Esq.), for the Applicants MISS BORELLI: Yes, the firm of Ongioni and Borelli is representing the association. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MISS BORELLI: We will be making the presentation. I am Carmella Borelli. I would like to give you these. It is a copy of the Brief. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MISS BORELLI: You're welcome. I also have graphs(? paper-rattling like thunder) of names of trustees and officers. I would like to run through this so that we have it on the record and can make it clear. Just in the beginning, a statement of what is involved in this particular application. Board of Appeals Hearings 43 February 23, 1993 The applicant Gardiners Bay Home Owners Association is a membership corporation organized in New York State. They were incorporated in 1957 and in 1981 they elected to be a Type A corporation under the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. At the same time they changed their name from Gardiners Bay Estates Club, Inc.~ to Gardiners Bay Home Owners Association. The Association owns the land in Gardiners Bay Estates, including the land under the waters known as "Spring Pond" as is indicated on the Deed dated July 7, 1974, which is attached here as Exhibit 1o The Association has utilized some of the land it owns to provide docking facilities for non-waterfront home-owners in the association. Association dues and assessments are used to pay for the construction, the maintenance, and the upkeep of the docking facilities that are used by the non-waterfront homeowners. In January '92 they sought the necessary permits from the Board of Trustees to construct a 3 by 16 feet catwalk, a 3 by 16 feet ramp, and a 4 by 24-foot float, with two 3 by 14-foot fingers which would accommodate four boats. They also sought to move an existing catwalk which accommodated two boats. The matter was referred by the Board of Trustees to the Conservation Advisory Council. The Council recommended disapproval because --and I quote-- it has a-policy of one dock with a capacity of four boats on a single piece of property. Board of Appeals Hearings ~..~44 February 23, 1993 The Council does not wish to see marinas developed by property association. There is no notation in the Town's records that the applicant --that is the Home Owners' Association-- was asked by either the Council or the Trustees what its present or future intent was with regard to the docking facilities, nor is there any evidence to substantiate the conclusion reached by the Council that the Association intended to develop a marina. On the contrary, the files for prior applications of the Association clearly indicate a cognizance of potential overdevelopment and potential environmental problems and a concern to move slowly and cautiously regarding docking facilities. The original application was amended to increase the length of the catwalk from 16 feet to 20 feet pursuan~ to a recommendation from the Department of the Army. The Army subsequently approved the application. The application to the Board of Trustees was recently revised to comply with the recommendations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The amended application, however, does not alter the total numbrer of boats to be provided. Two pre-existing docking slips will continue in a new configuration with four new slips that will be added. The Board of Trustees, acting as lead agency, rendered a negative declaration under SEQRA, and it is our conclusion that they apparently confirmed Board of Appeals Hearings 45 February 23, 1993 the non-deleterious nature of the project as evidenced by the prior approvals of both the Department of the Army and the DEC. This application appears before this Board as the result of a letter from the Board of Trustees in March 1992 which advised the applicant that an interpretation of Section 100-31C3a was required before the Board of Trustees could proceed. We have been attempting since that time to obtain an interpretation; but, as you probably know, just as well as we do, the wheels of government move rather slowly, and we have only recently been successful in coming here before this Board. We believe there are two questions presented by an interpretation of this particular section of the Code. The first question is: Does Section 100-31C3a limit the number of' docking or mooring facilities that its owner can provide for the owner's own use and/or the use by others? We believe the code is quite clear on this point. The owner of a docking facility under the above section may dock as many boats as the owner owns and uses, but the number allotted for non-owners is limited to two boats in addition to those of the owner. We believe there is a second question inherent in an interpretation of this Code section and that is: Must title to the unlimited number of boats allowed to an owner be vested in the name of the Association itself to qualify as an owner's boat? Board of Appeals Hearings ~6 February 23, 1993 We believe that the nature of a membership corporation, the status of a corporation under New York law, and this particular corporation, coupled with a common-sense approach to interpreting the Code's words, must result in a determination that title to the boats to be docked need not be vested in the name of the Association to qualify as owner's boats. The particular section provides, and I quote: There shall be docking or mooring facilities for no more than two bo~ts other than those owned and used by the owner of the premises for his personal use. The phrase, while admittedly cumbersome, can be interpreted in only one manner. An owner can provide docking facilities for no more than two boats owned and used by someone other than the owner, but the owner retains the ability to dock any number of boats owned and used by that owner. This Board, in 1981, rendered a decision with regard to an application for a Special Exception under a prior Code section, The request and the section are different from the subject application; but the words to be interpreted are the same. This Board's decision stated that the Code "permits boat-docking, mooring or accommodation of non-commercial boats for no more than two boats other than those owned and used by the owner of the premises for his personal use." The question regarding the number of boats arose then, as it does now, because of questions raised in the initial application process before the Board of Trustees regarding Board of Appeals Hearings 47 February 23, 1993 docking space for non-family members. This Board ultimately found that applicant could dock no more than two boats other than his own° We believe that the wording is abundantly clear. The owner may dock an unlimited number of boats, but is restricted to a maximum of two for those owned by others. Section 113 of the Zoning Code defines an owner as "includes the duly authorized agent, attorney, purchaser, devisee~ fiduciary or any other person having a vested or contingent interest in a property." That same section defines a home-owner's association as a community association including a condominium association which is organized in a residential development in which individual owners have a shared interest in the responsibility for open spaces or facilities. By the terms of those two definitions the applicant Homeowners' Association comprised of individual owners has responsibility for' common facilities in which they share an interest. That shared interest is a vested and contingent interest in real property,. namely, the land to which the docking facility will be attached. The individual because of his or her membership in the association has a contingent interrest, that is, one based on membership-- in the Association's vested interest in real property that is shared with other members for which all are responsible. Just as the members of the Association would be required to share the cost of any assessments against the ~ Association, because of their responsibility for its'actions, Board of Appeals Hearings 48 February 23, 1993 they are conversely entitled to the rights of that ownership by reason of their vested and contingent interest in real property. To interpret the code otherwise is to apply the definitions in the Code differently to similarly situated persons and render unequal treatment. For example, if four people bought property in a partnership name, utilizing the address of the property --let us say 100 Main Street Associates-- and each owned a boat in their individual names, would they be barred from docking because they did not qualify as owners? Legally not, The term "corporation" is not defined by statute in New York. However, in the early years of this country the United States Supreme court defined corporation as an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law. It was thereafter described by a New York court as a collection of individuals united in one body. This corporation comprised of homeowners is a collection of individuals united in one body. The members own the corporation and the corporation existing only in contemplation of law is merely a shell to (word in audible due to coughing on tape) the members. In conclusion, I would like to tell you that the Association owns the land to which the docking facility is to be constructed. The Association is comprised of its members who are in turn the owners of the Association. Membership creates a vested interest in the land which the Association owns, thus qualifying the members as owners under the Code's definition of Board of Appeals Hearings 49 February 23, 1993 the term. As owners they are entitled to an unlimited number of boats at a given facility attached to land they own and are not limited to the two boats of non-owners. The four new boat slips to be provided are well within their limits, especially in view of the approval of other agencies who do not see the facility or the number of boats as burdensome on the environment or esthetically unpleasing to the eye. I have nothing left to say except to answer your questions, and to tell you that we have a lot of members of the Association here in support, including some officials and officers who can answer questions, and I make one request. THE CHAIRMAN~ I make one request to you, but go ahead~ MISS BORELLI: My request is that I be afforded rebuttal time if anyone comes up to oppose. And the other is, is that the arguments if any occur in opposition, be limited to the question that is presented, which is an interpretation of this section of the code and not the feasibility of the docking facility and what the Board of Trustees really has to rule on. Only the interpretation of the Code. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that is a problem sometimes because people don't really limit their discussions upon that; and, of course as you know, this probably will go farther after the interpretation. All right? But I have to ask you, and I was remiss in doing so, to ask you to raise your right hand and tell me that everything you said was to the best of your Board of Appeals Hearings 50 February 23, 1993 knowledge, and all the questions that I am going to ask you, to the best of your knowledge --and would you swear to that please? MISS BORELLI: I certainly will. THE CHAIRMAN: And state your name for the record please. MISS BORELLI: Carmella Borelli. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. You have to excuse me because I have a tendency at times not to zero in when a person is reading, all right; and that becomes a problem, and I have been guilty of that all the way down the line. But you have to explain to me first, what is presently there prior to this application that is before us for an intrpretation; and, secondly, I just want to mention for the record, that the --in reading the Legal Notice, you were not successful in getting a disapproval until February 10, 1993. Okay, so the application is before us here subsequent to that. So this is new to us, meaning here. I didn't get any wind that this was ever going on before any zoning application or anything of that nature, until February 10th when the disapproval was made, okay. But would you explain to me what exists in Gardiner's Bay in Spring Pond that belongs to the Association prior to this application, in reference to docks. MISS BORELLI: Are you talking about this particular facility? Or are you talking about-- Board of Appeals Hearings 51 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): Well, when we went down to look there, we saw a couple floating docks, ~okay. What are they hooked to? How many boats were there? What occurred? MISS BORELLI: I think in this particular spot at the foot of this particular street, there is a catwalk, a floating dock that accommodates two boats? APPARENTLY MR. MATZEN: There are two private member floating docks. THE CHAIRMAN: Those docks belong to members? MR. MATZEN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, that is not an Association dock. But it is sanctioned by the Association? MR. MATZEN: We lease them $50 a Year to each of those members to have to use our right-ofLway land. THE CHAIRMAN: Could I just have your name for the record, sir? PRIOR SPEAKER: Lawrence Matzen, Chairman of the Marine Committee. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. Thank you, sir. THE CLERK: How many boats were there? I didn't catch that. On the two dock facilities. THE CHAIRMAN: There were four boats. THE CLERK: Total of four on both, okay. THE CHAIRMAN: Total of four on both? Board of Appeals Hearings 52 February 23, 1993 MR. MATZEN: Years ago we had four docks there. Two were misused, rotted out. Nobody used them. Now we need room for more. THE CLERK: Two on each of them, two on the catwalk and two on the floating dock? MR. MATZEN: They only take two each. THE CLERK: Okay, thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Now when you refer to the catwalk, you are referring to the dock in front of lot 9120, which is the lot to the west side of the end of Dogwood Lane? MR. MATZEN: To the south, DiBlasi's~ no, Sambachs. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, well, this newest redone house that was down there, that. I think we had an application for, it is in front of that house. If I am riding down there, it is on the righthand side as I stand next to Spring Pond-- MR. MATZEN: DiBlasi's house is on the right when you drive down to the water. THE CHAIRMAN: That is where the catwalk and one of the docks were. MR. MATZEN: There are two catwalks, and floating docks. THE CHAIRMAN: The other catwalk is on the opposite side? MR. MATZEN: Yes. Board of Appeals Hearings 53 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Ail you are requesting at this time is an elongation of one of these catwalks and then the finger-pier docks that exist out on this print? MR. MATZEN: Exactly where it stands now, to improve the (brief phrase indistinguishable). The DEC does not recognize that one catwalk there now. They want it taken out. THE CHAIRMAN: The one on the opposite side. Is it Blasi? MR. MATZEN: No, Sambach. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Go ahead. THE CLERK: I am confused. Are there four, or are there two? THE CHAIRMAN: There are two. THE CLERK: You said there were four catwalks? MR. MATZEN: No, two catwalks, two floating docks that take two boats on each. THE CLERK: Connected? THE CHAIRMAN: No, they are not connected. MR. MATZEN: It is on the survey. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, now, going back to the situation you just mentioned, you leased the dock to the Association member for $50 a year? IS that what you said? MR. MATZEN: Right. We leased the land to them. We allowed them to have their docks for $50 a year, to use our land, it is on the right-of-way. Board of Appeals Hearings 54 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand. So now the picture is getting clearer, a little bit. What did you want to say, Mr. Matzen? Did you want to add anything to this? MR. MATZEN: Well, I am for the interpretation, I am for the docks. The Marine Committee started this. We need room for extra boats. Our Board had voted on this twice, for it, a two-to-one vote. THE CHAIRMAN: How did people get to use these docks? Do they approach the Association members and say that they are looking for docking facilities, or what happens? MR. MATZEN: Yes, yes, if somebody needs a dock, they ask me, where can we go? If we have room, we put them a certain place. THE CHAIRMAN: I see. Now what about all the houses on the west side of the creek that have, the pond, excuse me, that have bulkheads and lay floating docks against those bulkheads, the ones that have waterfront, and so on and so forth? MR. MATZEN: If they need to reach water, we allow them a floating dock. THE CHAIRMAN: Do they have to pay anything? MR. MATZEN: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Because they have land adjacent to-- Board of Appeals Hearings 55 February 23, 1993 MR. MATZEN: Because they are doing us a favor having bulkheads to stop erosion into the lake, so we consider them, to leave those alone, we don,t charge for those. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. MATZEN: They would have to keep those docks up in good repair. THE CHAIRMAN: So it would be everybody on the east side then-- MR. MATZEN: No, there is bulkheads along there. THE CHAIRMAN: Then it is down farther. MR. MATZEN: Maybe I should explain what we have -- We have a lagoon that goes up to the road. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. MATZEN: Where the bridge goes over the beach. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. MATZEN: Up on the north end, to the south, there is 287 feet of dock. That is Association dock. Been there since 1978, 1979 and 1980 it was built. THE CHAIRMAN: That is all the way around as you are going? MR. MATZEN: Just on the southeast side, just on the one side. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. MATZEN: All the rest is private. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board of Appeals Hearings 56 February 23, 1993 MR. MATZEN: The spring (sic, phonetic) piece you saw there, the new one we put in 1990. That is room for 4 or 5 boats. That is Association docks. There is six floating docks or five (inaudible) that you saw. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. MATZEN: And that is it. THE CHAIRMAN: So how many docks does the Association actually own or lease or whatever? MR. MATZEN: On hard docks, we have ten; on a catwalk we have four; and six on a floating. THE CHAIRMAN: So basically an Association member comes before you as in need of docking facilities-- MR. MATZEN: And we assign them according to our by-laws if you read our by-laws. THE CHAIRMAN: Now are any boats moored in Spring Pond? MR. MATZEN: Twelve. THE CHAIRMAN: Twelve, okay. At the height of the season, you would see 12 boats moored in Spring Pond? MR. MATZEN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. For the life o~ me, I can't think of the next question; but I have one. Is there anybody else who would like to ask this gentleman a question? APPARENTLY MR. ARNOFF: That is 32 boats on Association docks? Is that right? Board of Appeals Hearings 57 February 23, 1993 MR. MATZEN: Ten, fifteen, twenty --plus twelve. MR. ARNOFF: Twenty plus twelve, you said --plus moorings. MR. MATZEN: Moorings we only charge thirty dollars, just for upkeep. We do the repairs. MR. ARNOFF: Are there additional moorings? Besides those 127 MR. MATZEN: No~ MR. ARNOFF (or whatever member, continuing): So at any time you would go in there, there would be just twelve boats moored? MR. MATZEN: Moored, in the middle, in the water, yes. They need a dinghy to get out to them. MR. ARNOFF: Then there would be 20 tied up to Association docks? MR. MATZEN: Yes. MR. ARNOFF: Then, what about after that? MR. MATZEN: We don't have any other. MR. ARNOFF: What about the docks, I am trying to get the scope-- THE CHAIRMAN: Property owners on the west side. MR. ARNOFF: --of how many boats we actually have in this place. MR. MATZEN: The maximum? 64. And that includes all people that own property around the lake. Board of Appeals Hearings ~8 February 23, 1993 MR. ARNOFF: Is there a limit? MR. MATZEN: It is not filled up. We have 187 feet on our largest right-of-ways there, the end of Dogwood Lane; and there is only those two docks there, and there is plenty of room for more boats. I only want to put in four because that is the need for it right now. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Can I just ask you a question? Is there in your clubhouse or wherever you all meet for an Association-- MR. MATZEN: (Interposing) private homes. THE CHAIRMAN (continuing): Private homes. Do you have a map of the whole thing so we could understand it a little bit better? MR. MATZEN: Map No. 275. You should have that. I think I made copies of it. THE CLERK: Not showing everything. MISS BORELLI: I have a big map. It is my only copy. THE CLERK: It doesn't show the docking facilities. Is that what you meant? THE CHAIRMAN: Is this what you have a copy of? MISS BORELLI: Same thing. MR. MATZEN: This is all Association land. This is private from here (indicating unintelligibly for record). This is 187 feet at that point. These two properties are not waterfront. These are. This is 22 feet and this is 20. People Board of Appeals Hearings 59 February 23, 1993 could tie up along the bulkhead, they do. (Multi-voices, noneindividually discernable). MR. ARNOFF (or Mr. Villa?): How much additional could you get out of what you have left after-- MR. MATZEN: Where could I put more boats --is that what you mean? MISS BORELLI: There are only a hundred Association members, so-- and that number has stayed the same forever because despite the fact that there are more parcels of land, lots of people here own two parcels, and so forth. So the maximum you could have is a hundred people, Association members; but you still have some of that hundred, you have some that own waterfront property, so they are not going to be using Association docks. So they are at 64 now. The numbers can't go much higher than what they are right now. (Multi-voices undecipherable°) MR. MATZEN: We paid dues before the Association. Then it was all turned over-- MISS BORELLI: 1951. They were incorporated in (inaudible). They were members of the Association before that, paying to the company that owned this; this was Gardiner's Bay Estates Company. THE CHAIRMAN: Warren, can you make me a copy of this sometime? (apparently addressing Mr. Sambach) Could you bring us down one please? Board of Appeals Hearings 60 February 23, 1993 MR. SAMBACH: Sure. THE CHAIRMAN: Could we just leave this here? We will give it back to you. MISS BORELLI: That is an original. Why don't you take mine? THE CHAIRMAN: So we have come to the realization now that this finger-pier has been, the addition of this finger-pier, this catwalk with the additional slips to be added to it-- is really what is trying the interpretation that is before us. MISS BORELLI: Yes. MR. ARNOFF: It has never been brought up before? THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to say to you that it is not also just something that we are going to be dealing with in this particular Association. We are going to be dealing with it in Nassau Point right after this determination. Okay? MR. MATZEN: I understand we have precedents on this. before because in 1990 we put in that catwalk and that is Association land and Association dock. THE CLERK: Was that approved by the Town? MR. MATZEN: It wasn't questioned on my permits then. THE CLERK: Was it approved by the Trustees in 19907 MR. MATZEN: Yes. All permits then, Army, State. THE CHAIRMAN: I just want you to know and this is a little overwhelming to understand all this, and we thank you for Board of Appeals Hearings 61 February 23, 1993 your patience. I know you probably wanted to put these things in last summer and that you are chomping at the bit to get them going now, and so on and so forth; but it is a little overwhelming. I think the Town Attorney would like to ask two questions. I am not sure if it is of Carmella or -- MR. ARNOFF: I think it is Carmella. I for one, Carmella, did not agree with your conclusions that a corporation is (phrase inaudible to tape) as big as the number of shareholders that a corporation is a person, I understand about the State of New York, a person has been defined as a person that can sue and be sued and treated in all respects as a person. Consequently, it would appear to me that you don't have an Association in fact (phrase indistinguishable)° Application of Gardiner's Bay Homeowners' Association, Inc. (Multi-voices indecipherable.) MR. ARNOFF: I am certainly not implying that. I have known you long enough. If you had an association, perhaps the. point might be well taken. You have a corporation. And by the strict interpretation of our statute, it is the number of boats owned and, if one reads the statute~ as I'm sure you have and I have many times-- it is owner-boats plus two; and the owner in this case is the Gardiner's Bay Estates Homeowners Association, Inco It is not individual owners of the lotso That is, I think, one of the major problems of interpretation. (Multi-voices indecipherable). Board of Appeals Hearings 62 February 23, 1993 MISS BORELLI: I agree that is the problem in that because it is a corporation, we have a problem as to whether the individual members within the corporation can be termed owners, and I agree with you that the law calls-- MR. ARNOFF: If I slip and fall on this property, I can't sue each individual owner. I am going to sue the corporation. MISS BORELLI: Yes. Absolutely. I don't disagree with you. MR. ARNOFF: You can't have it both ways. You can't pierce the corporate veil-- MiSS BORELLI: (Interposing) But -- MR. ARNOFF (continuing): --for one purpose and not for another. MISS BORELLI: If you follow your interpretation to the end, it means that the association that owns this land could never put a dock there, could never put a boat there~ could never utilize the ability that they have under the Code. MR. ARNOFF: They have a dock for two boats, owner's boat plus two. MISS BORELLI: Plus two visits (sic). MR. ARNOFF: It might mean that. I didn't draft this legislation. I had nothing to do with this legislation. MISS BORELLI: I agree. Board of Appeals Hearings 63 February 23, 1993 MR. ARNOFF: I inherited this legislationo But, unfortunately it is the law and it is up to this Board --not up to me and not up to you-- to interpret. I am not --and they are going to do, thank goodness, what they feel is right, not necessarily what your interpretation or mine is of the law. MISS BORELLI: But if we go back, to follow what you said before even further, if we go back and we make them now an Association --an unincorporated Association as opposed to a corporation-- MR. ARNOFF: If you can do that -- I don't know that it would be by virtue of the original covenants and restrictions-- MISS BORELLI: I (interposing, interlapping of voices so machine gets neither). MR. ARNOFF (continuing) --restrictions by the Planning Board, you could do that and (overlapping voices again unintelligible to %ape)-- MISS BORELLI: I haven't looked at them, I haven't researched it, but if we could do that, -- MR. ARNOFF: Then you might-- MISS BORELLI (continuing): --then you are going to have 174 plots as listed on that map which is (overlapping voices). MR. ARNOFF: May or may not because then you would have to deal with the Trustees and the DEC and everyone else, Board of Appeals Hearings 6~ February 23, 1993 who will limit you in a different way; and what you said at the beginning in your request of Mr. Goehringer about limiting the scope of'the hearing so to speak, and his statements were correct --This Board, it is true, has a different jurisdiction and makes different f:~?~n~' ~ than any one of those Boards. We had that discussion with Mr. Goehringer and one of the Trustees at a hearing under an'appeal in the coastal erosion management just last week. Each Board stands alone and makes its own decision within its own jurisdictional limitation; but they can't put blinders on and say these things didn't exist and we are not going to look. MISS BORELLI: I agree with that totally, but I don't want to make this where we are arguing what the fingers look like, what the length of the catwalk is, because that is not the question. That is not before us. The question here is how many boats can you -doc~/ ' and are they, because they are a corporation, entitled to put unlimited number of boats as (one word indistinguishable), and I think that is (runs off end of tape and no record) MR. ARNOFF: You mean you didn't ask them yet? (Interrupted by laughter.) MR. ARNOFF: That goes-back to the old joke with one attorney in town-- THE CHAIRMAN: Having been on the road since six o'clock this morning Multi-voices). Board of Appeals Hearings 65 February 23, 1993 Are you MR. ARNOFF: /~ .~illing to limit any future expansion on this site? MR. MATZEN: When and if it becomes full, yes; but the one to determine that is the Army. Army --even though it is an Army and not a Navy-- theirs is rights of passage in water, the Army Corps of Engineers, and they are the ones, if there is a complaint about the boats are too close, they will Jump right in on you. And they came down --Six men came down because of complaints alleged, letters by a few of our members. And they all said there is no problem here, the dimensions are on 90 feet across, 300 foot across on the other side of that 187 feet. There is more than enough room for these boats. MISS BORELLI: If you wanted us to consider that, we certainly could place the question before the Board of Directors and have them discuss it and see whether --Larry, of course, cannot make a decision-- The Board is made up of many members-- We would certainly be amenable to place that suggestion before the Board, to have them discuss it and see if they are willing to put a ceiling. THE CHAIRMAN: When are they going to meet? When can they meet? Can you do it in the wintertime? MR. MATZEN: W~ are due for a meeting March 12th, and the annual meeting will be in July. The spring meeting is usually around March. Board of Appeals Hearings 66 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: So we will just hold this over until the last hearing in the March meeting, and then you can give us a decision, which would be around March 18th. MR. MATZEN: You want to know how many boats we can put in; is that what you are asking? MISS BORELLI: He is asking (inaudible to tape). THE CHAIRMAN: The other thing is, could you furnish us with whatever you have'for that 1990 catwalk that you put in. I'd appreciate that. THE CLERK: I couldn't find any approvals on it. I went down and I made copies, and there were two applications to have it grandfathered for docks that were built back in the sixties; but there was nothing about a 1990 dock. MISS BORELLI: I have it, Linda, because Marie processed it for me. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, we will ask the question of anybody here who may not be at the March meeting, if they would like to speak, either pro or con concerning this interpretation, and as I told you before, I am --sometimes, terms,things get counterproductive, and I mention that to people that you are not limiting it to the specific situation that occurs here and so on and so forth. The reason why I say this is a unique application, ladies and gentlemen, is because you must understand that most of the stuff that comes before us is totally under the jurisdiction of the Town-Trustees. That is Board of Appeals Hearings 67 February 23, 1993 underwater land and water. In this particular case we have underwater land belonging to the Association and the water being under the jurisdiction of the Town Trustees, meaning the tidal water coming in and going out, okay. So --and I will be honest with you-- I am not the most intelligent person in the world, okay? And it takes me a little while to understand these things, so that is the reason why I ask for your indulgence. All right. Who would like to speak in favor of this? If there are spokespersons in the Association, we certainly would like to have those people speak, but we don't want to limit anybody here. Yes, sir; just state your name for the record and you do solemnly swear that everything-- SPEAKER (interrupting): Ralph Martin. I work with Larry. on the marine committee. THE CHAIRMAN: You do solemnly swear everything you are about to tell us is the truth, to the best of your knowledge. MRo MARTIN: To the best of my knowledge. I have been living down there since 1967, about 1967. At that point in time there were very few boats in the lagoon. Why, I don't know° Perhaps there were older folks down there, my mother and father, and so forth. But since then property has changed hands. Younger people have moved in, wishing to have a place for their boats. Because it is a waterfront community, a water-related community, fishing, water-skiing, sailing, just motor-boating for the young kids. My children grew up on the water° They Board of Appeals Hearings 68 February 23, 1993 learned to swim here, and I feel that because the Association does try to provide its membership with the entities that we have, that this should not be looked upon as a "how many boats can you put in there?" but to try to make more members have a place that they can keep their boats to enjoy the water. We are not putting a marina in there. A marina to me means money-making. We don't make any money. You have to wait on a list to try and get a boa~. One of my boats --I have a 36-foot sailboat-- that is moored out in front of my house out in Orient harbor. It just doesn't fit in there. No way in hell it does. Other people who have bought homes from people prior to them, they have noplace to have a boat. Young people come down here, and they would like a place to put their boat because it is a waterfront community. There are no --right now there is no slips available, am I correct, Larry? MR. LARRY MATZEN: Right, there isn't. In fact, we are over. MR. MARTIN: We are over. THE CHAIRMAN: Just let me ask you a question. If you had a storm, similar to the storm we had in December, and that storm occurred when you had your boat moored out in the summer, would you bring that boat into Spring Pond? MR. MARTIN: No, I can't get it in. THE CHAIP~4AN: Because of the fixed keel? Board of Appeals Hearings 69 February 23, 1993 MR. MARTIN: Yes~ because of the depth. I take it to a marina. I have a place there I tie my boat. But the people who move down there, they like to have a boat, and I feel that if the Association can make a floating dock available for a boat up to a point where there is no more room, and yet keep it pristine, keep it looking like a waterfront c'ommunity which it is, I don't really see any reason why that this can't be afforded. We are not doing this on private property, we are doing it on our own property. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. MARTIN: We have the right to put bulkheading in or apply board so it doesn't fill in. We apply for dredging. We can get it dredged with no problem. This property does belong to Gardiners Bay Estates Homeowners Association; and if we can afford our members additional pleasure during the few summer months that we have, I really and truly can't see what major harm there really is. Nobody lives on the boats. There is no sewage going into the water. That is a complete change of bylaws that is in the works now. We don't want this sort of business° We don't want any kids sleeping on the boats overnight. Only because (1) it is against the law to dump raw sewage in; it has to be kept in a holding tank. We don't want children down there sleeping on a boat because of noise which does bother people. Let's face it~ We don't approve of --if you want a fire on the beach, you have to ask permission. We Board of Appeals Hearings 70 February 23, 1993 want to keep it the way it is and what for a waterfront community -- and I don't know how many of you folks on the Board have a boat, whether you do or you don't-- those of you who do I am sure enjoy it; and I can't see keeping or preVenting others who live in that small area from keeping a boat somewhere. That is my Only objection or to want to have a reversal here so that we can do what we want to. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else? In favor? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else, against? Sir, do you solemnly swear that the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? SPEAKER: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: State your name for the record, sir. SPEAKER: My name is Warren Sambach I reside at 462 Bayview Drive, East Marion, New York. I am the husband of the owner of record Lainie M. Sambach (phonetic, no spelling supplied record) and I am also a me~ber of this Association, and I am th~ neighbor most directly affected by this application. I am also a Registered Architect. I am registered in the State of New York, Florida and Arizona. THE CHAIRMAN: What lot numbers do you live on? MR. SAMBACH: My lot numbers are 117 and 118. THECHAIRMAN: Great. Thank you. Board of Appeals Hearings 71 February 23, 1993 MR. SAMBACH: I would like to submit a copy of my professional qualifications, which is one-page written typed. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Whereupon Sambach qualification sheet was received and marked Opponent's Exhibit A in Evidence.) MR~ SAMBACH: I am basically against this proposal. THE CHAIRMAN: We have to ask you to use the mike if you don't mind. Move it right up there, whatever you have to do. MR. SAMBACH: I am against this proposal. And I am also against the manner in which this issue is being brought before this Board tonight° Since the ordinance is quite clear in the language of the meaning of Article 3, Section 100-31 C3. I was going to read the ordinance, but we have heard it enough tonight. I would like to present a panel of pictures which depict a usual summer day at this site. The first panel of pictures is a picture taken from across Spring Pond looking at the subject site. On that same panel is a picture on my property again looking across the site out towards Spring Pond, and the second panel of pictures is 4'pictures at various angles. (Whereupon panels above referred to were received as Opponent's Exhibits A and C in Evidence,) MR. SAMBACH (continuing): When the Board has examined those pictures, I know various Board members have been down there in the dead of winter, which is not what those pictures depict. It is very bleak down there right now. when those Board o~Appeals Hearings 72 February 23, 1993 picture~ were taken, this past summer, and they were developed I think iR~October-- You will notice from those pictures that this site ha~ two existing piers which we have already established, that dock four boats. You will notice that there are two moori~eassociated with that piece of property and that are servi~e~by this piece of property, that people get out to their two boats. You will also notice from that picture that there are five upland boats that' this property accommodates, so that at any ~ne time on this present site, either moored, docked or accommodated, there are eleven boats. You will also notice from those ~ictures that there is a launching ramp, a launching area that ~a~ious members of the Association launch their boats~ Some oR the tenants that rent the houses also launch their boats there. ~What the ordinance says is that an owner can moor, dock or accom~aodate as many boats as the owner owns --and we have heard ~R~t enough tonight-- plus two additional. In this applica~ion I am told that the owner, the Association, does own one boa~ It is that green boat that is moored at that one mooring;~so if the Association does own that one boat, if the registration says on that boat "Gardiners Bay Homeowners Associatlion," then according to the strict interpretation of the ordina~te, this Association can have as many boats as it owns, one, plus the two. That is a total of three for this entire site. Presently there a~e ten or eleven on this area. I think that the proposed Board of Appeals Hearings 73 February 23, 1993 additional four boats are quite excessive, notwithstanding this issue of keeping compliance within the intent of the ordinance. Under the laws of New York, the State of New York, specifically the Town Law Section 267B, it is permitted action by the Board of Appeals. It is the first section. It involves interpretation, requirements, decisions and determinations by the Board of Appeals; and I will quote this section for the record: The Board of Appeals may reverse or affirm wholly or partly or may modify the order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination appealed from and shall make such order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination as in its opinion ought to have been made in the matter by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of such ordinance or local law. And to that end this Board shall have all the powers of that administrative official from whose order, requirement or decision this appeal is taken. What does that say? What that says is that this Board, this Zoning Board of Appeals can interpret the Code either according to what the Building Inspector has said in his notice of disapproval to the Association's application, or this Board, you could find some other meaning, some other interpretation under that particular section 100-31C3a which contains some 29 words that are expressly clear and unequivocal. Board of Appeals Hearings 74 February 23, 1993 If this application tonight were brought forth before you by Mr. Jones, Mr. Jones has 180 linear feet of waterfront property, and he wants six boats --He walks into the Building Department, and Mr. Lessard gives him a Building Permit Application. He fills out that application; he just happens to have two sets of plans with him. He fills out the application, and Mr. Lessard says to him: "How many boats do you want?" Mr. Jones says, "I'd like six boats in front of my house." Mr. Lessard says, well, the ordinance says that you are the owner, and you can have one boat, if you own it, plus two additional. Mr. Jones saays, "Well, I only own one boat." Mr. Lessard then replies: "I can only allow you three." Mr. Jones then says to Mr. Lessard: "Gee, my two neighbors across the street have always been after me for two boats. My father-in-law, who lives in the middle of town half an hour away, would like to dock his boat there, and my brother-in-law just moved in up the block. He has a boat, and his son has a boat, my nephew. I'd like six." Would Mr. Jones be in front of this Board tonight for an interpretation of that section of the Code, or would he be in here for a~special use? And then that owner could try to explain his circumstances and his unnecessary hardships in trying to keep within the intent of the ordinance. I would like to submit a copy of the Town of Southold Conservation Advisory Council which basically says what the applicant has said. The Council recommends disapproval because Board of Appeals Hearings 75 February 23, 1993 it has a policy of one dock with a capacity of four boats. They are generous. On a single piece of property this Council does 'not with to see marinas developed by property associations. (Whereupon paper of Conservation Advisory Council was received and marked Opponent's Exhibit D in Evidence.) MR. SAMBACH: I believe you have that in the record, but I will submit it anyway. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. SAMBACH: I think that the addition of four boats to this piece of property --it is already approaching, if it is not already at marina status. That would be some 14 or 15 boats plus the one. In addition, I would like to submit three copies of letters of three other Association members who really are not in favor of this application also. They are from Dorothy Longworth --I won't read it into the record-- but she is a subject property owner, abutting property owner on the right-of-way; Reverend Henry Ressmeyer; and an Ellen Keating (Phonetic, no spelling supplied record.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Whereupon three letters referred to were received and marked Opponent's Exhibits D, E and F in Evidence.) MR. SAMBACH: In the folder, as mentioned before, you will notice that the Homeowners' Association does have the DEC permit. They also have the letter of approval from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Why? Because they have complied with all Board of Appeals Hearings 76 February 23, 1993 the requirements of those two agencies. They have satisfied all their particular nuances. They have satisfied everything right down, and they were issued the permits and the letter of approval. Now, all of the requirements of the Town of Southold have to be complied with. The Town of Southold is just not in that process of just rubberstamping applications through because there were two other permits. It is not this Town's function, nor have I ever seen it happen. This Association or any other applicant must comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold, and tonight they have asked you to do that by interpreting the Code. Having various members of the Association testify before you tonight appears to me to try to get this interpretation transformed into a use variance. This Board really didn't need that testimony from the Association members to help it interpret those twenty-nine words that are again crystal-clear. This Code applies to me; it applies to the Association. It applies to a farmer. It applies to a business man. It applies to a corporation. This Code applies wherever there is zoning, regardless of who owns the property-- The entire Town of Southold is zoned. This Code, this ordinance, protects my neighbor from me. It doesn't allow me to build my house to the property line. It doesn't allow me to park six tractor-trailer trucks in my front yard, doesn't allow me to have a used-car lot on my side yard because I can't get in the frontyard with the trucks Board of Appeals Hearings 77 February 23, 1993 there-- It protrects my neighbor from me. This Code, this ordinance, also protects me from my neighbor. If someone is not happy with the reading of this Code, their unhappiness cannot be cured within the obvious context of this Code by administrative interpretation, but rather by either legislative action or an application for a use variance. Legislative action meaning modification of the Code; use variance meaning relief from the Code. Interpretation is not the proper vehicle for this application tonight. A request for an interpretation is a rather painfully obvious attempt to avoid an application for use variance which is the proper vehicle for this issue before the Board tonight. Thank you very much for listening. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You want to ask a question? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would like to add -- these 18 or 12 boats you say, are they in the area where the proposed dock for four are to be; or are they inclusive of the entire lagoon? THE CHAIRMAN: Just a minute. You can't ask another member, you have to ask the Board and have it come back. SAME SPEAKER: Okay, if you would be kind enough for my interpretation or for somebody's interpretation, the 12 boats that Mr. Sambach said were in the view of the picture-- MR. SAMBACH: Fifteen. SAME SPEAKER: In the view of the picture that I guess that he showed you -- Are those boats currently or have been Board of Appeals Hearings 78 February 23, 1993 moored where these four floating docks or where these four other slips are? THE CHAIRMAN: It would only make sense before we ask that question of Mr. Sambach, if he has an interest in doing so. To afford you time to look at the pictures, then you miqht want to ask the question, okay, so why don't you do that? And we will take a short break. Again, gentlemen, I need a motion. (Moved, seconded and carried. Resuming.) THE CHAIRMAN: I need a motion to reconvene, Mr. -- (Motion made, seconded and carried; reconvened with members as listed on title page.) THE CHAIRMAN: Could you rephrase that question, sir? The question was: You wanted to-- Oh, you are going to? MISS BORELLI: The question was asked I believe, was how did Mr. Sambach arrive at the number of boats that he arrived at that were at Association moorings; and I have gone over the pictures, and we do not believe that he is interpreting this picture or these pictures correctly, in that we believe that one of the docks shown here is in front of Mr. Sambach's house and has two boats that belong to him° One of the docks is in front of Mr. DeBlasi's house, who is another opponent, and. the two boats belong to him; and that both docks are on actually Association property. They are on their right-of-way and perhaps that is how he is interpreting it; but they do belong to him and the other neighbor who is in opposition; and that in the Board of Appeals Hearings 79 February 23, 1993 picture if you take --which Mr. Matzen tells me this is incorrect of how you look at it from an angle-- Your perspective is off in looking at it. There are actually only three boats in here that are Association boats that are docked out here. Two, two boats. MRo SAMBACH: That is okay. I will try to clarify it for the Board. My pier and float have two boats. DeBlasi's pier and float have two boats. There are two more, the RessmeYers and Mr. Clark's, that are right in front of his piece of property. Then the upland boats are I believe it is Warren Brewers, Larry Matzen's, Warren Sambach, Sr., and the two other rowboats are Ressmeyers. MR. MATZEN: You are talking about dinghys. (Multiple voices together on boats impossible to straighten out and record.) MR. SAMBACH: My boat is not in this picture. MR~ MATZEN: Your 16-foot, you don't have it there right now, but since 1988 you had a 16-foot rowboat up on that property. MRo SAMBACH: 19~8. MR. MATZEN: You just got rid of it. MR. SAMBACH: Last July. It is not here. MR. MATZEN: Am I telling a falsehood? MR. SAMBACH: My boat is not in any of those pictures° The only one is at my dock. Board of Appeals Hearings 80 February 23, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: I believe the gentleman in the pink sweater wanted to speak? Again, sir, the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? SPEAKER: It is. THE CHAIRMAN: State your name for the record please. SPEAKER: My name is Richard DeBlasi (no spelling supplied). My wife Judith DeBlasi and I own a piece of property that is contiguous to the parcel that is under question and is shown on your map as Lot 120, 121. After the paper work and plans or drawings were submitted by a Marine Committee to the Corps of Engineers, I received a letter as a contiguous property owner from the Department of the Army sending me a copy of the drawings, a cross-section of the drawings, and asking me to within 15 days comment on the drawings and what was being proposed. I have the letter from the Department of the Army, if you would like. THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. (No exhibit designation given on the record.) MR. DeBlasi: My wife in our answer to the Department of the Army's letter was summarized in a two-minute letter which I would like to read to you. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. DeBLASI: It is addressed to the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, dated April 7, 1992, Attention Mr. Hagerty, Chief, Eastern Permit Section~ Board of Appeals Hearings 81 February 23, 1993 Thank you for your letter of March 26 advising me of the aforementioned subject matter. While my criticisms may not come under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army, I and many other residents of the affected area in question, question the need, the feasibility and the possible dangerous end results of said construction. At present, marine navigation in Spring Pond is poor due in part to the shallowness of the pond and the minimal width of the waterway. Boaters must use extreme caution particularly in the inside half of the pond which is the narrowest area. This is the area in which the proposed pier and float are to be located. The two largest in both length and width boats in the pond must travel past this proposed area to arrive at their respective dockage and mooring area. The dimensions of the new constructions is such that the new floats will protrude further into the existing waterway, thus contributing to more navigational problems. Moored boats in the pond have radius swings due to the winds, tides, and length of chain that at this point are too close for comfort. Because of the confined area, one boat has fore-and-aft mooring to prevent swing damage. More damage in the mooring area will propagate the already --correction-- More dockage mooring area will propagate the already dangerous situation in this location. More boats and floats in the confined area are obviously a dangerous navigational situation. However, one of our paramount concerns is the ecology. If the pond were to lose this natural Board of Appeals Hearings 82 February 23, 1993 haven and nesting place for the very active wildlife population, plus the abundant marine life and vegetation, and the natural environment no longer exists. Additional boats, docks, floats, construction, dredging and the like are detrimental to the environment. It is primarily for these reasons that I, my family, and so many of our neighbors vehemently object to this proposed construction, and I thank you for the opportunity to air my views on the subject. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank yo~, sir. You did have an application before this Board for a deck on the front or back of your house? That is where we had met you? MR. SA~BACH: Right. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Yes, Mr. Matzen? MR. MATZEN: This is in answer to that letter. He sent that to the Army and one to the Town, and one to the DEC, and the State. I answered that letter. I am not going over it. I went over every point in it. A thing like nesting place. There has never been a nesting place on that area in the history of the place, never been a nest. I will ask, has he ever seen one? Have you ever seen a nest? THE CHAIRF~N: He doesn't have to answer that. MR. MATZEN: I am sorry; I shouldn't have done that. The letter was discounted. The fact that he brought up. the danger to navigation, the Army was concerned about that. Mr. Hagerty and five people, the whole Eastern.mid-section, from the Board of Appeals Hearings 83 February 23, 1993 Army in New York came down and knocked down everyone of his complaints. They laughed at him. He said at the narrowest point --His dock is at the narrowest point, and 90 degrees at that site, it is 90 feet across; 187 feet away on our property it is 300 feet across; so there is no danger to navigation. Oh, and the sailboat is purposely moOred fore and aft because you have a five-foot draft and it is the only 5-foot hole in the lake, so we allow him to moor fore and aft; and when he said they overlap, all the swings-- No swing overlaps in the whole place. If one boat went against it and the wind blew another one this way, they can't touch. Each circle is set apart. Each circle is 100 feet swing, and each circle is set apart from every other circle. That is why there is only ten moorings in there. We don't want any one slip there during a storm. During the hurricane, not one boat slipped the mooring. No boat ever hit each other. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So, Miss Borelli, what we are going to do here then at this point is, the Association is going to have their annual meeting, their first preliminary annual meeting, and they are going to get back to us on the issue of what the max is, all right, at our next meeting or-- MISS BORELLI: What we would like to have them do is meet and discuss whether they are amenable to set a max. Are we going to close this? THE CHAIRMAN: No. Board of Appeals Hearings 84 February 23, 1993 MISS BORELLI: We are going to leave it open? THE CHAIRMAN: Leave it open. THE CLERK: I will re-advertise it when you are ready. THE CHAIRMAN: So everybody can come back. MEMBER VILkA: I got a question on the catwalks right now. I thought they were Association catwalks. But this gentleman Sanburg says he has one and the other gentleman has one. THE CLERK: He built them, but it is'on Association land. MEMBER VILLA: I have a question. We are hearing about these catwalks, and I thought they were Association catwalks; but this gentleman mentioned that they charged people $50 a year, I think, for the use of them. MR. MATZEN: Mr. DeBlasi and Mr. Sambach each had a catwalk leading to a ramp out to floats. MEMBER VI[[~: Now who owns them? MR. MATZEN: They both own them. MEMBER.~I[E~: And they are on Association property? MR. MATZEN: Yes. As long as I know --I have a record 6f Mr. DeBlasi signing a lease back in '78. I know what he was paying since then. MEMBER VILLA: But they built them, they own them. Board of Appeals Hearings 85 February 23, 1993 MR. MATZEN: Sambach's dock was built by Mr. Sheeby (phonetic,. no spelling supplied record), the house owner before that; and DeBlasi's was, I believe, built by Martin. MEMBER'VTLLA: So the Association really does not own those catwalks? MR. MATZEN: No.. THE CHAIR/~AN: But the elongation of these catwalks are going to be done by whom? MR. MATZEN: The Association would take over Mr. Sambach's spot and place his dock at the center-finger. To accommodate him, and he would have lifetime use of it, first refusal. THE CHAIRMAN: Now it is coming. M~BER-VILLA: I didn't know who owned the lots. (Coughing & many undecipherable voices.) THE CHAIRMAN: You can see, and I am trying to bring this in, how complex it is. It is very, very complex. And it is only to everyone's advantage that we understand the entire situation. It is nothing if I came down last Saturday and looked at it and spoke to you =-I still wouldn't have an entire picture, and we are still building this picture now. MISS BORELLI: Have you attended at the site to take a look? Perhaps we can arrange to--. THE CHAIRMAN: We were all there. So I think what we should do is. let's digress and do it, what basically the Town Board of Appeals Hearings 86 February 23, 1993 Attorney had suggested, and we will come back here and we will attempt to make a decision after the hearing is closed. MISS BORELLI: Since we are leaving the hearing open, that means that I can put in some additional data? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MSMB~R DINIZI0~ Could I ask a question? I would like to ask what you are going back for, okay? In my mind -- I understand the, being an incorporated association or however, and you are asking us to use some common-sense'in how this thing has developed. What I would like, information I would like personally, is for the Association to consider what they feel is their maximum in that whole scheme of things becaause --understand what Jerry is saying-- you are trying to teach us what is going on there. It has never happened before, as far as I can -- And if you can tell us what your limit is or what you have in mind your limit, it certainly would help me. You know, to determine the common-sense part of it, okay? MISS BORELLI: That is exactly what we are going to go back and have brought up for discussion, and we understand that in essence you are sitting on the horns of a dilemma here because this is only the first of what is going to occur, and we understand that, and-- THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): That is the whole issue, what~- This is not just Gardiner's Bay Estates Association Club or whatever. This is Southold Town, ladies and gentlemen, as Board of Appeals Hearings 87 February 23, 1993 you see it. This is the way the Town was built; this is the way the Town is going to continue, and you know, precedence is precedent° It may not be as sophisticated as what we read in the lawbooks, but it goes down in our records; and this is the way it is built upon. And this is the way we go. MR. SAMBACH?: I would just ask you to consider that when you think. MISS BORELLI: We will definitely have that under consideration so that we can hopefully come to something that makes all of us, not 'totally happy, but somewhat happy. THE CHAIRMAN: Good. We would like to thank everybody's courtesy because you are very, very courteous people, and we do appreciate that. Safe home, and we will see you very shortly. I need a motion, gentlemen, to recess without a date. (Moved, seconded, and carried. See Clerk's record.) (End of 2/23/93 evening hearings typed from recording tape. jdr)