Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/22/1993 HEARING PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF zoNING APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 22, 1993 (7:30 p.m. Hearings Commenced) P r e s e n t : HON. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman JAMES DINIZIO, JR., Member ROBERT A. VILLA, Member RICHARD C. WILTON, Member (Absent: SERGE DOYEN, Member) LINDA KOWALSKI, clerk-Assistant to Board ~,~E!VED AND FILED BY 17qE SOUTHOLD TO~VN CLF~RK INDEX HEARINGS OF JWJNE 22, 1993 REGULAP, ZBA MEETING APP.$ APPLICANT PAGES 4172 JANET A. FERGUSON 2-13 4171 THOMAS W. BUCKNER 14-19 4168 THOMAS AND KATPILE~MANGIAMELE 20-23 4173 CROSS STITCH CAT LTD./ALLOBRICK REALTY CORP. 24-27 4170 THEODORE AND MARIA PETIKAS 28-31 4174 HENRIETTA AND ARTHUR MORMILE 32-34 4176 JOHN AND CONSTANCE CRONIN 35-38 4072 VARUJAN ARSLANYAN 39-47 4175 PATRICIA STIEFER 48-57 4169 GOP~ON PRICE - postponement without a date as requested by Gordon Price 58 ZBA HEARINGS 2 Juno 22, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4172 - JANET A. FERGUSON. Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Section 100-101 (Bulk Schedule) for permission to construct single-family residence (in lieu of constructing business building with reduced setback and side yards as noted in Appeal No. 1705 issued March 8, 1973). This parcel consists of 34,550+- sq. ft. and is located in the "B" Business Zone District. Location of Property: Westerly side of Central Avenue, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-006-008-006. 7:30 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a map produced by Chandler, Palmer and King received by us on June 1st, 1993. The date of the map is April 13, 1993, indicating the approximate location of the house and the specific area surrounding the house in reference to its locationon the Suffolk County Tax Map, showing this and surrounding properties. Mr. Hamm, would you like to be heard? Appearance: Stephen Lo Ham III, Esq. 45 Hampton Rd., Southampton, NY, for the Record, for Applicant I have prepared a memorandum here so that I could make my presentation fairly short. ZBA HEARINGS 3 June 22, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. HAM: In support of the application, .I will just highlight basically what we are trying to do here, and that is to construct a single-family residence and garage in what is now a business district. This is different from the usual use variance application. Normally you would 'have people coming in here trying ~o get a business use in a residential district~ So what we are trying to do actually is apply more restrictive regulations to the property. As you know, you have received some correspondence from two of the neighboring property owners, Mrs. West and the Fishers Island Utility Company, which uses an adjoining property for the telephone company. Mrsl West is in support of it. I have spoken to Mrs~ Ahman who owns propertyon the northeast side of the property, and she has also told me she is in support. Her property is used as a residence as are the West properties intended to be used as a residence, as you will see from a letter that Mrs. West has written to Mrs..Ferguson that I have attached as an exhibit° In addition to the property on the west of Edwards, it is residential, so what we are doing in effect will not change the character of this neighborhood. Basically, it would be expanding to some extent the residential district° We are not trying to put a residence in the middle of a business district~ nor are we arguing the other way, as is usual in a use case, and that is to try to use residential property for business purposes; so I would submit to you that ZBA HEARINGS 4 June 22, 1993 the character of the neighborhood would be improved even if the variance is granted. If it is not granted, you may have a business here which may affect the residential area that is contiguous to it. So what we would be doing is possibly eliminating what might be more traffic noise in this area, and feel it is the type of thing that the Board should be in favor of. THE CHAIRMAN: It is a unique request. There is no question about it. Of course, notwithstanding that tennis court that you had last. year. That will probably go down in the annals of unique situations. But you certainly do bring some unique situations. MR. HAM: Even earlier this year we were eliminating a two-family situation, so I think from a public policy standpoint, these types of applications are good. And also I might add, and I have made this argument in my memorandum, that apparently Mr. Zabohonski had a business use of his. property and he needed variances just to get setbacks; and if you look at the purpose, and I am pointing this out, of the General Business District, it is really for high-volume, high-traffic on major highways, those types of uses. Obviously Fishers Island is different from that, so it is not really appropriate then, and I have informed Mrs. Ferguson of the letter from Tom Doherty (phonetic) of the Utility Company, and she is willing to accept as a condition to any variance, that she will not pave over that ZBA HEARINGS 5 June 22, 1993 portion of the property that is the subject of the telephone/electric easement. So she is trying to accommodate, and she is aware, and I have pointed out the good points that Mr. Doherty makes, namely, that there will be times where there may be unpleasan~ odors, and so forth; but as I also say in my memorandum, by granting this variance, you would not be creating that situation. That situation already exists. By not granting the variance, you could conceivably allow another business to go in there on a relatively small piece of property, and that may have an adverse impact on the adjoining residential neighborhood, so we feel from both the private property owner's' standpoint and the Town, that this would be a good one to go with. THE CHAIRMAN: It raises an interesting point about sterilization, I mean, ate we in effect, if the variance was granted, sterilizing the property? If it is going to be used for residential purposes. And what would be the future use of subsequent owners, if Mrs. Ferguson chose not to use the property, or sell the property, you know, for anything other than a residential use? MR. HAM: Well, I think you can condition your variance as, at least as superseding the prior variance which required setback relief, and therefore would still have some control over the property if anybody ever wanted to develop it for commercial purposes. I think if you look at that section of ZBA HEARINGS 6 June 22, 1993 the zoning ordinance 100, it is, the business district, it so states is designed for larger parcels on major highways with many motorists, and so forth, so that it would be hard to develop this property I think without a variance for business purposes, and she is quite willing to give up ~he existing variance. Whether you have to authority to --which I don't think you do-- one would have to go to the Town Board to literally change it forever. You would grant a variance in this case to allow residential structure to be created. Down the road whether that could be torn down and business put in, that is a question I haven't really considered. CLERK KOWALSKI: What about covenants? Are you talking about land covenants? THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that is basically one of the things I think we could do --and, basically, that is what you said. MR, HAM: I said -- THE CHAIRMAN: The reason why I say that, this is a unique situation. A very, very small amount of people-- MR. HAM: You usually have somebody coming the other way. THE CHAIRMAN: Always the other way, sure. I mean you are upzoning a property, is what you are doing. In use, not in zoning, okay. ZBA HEARINGS 7 June 22, 1993 CLERE KOWALSKI: And they are willing to file covenants of the land, right, the owners are, to go indefinitely? MEMBER WILTON: What is the supply of business zoned property on Fishers Island? MRo HAM: It is really spotty. I think what they did was, wh~re it was, drew the line. And as I say, the property on the northeast here, which is identified as Ahman, that was Gordon Ahman's real estate office, and he has since died, and his wife is An the house and she is fully in support obviously of any residential neighbort would tend to support something like this. Whether my client would be willin~ to~ who knows circumstances --these are her intentions. In fact: she wants to start building yesterday a residence here. So whether a covenant would be palatable, certainly a condition to the variance that no, or even if it were necessary to file a covenent stating that that easement would not be paved over to make it accessible to the electric company, would be acceptable; but circumstances change so-- MEMBER WILTON: There should also be some reference as to noise and odors from the utility company. MR. HAM: You mean acknowledging that fact, that is pre-existing. Again, I think it is enough to put it in a variance that you might grant to this property. To file it, I khow with Planning Board matters, we have been required to file when we are within one mile of Elizabeth Airport, the covenant ZBA HEARINGS 8 June 22, 1993 that we recognize that there is noise there, just so they don't come back and complain; but I would think it would be enough to put it in any grant of the variance. Obviously we try to avoid burdening the property with an additional covenant; and I think obviously anyone who acquires this property would take subject to at least constructive knowledge that a variance has been granted and has certain conditions, but if that is necessary, I could obviously tell her. THE CHAIRMAN: The concern is this: And I think it was clearly stated in a symmetrical nature, and that was that if she chose to either sell the property, or if whatever reason the house ultimately wanted to be business, right, I am not sure it would meet the specific criteria, and that is where my concern is, so I think possibly a covenant would be in order. MR. HAM: What specific criteria do you mean? THE CHAIRMAN: Well, you know it is not built for wheelchair use; it is not built, doesn't have this, doesn't have that. This is a residential structure, okay? MR. HAM: I see. THE CHAIRMAN: And that is what my concern is, all right? I personally --and I am not speaking for my fellow Board members nor do you see the Board member from Fishers Island here-- I don't have any problems with a zoning use, which is what we are actually doing here; but I do think that a covenant in reference to this particular building is in order, right. ZBA HEARINGS 9 June 22, 1993 MR. HAM: As long as it can state that.if it ever is~ you know, I don't want to abandon completely because who knows what is going to happen. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, as per the building, yes~ Okay, I am not asking you to take away the zoning underwrapping but why don~t you draft up something for us, and we will review it~ in reference to and have the Town Attorney review it, in reference to the use of the dwelling, and we are specifically referring to it as a dwelling because it is going to be a dwelling. MR. HAM: All right. CLERK KOWALSKI: You are saying if they should go to business use, they can convert as long as-- THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): No, they can't convert. CLERK KOWALSKI: What are you saying then? THE CHAIRMAN: I am saying that they may have to tear the building down or modify it to a certain degree, that it is going to be-- MR. HAM (continuing): If that dwelling is put there, and if this property is ever converted to business use, that it will have to comply with whatever regulations-- THE CHAIRMAN: And it would have to come back here and we would have to relieve that o~iginal condition that we did. MR. HAM: All right. So you want-- ZBA HEARINGS 10 June 22, 1993 CLERK KOWALSKI: What about the use variance criteria that have to be met though? Such as economic return, and so on? THE CHAIRMAN: I am not so sure that that is particularly in order in reference to an upzone situation. MR. HAM: I have put in an argument, you mean unde~ the Town~ law, what your mandate is. CLERK KOWALSKI: The variance would apply. I would check into it. MR. HAM: I have -- you will see in my memorandum, I have addressed that to some extent, short, however, of going through extensive appraisals and so forth. But I make the argument basically that Fishers Island is unique, it is different; it is not intended for this. People would want to use their property on Fishers primarily for residential purposes. That is its value. Zabohonski got a variance to put a commercial building there, never did so. It was not sold to someone who wanted to develop it for business. CLERK KOWALSKI: But you are saying it might be sold in the future for business, too, right? MR. HAM: I don't want to rule that out, no. For all I know-- CLERK KOWALSKI: Okay. MR. HAM: My client intends to build a residence there, live there for the rest of her life~ or sell it to someone else who, having put substantial improvements there, ZBA HEARINGS 11 June 22, i993 would also use it for a residence. You are quite correct in saying that there are standards under the Town Law for granting use variances that do involve economic benefit, and I think that our burden should be, as Jerry said, much less in this case where we are upzoning to prove that° If you find that you would need appraisals as to how this really can't be sold as a business property or developed as a business property, I mean people go to Fishers Island to escape that; and as I point out, the purpose of this general business district is for large parcels with heavy traffic. If you look at that section, it just is not appropriate for this parcel, is my argument. THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't you put the "whatdoyou callits" together for us; what I think we really should do is take a trip over there. CLERK KOWALSKI: We don't have photographs. THE CHAIRMAN (continuing) --within the next couple weeks; and we have done that before. It is just that our Fishers Island Board member is away, and I think that is what we will do. We will take a trip over there. MR. HAM: Meantime do you want me to prepare some sort of a covenant? THE CHAIRMAN: A covenant. Please do. All right. Then we will submit that whole thing. ZBA HEARINGS 12 June 22, 1993 MR. HAM: In particular now, this covenant is really just so they can't do both? Or is it just that you don't want them at all to be able to revert back to business?' THE CHAIRMAN: I don't want the house to revert back to a business without two things, the relieving of whatever, if we are iDclined to do so, all right; we may not be inclined to do so based upon the review of this, okay? And, Number Two, that it is not an automatic situation. MRo HAM: We're not entitled to have a business if they have this residence. THE CHAIRMAN: This is not necessarily an upzone. This is an up-class, all right. And that is my opinion. CLERK KOWALSKI: There is only one use on the property we are talking about. MR. HAM: At any given time. If it ever were to revert to business, they either would have to level it completely or adapt it. MEMBER DINIZIO: If you are going to write covenants, you are going to write, to restrict your use as a right. In other words, if you have a business piece of property, you have as a right to be able to put a piece of business in there regardless; and we really can't take that away. MR. HAM: That's right. That's what I don't want to give that up at this point. I am willing, however, to say that if and when it ever is used for business purposes, that we will ZBA HEARINGS 13 June 22, 1993 .come back to you with the --we would need apparently, with that easement there, and the more restrictive setbacks that are required, except for side yards, I guess. THE CHAIRMAN: And site plan and parking. MR. HAM: We are willing to do that, but I don't want to, because we feel we are doing something positive-- Who knows down the road what some future owner may want to do. 'THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Against it? Seeing no hands, I make a motion recessing this hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting pending both a review of the data requested from the attorney Mr. Stephen Ham and a trip to Fishers Island in reference to a fl.eld location. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's Minutes.) ZBA HEARINGS 14 ~ June 22, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4171 - THOMAS W. BUCKNER. Property Location: Private Road off East End Road, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-010-05-2.2 Request for a variance under Article III, Section 100-32, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct westerlyaddition to dwelling.with an insufficient side yard setback in this R-120 zone district. 7:45 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: The request in (a) on No. 4152 has been changed, so I will go on to (b) which is 4171, request for variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-32, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct westerly addition to dwelling with an insufficient side yard setback in this R-120 zone district. We have a map, actually a survey, again produced by Chandler, Palmer and King, dated January 13, 1993, indicating the nature of this application, which is side yard setback. Mr. Ham? Appearance: Stephen L.Ham II/, Esq. 45 Hampton Rd., Southampton, NY, for the Applicant MR. HAM: As far as you are aware, the DEC and the Trustees have --well, we don't have the final permit from the DEC but the comment period has expired and we expect to have ZBA HEARINGS 15 June 22, 1993· that, and the Trustees have approved this and also, I understand that 75-foot setback may be out of your jurisdiction. THE CHAIRMAN: Right, as of 6/18, I guess.. That has to be filed with the Secretary of State. CLERK KOWALSKI: It has been on the 18th; it was passed on the 15th. MR. HAM: So this basically comes down to a request for a 25-foot side yard setback, as opposed to -- THE CHAIRMAN: Reduced to fifteen, is that what it is? MR. HAM: No. It is 25. Just so you are aware, I had submitted the plans. What my client is doing is putting on two additions. He is a pianist and one of these additions will be · for his practice and so forth; and the other for his wife who is a dancer, so basically it is a dance studio and music studio, and the architect has advised me that they tried to keep it as small as possible for he is the one that will be using it as the music studio, the one·that impinges on the side yard setback. They tried to keep it as small as possible to allow people in there to comment and also have proper acoustics. They do need separation from the two studios because of the sounds emitted. You will also note this is a relatively narrow lot, although it is not stated on the survey, I have confirmed and I mentioned it in the application and have confirmed that its size is 1.91 adres, which is roughly 83,200 square feet; and what we would argue is that it would be more appropriate to apply in this ZBA HEARINGS 16 June 22, 1993 instance the R-80 setbacks, which this would conform to, and he would have as a matter of right, in fact, under Section 100-244C of the Zoning Ordinance had the Vipco (phonetic, no spelling supplied record) subdivision map been filed with the County. As you know, that has a relief provision for filed subdivision maps where yQu can apply setbacks that were in effect at the time of filing. FIDCO map was approved by the Planning~Board in '82 when Health Department late '87, early '88, and there was a lot of hullaballoo a couple years ago trying to get that filed. It finally was in '91. I had spoken to Mr. Lessard. I think the Building Department has routinely --not in any case I have had specifically but on information and belief-- has literally applied R-80 setbacks to people who applied for building permits without sending them in here; and there is evidence of that, as you know, when I submitted this application for notice of disapproval on the freshwater wetland setback, that's all that came back. I mean this showed a sideyard of 25 feet in an R-120 District. They did not disapprove it until Miss Kowalski kicked it back to them for disapproval. I don't disagree with you in terms of the fact that R-120 should apply to this property. I think that is proper. However, as I say, given the fact that the lot is relatively narrow and it has been a practice basically really for al/ intents and purposes the bid comeout should have been filed at a time when an owner would have been entitled to relief under 100-244C for filed map. I was able to ZBA HEARINGS 17 June 22, 1993 get today from the Chandler, Palmer and King a site plan on the adjoining property where they had proposed a new guest house and you have a setback --It shows the old residence as it exists. There is a full 50 feet there, so what we are talking about I don't think is going to affect views and so forth. Another point is while the property does open up as we move toward the back, obviously we would be moving into closer into wetlands and the tidal wetlands and so forth, if we were to do it that way. I have already made the point that there really needs to be separation of these two studios, so I don't think this is particularly extreme request under these circumstances'. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody have any questions of Mr. Ham? THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor? THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody against? THE CHAIRMAN: Any objection to this application~ anybody? THE CHAIRMAN: This is a non-commercial thing, strictly for their own use? MR. HAM: Absolutely. Any commercial use would be out of bounds. MR. HAM: Before you close that, they do intend to move the shed to a conforming location. So anything you grant can be conditioned on that or on proof~ if we can get it, the ZBA HEARINGS 18 June 22, 1993 history of this is rather vague -- that it is a pre-existing structure. CLERK KOWALSKI: You also need permits for that, right? MR. HAM: Well, yes, we would have to prove -- apparently when they issued a CO on this, it didn't cover that, didn't cover the deck, I mean the shed. It looks older. There is a picture there. The house was built in '85. Whether it was there -- I represented the people that sold the property to Mr. Buckner, so I got him a C00., and they didn't say, "Well, where is the C.O. for the shed," so-- but, yes, we will accept a condition that either we prove that it is legal where it is or that it be moved to a conforming location or to a location nearer than 75 feet but with a proper permit. MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think you should condition it though. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll put that in the findings. MR. HAM: Before a permit is issued. THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, right. So do you want to incorporate that, James? In the findings, not necessarily in the decision? MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. CLERK KOWALSKI: 25 foot $ideyard? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, right. CLERK KOWALSKI: Okay. ZBA HEARINGS 19 June 22, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Second by Mr. Wilton. Ail in favor? (Ayes.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Ham. Nice seeing you. ZBA HEARINGS 20 June 22, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4168 - THOMAS and KATHLEEN MANGIAMELE. ~Request for variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.4 (100-33) for permission to locate accessory garage in the front yard area. This parcel technically has two front yards. Location of Property: 3180 Duck Pond .Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-83-2-19.7. 7:59 p.m. (The chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I hope I am pronouncing your name correctly. I have a copy of a survey indicating the present two-story stucco dwelling that is constructed a little off-center on the property, but'for all intents and purposes as close to center as possible. The driveway comes in on a right-of-way to the dwelling, which is off of Duck Pond Road. However, the house faces toward the portion of Duck Pond Road which leads down to Long Island Sound; and this applicant is requesting a garage of 18 by 22 in the front yard area. May I just ask you to use the "mike" if you would. Appearance: Thomas Mangiamele, Applicant pro se. THE CHAIRMAN: Could you give us an approximate location from Duck Pond Road, the lower Duck Pond Road, to the approximate proposed location of the garage? You don't have to give it to us tonight. ZBA HEARINGS 21 June 22, 1993 MR. MANGIAMELE: About a hundred feet° .Maybe about 125 feet. CLERK KOWALSKI: On the north side? MR. MANGIAMELE: Plus the roll --we are up on a cliff and it is kind of like an all-wooded area and slopes off, which we can't use that property anyway. That is why we want to build up top, because that is where our driveway ends. THE CHAIRMAN: If you should happen to find a difference in that location, would you just let us know please so that we could put it in the --I know it is very difficult %o measure something like that. The way you have that so totally foliated, it is -- MR. MANGIAMELE: Plus all the poison ivy. Every time I mow my lawn, I have trouble. THE CHAIRMAN: You are talking to somebody who gets poison ivy. All right, what is unique about the building that you want to construct? Anything? MR. MANGIAMELE: Well, no. We just purchased the house about six months ago and are living there all year ~round. The previous owner converted the two-car .garage itself into a big living room, so really the only feasible place for it is a detached garage, and it is where the end of our driveway comes in. Even though our address is Duck Pond Road, you can see we are about 170 feet off Duck Pond. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. ZBA HEARINGS 22 June 22, 1993 MR. MANGIAMELE (continuing): With that flagged part of the property. When you turn into our driveway, we want the garage right there at the end of the driveway, so there is really no other place to put it and it is feasible. THE CHAIRMAN: Is this going to be one-story or two-story? MR. MANGIAMELE: One story. THE CHAIRMAN: What kind of utility is it going to have? Other than electric, anything? MR. MANGIAMELE: That's it, just electric° THE CHAIRMAN: Approximate height to the top of the ridge? MR. MANGIAMELE: I am not sure because we had a builder design it for us. I think you have a copy. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't see it, but even if I did look at it -- So if we said not to exceed 14 feet in height, I think that would probably take the whole thing in. CLERK KOWALSKI: State according to Code. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MR. MANGIAMELE: I guess you'll let us know by mail; is that the way it works? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, or you can give us a call tomorrow. What is the approximate side yard dimension? ZBA HEARINGS 23 June 22, 1993 MR. MANGIAMELE: Side yard approximate? On that side over where the garage is going? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. MANGIAMELE: Oh, I'd say about over 50 feet. THE CHAIRMAN: It looks like 21 feet 3 inches. CLERK KOWALSKI: No, it says 15 feet on here. You have 15 foot setback on the map on the sketch, on the west side line. MR. MANGIAMELE: What we are going to do is, yes, from the side here to the property line will be about 15 feet, at least 15 feet. -- THE CHAIRMAN: Good. Thanks very much. MR. MANGIAMELE: Okay. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIR/~N: Anybody against the application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's Minutes.) ZBA HEARINGS 24 June 22, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4173 - CROSS STITCH CAT LTD. and ALLOBRICK REALTY CORP. Request for approval of square footage/dimensions of second ground sign, as proposed. Location of Property: 13400 Main Road, Mattituck, NY. Subject premises is zoned Hamlet-Business and is identified as Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-114-11-9.3. 8:03 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: We have a letter in the file from Mr. O'Connor, and we have a copy of the original sign, and we have approximate posts, an indication of how the sign is to be fastened, and I guess that should take care of it. I will ask: Who would like to speak, Mr. O'Connor? Appearance: Steven O'Connor, Applicant pro se0 MR. O'CONNOR: Basically, we relocated one block east of where we were. THE CHAIRMAN: Is this the original sign that was hanging up on the-- MR. O'CONNOR: Correct. We are proposing to mount it on two 6 by 6 posts in the grassy area to make it symmetrical with the use sign on the west side of the building. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. ZBA HEARINGS 25 June 22, 1993 MR. O'CONNOR: Basically. we are trying to utilize the sign that was at the old store location. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any particular reason why you don't want to mount it on the building? MR. O'CONNOR: We just thought visibility-wise having it perpendicular to the road, the way the Roy Reeve sign is, would make it more visible, and the owners of the building weren't too keen on having it mounted on the building~ When Country Time had that premises rented, they had a sign bigger than what I propose mount~ on two 4-by-4's, so it looked like it was mounted on the building, but it wasn't. The holes in the ground are still there from when he removed it. I don't know how effective that was as a sign though. THE CHAIRMAN: There was no indication at any time of affixing it to the base of the Roy Reeve sign or anything of 'that nature? MR. O'CONNOR: No. We had proposed putting it on the opposite side of the east side of the building, because it is separate parking with separate entrances which would really confuse his customers --and ours, I think, as far as-- THE CHAIRMAN: I know. We are just trying to get around this, the whole situation, that we are treading on different things here tonight in reference to the first hearing, and now of course the situation with the crackdown that is existing in reference to the new sign philosophy° ZBA HEARINGS 26 June 22, 1993 MR. O'CONNOR: We try, legally the way the Code was set up, I think. THE CHAIRMAN: Notwithstanding the fact that you are absolutely correct that altho the buildings are attached, there are definitely two separate parking lots, and there are definitely two separate sides to the building of which you would gain the access to both buildings, and so on and so forth. I really don't know what to say, except that you know we will definitely deal with it. Do. the owners have any specific concern? I know we asked them to come, and we do appreciate their coming. UNIDENTIFIED OWNER VOICE: No real concern, Jerry, but I think --you know how near we are to the street, and the sign attached to the building for retail operation, I think would be very ineffective. CLERK KOWALSKI: Could I have your name please for the record? ROBERT McCARTHY. CLERK KOWALSKI: Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR: Where we are proposing to put this sign, in the grassy area, would not restrict visibility as far as going in or out of the parking lot; and it is not going to be a lighted sign. Because it is a little bit bigger than what --it is 24 square feet is the maximum of the standing sign. ZBA HEARINGS 27 June 22, 1993 This is a little bit bigger larger. Do they consider just the base of the sign without the mounting? THE CHAIRMAN: I would say it would be total sign° How big is the sign? MR. O'CONNOR: It is a 4 by 8. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we will certainly kick it around. Just let me --Is there any questions here? Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: I think there is a picture 0f the · proposal. THE CHAIRMAN: I have it right in front of me. I j~st didnd't look down. Rich? MEMBER WILTON: No questions. THE CHAIRMAN: No further questions. We thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for coming in. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I will make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's Minutes.) ZBA HEARINGS 28 June 22, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4170 - THEODORE AND MARIA PETIKAS (as contract vendees) (Owners: John Phillipedes, and others). Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A, and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, for permission to locate new dwelling structure with an insufficient setback ~from the bank along the Long Island Sound and sideyards at less than the required 25 feet. This application is a new location different from that considered and alternatively granted under Appeal NOo 4078 rendered April 22, 1993. Location of Property: North Side of Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-135-1-27. This parcel is nonconforming as to total lot area at 11,000+- sq. ft. 8:08 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: We have a new map from Robert Van Tuyl,' PC, amended as of May 24, 1993, indicating the location of this dwelling, now 50 feet from what refer to as low bank, all right, as opposed to the application we had before us before, which was a hundred feet to my knowledge; and the applicant is requesting 8-foot sideyards on both sides; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. We will ask Mr. Haje if he has something you would like to add? Appearance: Roy Haje, En-Consultants 1329 North Sea Rd. ZBA HEARINGS 29 June 22, 1993 Southampton, NY for Applicants MR. HAJE: Mr. and Mrs. Petikas are also present. The application before you tonight is necessiHated by the previous Board decision and also the other decisions we have obtained. If you r~call, the previous decision of this Board was to allow no less than 8-foot sideyards on both sides. In order to do thist there would be two possible ways. One would be to shrink the width of the house from what we had shown before, which was 26~ or to move the house northward towards Long Island Sound. It was the feeling of Mr. and Mrs. Petikas that they were already at the minimum width house, 26, which is quite modest. Therefore, the second alternative is the one that we chose and is the one before you now. Before we came to you, we had to go back to the Board of ~Trustees to obtain an amended approval for the coastal erosion plan~ That was done,.and the copy is in the file. The site that is before you now also was previously approved by the DEC, so we do not have to go back to them. This is the same spot. THE CHAIRMAN: How are we doing with Hhe Health Department? MR. HAJE: Health Department this should work very well. We had gone to them before the Board oi Review hearing. They were concerned that there was not sufficient room at the previous location to put the sanitary system in. I had ZBA HEARINGS 30 June 22, 1993 discussions with Roy Reynolds of Health Department regarding this location, and he was more pleased with it because we have considerably more room to put the sanitary system in. We wouldn't have to squeeze it in. We would be able to get our 10-foot minimum sideyard from the pools; so they are holding their decision until this Board acts, but I have every indication that that decision will be positive, assuming your Board acts positively. That is based upon my discussions with them, the discussion that we had at the Board of Review hearing, also the favorable decisions that we have gotten from the Trustees and DEC. So I think everything would work well in this location. That is the reason we are back. I reiterated my request for side yard not being sure whether it was needed or not, but I thought for the sake of prudence and care that we reapply for that and allow the Board the option of either determining that it was or was not necessary based upon the previous location. We recognize that there is a variance needed from the setback of the low bank, which is indicated at the low bank, which I also included in my variance request. THE CHAIRMAN: Roy, what exactly is~a low bank? MR. HAJE: In this case it is the feature that can probably be called a crest of bluff. There is not really anything that is clearly defined as it would be elsewhere where you obviously go up, there is an obvious crest and then a ZBA HEARINGS 31 June 22j 1993 flattening out of the topography. So this was chosen as that feature, and the feature that would have to be used in calculation of 100-foo~ setback; so that is what that indication is. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyquestions, Bob, Jim? Dick? (No questions from Board members.) THE CHAIRMAN: I, quite honestly, Roy, --the Petikases sat through that last situation with us and of course weren't happy. I would seriously like to make a motion granting this tonight and let them go home and make sure they are happy and --so I will grant it as applied for here. CLERK KOWALSKI: Do we have conditions on the other one? There were no conditions on that other decision, right? THE CHAIRMAN: And, basically, recanting the same things we recanted in the prior application, okays without listing each one of those five at this particular point. Of course, we are concerned about the Health Department approval also~ All right? So I will incorporate that within my motion. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's minutes). THE CHAIRMAN: Have a lovely evening. Good luck with your house. MR. HAJE and the Petikases: Thank you. ZBA HEARINGS 32 June 22, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4174 - HENRIETTA AND ARTHUR MORMILE. Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of nonconforming lot area of two parcels in the pending application for re-division of land. Location of Property: 27~ Private Road #6, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-128-4-9, 15 and 16. Total area combined is approximately 23,000 square feet. 8:16 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a sketch of a survey --actually, it is a reduced survey from Peconic Surveyors, indicating Parcel One of 7,500 square feet, and the nature of this application is to add 2,322 square feet to it, making it a total of 9,822 square feet. It contains a one-story dwelling, an older one-story frame dwelling. Two is 10,648 square feet. The nature of this application is to add 4,613 square feet in the division line, and therefore redividing the two parcels, which to my knowledge from looking at it, I believe is one and a half or two-story frame home. Who is representing Mr. Mormile? Appearance: Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. Main Rd., Southold, NY, for Applicant Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 8oard. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any specific reason why they have taken this division in the manner in which they have ZBA HEARINGS 33 June 22~ 1993 requested the lines to be divided? I meant as opposed to takine a diagonal or whatever the case might be? MR. BRUER: I really don't know the answer to that question. It's the way they submitted it to meo I didn't get into any reasoning on it. It seemed to make sense to me based upon th~ way the building is situated on the lot No. 1 shown on that map; it seems to me where going over to the other lot already is to have it turn out that way, makes more sense than anything. THE CHAIRMAN: Are we of the understanding there are two CO's on these dwellings, and they have existed for a relatively long period of time, and that is basically, that we are redividing a piece of property which is now merged? MR. BRUER: That's correct. The one on the survey in the name of Henrietta O'Neil, those two lots as you can see from the deeds, are in her name. THE CHAIRMAN: This is merger by death? MR. BRUER: NO, I don't think so --by mistake really. THE CHAIRMAN: By mistake, all right. MR. BRUER: But what you are doing here, I believe you have a letter there from the Planning Board? THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BRUER: And I think that the second paragraph of that letter expresses it very clearly --the relief we are doing here, we are really taking three lots and making two out of ZBA HEARINGS 34 June 22, 1993 them, not increasing the density, not increasing the houses here, not increasing anything more, other than taking really in a sense one lot off the rolls and definitely merging and having just two lots. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody have any questions on that? J~m? Rich? Anybody have any objection to it? (No response from the Board.) THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going to make the motion? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, let Rich make it. MEMBER WILTON: So moved. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's Minutes.) THE CLERK: They approved it. MR. BRUER: Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: We must be in a beneficent mood tonight. ZBA HEARINGS 35 June 22, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4176 JOHN AND CONSTANCE CRONIN Request for variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 for approval of deck with insufficient rear and side yards and in excess of lot coverage limitation. Location of Property: 1055 Old Orchard Lane, East Marion, NY; County Tgx Map Parcel No. 1000-37-3-7. 8:22 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey again produced by Peconic Surveyors; the most recent date is January 10, 1989. The nature of this application is a wooden deck and shower area on the southeast side, and I think it is the northerly side of Old Orchard Road. The wooden walkway and deck to the south are approximately eight inches off the ground by physical inspection 6 to 8 inches. The deck may be just a 'little bit higher than that in the rear of the dwelling, and in that one sideyard area. Who is representing the applicant? How are you, Mr. Cardinale? Appearance: Philip Cardinale, Esq. Jamesport, NY, for the Applicant MR. CARDINALE: Good evening. I am representing the Cronins, who asked me to appear. As you know, we need a rear yard and sideyard and a lot coverage variance. The history of this is that it was interpreted by the next-door neighbor and ZBA HEARINGS 36 June 22, 1993 both Mr. Cronin and he have the mistaken belief that if you are on the ground with the deck, it is really not a deck.-- it is like a patio. So that is how this whole problem developed. As to the lot being pre-existing and nonconforming, as is the house, so a conforming deck is, I think, impossible. The practical difficulty and uniqueness is essentially the size of the lot, and the unnecessary hardship issue is essentially the fact that they did this in ignorance, thinking this was essentially not a deck but a patio; and apparently this is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because they are all small lots~ and I think there are several decks --at least they tell me there are several decks in the rear. This is a few inches off the ground. The deck is inconspicuous; it is in the rear. THE CHAIRMAN: Are we abolutely sure that this deck is one foot inside the property line? MR. CARDINALE: Yes° The reason we know --incidentally, I believe the person who built the deck is the fellow whose property line it abuts. THE CHAIRMAN: I see. MR. CARDINALE: Steve Vess¥ (phonetic), he made sure to keep it a foot off. THE CHAIRMAN: I see~ Okay. The protrusion out from the patio area? ZBA HEARINGS 37 June 22, 1993 CLERK KOWALSKI: Out from the house. Is that five and a half feet then, or is it six feet out from the house on the side? MR. CARDINALE: On the side line? CLERK KOWALSKI: Yes. MR. CARDINALE: It is~ out from the sideline, she told me, I believe she indicated it was a foot off, so that would make it a foot and a half, 5-point-6. I will verify it with the neighbors. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you do that please. MR. CARDINALE: Yes, surely. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Cardinale? You guys are speechless tonight. This is unbelievable. MEMBER WILTON: When did this occur? MR. CARDINALE: I believe about a year or two ago. They took title in '89. So it was certainly since '89. I indicated it was over a year ago. THE CHAIRMAN: So you'll just get back to us on that then? MR. CARDINALE: Yes, I'll let you know the exact side line, talk to Mr. Vessy. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody e~se who would like to speak in favor or against this ZBA HEARINGS 38 June 22~ 1993 application? Seeing no hands, I will. make a motion closing the hearing, waiting for the information from noted counsel. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's minutes,) ZBA HEARINGS 39 June 22, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4072 - VARUJAN ARSLANYAN. Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 as amended May 20, 1993 for permission to construct open deck-spa addition with an insufficient setback from the bank along the Long Island Sound. The lot area and width o~ this parcel are nonconforming and are located in the R-40 Residential Zone District. Location of Property: 54455 County Road 48, Greenport (near Southold); County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-52-1-8; also referred to as Combined Lot #1 and 2 on the Land Map of Young & Goodale. 8:27 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: The site plan I have is in behalf of Peconic Associates. The most recent date is May 4, 1993. The original date was' 10/9/92. The nature of this application is a proposed wood deck of approximately 18 by 34, excuse me-- 18 by 64-- it's not right? What is the width of the deck? CLERK KOWALSKI: Sixty-four, it is. THE CHAIRMAN: Which includes a walkway on the easterly side of the house; and I assume at this point it is an open deck, and we will start with Mr. Wiggin. How are you tonight, Merle? Appearance: Merlon W~ggin, PE, for Applicant ZBA HEARINGS 40 June 22, 1993 MR. WIGGIN: I am fine. And I am glad to see that you are in such a benevolent mood. THE CHAIRMAN: They are, I'm not (indicating Board)~ MR. WIGGIN: I think the background is a prime part of what has occurred, and I brought extra copies of the original plans. Just make four copies available. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. WIGGIN: Also with me is the owner Mr. Arslanyan, along with the immediate neighbor. The background of this is quite unique. The applicant has owned this property for over eleven years and wanting to plan some improvements and enjoy them particularly like must you live on the Sound to have a deck and those things that go with it. Back in March of 1989 he was issued a building permit to rebuild the house, add to it and include a deck and swimming pool; and permit was renewed to the next date on March 9, 1991. In the planning of his rebuilding of his housed he decided to tear down the old structure and build it totally new. So a demolition permit was issued on 8/28/90. Unfortunately, and this I can tell from Building Department records, he was not advised that if he didn't get started before March 9, 1991, his old building permit would be null and void and he would have to start over again. So he got caught in the old time frame of thinking he was all set to go, and when he finally got ready for a contractor on the jobs he found he was four months late in getting started° The building ZBA HEARINGS 41 June 22, 1993 permit was reissued on, revised on July 19, 1991, minus any deck at all. He starts off with a 32 by 35 deck and now ends up with no deck at all. If he had known that this was going to be the problem that he would experience, at the time of demolition he would have the option to move the house closer to the road because he had a long front yard. He was not given that option and did not know it until the house was already rebuilt. Consequently, the Trustees were involved. We have been to the Trustees and have worked out a compromise, so instead of the big deck with swimming pool, now he gets a small deck 18 by 64, and the permanent spa that had been issued by the Trustees, so we are now at the point that before he can go and enjoy any of his property so far as the deck and Sound 'and so forth, he now ends up with a brand-new rebuilt house without a deck. That is why we are here before you tonight. Can I answer any questions? THE CHAIRMAN: You have a permit from the DEC for the bulkhead? MR. WIGGIN: The permit from DEC for bulkhead is still pending; they have asked for some minor changes in the construction of it and are still looking at that. We have the permit from Town Trustees for the bulkhead. The Coastal Zone Erosion was waived. We have that, so the only thing left, as far as the deck is concerned, is your Board. THE CHAIRMAN: The neighbors on both sides have bulkheads? ZBA HEARINGS 42 June 22, 1993 MR. WIGGIN: The neighbors on, immediately to the east has a bulkhead, and you skip a lot without a bulkhead; and the next neighbor to the west has a bulkhead; and the neighbor nearest the west is a very narrow, small lot, and he is in the process of making application for bulkhead that will tie together the bulkheads to the east and the west, for a continuous bulkhead. This is very important to both of those owners because in that December storm and the high waves, erosion occurred on both of those two lots that were not bulkheaded. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been unique for the DEC to usually not --let me rephrase the question. It has been usually the DEC's, I shouldn't say that either. MR. WIGGIN: You'd like to say the DEC is the last one to-- THE CHAIRMAN: Do they usually grant bulkhead applications in situations where there are existing' bulkheads? MR. WIGGIN: Yes, they do. THE CHAIRMAN: In areas where this particular house doesn't have a bulkhead. MR. WIGGIN: That's right. We expect that to be granted. The reason for the delay, they have indicated, they have so many applications for immediate potential loss of property, they felt this one is stable enough so they can address other more critical permits first. ZBA HEARINGS 43 June 22, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: I can appreciate that, and Mr. Sambach sitting back there represents us in the Park District, and it took two years and four months to get a replacement of a bulkhead in Mattituck, so I can appreciate that. MEMBER VILLA: The difference is, you got a marine fringe on the bay; on the Sound side you don't have a marine fringe. THE CHAIRY~: Ch, you don't have a marine fringe. Is that because of the leaching? MEMBER VILLA: No, it is because you just got sand, you don't have the typical wetland type of structure like you have on the bays. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. WIGGIN: Mr. Arslanyan is here, along with his immediate neighbor. He has also talked to both neighbors who as you have learned, have no objection to this. THE CHAIRMAN: Is this the neighbor to the west or the neighbor to the east? MR. WIGGIN: Neither has any objection. Only one neighbor is here tonight. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but which neighbor is that, the oRe-- MR. WIGGIN: The neighbor to the east. THE CHAIRMAN: To the east, okay. While you are up there, Merle, any questions -- Bob? ZBA HEARINGS 44 June 22, 1993 MEMBER VILLA: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Merle, can you give us a figure as to setback, at its closest point to the bulkhead? Even if you have to scale it. MR. WIGGIN: The closest point to the bulkhead -- right now it is fifty-some-odd feet. The deck eighteen, so it is the difference, fifty minus eighteen. THE CHAIRMAN: Thirty-two feet? MR. WIGGIN: About 3~ feet. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER VILLA: What is the nature of the soil conditions going to be from the bulkhead to the deck --like in the sand or going to be topsoil or grass? MR. WIGGIN: Sorry. What is your question? MEMBER VILLA: I want to know what soil conditions are' going to be between the bulkhead and the house? MR. WIGGIN: Right now it is a loamy sand, and in that slope between the top of the bluff and the bulkhead it is going to be planted with erosion-resistant shrubs. This is a requirement of both DEC and Town Trustees. MEMBER VILLA: It is all going to be slanted back from the bluff and back to the house? MR. WIGGIN: There is a level area where the deck is, and it proceeds out level beyond that, it is all in existence, and then slopes down to the top of the bulkhead. ZBA HEARINGS 45 June 22, 1993' MEMBER VILLA: So if you ended up with that with grass, you would basically then have a positive runoff towards the Sound? MR. WIGGIN: Well, right now the crown is very very flat because it slopes up to the residence and the bluff and flattens.out right where the house is, so the general slope of the property is away from the Sound except maybe right in the immediate vicinity of where the bulkhead is going to go. MEMBER VILLA: I was just curious as to whether you were going to grass it and going to have fertilizer going on it and everything else like that, which might tend to run of£ towards the Sound. MR. WIGGIN: No, this is-- the owner is prepared to use the restrictions as far as fertilizing of that small piece of property. The Trustees brought that up. That is why they want the majority of the area planted in the erosion-control shrubs which do not require fertilization treatment. THE cHAIRMAN: In dealing with this sixteen feet or 18-foot deck rather, did you do any analysis of what the surrounding property owners have, in reference to their decks? The legal ones. MR. WIGGIN: There is decks all up and down the neighbors. Some have decks and some do not. I really don't khow how many are legal and how many are illegal. ZBA HEARINGS 46 June 22, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you take any measurements at all, to your knowledge? MR~ WIGGIN: We took the measurements of the main part of the structure, which is the same as east and west. As you go further and further east, the decks are generally this location --some are even closer, a lot are even closer to the bluff° THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions, gentlemen? (No response from the Board.) THE CHAIRMAN: That's great~ We will definitely kick it around tonight and if anybody else wants to say anything-- Mr. Arslanyan, do you want to say anything? MR. ARSLANYAN: No, your Honor. I have nothing to say, except I wish you would grant the application. I am struggling; three years I have been paying taxes and it not granted. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you~ sir. MR. WIGTN: The neighbor to the east is also here° THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. ARSLANYAN: Neighbor to the west very sorry he couldn't come, He is a good friend of mine; he also submitted written, and apologize for the fact that he couldn't be here tonight. But he verify he can be on the phone at nine o'clock. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That's not necessary. I am sure if he objected, he would be here or would send us a letter. No question about it. Thank you very much, sir° ZBA HEARINGS 47 June 22, ~993 MR. WIGGIN: Do you want to hear from the neighbor to the east? THE CHAIRMAN: Only if he would like to say something. THE CLERK: If I could just have his name please. HOWARD EDELSTEIN: I think Mr. and Mrs. Arslanyan deserve a favorable decision. They are lovely people. THE CHAIRMAN: Could I just have your name.for the record? MR. EDELSTEIN: My name is Howard Edelstein. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else' who would like to speak either pro or con on this particular application? Just in final passing, t think I have been to your house more times than you probably visited during the construction, with the fact that this hearing was on, it was not on, and the Coastal Zone Management Act came in, and we were back and forth and back and forth, and it is truly a beautiful house, and we wish you the best of luck with it~ sir. MR. ARSLANYAN: I hope you people give me the honor of paying a visit with us. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's Minutes.) ZBA HEARINGS 48 June 22, 1993 APPLICATION NO. 4175 - PATRICIA STIEFER. This is an Appeal of the June 2, 1993, Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for action by the Board of Appeals under the definition of "family" at Section 100-13 for a determination that premises may or may not be occupie~ by up to eleven (11) persons unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption. Location of Property: 6760 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-121-4-8.1; also referred to as Lots #1 and #2 of the Minor Subdivision of Sundown Farms. Subject premises contains a total area of 13.3658 acres. 8:40 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: We did receive a letter from Mr. Bruer concerning the Patricia Stiefer hearing of 4175o We will --normally we would open the hearing, but we will hold it in abeyance and re-advertise it. MR. BRUER: Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: I will make that a motion. Is there anybody here to speak in favor of or against that hearing? (There was no response.) Appearance: Rudolph Bruer, Esq., for the Applicant. ZBA HEARINGS 49 June 22, 1993 MR. BRUER: Regarding the Stiefer application, the application for the special exception I expect to resubmit this week. I think even the contract will be signed. THE CHAIRMAN: So you are going to run both of them together then? MR. BRUER: The reason for not pursuing this application --because it really wasn't intended to come before the Board as a question of definition, the way it wound up. It was a matter of the way the Building Inspector wrote that decision. However, if the Board would like to say that you can have eleven people there, I would be happy to. THE CHAIRMAN: Could you imagine what the South Shore of this great Island would say if that was the case? MR. BRUER: I know, that is why I think we are postponing this. I believe we have a reduction order. I have spoken to the pilot company with respect to that lawsuit, and I think we-- the contract will be signed this week. Mr. Price is away today, so I couldn't get ahold of him to iron out the last-minute details. I hope to submit it by the end of this week, and I met with the Planning Board at a work session yesterday, and they were very favorable with respect to the site plan situation that could possibly arise, assuming that this Board granted the special excep~iOno I am saying they really p~obably would have no objection and would just want to be notified in case there were any changes made~ as to what the use ZBA HEARINGS 50 June 22, 1993 was --which is perfectly all right. We are not going to make any changes to the present structure of the use. That was just an explanation of why we pulled the application tonight in case you have any questions. THE CHAIRMAN: Great. Thank you very much. MRS. SAYRE: May I ask a question on this? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Just use the mike and-- MRS. SAYRE: Sure. My name is Barbara Sayre and am an adjacent property owner.. I believe I mailed you a letter. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MS. SAYRE: It is in your file. My question is: The way this is worded in the notice. It says "also referred to as Lots #1 and #2 of the Minor Subdivision." To whom do they belong, Lots 1 and 2? THE CHAIRMAN: Barbara, you have me at a disadvantage. We didn't even bring the file out. We could go get it and -- CLERK KOWALSKI: The hearing was postponed though. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, she just has a question in reference to that. This was a minor subdivision to my knowledge, and I think he split off two three or four-acre lots in the rear, all right? Who owns those lots is your question? MS. SAYRE: Patricia Stiefer and Joseph Stiefer own one. THE CHAIRMAN: They own a 14-acre lot. ZBA HEARINGS 51 June 22, 1993 MS. SAYRE: They just own one. THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, they do. But we combined it, I think under separate tax map numbers to say it was.one. CLERK KOWALSKI: It is a minor but the 13.8 acres includes both Lot. numbers. MR. BRUER: It is shown there on the map that is sub- mitted. It says Lots 1 and 2 on that subdivision map which -- I have the map, and the reason for that is not that there was a subdivison of that. That is one lot. What they did was, the house piece is obviously a house piece, and the larger part is part of the agricultural exemptions for tax purposes. CLERK KOWALSKI: It was the minor subdivision though that was approved by the Planning Board. MR. BRUER: That is correct. And any further subdivision of that lot --the big lot-- has to go for major (word inaudible) by the Planning Board. CLERK KOWALSKI: Yes, they can't further subdivide without that. MR. BRUER: And that Ks not the application. CLERK KOWALSKI: And Mr. Stiefer, Mr. and Mrs. Stiefer, own both of those today, Lots 1 and 2 in that minor subdivision o Right? MR~ BRUER: No, this was never really a minor subdivision. Somehow it is misnomered on that map. ZBA HEARINGS 52 June 22, 1993 CLERK KOWALSKI: It is referred to as a minor by the Planning Board. That is the map they approved. MR. BRUER: That is for four lots, yes. But let me show you what I mean. (Off the record inaudibly among Board members.) THE CHAIRMAN: One thousand 121, four 8.1, which is this 13 acres. What you are saying, Rudy, is that this is the house lot and this is the stuff that is in the agricultural exemption, is that correct? MR. BRUER: Yes, this is the lot. CLERK KOWALSKI: But on the minor subdivision map it shows-- MR. BRUER: This is lot 1. CLERK KOWALSKI: I didn't have the whole subdivision map. What is it on here? MR. BRUER: Here is the four lots we are talking about --this one and this one in the back -- those I mentioned to you-- one, two, three and four. CLERK KOWALSKI: But these are still shown as one big lot. THE CHAIRMAN: These have been deeded out. Barbara Kujawski (phonetic) owns this one. CLERK KOWALSKI: See, this is Number Two. DR. LAWRENCE BERGMANN: This is Lot 2. Is that now included in the application? ZBA HEARINGS 53 June 22~ 1993 THE CHAIRFn%N: No. This is the Lot No. 2. MR. BRUER: I had to get a big survey right away, and this is the only one ~ could get, and I believe --this is my belief from looking at it-- that these lines in this so-called subdivision situation, is because this is set up for the "Ag" District and this is for the, out of it. THE CHAIRMAN: The whole thing is one. MR. BRUER: The discrepancy comes in that the minor subdivision it was four lots. This is Lot No. 1~ of four lots. THE CHAIRMAN: You notice there is Lots 1 and 2. MR. BRUER: We were meaning Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. CLERK KOWALSKI: On the survey Parcel 1 and Parcel 2? That is what confused me. THE CHAIRMAN: I just want you to know that any application that comes us in this thing --and you are the attorney representing the purchasers, is that correct? MR. BRUER:. Yes. THE CHAIRMAN (continuing): --will encompass this entire parcel, and that is it. MRS. SAYRE: And that to me is one. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, as you know, we couldn't clear it up without getting you up here, so that is why I wanted to do thatr okay? SAME UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: I am glad you did clear it up and it came before you also. This was my question. ZBA HEARINGS 54 June 22, 1993 MR. BRUER: And the reason of concern was, because the right-of-way to this lot is what is in litigation. THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct, right. CLERK KOWALSKI: Jerry, is it okay if we ask Rudy when he comes in for a special exception to show a map showing it all as one piece? Rather than two separate parcels. MR. BRUER: It is one piece. CLERK KOWALSKI: But it is showing it as two. MR. BRUER: Well, that might just be an overlay basically for the part they kept out for farmland preservation. MEMBER DINIZIO: You see, where our problem is, is this in a farmland program by any chance? MR. BRUER: Looks like it is. THE CHAIRMAN: Could be. MR. BRUER: I know my contract says it is subject to the agricultural whatever it is. THE CHAIRMAN: So why don't you show this as a broken line? MEMBER DINIZIO: Is it an Ag district, is it-- THE CHAIRMAN: We will find out. MR. BRUER: I will give you that information. The thing is~ for me to go get a survey on this thing is going to ZBA HEARINGS 55 June 22, 1993 take weeks, and the time I do this, the summer is. going to be over for these kids. THE CHAIRMAN: Just tell them to white this out° MR. BRUER: Wait a minute. That legally might be a boundary, the land that you can legally build on. CLERK KOWALSKI: Or the agricultural-- THE CHAIRMAN: I am not asking for it to be wiped out; I am asking for it to be hyphenated all the way down; so in a hyphenated lot we are not looking at it. That is an overlay. That is not a -- MR. BRUER: I don't know if that is the case or not° If it is, that is one thing-- I'll do it if I have plenty of time, but I don't have a lot of time. THE CHAIRMAN: If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. Just so long as-- MR. BRUER: I'll give it to you someday maybe because we are probably going to get, you know-- This, I am told, Mr. St~efer advises me today there is some coachmen here. This gentleman here he said has put a fence up and the road is definitely on this property now. MRS° SAYRE: And I am saying this map shows the right-of-way here on his property, and on my map it shows it not. So that's where the problem is. ZBA HEARINGS 56 June 22, 1993 MR. BRUER: We have 185-from Arcari (phonetic) who owns this whole big tract over here as a major subdi¥ision, which shows this entire right-of-way on this property. MRS. SAYRE: That is why I wrote my letter. I didn't want you to act on it. MR. BRUER: We are going to ask the Board to act on it with or without the settlement because we are going to take the property, however the courts say it will; and from our point of view, the worst that can happen is if they give the plaintiffs their just due, we will lose 16 feet; and as far as we are concerned, that is acceptable for our purposes for the use and enjoyment of this property. Whether we have it this way or that way, as far as we are concerned, -- THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): In other words, 16 feet isn't going to make that much difference. MR. BRUER: Not on 13 acres. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BRUER: We are talking about blind and retired children --they are not children-- adults, who will be enjoying this as a summer home. Whether they got 16 feet is not going to make any difference. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MRS. SAYRE: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Have a lovely evening. ZBA HEARINGS 57 June 22, 1§93 MR. BRUER: As I pointed out to the Planning Board, you don't have to worry about extra parking because they don't drive. (The public hearing was postponed until the next meeting as requested~by Mr. Brier. Mr. Bruer is expecting to withdraw this application and apply: for a Special Exception to operate as a philanthropic organization.) ZBA HEARINGS 58 June 22, 1993 POSTPONEMENT WITHOUT A DATE PER REQUEST OF GORDON PRICE APPLICATION NO. 4169 - FILED BY GORDON PRICE seeking a Reversal of Building Permit #21375Z issued by the Building Inspector on April 29, 1993 to Mark and Mary Bess Phillips, owners, on the grounds that applicant misrepresented the proposed use is an agricultural building, Article III, Section 100-31A(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. Location of Property: 24850 Main Road (S.R. 25), Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-018-06~00a5. Subject premises consists of 10.5+- acres and is located in the R-80 Zone District. (Postponed as requested until further notice.) End of Hearings jr