Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/22/1993 HEARING PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 22, 1993 (7:30 p.m. Hearings Commenced) HON. GERARD P. C~DEHRINGER, Chairman SERGE DOYEN, Member JAMES DINIZIO, JR., Member ROBERT A. VILLA, Member RICHARD C. WILTON, Member LINDA KOWALSKI, Clerk-Assistant to Board Board of Appeals 2 July 22, 1993 INDEX AP. NO. APPLICANT Pages 4172 JANET A. FERGUSON 3- 4182 KELLY McDERMOTT · · 4-7 4179 THOMAS D. DUFF, JR. & ELAINE DUFF . 8-12 4160 SUSAN TASKER. 13-18 4177 JAMES P. and EILEEN LEDDY . 19-22 4178 JAMES and DOROTHY FITZGERALD. 23-24 4180 JOAN AND ROY BERMAN . 25-26 4039 CLIFFSIDE ASSOCIATES, INC. [Owner) 27-30 4181 AABR REALTY FACILITIES HOLDING CORP. 31-44 ("Assn. for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc." ) 4183 JOHN AUSTINE. 45-49 4120 MATTITUCK AUTO CENTER, INC. and WM. GOODALE 50-58 4119SE MATTITUCK AUTO CENTER, INC. and WM. GOODALE Board of Appeals 3 July 22, 1993 7:32 p.m. APPL. NO. 4172 - JANET A. FERGUSONo Postponed pending effective date of new Local Law #14-1993 enacted on July 13, 1993 by the Town Board which will permit a dwelling in the B-General Business Zone District. Property Location: Central Avenue, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-066-08-006. Board of Appeals 4 July 22, 1993 APPL. NO. 4182 - KELLY McDERMOTT. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 (Bulk Schedule) for permission to expand house and accessory garage which will exceed the 20% lot coverage limitation. Property Location: Northeasterly corner of Oysterponds Lane and Skipper's Lane (a/k/a State St.), Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-24-1-8. This property contains an area of 8710+- Sq. ft. and is located in the R-40 Residential Zone District. 7:35 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the survey produced by Anthony Lewandowski. It is dated January 9, 1993, and indicates this rather quaint two-story frame home on, as I said, State Street or 'Skippers Lane and Oysterponds Lane in Orient; an'd we have calculations here of the additions that they are requesting or that Miss McDermott is requesting~ and she is requesting an increase from 20% lot coverage to 26.3% lot coverage; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody here to represent her? How do you do, sir? I notice the "mikes" aren't pulled over, and I apologize for that. VOICE: Do you want me to move it over? Board of Appeals 5 July 22~ 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; would you mind? It is just that we have to take everything down by tape, and it is easier if you speak into the mike. VOICE: Do you want me to come up there? THE CHAIRMAN: Whatever you chooses it is fine° This is a very relaxed group. No McDonald's hearings on tonight~ Could we have your name for the record? . PAUL McDERMOTT: I am Paul McDermott, Kelly's father. THE CHAIRMAN: What can you tell us about the construction? What would you like to add to the hearing? MR~ McDERMOTT: Nothing, except we are going to make it our family home, and we just need more room actually and a place to sit outdoors~ It is a good house. Do you mean what condition it is in? THE CHAIRMAN: No, you can see that it needs some face~lifting. MR, McDERMOTT: It does need that. Just as a small area over an office for a dining room and a kitchen area will get used up with kitchen, dining room, living room, sc-- THE CLERK: The lot is very tiny. MR. McDERMOTT: (continuing) --a little family area and an outside porch to enjoy the~outside in. There is no Storage because there just isn't any in it. Two closets in the house, and the garage, as I said, is of relevance. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a basement? Board of Appeals 6 July 22, 1993 MR. McDERMOTT: There is a basement under half of it. It is pretty damp; so the only storage really is the garage. My sone is married; he has got, we are buying bicycles, buying a lot of things that can't be anywhere else but out here, so-- THE CHAIRMAN: Let me just see -- Does anybody have questions of Mr. McDermott while he is standing? (Board indicated no questions.) THE CHAIRMAN: We are kind of used to doing these, the reason being that when you have a 66-foot lot by 129, there is an understanding that, to a certain degree, things sometimes have to be expanded. Of course, in your particular situation, you also have two front yards, which of course you are not infringing upon because you have an established setback already. So from my particular point of view --I am not speaking for the Board-- I don't have a particular problem with the-26.3%. We will see if there is anybody else. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak either for or against this'application? (There was no response.) MEMBER VILLA: Just one question. Is it all one-story additions? MR. MC DERMOTT: Yes. The front part of the house MEMBER VILLA: Yes, but are all the additions going to be one-story? Board of Appeals 7 July 22, 1993 MR. McDERMOTT: YeSo THE CHAIRMAN: Good. Do you gentlemen want to make a motion on this, or do you want to talk about it later? MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you calling for a motion? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes~ if you would like. MEMBER DINIZIO: Then I will make the motion that we grant it as applied. CHAIRMAN: I will second that. (Unanimously carried.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in. Have a lovely evening and a nice summer~ sir4 MR. McDERMOTT: I will. Board of Appeals 8 July 22, 1993 APPL. NO. 4179 - THOMAS D. DUFF, JR. and ELAINE DUFF, Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32B for permission to construct deck addition along west side of existing dwelling with a reduced side yard setback. Property Location: South side of Crescent Avenue (North Hill), Fishers Island, NY; bounded west by N~tze; east and south by Zabohonski; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-6-2-3.2; also referred to as Lot 25 on the unfiled "Map of Henry Walsh." This parcel is nonconforming at 1.003+- acre in an R-80 Zone District. 7:40 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey which originally was produced by Chandler & Palmer in Norwich, Connecticut, dated March 16, 1974. The house, as it lies on the property, is skewed to one side, and the nature of this application is a proposed deck of 14 by 24. Serge, how close did you say that was to the property line? MEMBER DOYEN: Three and a half? Mr. Duff is here. THE CHAIRMAN: oh, Mr. Duff is here. How are you, sir? I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Could I ask you to -use the microphone if you wouldn't mind, sir? Appearance: Thomas D. Duff, Jr., Applicant pro se. MR. DUFF: Sure. Board of Appeals 9 July 22~ 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: What is the approximate distance between that and the property line on the sideyard, sir? MR. DUFF: At one point of the deck it is like 24 feet° At one point it is 3 feet. THE CHAIRMAN: So its closest point is 3 feet? MRo DUFF: 3 feet, yeah; then the other part of the end of the deck is up 14 feet because the house is on a little bit of an angle. THE-CHAIR~N: Right° You say 14 feet? MR. DUFF: 14 feet, right. THE CHAIRMAN: Great. It was a little strange because usually anybody who comes from Fishers Island is represented either by an attorney or architect~ so it is so nice to have somebody-come over as an owner and represent themselves. MR2 DUFF: I liake to come once in a while. I used to be stationed in Riverhead with the Air Force~ so I want to take a look at the place a little bit and see what has changed. THE CHAIRMAN: 'A pleasure to meet you. This will be an unroofed deck? MR. DUFF: Unroofed. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody on the Board have any questions of Mr. Duff? MEMBER DOYEN: That letter that you just showed me, did you enter that in? MR. DUFF: No, I haven't. I just received that a little while ago° Board of Appeals 10 July 22, 1993 MEMBER DOYEN: Mr. Duff has etched a legal agreement with neighbor Nitze to buy a piece of property adjoining that so h'e can have more land anyway. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a copy of that, or do you want us to make a copy? MR. DUFF: See, what. I have been trying to do is to buy that piece, 100 feet there, this piece right there (indicating); and finally he agreed that he would sell it to me. We just got to negotiate a price and the other thing I got to find out if I can just make a line change. THE CHAIRMAN: You probably have to come back to us anyway. MEMBER DOYEN: That is 9 1/2 acres we are talking about. This will be taken out of nine and a half acres. THE CLERK: That wouldn't be us. It is the Planning Board. If it is undersized, it is us. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, no, it is just going to come before us in reference-- It is an RS0 zone district. THE CLERK: His lot is being increased. THE CHAIRMAN: It is not being increased, no. THE CLERK: For referral? THE CHAIRMAN: It will come to us for referral, -right. Can I keep this, or would you like me to keep a copy of it? MR. DUFF: If you would make a copy so that I would have one. Board of Appeals 11 July 22~ 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure, we will give it to you before you leave. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against this application? (There was no response. ) MEMBER VILLA: The piece of property the gentleman is trying to buy then is actually vacant? MR. DUFF: Actually there is nine and a half acres he owns vacant. It is all wooded land, and all I want is a piece that is a pie. See, my land goes 45 feet in back of his property, so I want that 45 feet. Then up in the front on Crescent Avenue it is 100 feet° Have you got the survey map there? THE CHAIRMAN: Have you got the survey, Bob? MEMBER VILLA: Yes. MRo DUFF: See, my land goes behind his. So what I am trying to do is to get this --just about a quarte~ of an acre there. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to entertain this application? Or 'do you want to talk about it later? MEMBER VILLA: If he is buying that~ it eliminates the problem, right? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER DOYEN: If you want a motion, I will make a motion that it~ be approved as applied for, with the regular conditions. (Seconded and carried.) Board of Appeals 12 July 22, 1993 MR. DUFF: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know how to use the copy machine? MR. DUFF: Not this one. THE CHAIRMAN: Jimmy, could you make a copy of this; just give us the copy and-give Mr. Duff back the original. Board of Appeals 13 July 22, 1993 APPL. NO. 4160'- SUSAN TASKER. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100L239.4A for permission to locate dwelling structure with a reduced setback from the bank or bluff of L.I. Sound. Property Lo~ation: 58235 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-44-2-11. This parcel is nonconforming at 5,775 sq. ft. in this R-40 Zone District. 7:45'p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the survey produced by Robert Van Tuyl, P.C., which originally goes back to November 29, 1979; superimposed on the survey is the specific bluff line which is approximately half of the parcel in question, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. THE CLERK: Is there an amended date on that survey? THE CHAIRMAN: Actually I am reading the neighbor's survey, and let me see what else we have here. Sorry. The amended date on the survey is February 28, 1991, indicating a proposed house at 20 feet from County Road 48 or the property line actually, which is the edge of County Road 48. And the house to the east is 13.6 feet from the property line or edge of County Road 48; and the house to the west is 20.3 feet. The approximate side yards we will discuss with the consultant; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and Board of Appeals 14 J~ly 22, 1993 surrounding properties in the area~ Mr~ Haje, are you ready? How are you tonight, sir? Appearance: Roy Haje of En-Consultants, for the Applicant.~ MR. HAJE: The name is Roy Haje, En-consultants~ 1329 North Sea Road, Southampton, New York, for the Applicant Susan Tasker. I had previously supplied you with a determination of the Suffolk County Health Services Board of RevieW recommending approval of the project. I am able tonight to give you the final approval of the Health Department~ which was receuved yesterday. THE CLERK: I don't think we ever got anything on the Health Department. I sent you a letter saying we didn't have anything on it. At least we have it now, okay? MR. HAJE: Just for clarification's.sake, I thought I had sent you the determination of the Board o2 Review, but-- THE CLERK: We got ~he Trustees and we got the DEC~ but not the Health Department. MR. HAJE: I apologize. Here it is. We just got it. THE CHAIRMAN: Were there any changes from that original survey? They approved the cesspools in approximately the same location? MR. HAJE: The version they approved is last dated May 18, 1993. That should be the one you are working on. Board of Appeals 15 Uuly 22, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: You are absolutely correct, yes. I took the original date from above. You are absolutely correct. May of '93. MR. HAJE: There was a slight change in the location of the cesspools to get it farther away from that retaining wall. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. HAJE: Their location did not change. 'In fact~ we don't have the luxury of moving things around too much here because as you have said before, it is a small lot. Some things can be in only one spot. We have the house that is shown, is of very modest dimensions. It is in a location which is similar to those not only adjacent, but in the general vicinity with regard to both their setback from the southerly property line that is facing on Middle Road, and also a similar setback from the water. We do propose to protect the property with a stone revetment which was the recommendation of the S~uthold Trustees rather than a bulkhead, and that was approved. That would go across from adjacent bulkhead to adjacent stone retaining wall on the east to stabilize that line. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that an encompassed rip-rap type of-- MR HAJE: It will be rip-rap, yes. Following that, the property will be backfilled to even it out with the upland grass area that is there now; and upon.that combined property will be b~ilt the house. THE CHAIRMAN: On pilings. MR. HAJE: Correct. Board of Appeals 16 July 22, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: What zone are we in here? Are we in a-- pardon me? MEMBER VILLA: Every zone. Flood zone, tidal zone-- THE CHAIRMAN: Everything. You are probably going to buiid it 5 feet anyway, aren't you? MR~ HAJE: We have to comply with the flood plain regulations° We have gotten the variance from the Trustees° They have stipulated constructions with pilings would be satisfied. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the approximate size of the house? I can't-- maybe you can measure that for me. MR. HAJE: As we show it here, it is 25 by 21 feet° THE CHAIRMAN: 21 wide by 25 deep? MR. HAJE: Just reverse. 25 wide by 21 deep. THE CHAIRMAN: I know --there is a contract on this piece of property, is there not? MR. 'HAJE: I don't ~now that there is one pending right now. I know there was one in the past. Mrs. Tasker had relied on the prospective purchaser to obtain all necessary approvals, but for whatever reason that was not accomplished and Mrs. Tasker is now following it. THE CHAIRMAN: So you are on the contract with Mrs. Tasker on it? You are representing Mrs¢ Tasker? MR° HAJE: Mrs. Tasker, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Do we know if this is a one or two-story dwelling? Board of Appeals 17 J~ly 22, 1993 MR. HAJE: It will be two. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody else have any questions of Mr. Haje while he is here? MEMBER ~INIZIO: What are the dimensions of the house? THE CHAIRMAN: Roy-just gave it to me -- 25 by 22. 25 parallel to County Road 48 and 22 deep, approximately~ Did you get the letter from Soil and Water? THE CLERK: We transmitted it to you on June 21st. MR. HAJE: Oh, from the Suffolk County? THE CLERK: Yes. MR. HAJE: Yes, I did. It really doesn't even require any.response. All they do is describe what they saw there, and then they copied what the Soil Conservation (one word inaudible) book has. It was an excellent job of copying, and I don't know what it is worth. THE CHAIRMAN: Can ~ ask you a question? We have an ultimate concern about closing up sideyards. These --of course, the easterly sideyard is the, has the greatest width in reference to work, but of course that is where most of the cesspool and septic tank area is--. To what degree will these be buried? Will heavy equipment be able to traverse these or this is probably going to be a shallow .pool system anyway, right? MR. HAJE: Well, it doesn't have to be that shallow because we do have some elevation there, so we don't have to go to the shallowest (one word inaudible) pool. We can show two Board of Appeals 18 July 22, 1993 with an expansion of one in the future, if need be. Yeah, that is really the only spot where it could go, on the side. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. On the west side we have a fence area and we have~ I assume, a little different topography~ My question to you is: Which side, I notice that the driveway is going on the west side-- MR. HAJE: Yes. Again for reasons of keeping off the sanitary system if at all possible. That is why the driveway was put over there, so in answer to your question, I think any access to the back would have to be through that west sider to keep Off the sanitary system° THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Bob, any questions? Anybody else, any questions? (No response from the Board.) THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions from the audience here, pro or con~ concerning this apulication of Susan Tasker? THE'CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. (Motion seconded and carried; see Clerk's minutes.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks so much for coming out. MR. HAJE: Thank you. Board of Appeals 19 July 22, 1993 APPL. NO. 4177 - JAMES P. and EILEEN LEDDY. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section 100-244B (pertaining to nonconforming lots) and Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct front porch addition with a reduced front yard setback at 195 Mary's Road, Mattituck; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-140-2-36. 7:55 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone here? How do you do, sir. Appearance: James P. Leddy, Applicant pro se THE CHAIRMAN: So nice to meet you. How are you? Do you want to tell us what you would like to do. We did go by, and we did wave to you, and we saw pretty much ~hat you wanted to do, but' I .came over on a Sunday evening about dinnertime, so I really didn't Want to knock on the door. MR. LEDDY: You could come in and have a cup of coffee. THE CHAIRMAN: If I knew you were serving coffee, I certainly would. MR. LEDDY: We would like to put a porch out there that we could sit in the evenings. It is a basic Cape Cod, and that is about all we want to do. Board of Appeals 20 July 22~ 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: When you refer to a porch, you are referring to a deck or -- MR. LEDDY: Decko THE CHAIRMAN: Just a deck. Not a roof over it? MRo LEDDY: With a roof jutting out° THE CHAIRMAN: So it is basically squaring off to the bottom of the steps all the way across the front of the house? MR. LEDD¥: Right. THE CHAIRMAN: Now~ just give me an idea of the projection from the stoop area out that you are referring to, so the reduction would be from 31 and a half feet how far? MR. LEDDY: It would be nine feet. THE CHAIRMAN: So you are going to go a total of 9 feet from the inside of the house; and how far is the protrusion right now without the stoop? MR. LEDDY: ~I would say about five fe~t. THE CHAIRMAN: So you are requesting a reduction of four feet basically? MR. LEDD¥: Right. THE CHAIRMAN (continuing): From 31 feet to 27 and a half? MR. LEDDY: Right. · THE CLERK: It is really the .whole nine feet. THE CHAIRMAN: It is really the .whole nine feet, right. Does anybody have any specific objection to that? (No response from Boa.rd or audience. ) Board of Appeals 21 July 22, 1993 MEMBER VILLA: Basically the house, the way it stands right now, is in line with everything then, the setback on this house and the other houses is in line, so this is going to be sticking out in front of all the other houses. THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MR. LEDDY: The walkway, you know, the steps are out that far. It is just that we.would square it off. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the steps are actually exempt from the normal setback. That is the reason why I was asking the question. The addition to the front-door area, the closed portico, whatever you want to call it, is really there. It exists and is out about 5 feet, so the rest of it is 4 feet from that particular point out is what you are requesting to go across that entire face. THE CLERK: I think your setback is about 28 feet then. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Any other questions of this gentleman? (No questions from Board.) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak, either in favor of or against this application? Seeing no hands~- I tell you what we will do. We will talk about it tonight after the. hearings and we will definitely have a decision for you. Hopefully tonight. And you are welcome to Call in the morning, or you are welcome to stay here. I just don't know how the other Board members are going Board of Appeals 22 July 22~ 1993 to deal with it, so we will do the best we possibly can for you, and we appreciate your coming in. MRo LEDDY: Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: You are welcome, sir. Hearing no further com~ent~ I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Board of Appeals 23 July 22, 1993 APPL. NO. 4178 - JAMES and DOROTHY FITZGERALD. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section 100-244B (schedule pertaining to nonconforming lots) for permission to construct open deck addition with an insufficient rearyard setback. Property Location: Southwest Corner - Intersection of Oak Drive and Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-104-5-25. This parcel is nonconforming at 19,602+- sq. ft. 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: I have a sketch of the property line. The nature of this tract --I was going to say trapezoidal--but it is really like a -- BOARD VOICES: It is. THE CHAIRMAN (continuing): -- and approximately 25 feet 6 inches by 28 feet 6 inches; and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating thi~ and other surrounding properties in the area. ~How are you this evening, sir? Appearance{ James Fitzgerald, Applicant pro se. MR. FITZGERALD: I am fine. THE CHAIRMAN: My question to you, now that we see you here representing yourself. Usually, you are representing other people. I?did peer through the trees. I did not necessarily walk on your property and did notice the deck and I don't have Board of Appeals 24 July 22~ 1993 any particular.questions. We will ask the Board if they have any questions of Mro Fitzgerald. MEMBER VILLA: Going to remain unroofed? MR. FITZGERALD: Unroofed~ yes° THE CHAIRMAN: My only concern, and I just wanted to mention~to you is on the storage building, which I know is not the necessary nature of this application, but I believe that the restriction is five feet now, so you might want to check that before you-- MR. FITZGERALD: I have changed this in order to minimize the number of trees that would have to come down, too. Six feet on the side and 10 feet on the rear, so it is more than five. THE CHAIRMAN: I Just didn't want you to build it and · then have to come back here and pay another fee, okay? Does anybody have any specific objections or questions of Mr. Fitzgerald? Is there anybody in the audience who would speak either for or against this application? (There was' no audible response°) -- THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I will make a motion granting it as applied as long as it remains unroofed. (Motion seconded, and carried; see Clerk's minute record.) ~,~HE CHAIRMAN: Have a lovely evening, sir° MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, you too° Board of Appeals 25 July 22, 1993 APPL. NO. 4180 - JOAN and ROY BERMAN. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 for permission to construct addition to accessory storage-garage building which was recently altered under Permit No. 20895 issued 8/18/92. Proposed addition would reduce the required frontyard setback and would be in excess of 20% lot coverage limitation for all buildings. Property Location: 520 Rabbit Lane, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-18-11. This property is nonconforming at 2614+- sq.ft. in this R-40 Zone District. 8:04 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the survey produced by Roderick Van Tuyl. I don't think I have a date on it -- indicating this proposed addition to the accessory structure of eight-by-eight and --it is 6 by 8-- and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Berman, how are you, sir? Appearance: Ed Williams, Builder, for Applicants Ed Williams here. You have the survey with the addition? THE CHAIRMAN: I have it highlighted in. THE CLERK: What is the date on that survey? Because it wasn't on our copy. Board of Appeals 26 July 22~ 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: October 3rd, 1986. I will write these in here. MR. WILLIAMS: The drawings too? THE CHAIRMAN: That I think we have, sir. Thank you. What woDld you like to say for the record? MR. WILLIAMS: I am the contractor for the people, and it is for the storage of bikes. THE CHAIRMAN: We --I don't know how to put this to you-- but most of us were all down there, and we would like to take a look at the accessory building, preferably on a Saturday around ten o'clock on the 31st, if you would mention that to them. Is that all right with you, gentlemen? (Board acquiesces.) THE CHAIRMAN: Would you give us call if for some reason the Bermans can't make it, Mr. Williams?' MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: And 'I will continue with the hearing. Is there anybQdy else who would like to speak either for or against this application? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I will make a motion recessing the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting pending the inspection. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's Minutes.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks very much for coming in. Board of Appeals 27 July 22, 1993 APPL. NO. 4039 - CLIFFSIDE ASSOCIATES, INC.(Owner). This is a request which concerns the April 26, 1991 and April 9, 1991 Notices of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector concerning an application for permit to include kitchenettes in mo~el units citing Article III, Section 100213 which is the Definition Section of the Zoning Code pertainingc to the April 9, 1991 Notice of Disapproval which reads, "...hotel or motei transient which says in part that there will be no cookinq facilities...", and pertaining to the April 25, 1991 Notice of Disapproval which reads, "...hotel or motel resort. Action required by Zoning Board of Appeals to permit cooking facilities in individual motel units .... " The subject premises previously had received a conditional determination for a Special Exception filed 11/28/89 under Application No. 3542 for use of the premises for 68 motel units without individual ~itchenettes or dwelling uses. Location of Property: 61475 C.~. 48, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.' 1000-045-01-001 and 002 (now 2.1), containing approximately 7.'5 acres. The subject premises is located in the Resort-Residential (RR) Zone District. 8:08 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the legal notice and application for the record°) THE CHAIRMAN: This is a recessed appeal from May 20, 1993, and we will ask Mr. Haefeli if there is something he would like to add to it? Appearance: Richard Haefeli, Esq., Attorney for Applicant. Board of Appeals 28 July 22~ 1993 Yes~'I really have two things .and it will be very quick. Last time there was a question as to whether or not the contracts that we have for water and sewer would meet the Health Department requirements as they are; and I had Henderson and Bodwell --and I would like to hand this up-a do an analysis as to the flow~ and based upon that analysis, the flow'with or without kitchens is less than the flow that is set forth in the contracts, so that what we were proposing does not exceed what we already have. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. HAEFELI~- Alsot we had a question as to what was the date of the building permit, and I do believe the one that is there, that's it. THE CLERK: The application, you mean. MR. HAEFELI: The denial refers to a building permit dated, the application dated April eleventh. T~e date on the permit is April ninth. I notarized it upon the tenth. The Bui~lding InsPector in his denial makes reference to the eleventh. 'Whether or not that is the date -- I assume that is the date the architect brought everything in. If not, it may be either based on my date of the tenth. The "10" looks like an '~'11," but that is the application. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. HAEFELI: The only other thing I have is the Board received a note from the Planning Board as to the fact that they did not consider kitchen or kitchenettes in their Board of Appeals 29 July 22, 1993 review of the site plan; and the only thing I want to point out again is, this application started in '86 under a Code where kitchens/kitchenettes were permitted. It was reviewed for two and a half years under that Code before the law was changed in I believe, it was January of 1989. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. HAEFELI: The final impact statement was actually completed before that date. It was accepted with changes they put in in March of '81 (sic) so there was no reason for any consideration of it because that never became an issue. There is no question that the plans they saw did not have kitchens or kitchenettes in it, so there was no reason for that to have been considered under the SEQRA process that took two and a half years for them to complete. And, Number Two, as far as them reviewing a site plan for an internal change, I don't believe that there is any basis or reason for it. They would be obligated to review the-site plan if there had been, is a change of use in the property, an expansion of footprint, change in the parking --change in some external feature of the property from what had been approved to what is being proposed. This is not that type of situation. Okay, that is really all that I have left. I submitted the memorandum; and, again, I want to emphasize that this is an application for this Board to render an interpretation. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board of Appeals 30 July 22~ 1993 THE CLERK: I just want to mention that I put in a copy of the Town Board's hearing transcript on the new Local Law which is pending for resort motel. I did put that in the file~ MR~ HAEFELI: Okay, I didn't know that you had done that. THE CLERK: I just got it yesterday. MR. HAEFELI: Oh, you just got it yesterday, but they didn't vote on it, did they? THE CLERK: No, it went back to the drawing board again. THE CHAIRMAN: They're working on it. All right? MR. HAEFELI~ Yes, I have nothing further. If anybody else has any other questions-- THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have any questions. Does anybody else? BOARD MEMBERS: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you so much for driving all the way over here° MR. HAEFELI: Thank you very much for your hearing. THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions, anybody in the audience, on Cliffside? (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.) Board of Appeals 31 July 22, 1993 APPL. NO. 4181 AABR REALTY~ FACILITIES HOLDING CORP., a Type C Not-For-Profit Corporation (now or formerly known as "Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc.")~as contract vendee, request a Special Exception as per the $outhold Town Zoning Code, Article III, Section 100-31B for use as a philanthropic home as provided by Subsection 5 thereof. Property Location:. South side of Middle Road near the end of Highway 48, House #6760, Mattituck, NY (present owners: Joseph and Patricia Stiefer). County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-12~-4-8.1, containing 13+ acres. 8:12 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have a survey dated --that is actually the site plan-- indicating the approximate size and the magnitude of this particular piece of property. The house sits back some thousand feet from the road; in the pasture area in the center of the property is' a 30 by 55.6 ft. barn with a paddock/corral area surrounding it on the westerly side. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Bruer, would you like to be heard? How are you this evening, sir? Appearance: Rudolph H. Bruer, Esqo, for the Applicant. MR. BRUER: Fine, thank you. Actually I have here Mr. and Mrs. Stiefer; and Miss Haasbrook is here on behalf of the AABR, in case you have any questions with respect to Board of Appeals 32 July 22~ 1993 the use of the property or what they are going to do with it~ Basically~ it is going to be a home for the blind and retarded~ not a home-home in the sense that it is going to be their summer home. They are going to use it for a week here, a week there~ for --there is ten homes in the city, and they would bring it around and bring these people here so that they could have a vacation typical of the area.- I believe with respect'to the Code, the property and the application and the use that they intend to use it for meets all requirements of the Code, subsection 5 A through I guess Eo I believe also --without going into it unless you want me to-- all the requirements that the property and the use that is set forth in the application, meets all the requirements of 100-260 amd pf 100-264. don"t know whether for purposes of the hearing you would like me to go through each one of them. If you have any questions, I am sure the Board is very familiar with each one of them. If you have any questions about our use and those standards as set forth in the statute~ I will be happy to go over it with you. THE CHAIRMAN: Let's see what develops through the hearing on that, okay? MR. BRUER: Okay. THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead and continuer and I will grill you, MR. BRUER: I believe the -- we have already tried to get a head start on everything because what we want to do is .get in to --assuming the Board-grants this application-- get in Board of Appeals 33 July 22, 1993 to use of the property for the summer for these people. It is anticipated we will get going right away. So it is important, I would ask the Board for a decision as soon as possible. The Planning Board, as I was saying, has reviewed the site plan al=eady in anticipation of this; and we requested a waiver of their condition which apparently can be done, and they referred it to the Building Inspector by way of a memo from Richard Ward, Chairman of the Planning Board, to then see the Building Inspector Curtis Horton, who I just learned this afternoon retired, wherein quote "The Planning Board is in favor of this waiver request and recommends a waiver be granted." They set forth in their memo that the attached letter requests a site plan waiver for a vacation-home at the premises of Joseph and Patricia Stiefer was sent to the Planning Board with the Association for the Advancement of the Blind and Retarded; and they again reiterate request that the Building Inspector grant that, so the Planning Board, .I believe, is in favor of this. I believe it is merely questions of the owners or Association. THE CHAIRMAN: Shall I ask you the question or this nice lady in back of you? MR. BRUER: She is very capable of giving very good answers. THE CHAIRMAN: What is your name please? 'MARY LEE HAS BROOK THE CHAIRMAN: Could you just give me an idea of what we could expect as an enhancement of this property over the next Board of Appeals 34 July 22~ 1993 few years that your organization may be doing to it? Other than what exists right now. MS. HAASBROOK: We are creating no major changes whatsoever to the property. We like the property the way it is~ That is one of the reasons why we want to purchase ito There is some need to address some of the driveway in front of the property~ as well as some handrails. Those are minor types of things. We are not looking to extend the property to clear any trees. Exactly the way it is is the way that we intend to use it. THE CHAIRMAN: How will you~be utilizing the barn area? And the paddocks. MS. HAASBROOK: At this present time the Executive Director of the agency does not see a use for the barn area right now. So we don't anticipate having horses there or farming tools or any other use for that, presently. THE CHAIRMAN: Wouid you be leasing that to someone else? MS. HAASBROOK: No, not going to lease the property at all. We really want to use it or have the property as our private property. You know, I mean there may be some thought further down the line, if a not-for-profit in the Town of Southold would like to put a horse there or something. That would be a thought. We have no intentions of leasing the property in any way. It is for our private use. Board of Appeals 35 July 22, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you --This is a question that I am just concerned-- When a person or a corporation such as yourself buys a piece of property of this nature or this magnitude, or a regular house which we see-- Taxwise is there any specific advantage? Do the property taxes change in any way? MS. HAASBROOK: Because it's a not-for-profit agency, we will be making application to the tax office. THE CHAIRMAN: I see. Okay. We are certainly used to this type --not this type-- but the use of houses for these type of purposes, okay. We have one directly across from the Town Hall, and there is one in Cutchogue on the Main Road, and so on and so forth° Correct me if I am wrong: I have a tendency to ask a question and (tape ended in middle of sentence thus). In the houses that we are used to-- a~d, please, I am not making any generalizations, I am just saying in the houses that housed the people that are of similar disability, I guess is the proper.phrase to use, the only change with this is, it would be more of a transient use as opposed to a permanent use; is that correct? Ms. HAASBROOK: It would be a vacation home, yes. The same group of people would not be living there twelve months out of the year. THE CHAIRMAN: But at the same time it could be Utilized all the time? Board of Appeals 36 July 22~ 1993 MSo HAAsBROOK: That option is available. But, again, the purpose of the home is for vacation use; and I hope that is what was conveyed° THE CHAIRMAN: I am just trying to get an idea of the difference, okay° If that is the case, would there be a caretaker there at all times? MS. HAASBROOK: That is one of the considerations we must make. When I was speaking with the Executive Director of AABR, he wanted to look for either a live-in caretaker or set up a caretaker service for the property. Not only while we are there but also during our absence. You know, they are an agency in Queens and investing a great deal of money and want to be sure the home is well taken care of, for the Town as well as for the owners. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have any other Specific questions. I will go to the Board members and a~k them if they have anything. BOARD MEMBERS: No. MEMBER WILTON: Just out of curiosity, how many people would be there at any one time? MS. HAASBROOK: I believe in the applications we spoke of eight residents and three staff members, at any one time. And less than that. We tried to.give the maximum number, but we do have homes that only have five people in them° Board of Appeals 37 July 22, 1993 MR. BRUER: Do you want to explain what you mean by these houses, how each one of these houses in a sense is a family? MS. HAASBROOK: Very briefly, because you obviously are well aware of your group homes in the town. I am as well, and I think I had something to do with a couple of them, as a matter of fact. They work very much like a family, and they are a group of individuals who have a lifetime commitment to live together as a family. They are no longer, for whatever reason, able to live at home with their natural family. So one of the most clinical and therapeutic ways is to provide a surrogate family; and that is basically what has been going on for over the past almost thirty years now in New York State. This again is typical of a progression of services where, instead of an agency wanting to send all of its people to a very large summer camp, they are really %ooking at the individual heeds of families for a vacation. THE CHAIRMAN: So what you are saying to me is, that if you had seven people in one specific house in Queens, you would bring the entire seven out as one unit? MS. HAASBROOK: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN (continuing): --and they would spend that particular period of time that was.so designated by whoever was living ~ith them. MS. HAASBROOK: Right. Board of Appeals 38 July 22~ 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Then they would go back, and another five or six, whatever-- MS. HAASBROOK: From one home. THE CHAIRMAN: From one home would come back. MS~ HAASBROOK~ Just as a family. THE CHAIRMAN: Just as a family. MEMBER VILLA: There is not a big turnover in this thing? MS. HAASBROOK: Oh~ no, it is their home. THE CHAIRMAN: I am an EMT, and we do a substantial amount of transporting of the one in Mattituck, and that is the reason. We certainly have a great discourse with the people when we go in the house, not only the staff but also residents. Okay, I understand. Any other questions of this nice lady? THE CLERK: Number of bedrooms. THE CHAIRMAN: How many bedrooms in t~e house now, four? MS..HAASBROOK: No, I believe there is five bedrooms. Then there is another room on the first floor of the home that can easily be made'into an additional bedroom. THE CHAIRMAN: I see. Is it normally the situation that this organization would take --and I have to admit to you that I do know the Stiefers personally,-and I have been in the house, an absolutely beautiful house, okay. Is it usually the situation that this organization would undertake a sizeable piece of property of this magnitude? Board of Appeals 39 July 22, 1993 MS. HAASBROOK: Oh, no, not at all. I mean, I think that, you know, when you develop group homes, you always have funding concerns. This is a very unusual project for the agency in so much that they don't have funding strength but would be utilizing their own private fund-raising dollars. That is one difference. The other difference is that the agencies from Queens, I don't think that one of them has 14 acres anywhere in Queens, but that is only a guess. THE CHAIRMAN: So it is somewhat of a new horizon to a certain degree. MS. HAAsBROOK: It is only a new horizon when you think of 14 acres of land. But they do have landlord responsibility for ten homes in Queens, which require all the maintenance and oversight and caring that a property of 14 acres would. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. This is a question that is really directed to either one or both of you. Do you have any specific objection with regard to above-ground improvements, that we as a Board have a right to look at those in the near future? In other words, an enclosed mess-hall outside --I am saying that because that is what I am used to seeing; conceivably, it is a hypothetical, outrageous statement, but do you have any objection to that? MS. HAASBROOK: No. Let me explain why. I think from the inception of this project, AABR has tried to be very much forthright in its discussions with various people in town-; Board of Appeals 40 July 22~ 1993 and I would think this is just a continuation of that type of relationship that we want to establish with the Town. We would have no problem with coming before this Board for any of those items. Mr. BRUER: You are not going to talk about the very small things-- THE CHAIRMAN: No,,no~ I am talking about structures. THE CLERK: Or kitchen. MR. BRUER: What about a shed for-- THE CHAIRMAN: No objection. We are not talking storage buildings~ I have one further question, and then I will let you people sit down. It escapes me at this point. Ohs so basically the corporation has been successful in the past though going symmetrically back to one of the first questions I asked you-- in getting taX relief for these places? MS. HAASBROOK: For not-for-profit corporation. MR.' BRUER: I believe your file reflects with documentation the certificate of incorporation, the amendments to the certificates~ the Internal Revenue letters with respect to THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): We had our astute Town Attorney review that in the past two or three days~ and he did come back to us; and he said that it was in order. We thank you and may have you back up again after discussions though. One other point -- Board of Appeals 41 July 22, 1993 MEMBER VILLA: We had a question at the earlier' hearing about parcel one versus parcel two on the map here. MR. BRUER: That was done I think --basically, I gathered what happened was that there was not parcel one and parcel ~wo even though that map says it. And we are treating this as one parcel. It was just too difficult and expensive and time-consuming to have a survey go and re-do that particular area. We are treating this as one parcel. I believe that those designations were put on that survey for purposes of separating the house from an agricultural exemption that their property presently has, and that is what the designation parcel one and parcel two means. It was not-- MEMBER VILLA: Then there is no intention to subdivide it or anything? MR. BRUER: No, and there is no intent here to subdivide it and I would, fo~ purposes of the record, disregard any references to parcels one and two. It is one parcel. THE CHAIRMAN: Does that answer your question? Okay. So we are dealing with the entire piece of property in toto, and that is it? MR. BRUER: That is correct. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the w~y the decision will be written anyway. MR. BRUER: Fine. Board of Appeals 42 July 22~ 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak concerning this particular piece of property~ either pro or against? (There was no audible response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Hello~ Mrs~ Sayre. How are you? BARBARA SAYRE: Fine. I am Barbara Sayre. THE CHAIRMAN: Could I just zip the mike over there? MS, SAYRE: My only question is, I am always here for Active (sic)~ and the access to this new holder would be on what is known as Diaper Road (phonetic) and (inaudible) Pond Avenue not Laurel Lake Road? Question° MR. BRUER: The answer is that the access will be Stiefer Road, as shown on the map, which is the right-of-way on the easterly side of the property° THE CHAIRMAN: Okay° It is my understandings howevers that there is a dirt road which leads back to that right-of-way; is there not? That road stii1 exists, does it not --the right-of-way on the westerly side? MR. BRUER: Yes, it does° I believe it serves a number of people, properties in the subdivision back here and well back to Laurel Lake. THE CHAIRMAN: I meant the d~iveway, the dirt driveway which leads from the house back to that questionable right of way on the westerly side, is that correct? MEMBER VILLA: It goes both ways. Board of Appeals 43 J~ly 22, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: It does exist, though, right? That still exists. I am not speaking in behalf of the Mattituck Fire Department; I am a member of the Mattituck Fire Department and I have been a member for 25 years, and I can tell you quite honestly that we would like to see that road --I would like to see that road remain open. It doesn't mean that they are going to use it for access; but if you get four trucks in there, there is no physical way you are going to get them up that hill and back down again, and then try and service anybody else in this community. So just review ~hat, Rudy, so you understand that. Does that affect you, Mrs. Sayre, in any way? MRS. SAYRE: It is all up for litigation, right? THE CHAIRMAN: This is emergency access only, dear. I don't know if you were here when I mentioned it, but we do a substantial amount of transporting the old Dwight Reeve house on County Route 48, a similar type group home situation --excuse me just one second-- okay, and I' am sure we would like to have an alternate access to this particular piece of property; and that is basically the reason why. Again, I am not a Chief, I am only an Indian of that Fire Department, and that's all I like to remain, as an Indian, okay, and I am just telling you that I personally would like to see that road to remain there, meaning the driveway, yes. MR. BRUER: I am not clear-- THE CHAIRMAN: The question was access. I just want to have that remain open. Board of Appeals 44 July 22, 1993 MR0 BRuER: As far as I knows it will~ THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Ail right° Any further comments or question? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I will make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's Minutes.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in. A pleasure, everybodym MR. BRUER: Any chance of getting an early decision? THE CHAIRMAN: We will work on it tonight, yes. We are really right on schedule, Rudy, so we should be deliberating --or starting to, anyway-- tonight. MR. BRUER: Might I have a decision tomorrow? THE CHAIRMAN: There is a great possibility, yes° THE'CLERK: Verbally. THE CHAIRMAN: Verbally~ not written~ MR. BRUER: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. THE CHAIRMAN: With everyone's indulgence, we have to take approximately a three-minute recess. Board of Appeals 45 July 22, 1993 APPL. NO. 4183 - JOHN AUSTINE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.4 for permission to locate accessory one-story garage building partly in the side yard with a setback at approximately five feet from the southerly side property 1ine. Location of Property: 3735 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck; Lot No. 54, Map of Deep Hole Creek Estates. County Tax Map Parcel No. 10002115-16-20. This property is substandard in size at 21,710 sq. ft. in this R-40 Zone District. 8:38 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.') THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey showing a onerstory frame home approximately thirty feet from the southeasterly property line and approximately 19+- feet from the' northerly property line, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and the surrounding properties in the area. The nature of this application is a 24 by 24-foot garage, to be placed approximately 5 to 10 feet past the rear of the house but adjacent to the deck. Would you like to be heard, sir? Again, if you wouldn't mind using that microphone. Appearance: George Arndt, Contractor, for the Applicant. MR. ARNDT: I am George Arndt, contractor for the Austines homeowners. If there is any questions I can help with. I would just like everyone to know that we plan on conforming to the existing architecture of the home. It is not Board of Appeals 46 July 22~ 1993 going to be vinyl siding. We are going, to stay with cedar shakes and maintain the architectural integrity of the surrounding area. THE CHAIRMAN: When we measure the five feet, does it include the overhang? MR0 ARNDT: No. THE CHAIRMAN: It does not. How much is the overhang? MR. ARNDT: About six inches. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. ARNDT: Also~ the entire roof of the garage --the property line is lined by trees,' so it is not visible if you went off the property or the front yard. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any intentions on the southerly side of putting any gutters or downspouts or anything on it? MR. ARNDT: No. THE CHAIRMAN: The 'nature of this decision may. indicate that.you may be forced to it if water flows from that garage roof to the neighbor's property, so I am just mentioning that to yguo That is a concern that we don't normally place in a decision, but we don't usually get that close~ by the way. MR. ARNDT: We would be happy to conform with anything ~hat the Zoning Board decides ~hat they would like us to do. THE CHAIRMAN: What is'going to be in the garage, just electricity as a utilitY? Board of Appeals 47 July 22, 1993 MR. ARNDT: That is correct. THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions from any Board members of this contractor? MEMBER VILLA: Yes; are you a licensed contractor with the Town? MR. ARNDT: Yes, sir, I am. MEMBER VILLA: How come you go ahead and build something without a permit? MR. ARNDT: Well, to be quite frank with you, the owner, Mr. Austine, his home has been purchased by the Town of Islip, and he is under extreme pressure to move out of his existing home. They are building a landfill right behind his home, so he has a deadline to leave. I called the Southold Building Department and spoke with one of the Inspectors to find out what exactly was necessary for me to proceed with construction. He said if the property was over ~0,000 feet that I would have to maintain 5 feet from the property line. ·What I failed to speak with him about was the deck that we are also constructing, which made the garage actually in the side yard. Without the deck, they just would have issued a permit and we wouldn't have had to come before the Zoning Board; so we proceeded on that basis, and right thereafter applied for the Building application. MEMBER VILLA: Do you usually go ahead and start a job without -- Board of Appeals 48 July 22~ 1993 MR0 ARNDT: No, sir, we do not, but these wore unusual circumstances for myself and for the homeowners.· They had~just recently purchased the home. MEMBER VILLA: I get very upset sitting here and hoaring, all these applications come bofore us when half the things are built already. It doosn't make any sense~ THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like'to speak? MR. ARNDT: May I say --I also consider and understand your concern and annoyance; but would you also consider the fact that nothing would be finished and we wouldn't inhibit the inspector's actual inspection at any point for the garage. We hadn't'planned on closing it up and we knew he could still perform his masonry inspection and electrical inspection and what have you? MEMBER WILTON: What·was tho urgency ~f building the garage? MR..ARNDT: The homeowner, the home he is living in now, as I Said before, has been purchased by the Town of Islip already, and he must vacate the premises by a designated point in time, I believe August. Tho home he is living in now, is a nine-room ranch in Smithtown'with a two-car garage, so he has various lawnmowers, whatever, other equipment he may have that you keep in your garageJ So he was concerned with getting that constructed before actually moving into the home. Board of Appeals 49 July 22, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, while you are standing, is there anybody else who would like to speak either pro or con concerning this decision, in the audience? THE CLERK: I am just wondering: Is it five feet from the property line as built? THE CHAIRMAN: It is 5 feet as built except for a six-foot, six-inch overhang. THE CLERK: Eight-inch on the plans? THE CHAIRMAN: The plans say 8-inch, all right. Seeing no further hands, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's Minutes.) THE CHAIRMAN: We hope to have a decision for you very shortly. Thank you for coming out. MR. ARNDT: Thank you. Board of Appeals 50 July 22, 1993 JOINT HEARING 8:44 p.m. on the following two applications: APPL. NO. 4120 - MATTITUCK AUTO CENTER, INC. and WILLIAM GOODALEo Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXI, Section 100-212B for relief from the front yard landscaping provisions of the zoning code. Location of Property: 7655 NYS Route 25 (Main Rd.), Laurel, near Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-6-10.1 (previously 30). FINAL HEARING ON APPL. NO. 4119SE - MATTITUCK AUTO CENTER, INC. and WILLIAM GOODALE. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Section 100-101B[12) for a permit authorizing: (a) a new car sales-rental establishment; (b) an establishment of an accessory use incidental to the proposed new car sales establishment for the sale and/or lease of used vehicles; (c) outside display of vehicles for sale; (d) accessory office use incidentak to the new principal use as a new car sales establishment. Location of Property: 7655 Main Road (NYS Route 25), Laurel, near Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-6-30.1. (The Chairman opened both hearings and read the Legal ' Notices and applications for the ~ecordo) THE CHAIRMAN: This is a continuation of the October 15th, 1992 --We will reopen Appeal No. 4120 and the final hearing on Application No. 4119SE, Mattituck Auto Center, Inc. Board of Appeals 51 July 22~ 1993 and William Goodale. Were they both continued on October 15, 19927 THE CLERK: You would have to look at both. THE CHAIRMAN: I believe Just the used car dealership was, not the special exception° THE CLERK: Special'exception was July 29, 1992. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And we will ask Mr. McLaughlin if he would like to add or subtract from the hearing. Appearance: J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq.~ for the Applicant. MRo McLAUGHLIN: I am not sure how I subtract. I would like to hand up an official Business Certificate to Mattituck Auto as a registered new and used car dealer, which runs through the end of 1994. I don't know that it would serve any purpose to readdress much of the issues concerning the first appeal as far as the front yard landscaping provisions. I think we have gone over that in fairly great detail and indicated to the Board the special needs of this particular type of use to have the product as close to the road as possible so that it can be seen. There is a letter I believe in your file from the Planning Board which I have responded to with a letter where they indicated certain other site plans had required this front yard landscaping. I have responded to that° Basically I think they set forth four or five examples, two of which have never been built, don't really have any application, one of which was an existing use, the North Fork Bank and, therefore, it really Board of Appeals 52 July 22, 1993 didn't apply to this particular application, and the other one or two where they had parking in the rear, and there really wasnlt any particular necessity to have any product up front. So I don't know that it really behooves us to go into that in any great detail. As far as the special exception regarding the car dealership, it is our position that we have supplied this Board with information sufficient to grant the special exception in all respects. We have provided to the Board a bona fide electric power franchise agreement. We have provided this Board with the requisite licensing from New York State for Mattituck Auto to operate as a new and used car dealer; and I believe that we have in all respects satisfied all the provisions of Section 100-101B12. Some of the correspondence from this Board indicates that they would like to delve into the percentage or proportion of new car sales to used car sales. I would respectfully submit to this Board that that is not a proper criteria for determining whether or not there is a new car dealership in a used car dealership there~ Very frankly, since the last time we'were before you --despite the best efforts of Mr. Goodale-- there have been no sales of electric cars out of that dealership. Electric cars are available. He is more than willing to sell to electric car --and has.the ability to obtain · them and to sell them to anybody that is interested. Unfortunately, it would appear that presently on the North Fork there isn't a huge market for electric cars. But, again, it is our position that it is an inappropriate criteria to use Board of Appeals 53 July 22, 1993 dollars-and-cents or percentages of sales of new cars versus used cars to determine whether or not we comply with the provisions of 101-B12; and I would submit to the Board that I don't believe that the other new car dealership that has recently, fairly recently, come into existence on the North Fork, was put to the standard'when they came in for a special exception; and to then apply that standard to us I think is an unfair and improper standard. THE CHAIRMAN: You refer to Lucas Ford? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes. I have indicated to this Board in the past -- I will indicate to them again -- that it is my understanding from people in the new car business that, in fact, if you took the used car sales and the repairs and put that, set that off against the new car sales revenue, in fact the new car sales revenue would be less than 50 per cent in almost every instance. So I don't think that any.of the new car dealerships on the North Fork could possibly comply with the standards that it would appear are being, or attempted to be imPressed upon us. Other than that, I really don't have anything too much to report to the Board other than what we have already discussed in the past. THE CHAIRMAN: Has anything developed with the other Boards within 'the Town in reference to either modifying this area that we're stuck dealing with? Board of Appeals 54 July 22, 1993 MR. McLAUGHLIN: There has been discussion at the Town Board level that perhaps there should be some amendment or modification of the existing ordinance. As I am sure you are all well aware, there is noplace in the Town of Southold where you can have --and freestanding if you will-- a used car dealership. According to the Zoning Ordinance of this Town, the only way you can have a used car dealership is in conjunction with a new car dealership. My own feeling --and I believe the feeling of your own Town Attorney-- is if that's put to the test, in a Court of law the statute will never stand. It is unconstitutional, and in fact your own Town Attorney was quoted in the paper as saying exactly that. It is an unconstitutional Zoning Ordinance. That may not be a situation that you are going to deal with. My understanding, getting back to the Town Board, is: It is going to be on their agenda again next month for discussion.. Where that is going to lead, I am not sure. We would be hopeful that the Town Board would see the problems with the existing Zoning Ordinance and take appropriate action to allow used car dealerships without the necessity of being in conjunction with new car dealerships. You still have obviously all of the Planning Board and site plan elements to take care of whatever problems one may perceive with a .used car dealership. - I don't think that is the point. But the point is: Can you constitutionaliy restrict used car dealerships to being in conjunction with new car dealerships? That, I think, is the Board of Appeals 55 July 22, 1993 issue the Town Board has taken up and will continue to take up next month~ THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Was there any referral to your knowledge, Kevin, to either the legislative committee and/or the Planning and Zoning Committee? MRo McLAUGHLIN: I believe it had already been in the Planning and Zoning Committee, and last month, June, was actually repo~ted to the Town Board from the Zoning and Planning Committee. THE CHAIRMAN: It did not go to the Legislative Committee to your knowledge? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Not to my knowledge. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody have any questions of either Mr. McLaughlin or Mr. Goodale at this particular time concerning this hearing? MEMBER WILTON: Have you a franchise with this Solar Car Corporation? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, we do, a signed franchise agreement with them. MEMBER WILTON: Have you submitted it to this Board? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, we have. CLERK: I can't remember from the prior record. Is there servicing of electric vehicies on the-site? THE 'CHAIRMAN: Is there Servicing of electric vehicles on the site? Board of Appeals 56 July 22, 1993 THE CLERK: Servicing and repair of the electric vehicles that you are selling on your property. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Well, there haven't been any sales of electric vehicles. THE CLERK: If you had a sale, would you service them on your property?. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I don't know the answer. MR. GOODALE: Probably not. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Probably not, and I am not sure what servicing of an electric car vehicle would entail. I am sure-- THE CHAIRMAN: Probably replace batteries. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Whatever it would be, I'd think would be very minor in nature --I mean minor in the sense we are not talking oil changes and things like that. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, I was a little upse~ from the fact that.after we granted the So-called temporary approval, that we had conditions on it, condition twelve, that all vehicles shall be placed in a park on site, shall not. be placed any closer than 12 feet from the inside edge of the existing front sidewalk, that there have been cars placed out in front of that, those railroad ties -- in fact, there was a boat and a car attached to ~ it, which doesn't make the Board any happier when somebody is before us looking for exceptions, to see violations of conditions that we have already granted. What is the reason for parking the cars out there? Board of Appeals 57 July 22~ 1993 ~4R~ McLAUGHLIN: Do you want me to respond to that? ( Inaudible. ) THE CLERK: I can't pick you up on the mike. Could you use the mike please? MR. GOODALE: (Phrase or sentence in audible~ then--) You are probably right. I shouldnd't have put it there. MEMBER VILLA: There were cars there before the boat was there° There were at least three cars out there one day, I know when I went by. MR. GOODALE: There was three cars parked after the boat was gone, one weekend. MEMBER VILLA: I am a little upset to see things like that. THE CHAIRMAN.: Any other questions of Mr. McLau~hlin? MEMBER DINIZIO: No~ except I was as upset as Bob about that boat. It really makes it hard to try to accommodate, these tYPes of variations in the law, and to try somehow to make them fit in the Town when you know you are asked to do something, and something as blatant as that happens. I have to make a decision. I have to be able to defend that later on certainly~ ° at least in a discussion feel comfortable about the decision I make; and you know when you grant conditions and you give a guy a chance, and then blatantly that happens -- in all honesty, man~ it doesn't make it easier. It doesn't make it easier to Board of Appeals 58 July 22, 1993 make a decision. This is not a clear-cut case of, you know, it is in the law, and we can just grant it. That is the-only comment I have, and I felt I wanted to make it. THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody in the audience either for or against this application? Any further comments? MR. McLAUGHLIN: No. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later, for both hearings, 94120 and 4119SE. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's Minutes.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming in. (End of evening's hearings) RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE $OUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Town Clerk, Town of Southold