Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/20/1993 HEARINGAPPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard R Geehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. RO. Box 1179 Rober~ A. Villa Sou~hold, New York 11971 Richard C. Wil~on Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PUBLIC HEARINGs BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 20, 1993 (7:30 p.m. Hearings Commenced) P r e s e n t : HON. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman SERGE DOYEN, Member JAMES DINIZIO, JR., Member ROBERT A. VILLA, Member RICHARD C. WILTON, Member LINDA KOWALSKI, ClerkLAssistant to Board ZBA Hearings 2 SePtember 20, 1993 I N D E X Appl. No. Applicant Paqes 4190 JOHN AND MARIE S. SHACK 3-7 4161 BARBARA KUJAWSKI. .~ 3~ 4184 CHARLES H. LEWIS. 8-30 ZBA Hearings 3 September 20, 1993 Appl. No. 4190 - JOHN AND MARIE S. SHACK for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B for permission to construct deck addition within 75 feet of bulkhead at Pipes Cove, Greenport Shores. Property Location: Shore Drive, Greenport, Greenport Shores Combined Lot Nos. 16, 17 and p/o 15; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-47-2-26.1 (Prev. 26). The subject premises is substandard in size and is located in the R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone District. 7:32 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: This hearing on the agenda is on behalf of John and Marie Shack. I have a copy of a survey dated or amended June 25, 1990, from Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C., indicating the approximate placement of the house which is a little more toward the westerly side of the property, and the application that is before us is a deck facing --in this particular case is shown as Pipes Cove, and the deck is question is apprpximately 14 feet in depth, 28 feet in length across the rear of the house, with a little cutout where the addition to the house exists and is presently a part of the house, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight, sir? Is there something you would like to add to this? Appearance: Edward Williams, Builder~ for the Applicant. ZBA Hearings 4 September 20, 1993 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I am here to introduce~ this is Mary Sayegh, former owner of the property° THE CHAIRMAN: How do you do? MRo WILLIAMS (continuing): And the mother of Marie Shack~ She is the expert on the property. THE CHAIrmAN: Okay. MR. SAYEGH: My daughter is applying for a variance to enable her to build a deck. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. SAYEGH: There is at the present time a concrete patio which covers most of the area where she wants the deck; but she has got children and they are growing and she needs a little bit more room, and we all like decks nowadays, it seems. Even the priest has a deck, so we hope you will look on it favorably and give her permission to build a deck so Mr. Williams can start working° We want to keep them employed° THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Can I just ask Mr. Williams a couple questions. How high off the ground is the deck going to be? MR° WILLIAMS: With the approximately two steps, sixteen inches, sixteen to twenty-two inches° THE CHAIR/~AN: Now on these steps that go down toward the water, they are two eighteen-inch steps or one eighteen-inch step? I mean two steps including a total of eighteen inches? MR. WILLIAMS: You have the deck with stepdown eight and eight. ZBA Hearings 5 September 20, 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. THE CHAIRMAN: So it would be eighteen on the tread and then eighteen again? MR. WILLIAMS: The tread would be about ten inches. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: It would stick, it would be going to the water 22 inches. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, 22 inches total. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: So instead of actually being 40, it is going to be about 38. MR. WILLIAMS: How is that again? THE CHAIRMAN: Instead of being 40 feet from the inside of the bulkhead, it is going to be about 38. MR. WILLIAMS: Correct. THE CHAIRMAN: But those steps are only 6 feet in actual width? MR. WILLIAMS: Width. The last interchange only because it is easier to walk onto the deck and straight into the sliding doors. It is not written in stone, you know. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody have any questions of this nice lady? Or of Mr. Williams? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: This will remain unroofed, right? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. MEMBER VILLA: What was the question about the steps? ZBA Hearings 6 September 20~ 1993 THE CHAIRMAN: The steps are going to protrude out about 22 inches from the deck. MEMBER VILLA: But they don't go down toward the water. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes~ they do~ He said it was a last-minute change. We will show it to you when it comes back down this way (referring to sketch plan passing down Board)° (Off the record on another matter~ request for use of courtroom.) THE CHAIRMAN: Surely; we will change rooms with you as soon as we finish this hearing. THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions on this? MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: NOo THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have a particular problem with this application. Does anybody have any problems with it? Bob? MEMBER VILLA: I don't have a problem° I just, the one statement said something about all the neighbors are as close. From what I could see, the other neighbors are further back than this, but I don't have too much of a problem with ito THE CHAIRMAN: I will make a motion granting the deck as applied for, with the provision that the steps only remain six feet in width and not .protrude any more than 22 inches~ and that the, out into the 40 foot area, and that it remain unroofed. Excuse me, I apologize for this --This light I usually turn off. It causes such a glare problem and it is ZBA Hearings 7 September 20, 1993 bothering me-- and any lighting being used for the deck be shielded. You got it. MR. WILLIAMS and MRS. SAYEGH: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Good night. ZBA Hearings 8 September 20, 1993 APPLN. NO. 4184 CHARLES H. LEWIS - (carryover from the August 18, 1993 hearings calendar). Application requesting a variance as provided by New York Town Law, Section 280-A requesting standards of minimum improvement to the traveled bases of two separate (private) rights-of-way for safe and sufficient access by emergency, fire and other vehicles located as described below: Access to Lot No. 1, as modified, with its proposed access over a right-of-way extending from the westerly side of Lighthouse Road, $outhold, NY, over premises now or formerly of Pantel, referred to as Parcel ~1000-50-3-3.4, and over premises now or formerly of Suffolk County, known as Parcel #1000-50-3-3.1. Access to Lot No. 2, as modified, with its proposed access over a right-of-way extending from the northerly side of Sound View Avenue,~ Southold, NY, in a northerly direction over lands now or formerly of Regan, Lindermayer, Stanley, Kudinka and/or Garcia and Sileo, referred to as Parcels ~1000-50-3-16, 7, 8, 23, 9 and/or 19.1. The subject lot requiring SectiOn 280-A approval is shown as new subdivision Lot No. 2 as modified and further identified as County Tax Map Nos. 1000-50-3-14, 15, and 16 for a total combined area of 2.2612 acres, and which is pending before the $outhold Town Planning Board for re-division into two lots. ZBA HeaLings 9 September 20~ 1993 7:50 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record o) THE CHAIRMAN: The last time I believe there was a brief discussion but nothing of any magnitude, so we will let Mr. Wagner~ who is representing the applicant~ give us his statement. How are you tonight? Appearance: John Wagner, Esq. ~ for the Applicant MR. WAGNER: Good to see you again. I want to start off by giving you a color-coded map. I have two copies for the Board, a lot of tax parcels in the area, and I think this helps us identify what we are dealing with better. THE CHAIRMAN: It is certainly less busy than the other one, I tell you° And I am usually, John~ as you know, very good with these things. I work constantly acquiring them in the County, left.and right, of which a portion of this one I believe belongs to the County and is under the jurisdiction-- MRm WAGNER: The roadway there -- THE CHAIRMAN (continuing): But this is a very confusing situation, having these two rights-of-way. MR° WAGNER: A little confusing for me~ too. I had to get a title person on board to sort it out. I want to give you a little bit of the history of the property° What you see on the tax maps is really what was. There were three separate tax parcels: 14 and 15, which are the smaller parcels that you see on there are-- they have houses and other structures on them~ ZBA Hearings 10 Septemb_er 20, 1993 several accessory sheds in addition to the houses. The one on tax parcel 14, which is the flag parcel that you see on the tax map is really uninhabitable at this time, and I think the applicant intends to remove that dwelling and replace it with something more modern, more usable. What had happened here is, although there were three historical parcels that you see on the tax map, they all came into single ownership of Charles Lewis. I believe it was part of his mother's estate, and it was eventually conveyed down into him in 1988 by means of three separate deeds which I submitted with the application; and the history to 14, 15, and 16 is different in the following respect, and Ghat is that the rights-of-way benefitting the parcels are different. Both of the deeds for tax parcels 14 and 15 include a right-of-way over a 25-foot road that sort of zigzags down to Lighthouse Road to the east. Tax parcel 16, by contrast, has a deeded right-of-way over a 30-foot private road that goes down to Sound View Avenue; and that road is fairly straight until it gets up to Lot 16. It is better-improved than the 25-foot rig~t-of-way. That parcel, I believe, was part of the old Hyatt (phonetic, no spelling supplied record) property, who owned a lot of property in here. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is why Hyatt Road is named Hyatt Road~ MR. WAGNER: Right. And it's actually, this is called East Hyatt Road or something; there is a signpost down there. There is, parenthetically, there is an open development area ZBA Hearings 11 September 20, 1993 around here that Mr. Hyatt had approved by the Town Board which does not affect this particular property. We are here today asking for a 280-A variance to permit the subdivision of this property. Now let me tell you about the subdivision. It has been pending for a few years now before the Planning Board° Basically it is an acknowledgement of the merger of the three lots and the desire to redivide them into two conforming lots under the current zoning~ And we do that and we bring it up to the current lot requirements by subsuming parts of Tax Parcel 16 into the easterly parcels; so you have also submitted to you the map of the current subdivision which has been modified somewhat to show the traveled portions of the two rights-of-way leading up to the property, and you can see the areas involved. Lot 1 is the northerly parcel --I should say the northwesterly parcel-- and that has some wetland area that has been identified on it, and the Planning Board has directed that there be no access from that Lot 1 onto the 30-foot right-of-way but that the access must be over the 25-foot right-of-way of Lighthouse Road. They have also asked for a 75-foot buffer back from that wetland area~ which subsumes off a lot of the parcel but still leaves a building envelope over to the northeast. The proposal right now is --I brought both rights-of-way before the Board for discussion. I had to go back a little bit in time to find the basis for the rights through Lot 16 over this 30-foot ZBA Hearings 12 September 20, 1993 right-of-way, but it does exist. There is a 1950 deed, I believe, which I have submitted to the Board. Depending on where the houses are actually situated on these two parcels after subdivision has a lot to do with which right-of-way would be used to access, obviously the only thing we are talking about is Lot 2 because the Planning Board has already told us that we can only take access off the 25-foot right-of-way for Lot 1. And that is where the building envelope is anyway, it is over toward that side of the lot-- THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): Because of the wetland area, I assume? MR. WAGNER: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask you a quick question. On Lot No. 1, the structure that you say is uninhabitable is the one closest to the buffer area? MR. WAGNER: Yes. There is, I think a corner of it actually touches the (one word inaudible on tape). They asked us to indicate at some point on the map what was habitable and what was not. We marked it on there. THE CHAIRMAN: So, assuming that we --that the Planning Board would grant the subdivision which I assume are 40,000 square foot lots and that is the reason they are doing it in an R-40 district, else it would come here-- the lot would probably devoid of any structures then, until such time that a dwelling was built? ZBA Hearings 13 September 20, 1993 MR. WAGNER: I would say so. I don't know if there is any way to salvage that house that is on there. In fact, i think we have represented that we will remove it o There is a foundation on that parcel, too. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. I see it over there~ yes~ MR. WAGNER: I don't know what the Board has done. I trie(~ to go out there and walk the property. I always do --and met with a jungle. I couldn't get into it. THE CHAIRMAN: I know it o MR. WAGNER: It is unbelievable. So certainly from the 30-foot side, which is the easiest to drive up, you just cannot penetrate on foot. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I am sorry. Go ahead~ MR. WAGNER: So I told you a little bit about the history; I think it sets the stage for what we are looking for tonight. I have submitted the subdivision plat, as currently proposed to the Building Department. Tom Fisher looked it over and gave us an updated notice of approval (sic) in May of this year~ which we are appealing tonight through the Board, and the only thing listed on that notice of disapproval was the 280-A requirement of the Town Law. Obviously we are here tonight because we don't have direct access to a public road, where we are sort of landlocked but for the rights-of-way to give access to the property. Now, what do we have to show to merit the grant of this variance? 280-A tells us that we can show either ZBA Hearings 14 September 20, 1993 unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty, and it used to be --I would refer you all to that Wachsberger case for what practical difficulty means, but now that they have amended the Town Law as of last year to give us some specifica-- THE CHAIRMAN (Interposing): I am going to be in serious trouble by saying this on the air, but I will say it anyway because it will come out this way, all right: Normally, okay, this would be referred to an Engineer for an evaluation of the road specifications, okay. AS you are aware that the Engineers would probably come up with these specifications that the Planning Board would require, which would be 22 feet paved. We conceivably --I conceivably, I am not speaking for these astute gentlemen here-- but I conceivably would never feel that-- that would be an unnecessary hardship for one house. I realize that other people use this as an access, but I mean we are creating one house here. One-house would probably --it does exist even though it is not usable at this particular time. MR. WAGNER: We are basically going to be replacing on~ for one anything. THE CHAIRMAN: So whatever you would like to say in reference to road specifications, I have specific mind after looking at Lighthouse Road, that side --or if you want to refer to the Lot No. 1 access, what I intend to deal with or at least recommend to the Board, and that is width and road-base specifications. And we go anywhere from bank-run and stoneblend, and we go from 10 feet to 12 feet. I go from 10 ZBA Hearings 15 September 20, 1993 feet to 12 feet, in reference to road width. Certainly not an overbearing or a hardship that would create severe monetary expenditures on the basis of an applicant, all right; and that is basically my opinion alsoo MR~ WAGNER: Certainly we have no objection to anything that is reasonable, that does not put it out of rea'ch of the applicant. My applicant must be honest with you. The applicant is up in Canada, and he has been amazed continually at write a check to this, and write a check to that, and it is hard to explain to 'him sometimes why he has to pay out all this money before he has any kind of an approval. We just had a letter from the Planning Board last week. They granted a sketch plan -- and want now another $2,000 for the park fee° So I explained to him once again. But I am trying to explain to him that there is an end to all this, and we are going to end up with usable property again. THE CHAIRMAN: At the end of the rainbow, of course, I should point out to you that even though this is not in the same fire district that I live in, I have been a fireman for many years as well as served on this Board~ and we are concer~ed about access~ And it is one of the paramount things we are concerned with, and that is access that is continuously maintained so as to get fire and emergency vehicles into the site. ZBA Hearings 16 September 20, 1993 MEMBER WILTON: What provision would be provided towards the end of the road for turning around, like a tractor-trailer firetruck or something like that? MR. WAGNER: I don't know that we have any provision other than to pull into the driveway and back out again. I tell you candidly when I drove in myself, through the 25-foot right-of-way, the thing I was most concerned I might find was that the turn around those little ninety-degree turns would be tight, really hard for a truck to get in, for exampale. THE CHAIRMAN: Really tight. MR. WAGNER: And I didn't find that much trouble. The biggest problem I had was with cars parked in the right-of-way, you know. I don't know what we can do about that. This is from users further down the right-of-way from us. THE CHAIRMAN: Those are really a request the Chief has to make from the Fire Department, and the Fire Departments usually ge out on a yearly basis and inspect their own rights-of-way. I am talking about difficult access, okay. And we have in Mattituck written to several people and told them that they presently are blocking areas that are conceivably areas that access is required over at certain times, and you can't do it. And you are subject to being towed, you are subject to being pushed, you are subject to destruction of the vehicle or whatever the case might be. And these are things people have to bear in mind once they are warned. And that is a problem, it is something that we can't control here. It has to ZBA Hearings 17 September 20~ 1993 be controlled within its own fire district. We can only provide the access. If people attempt to block the access~ then it is a problem° MR. WAGNER: To answer the question though, I think it is conceivable we could provide some means of backing and turning motion onto the property. I don't know that we have the facility for a cul-de-sac large enough to support a large rig, but we could do something here. And there might also be -- might be some way to provide some access for emergency purposes from the 30-foot right-of-way. When I drove up there~ I noticed there is a house right across that had a fire in it not too long ago. They are renovating the whole upper floor, so somebody had been down there before to put that out. That's a nice road~ though. It is a nice straight road and you could conceivably clear a path through or something for access from that road. Right now, as I say, it is impenetrable, but you know we can change that~ providing the Planning Board doesn't come up with a Conservation easement or something to surprise us. But I want to just go down the criteria with you in the context of the history I gave you, just so we can make a record on the variance request. Basically, the practical difficulty standard has now been sort of codified in the statute, and that codification has taken into account standards from a lot of different cases, but there is some consistency among them. The ultimate question that the ZBA has to determine is the benefit to the applicant if ZBA Hearings 18 September 20, 1993 the variance is granted, as opposed to the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community or neighborhood by the grant of the variance; and that is the general question. Then they give you several factors to consider. One is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance. Well, obviously, my opinion on this is that there will be no detrimental change in the neighborhood. There were two houses there historically. We are only proposing by the subdivision, to have two houses now -- however, on larger conforming lots. Another point that should be made is that this property has been dormant and fallen into disrepair for some time. To grant the subdivision, to allow us to market the property under today's zoning restrictions will allow money to come into the property and put it back into repair. I think it will become an asset to the neighborhood rsther than an eyesore, as it to some extent is now. Another factor is whether the benefits sought by the app ~cant can be achieved by some method feasible to pursue other than a variance. Well, that sort of speaks for itself. The property is really landlocked but for the rights-of-way to provide access to it; that is, legal'access. I don't see any prospect a public road will ever be installed to access this ZBA Hearings 19 ~September 20, 1993 property. Just looking at the lay-of-the-land, I don't see any scheme that will allow that to happen. The next criterion is whether the requested variance is substantial° Well, that is difficult to quantify when you are dealing with a 280-A variance. We are not talking about so many feet here as opposed to what the Code requires~ I think it should be noted, howeverf that again two houses have historically been on the property, and we are proposing two houses by the current subdivision, so it is really no net change in density or in population. Another factor is whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and~ again, the subdivision, if it is allowed to proceed based upon a variance granted by this Board, will allow the cleanup and productive use of this property, which has been dormant and in disrepair~.and I think that would provide a benefit to the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood and make it a nicer place to live. And --I should point out also as I did earlier-- that the subdivision contemplates establishment of the 75-foot buffer from the wetlands, which will preserve some of the environmental concerns regarding the property, concerns that probably didn't exist when~ historically, this place came to be; and whatever improvements the Board would come up with, I am sure will benefit the community as a whole. Other ZBA Hearings 20 September 20, 1993 people using the rights-of-way, it is not just for this particular applicant. Basically, that is my presentation. I think that on the basis of all this, and subject to whatever feasible conditions'the Board might come up with, I respectfully request that the variance be granted. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, we have two gentlemen in the back who would like to speak, and I did ask them to --I am understanding this right-of-way situation a little bit better than I did the last time I had spoken to you, sir; and it is not that I am thick, I assure you, it is just that I found it a little disconcerting why we would end up having to do 280-A over both rights-of-way, and now I understand the reason why. But you are welcome to speak as long as you give me your name again for the record. R E G I N A L D M I N E R : My name is Reginald Miner. I.have the property that adjoins Lewis' property. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. I know you are concerned. MR. MINER: I am concerned that the access to Lot No. 1 is going to be right up against my property, which would be less than ten feet from physically my house. From what I was told when I bought this property three and a half years ago, that my property alone with the Rubin (phonetic, no spelling supplied record) property and the Lewises property at one time had all belonged to the same party, and that all of these houses were main house, cottages, and so forth, that were associated ZBA Hearings 21 September 20, 1993 with this whole up estate up in that piece of property. I didn't know about the Planning Board not allowing the 30-foot right-of-way at the top, the northwestern not be able to be used. I can't understand that because actually the wetlands that is shown on this is really --I am a novice at this~ but in three and a half years I have never seen any water there, and I have walked the property, the Hyatt Road and this deserted two lots, many, many times, and I have never seen any water there° It would seem to me that that 30-foot-right-of-way would be the ideal entrance to Lot No. 1, especially considering that along the property line between Lot 1 and the Moss (phonetic, no spelling supplied record) property and the Southold Park District is where LILCO has all of its transmission lines coming in to feed the area~ THE CHAIRMAN: I completely understand what you are saying, and ceutainly the access over the northwesterly portion of that prgperty~ but that is not within our forte~ and I have no idea why the Planning Board did that, okay~ You haven't spoken to them at all? MRo MINER: I didn"t even know that they had ruled against it° THE CHAIRMAN: Okay° What is the timeliness on this thing? Can Mr. Miner go and ask them the reason for these? BOARD CLERK: There is a report in there from the Trustees, there is wetlands there° THE CHAIRMAN: So there won't be any change in there. ZBA Hearings 22 September 20, 1993 MR. WAGNER: One of the things the 75-foot setback does is, it takes us out of the Trustees' jurisdiction. If I were to do anything within there-- THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): Then you got to go back to them? MR. WAGNER: Yeah, I'd be in an adjacent area, to wetlands under their Code, and I'd have to go to them for a permit. I think the Planning Board was simply looking to preserve whatever they found-- they must be looking at vegetation as.opposed to standing water; and they came up with that requirement a few years back. They just granted sketch plan approval for this week, yes. And-- MEMBER DOYEN: Just this gentleman --I don't know if you quite picked up on what he just said, wetlands is not determined by land that is just wet. MR. WAGNER: I understand that. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, but what he also said is that the reason that he didn't do it is that he didn't want to make a permit, to make a request for a permit to the Trustees. If you made a request, you might have gotten'it. MR. WAGNER: That is a point 'that I made after the fact. This 75-foot buffer was foisted upon me long before that. I tried to rationalize to myself. I said, well, I guess we can live with it because we have to make an application to the Trustees anyway. That was something that the Planning staff came up with, not at my suggestion. ZBA Hearings 23 September 20~ 1993 ~4EMBER DINIZ!O: You are certainly within your right not to protest that. You know~ I mean~ you have gone by the 75-foot right-of-way and-- MR. WAGNER: Historically we had nothing on that area of the property anyway, just a small corner of the pre-existing structure. We do have an adequate building envelope elsewhere~ so it just didn't seem something worth fighting. THE CHAIRMAN: Let's go back to the present situation on Lot No. 1~ and let's take a look at it, because I know that this is the area that concerns this gentleman mainly. MR. MINER: Well, the second proposal that I thought perhaps maybe could be done, worked with, and I have no objection to the lots being formulated in this way. In fact~ as this gentleman has said, nothing has been done on these lots for 'any period of time, and they are jungles, and even in Lot No. 2 where there is a house, I mean, the windows are broken in the house. The door is open. There is weeds growing right through the middle of the house, I mean, I don't know how anybody can even occupy that house-- I would be satisfied if some sort of compromise could be come up with that would allow the access to Lot NOo 1 through Lot NO. 2, with a buffer between my house and the driveway~ MR. WAGNER: Could I speak about that? THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah~ I think he just said -- you got sketch plan approval already? ZBA Hearings 24 September 20, 1993 MR. WAGNER: Yes, the layout. I should say it was a suggestion in their sketch-plan approval that we consider granting some kind of an easement to the other parcel. Let me say this: The sketch as currently designed is identical to the old tax parcels. We have an 18-foot-wide flag, at least it is 18 feet where it hits the 25-foot roadway; then it diverges from there, as it gets further back. I looked at the Code this afternoon to see if there was some minimum standard in the Town for width of a driveway, and I don't find any per se. BOARD CLERK: It is 15 feet. MR. WAGNER: It is 15 feet? There is something on access for 15 feet for the flag, but that doesn't say anything about paved width running-- MEMBER DINIZIO: There is none. MR. WAGNER: I think you could probably get by with a ten-foot paved width; and with that in mind, I was going to suggest that to mitigate the impact on Mr. Miner's property, we could agree to keep the paved portion of the road hugging the --I guess that is the southwesterly side of that strip. That would give at least eight feet more against your property. You are about 7.9 feet from the line; we'll give you another eight feet, so now you have doubled your sideyard. I am really loath to suggest to the client or to enforce on a client that we start getting into an easement situation across the other lot, because no one is going to want to have a right-of-way going through the front yard of that house. Anybody who wants to buy that house, ZBA Hearings 25 September 20~ 1993 why should they have the driveway for the house next door going right across their front lawn? We are willing to compromise, and I think that what I have suggested is a degree of compromise. The house was there. Mr. Miner bought into the situation. I appreciate the situation that he is in. I think that if we moved the driveway down to the far side~ I mean it would not cause any trouble° I can't imagine that we would need any more than a ten-foot-wide actual paved surface to travel on. THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly to ingress and egress out of the lot itself~ yes. But the right-of-way will probably have to be --When I say the right-of-way~ I am referring to the right-of-way, the existing right-of-way-- MR. WAGNER: You mean the 25-foot-- THE CHAIRMAN: It would probably have to be about twelve. MR. WAGNER: I think that's wider than the actual travel-- BOARD CLERK: Fifteen unobstructed. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's got to be eighteen. MEMBER VILLA: It doesn't say, just shows a color° MR. WAGNER: Again~ that is subject to your discretion~ what you want to do about that. THE CHAIRMAN: We had suggested that at the last meeting; after the meeting we talked --Jimmy and I at least talked about it ..... MEMBER VILLA: This just says dirt road. ZBA Hearings 26~ September 20, 1993 MR. WAGNER: I have discussed it with my client because I have spoken with Mr. Miner at least two times, and asked him what he wanted to in respect to that. There is an existing dirt road on that old tax parcel 15; but that I think was primarily to service the house that is on that parcel. MR. MINER: As it goes past that so-called shed which is here, it swings back; and if they used that present dirt road and then swing right back to my property line, I would have no objection because it would by-pass the house. What I am concerned about, as far as going up and down the driveway, right by the house itself. The upper part of my property, the northern part, I don't care whether it's right alongside my property line. It is immaterial to me. MR. WAGNER: Again, think of this though. It is really what we are talking about. Maybe two to four trips a day, at most. It is not a traveled road. It is a driveway to a house. Somebody goes to work. They come home again. Maybe they go out shopping. So it is not something that is going to keep you up all night, let's put it that way. MR. MINER: No, provided there are no teenagers. MR. WAGNER: Well, you know, the problem with teenagers when they get a nice straight road, they like to put the pedal to the metal, and we don't have that kind of distance here. MEMBER DINIZIO: And, again, think about it this way: Had there just been one lot, and he could have a driveway 6 ZBA Hearings 27 September 20~ 1993 inches away from the property line, and you know there is really not a lot you can do about ito If you can get him to at least agree to give you eight feet of something that is growing there, he is out of your living room~ anyway. MR~ WAGNER~' It is sixteen attogether~ from the corner of your house~ MEMBER DINIZIO: That is my suggestion~ THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Yes? T O M M U R R A Y : My name is Tom Murray. On the map here where it has the dirt road, would that be prohibitive from your Board to approve a right-of-way utilizing that dirt road or bringing that dirt' road over more towards the right? THE CHAIRMAN: To answer your question, Mr. Murray~ what has been basically mentioned here --and I will use the phrase "on the table" by Mr. Wagner-- is something that we are not going to or able to grant at this particular point° We are only granting access to that 18 feet° That is where our access is stopping right there (indicating)° Where you see that arrow poi~nting to~ that is where it stops. BOARD CLERK: It is not the right-of-way we are putting. It is the access over the right-of-way. MR. MURRAY: It is not the flag part. THE CHAIRMAN: It is not the flag part. MR~ MURRAY: I don~t know what you mean. THE CHAIRMAN: Give him a point there~ Do you want to come up here? ZBA Hearings 28 September 20, 1993 MEMBER VILLA: It is 18 feet wide and goes back to Lot 2, Lot 1 rather. They call it a flag. It is access to that lot. THE CHAIRMAN: What he is giving you is exactly what you are going to have -- We have had Mr. Wagner before, with granting gas stations and what have you. What he says he is going to give you, he is going to give you. There is no question. This man is above-board all the way. Okay. MR. WAGNER: I appreciate that. THE CHAIRMAN: Really, I am serious, John. We have always had great communication with you, okay; but we can't grant, we are not going to grant into the lot is what we are saying to you. MR. WAGNER: Where that dirt road is. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. We are only granting, where you see the arrow come down, that's it. MR. WAGNER: We have to go back to the Planning Board anyway for final approval. We are not done with that. MR. ~URRAY: Okay. THE CHAIRMAN: So just make sure the road is over to the 8 feet against the property line of Lot No. 2 and that is really all you have to worry about --I am not saying "all", it is not a generalization-- but-- MR. MURRAY: What would be the makeup of that 8 feet that would not be paved? THE CHAIRMAN: It is up to the property owner. ZBA Hearings 29 September 20, 1993 MEMBER DINIZIO: See, the nature of this application is such that that is the shape of the lot; just as Mr. Miner has an odd-shaped lot with that little flag there~ where he has his well~ and he can cut that grass, he can let it grow, he can do with it what he would like. This person can do that same thing. Okay~ It is merely because it is 18 feet wide, it is not the nature of our application here. The man has to get to his lot, to his house through that; and basically what 'you have come here for and he is giving you --more or less out of the goodness of his heart-- because he is entitled to what he has° He is entitled to that full 18 feet. He'll give you the ten feet or eight feet and let it grow or maybe put some bushes in there, or maybe you could offer to put some bushes there or something and work that way. But there is nothing that the Towns or at least this Board, can do on that particular flag that would protect Mr. Miner, Mro Miner's living room. Other than what %he applicant would like to give you. THE CHAIRMAN.' And the interesting thing was, when I went up and saw the blackboard in the meeting room, I said, "This is great. Now we can draw it o" (Laughter) And all of a sudden, we ended up in the Board room, without a blackboard. Does anybody have any other questions? I hope that answers your questions. MR. MINER: What happens now? This has to go back to the Planning Board? THE CHAIRMAN: It will go back to the Planning Board. ZBA Hearings 30 September 20, 1993 MR. MINER: I missed it, but what exactly is the Planning Board going to make a decision on now? THE CHAIRMAN: The complete application. MR. MINER: The whole application? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. WAGNER: They have to grant the subdivision of two lots. MEMBER VILLA: And if you went to them and voiced your objection, and they took it into consideration, they could possibly change it; but that is between them and you. MEMBER DINIZIO: See, I looked at it differently. I looked at the lots and said, "Boy, it would have been nice if they just jogged it right around; they could have both used that same right-of-way and everybody would have been happier." But it seemed like this is the way it kind of fell. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, that is what I looked at, too. · THE CHAIRMAN: If the lots were 39,000 square feet, we would be granting the subdivision; but since they are forty and over, that is why they have it. Okay? Anybody else have any other questions of either the attorney or -- (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's Minutes.) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming in. Nice seeing you again, John. Hearings 31 ~ptember 20, 1993 POSTPONEMENT REQUESTED BY APPLICANT AND CO-OWNER: APPL. NO. 4161 - BARBARA KUJAWSKI. Application for a Special Exception for approval of an Accessory Apartment in conjunction with the principal dwelling use and residency by the owner (owner occupancy) and subject to the provisions of Article III, Section 100-31(14). Location of Property: House ~125 (per Town Records) at the north side of Sound Avenue, which parcel commences at a point approximately 51 feet east of the Riverhead-Southold Town Boundary Line, and extending 195.18 feet along Sound Avenue, Mattituck,~NY; County- Tax ~ap Parcel No. 1000-120-1-2.2. This property consists of an area of 40,241 sq. ft. and is located in the Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) Zone District. THE CHAIRMAN: Postponed as requested by applicant, without a date. (End of Evening's Hearings) jdr RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE. /o ~ ~ ?~ Town Clerk, Town o~ Southo!d