HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/18/1993 HEARING PUBLIC HEARINGS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Monday, October 18, 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
RICHARD C. WILTON, Member
HARVEY A. ARNOFF, ESQ., Town Attorney
LINDA KOWALSKI,
Clerk-Assistant to Board
Absent: ROBERT A. VILLA, Member
I N D E X
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
October 18, 1993 - ZBA Regular Meeting
APPL. NO. Applicant Pages
4193 NICK CYPRUS. 3-6
4197 HARLEY B. ARNOLD . 7-9
4294 -RACHEL VOEGELIN . . . 10-12
4192 ROGER AND MADELYN STOUTENBURGH 13-18
4191 BECKY JOHNSTON. 19-30
4196 ALLEN OVSIANIK. 31-41
4195 PETROL STATIONS, LTD. 43-89
4198 DR. GEORGE KOFINAS. 42
ZBA HearLngs -3- October 18, 1993
APPLICATION NO. 4193 NICK CYPRUS
for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section
100-244B for permission to construct garage addition with a
reduced westerly side yard at less than the required 10 feet,
and total sideyards at less than 25 feet. Location of
Property: 1100 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-99-1-4.1. The subject premises is a
nonconforming, substandard lot having an area of approximately
18,500 square feet, located in the R-40 Low-Density Residential
Zone District.
7:30 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal
Notice and application for the record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a survey from Roderick Van Tuyl,
P.C., dated December 2, 1968, indicating the original structure
and the additions thereto and I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the
area. Would you like to be heard, Mr. Cyprus?
MR. CYPRUS: Whatever you have to know, to answer
you. I do need the garage because I do plan to move here
permanently and the garage is important not just for the cars
alone, but for the space also provided for storage and so
ZBA Hearings -4- October 18, 1993
on and so forth. And my both neighbors on either side of me,
they not only don't object to me continuing, but they know that
it would enhance the block by doing this. When I say enhance,
it would up to the vehicles covered as well. And at present i
have the house as it is, which is a compliments I feel, to the
area, and this will certainly not detract from it in any way.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is this garage proposed a one-story
garage?
MR. CYPRUS: One story garage.
THE CHAIRMAN: And it will be completely enclosed. It
will not be a carport, a completely enclosed garage, with a --
MR. CYPRUS: Oh, absolutely. We have of course two
entrances -- you know what I mean? The garage doors and
entrance to the rear.
THE CHAIRMAN: You say you are going to have two
garage doors, basically one that opens to the water-side, too?
MRo CYPRUS: Right° I would like to have a door there
open to the water. It would be easier for me to get in if I
don't want to open the garage doors. That is about all.
THE CHAIRMAN: While you are standing up, I would ask
the Board if anybody has any questions of Mr. Cyprus?
Concerning his application.
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: What would you say the actual height of
the garage wouldbe~ about twelve feet?
ZBA Hearings ~ October 18, 1993
MR. CYPRUS: Well, approximately would not exceed the
present height of the building, which is a one-story building.
THE CHAIRMAN: I see. In other words, the original
house is a one-story building.
MR. CYPRUS: The original house is a one-story
building. The addition that I have there is on the east side of
the building which is two-story, but this is on the other side
of it; and it will conform the same height like the rest of the
building, the same roof, H will extend it out, and I don't quite
remember whether I am going to have an extension of overhang to
protect from the rain, and that is about all.
THE CHAIRMAN: You probably want to do this this
winter? As quickly as possible?
MR. CYPRUS: Well, frankly, I will start this winter
like the foundation now. Being I close the house shortly, I do
the rest next spring.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we hope to have a decision for
you very quickly.
MR. CYPRUS: I hope so.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody
else who would like to speak? Either in favor or against this
application?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?
(No response from Board members.)
ZBA Hearings -6- October 18, 1993
(Board rendered decision at this point. See Clerk's
Minutes.)
ZBA Hearings ~7~ October 18, 1993
APPLICATION NO. 4197 - HARLEY Bo ARNOLD
for a Special Exception as provided by Article IIIA, Section
100-30A.2B approving an Accessory Apartment use in conjunction
with owner's residency in this existing dwelling situate at 1455
Albo Drive, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-126-3-16.
7:35 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal
Notice and application for the record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have before me an original
Certificate of Occupancy dated October 29, 1964, on the original
dwelling, and I have a C.O. of February 24, 1987, deck addition
to existing one-famil~ dwelling. I have a TO August 14, 1987,
indicating an in-the-ground swimmiqg pool and fence; and I have
a CO indicating September 23rd, 1993, indicating addition and
alterations to existing one-family dwelling as applied for; and
I have a survey from Roderick Van Tuyt dated August 16, 1993,
indicating the small addition to the rear portion of the garage
which is basically to the right-hand side standing in front of
the dwelling; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is Mr.
Arnold available? How are you tonight, sir?
Could I ask you to use the mike?
Appearance: Harley B. Arnold,
Applicant pro se.
MR. ARNOLD: Fine, thank you.
ZBA Hearings -8- October 18, 1993
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add
to this, Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: Just the information on the application°
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand this is for a family
member?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, my wife's brother. He is there now
actually.
THE CHAIRMAN: On this most recent C of 0 you had
gotten, you added that little portion on back of the garage. I
know it is not really the back of the garage, it is really the
right-hand side of the garage. Okay. How many square feet was
that that you actually added on at the time?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, not counting the garage, I think it
is, I had it figured out on the copy--
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I did read it once.
MR. ARNOLD (continuing): I had those numbers here,
but it is 500, around five hundred.
THE CHAIRMAN: I got 21 by 23. Does that sound about
right?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes°
THE CHAIRMAN: So in effect what you have done, you
have taken a portion of the garage, or the garage is still
existing as it stands?
ZBA Hearings -9- October 18, 1993
MR. ARNOLD: Still existing. It is a two-car garage,
there are still two cars in it. We put a door in the back and
added on.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask, while you are standing
there, does anybody have any specific questions for Mr. Arnold
concerning this application?
(There was no response from the Board.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I thank you, sir. Is there
anybody here who would like to speak eithe~ in favor or against
this application?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I will make a motion
closing the hearing and recessing i~t 'til later. Excuse me,
reserving decision until later, tongue-tied tonight.
(Seconded and carried.)
THE CHAIRMAN: We hope to have a decision for you
tonight, sir.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
(End of Hearing)
ZBA Hearings -10- October 18, 1993
APPLICATION NO. 4194 RACHEL VOEGELIN
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33
for an accessory satellite dish structure, as installed, in the
southerly yard area (known as front yard area under the zoning
definitions). Location of Property: 58473 (ROW off) Main Road,
Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-55-6-33.2.
7:43 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. Most of us
have been there to see it, and I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map showing this and surrounding properties. You are
welcome to present anything you like. Please state your name
for the record.
Appearance: Michael Belford, Esq.,
for the Applicant.
My name is Michael Belford. I am representing the
applicant. I am an attorney in Bay Shore, and essentially what
happened here is the previous owner had engaged a satellite
installer to install the satellite, and it was believed at the
time it was installed that it was installed in the rear yard.
This parcel is off the Main Road by 700 feet, as you may know by
the right-of-way, and it is very close in proximity to the
railroad track there. To the west and northwest there is a
fourteen-acre parcel which is vacant; and to the east is also a
great deal of vacant land although I don't know how far (word
ZBA Hearings -11- October 18, 1993
inaudible). So the installation of it in the rear yard was
inadvertent in the sense that because access is obtained from
the right-of-way on the south side, that is deemed to be the
front yard, even though the house is --you look at the driveway
and you look at how access is gained to the house-- it is on the
north side; and there is a rear deck which leads to the kitchen
which is generally in the rear of the house; so that is how it
happened. I might add that the issue of the utility of the
satellite is greatly affected by its location also because of
its --the southern and horizon and so forth-- to obtain this 19%
degree without having any obstruction; and if it were located on
what the (word inaudible) would be under the present policy of
the Town, there are some very large trees. Now, I have some
pictures I would like to show you. I know that you have seen
it. I would like to make it part of the record, however, where
some very large trees are on the western side of the house, and
you would have to locate the dish a distance that is beyond the
recommended hundred feet°
THE CHAIRMAN: A hundred feet from any trees?
MR. BELFORD: A hundred feet from the house. Now I
might add that there is an existing subdivision plan being
considered by the Town Planning Department, on the O'Malley
property to the east, and that plan is contemplati~g an access
some future access to a 14-acre parcel across the north boundary
line of the suDject parcel, which would make it then the front
~ ZBA Hearings -12- October 18, 1993
yard, and it would be in the right place if, indeed, that would
have ever happened. So we feel it is a meritorious application
and hope you do.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have never been successful and I say
this with great hope that some day we will be successful in some
way, some form of screening these because, as you know, that
seems to be a problem because they need free access to circulate
and navigate in such a way. Certainly in this particular area,
facing a portion of an unguarded crossing and, you know, I mean
really virtually nothing back there, other than this house, I
don't have a particular objection to it, to be honest with you.
We will see how the other Board members -- Is there anybody else
who would like to voice their opinion to this nice gentleman?
MEMBER WILTON: I have no questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have a particular problem with
it. I will offer a resolution approving it.
(Seconded and carried; see Clerk's Minutes.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Can we keep these pictures?
MR. BELFORD: Absolutely. Thank you. Appreciate it.
ZBA Hearings -13- October 18, 1993
APPLICATION NO. 4192 ROGER & MADELYN STOUTENBURGH-
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section
100-231A, for approval of man-made berm, as situated, with a
height in excess of four feet from ground level at 505 Skunk
Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-97-4-3.
7:51 P.Mo (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal
Notice and application for the record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: With the pending area of this berm running
the major portion of the road frontage of this piece of property
on Skunk Lane, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are
you, sir? Could you state your name for the record?
Appearance: Roger Stoutenburgh,
Applicant pro se
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to
state for the record, Mr. Stoutenburgh?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yeah, I guess so. The first
reason I can think of is, we have little children and the
driveway --there was an existing three or four-foot drop off
from our yard, and the driveway followed that and we kind of
felt the kids would be pulled into that, you know, practicing
their (word inaudible on tape). The second reason is probably
the most~persistent to date. There is a handicapped home across
the street that doesn't handle just --there are many of these
~ZBA Hearings -14- October 18~ 1993
homes on the North Fork where people that work in the community
and do things but these people, I was told by Officer Gordy
(phonetic, no spelling supplied record), who was over there
recently on a complaint, this is an extreme home where the
people scream and can't be placed into other homes and they are
fighting or they have other problems that they can't go into a
more, you know, whatever, more regular one of these homes.
Anyway, we have had them in our home. They have been in other
people's homes on the street, and frankly the kids are kind of
nervous about it and all. We have witnessed a fair amount of
things, but in all honesty, I feel kind of sorry for the people
and don't want to be running to the phone to-- so we thought a
berm would be a way to slow down this kind of activity, at least
in our yard; and in the three months that it has been there, we
haven't had any incident. Four nights ago there was one of
these people walking down the street going into the community to
do something; but the way that we have re-routed our driveway
and mounted the berm up, we haven't had any problems since
then.
The berm looks from the road to be quite high; but
actually if you,look from the south~ looking up the road, you
can see how the road was cut through sixty years ago or
whatever, and my lawn is three or four feet above the highway to
start with; and anything that looks like it is kind of dramatic
there is really just gone over the top of the other4and 'it makes
ZBA Hearings -15- October 18, 1993
it look twice as big as it actually is. It is higher than four
feet, but it is not what it looks. You look from inside the
yard and it is not that much higher.
Do you have a photograph?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think we do. We have of course been
there.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: One thing I didn't add is that
there is a stick in those photographs that actually shows --that
is a 6-foot stick and there is a black part, the black part is
2-foot, and the other is 4 feet.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask you a question: Are
you going to have intentions of any plantings on top of there?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes, I have $300 worth of stuff
in the front right now, and then when I got the paper on this, I
said I better wait. I'll continue doing this and putting wood
chips and all after I have cleared all this part up. Yes, I
will do more of that.
THE CHAIRMAN: What kind of plantings are you talking
about? Something high?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yeah, what were the ones that
grow under the maples there --arborvitae or I don't know. I let
the landscape companies suggest what would grow the best down
there and go according to their say-so.
THE CHAIRMAN: I had a discussion with the highway
department. Berms uniquely have been something that we haven't
ZBA Hearings -16- October 18, 1993
really dealt-with recently. They started about eight, ten years
ago; and I thought it was rather interesting because when they
started, I can recollect quite uniquely that the one that caused
us some discussion was the one across from Albertson Lane on
County Road --well, there is also one down at the Cull
(phonetic, no spelling supplied record) farm, but I mean--
That, because of the great amount of road frontage there, I mean
that is a bad spot and a tremendous amount of soil. No question
about it, and it wasn't too populated around there, but the one
at the end of Albertson Lane and County Road 48 was the one
that we were primarily concerned with because of water runoff.
In the discussion briefly with the Highway Department, their
concern is that of water runoff and they suggested to us that we
just put a caveat in the decision that if there is for any
reason a problem with water runoff, that you would probably be
required to either clip it in some manner or form or swale it
in front so that the water went down into a drain and then back
up again, so you know, if we are so inclined to deal with this
whole situation, you will see that in the decision. I think
most people --and you seem to be a very reasonable man-- I don't
think anybody wants to cause a water problem. I can understand
your concerns. There is no question about it. It is a
legitimate concern. Does anybody have any questions of Mr~
Stoutenbur§h?
(No response from the Board.)
ZBA Heari~lgs ~ ~ ?~ October 18, 1993
MEMBER DINIZIO: It is pretty big, looking at it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Pretty awesome.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Have you considered any other
alternatives for screening, with shrubbery?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: We just thought this would not
need painting and stuff like that. My neighbors are (word
inaudible), so that kind of made it sound good that way, too.
The guy on the other side can help me out with that stuff. We
are going to put up other things so it doesn't look quite so
gaudy if that is what you mean by landscaping. Yeah, we will.
put more trees and things on lt.
THE CHAIRMAN: And you will continue to manicure it, I
assume, with the wood chips and so on?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we will kick it around, and we
thank you very much for coming in, and we will see while you are
standing up there, if there is anybody else who has any
discussions concerning it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who would like to
speak in favor of or against this application?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIR~4AN: Seeing no hands, I will make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until l~ter. We will
kick it around tonight and hopefully have a decision for you.
(Seconded and carried; see Clerk's minutes.)
ZBA Hearings -18- October 18, 1993
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Thank you.
ZBA Hearings -19- October 18, 1993
APPLICATION NO. 4191 - BECKY JOHNSTON
for a Variance under New York Town Law, Section 280-A, for
acceptance of minimum standards of improvements over new
easement right-of-way areas, as modified since the prior Appeal
Hearing and determination rendered under Appl. No. 3478 on
9/11/86o Location of Right-of-Way or Easement Area: Commencing
at a point along the north side of Oregon Road, Cutchogue, along
the westerly side of lands of Bokina, over lands now or
formerly of William J. Baxter and others identified as Lot 1.9,
Block 1, Section 72, extending northerly approximately 1035
feet, to a point, thence running in an easterly direction
approximately 563 feet to the applicant's parcel of land
identified as Lot 1, Block 2, Section 73, District 1000, all as
shown by survey amended June 17, 1992, prepared by Roderick
VanTuyl, P.C.
7:57 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal
Notice and application for the record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have this copy that they were
referring to, indicating the right-of-way, and I have a copy of
the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area. Miss Johnston? Would you like to be
heard?
Appearance: Becky Johnston,
Applicant pro se
ZBA Hearings -20- October 18, 1993
Yes, I would; but first let me give you these
pictures, okay?
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We haven't seen you for a
few years.
MS. JOHNSTON: That is true.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have to admit, the minute you come
before us, you are a very nice lady, b~t I tend to shudder, I'll
be honest with you, but go ahead.
MS. JOHNSTON: As you stated, I am here regarding my
application for a variance under New York Town Law Section
280-Ao Anyway, since September llth, 1986, I have secured two
easements, one from Wernick, Bors and Ells, for the
north/south right-of-way, otherwise known as the Baxter right of
way, which runs parallel to the north/south Bokina
right-of-way. The second easement from the Bokinas purchased
in July 1987, which involves a portion of the east/west
right-of-way, and you have the pictures and the survey that show
this more explicitly° The north/south right-of-way has recently
been resurfaced, as you can see from the picture, and I believe
she satisfies access requirements for emergency vehicles. Since
August, 1993, I attempted to surface the east/west right-of-way
in a similar manner in order to meet~Town standards. However,
John, Ted and I believe it was Edmund Bokina, who would not
allow this process to be completed. Hence, the present
condition of the road.
ZBA Hearings -21- October 18, 1993
After their initial refusal to allow my contractor
Richard Corazzini to proceed with the improvement of the road
under any conditions, I was pleased to receive a letter from the
Bokinas' lawyer William Bates dated September 3rd, 1993,
setting forth the following requirements for improvement of
road. They ask, first, the area ~hould be resurveyed and the
location of the right-of-way marked; second, the roadbed be made
to slope away from the farm field and the stone-blend placed on
the surveyed right-of-way.
Third, measures be taken to prevent the crushed stone
from being moved onto the farm field.
I have spoken with the road-contractor, who assures me
that the road can be completed according to the specifications
outlined in Mr. Bates' letter. I do, however, wish to emphasize
the importance of the road being maintained with a durable
surface. Last year during spring thaw there were very heavy
rains which made the road impassable. My oil heater had a
puff-back and the insurance agent who came out to assess the
damage got his car stuck in the mud. This situation is not
unusual whenever there are heavy rains since the present road is
only dirt. The need for emergency vehicle access --fire
engines, police cars, even an ambulance-- is self-evident. I am
particularly concerned because my 83-year-old mother, who is in
fragile health, frequently visits. I myself have a serious back
ZBA Hearings -22- October 18~ 1993
condition. What if one of us or a guest required emergency
medical intervention and the road was impassable?
In conclusion, I want to say that I welcome your input
and expertise and am hopeful that we can all agree on
specifications for the road that will satisfy the Town's code
and everyone concerned. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You have spoken to Mr.
Corazzini and based upon Mr. Bates' letter, he can live up to
that?
MS. JOHNSTON: Absolutely.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only thing that I, that was
somewhat different from the last time that I have been up there,
was, that I noticed that the turn actually goes up into the
woods on the north/south and then makes the jog to the east
through the woods and then back down again.
MS. JOHNSTON: Right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Once you open back up into the clearing
area, this is the nature of the agreement you have with the
Bokina family, right?
MS. JOHNSTON: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: And they are here. I am sure that we
will hear from them, there is no question. Have you had any
other communication with them since then, other than the fact
through the attorney?
ZBA Hearings -23- October 18, 1993
MS. JOHNSTON: No, I have only spoken with their
attorney. I have had several conversations with him.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, so that is basically where we
stand at this time?
MS. JOHNSTON: That is right.
THE CHAIRMAN: So we will deal with it then and see
what develops throughout the hearing. Thank you.
MS. JOHNSTON: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak in favor of this?
(There was no audible response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody who would like to speak against
it? Or any comment? Ted, how are you tonight?
TED BOKINA: Okay, how are you doing?
THE CHAIRMAN: Good, thanks.
TED BOKINA: I am here representing the Bokinas,
as we own the adjoining'property. This easement right-of-way
--We have checked into this variance because the easement
right-of-way has been encroached on in the easterly/westerly
direction. She had gone south onto our property, not the
existing (word indistinguishable). Also the roadbed that has
been stone-blend dumped on it, making it very difficult to farm.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, ,I heard that.
MR. BOKINA: The farm equipment pulls the rocks back
into the farm field. Also, Becky Johnston has raised the
ZBA Hearings -24- October 18, 1993
roadbed which will result in flooding of our farm crops, which
we had anyway with the houses being put up there~
THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, I am sorry.
MR. BOKINA: I would like the Board of Appeals have
Becky Johnston have a survey of the property, get a
right-of-way existing roadbed put on that right-way not onto our
property, which I was going to close down anyway. Also, the
stone-blend removed, and also not raise the roadbed~ as it will
cause flooding to the farm crops.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ted, can I just ask a question? In
this agreement that occurred since subsequent to 1986, from the
last discussion that we had, and you just heard me say that the
only thing that I have seen different was that they came up into
the woods, you know, rather than cutting that corner real tight
that was being cut-- up in the woods and then back. As that
road comes back into the woods, I see that it meanders back
again down on the farm property. Is that exactly where the
right-of-way is supposed to be? Or you are saying that, with
the survey it would indicate exactly where the right-of-way
should be?
MRo BOKINA: Up further north.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is further north?
MR. BOKINA: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So is it actually into the
woods? ~n your position?
ZBA Hearings October 18, 1993
MR. BOKINA: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is in the woods, you say.
MR. BOKINA: The right-of-way was never cleared
properly. She has been driving on our property.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So I guess at this particular
time then we are going to have to ask Ms. Johnston if she is
going to do that, she is going to get the survey. She is
nodding that she is going to get the survey done.
MS. JOHNSTON: Absolutely.
THE CHAIRMAN: So why don't we wait until that is
done, and we will hold the whole thing in abeyance; when you get
the survey, and then see if there is an agreement as to the
placement of the right-of-way and what we are going to do here,
and then we will talk about the road conditions and what has to
be done at that particular juncture.
MS. JOHNSTON: One thing that concerns me about
waiting to do the road after the survey is done is that once the
survey is marked, the road should be done right away because,
otherwise, the markers get lost.
THE CHAIRMAN: I couldn't agree with you more.
MS. JOHNSTON: So that is a problem, I think, to
wait. I don't know how to work that out.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will discuss that in one second. Do
you have any questions, do you have any problems with that~ Ted?
ZBA Hearings -26- October 18, 1993
MR. BOKINA: Well, there was an agreement, an
easement agreement as you are aware in the Supreme Court--
THE CHAIRMAN: Right.
MRo BOKINA (continuing): That it is only for a
non-exclusive service easement and not for utilities or any
other purposes described.
THE CHAIRMAN: Only for her use, right° Harvey just
has a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that is what we want to do. But
she is saying that once the stakes are up, they want to be able
to bulldoze. I don't have any objection to, once the stakes are
up, to bulldozing. We just haven't given them any
specifications on what has to go in.
(Town Attorney Arnoff inaudibly to Chairman.)
MR. BOKINA: Who is going to repair the damaged
property that is up there now? All that stone was dumped on our
property.
THE CHAIRMAN: The stone is going to be pulled off,
Ted. No question about ito
MS. JOHNSTON: That is not a problem at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: I mean, we are all in agreement about
the survey, right? You are in agreement about the survey from
your attorney and all the rest of it. So that is the first
step, right? --
MR. BOKINA: You talking to me?
ZBA Hearings -27 October 18, 1993
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. That is the first step.
MR. BOKINA: That was supposed to have been done,
yeah.
THE CHAIRMAN: So let's get that done, and then we
will all meet back here next month. Hopefully it can be done
and staked out, and we can see what we got here, and we will put
the improvements down. Can I just ask you a question. These
pictures that you are showing me, you are actually saying that
this right-of-way as it exists right now, is on your property?
MR. BOKINA: Half of it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Half of it is. So half of it should be
in the wooded area, okay. Go ahead.
MR. BOKINA: Also, I don't know if there was a
variance on the end (word inaudible) when the swimming pool was
put in, whether it was legal or the legality end of it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have any CO's on that, but we
can check it.
MR. BOKINA: All the stump work and stuff, all the
wood-work was dumped on our property back there.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will try and resolve this
thing for the November meeting and get it all taken care of at
that point, hopefully.
MR. BOKINA: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are welcome. Thank you. Is there
anything you would like to say for the record? Do you think you
ZBA Hearings -28- October 18, 1993
can get the surveyor to put up the stakes and we can get out
there?
MS. JOHNSTON: For the meeting November 8th?
THE CHAIRMAN: Or a few days before.
MS. JOHNSTON: I am sure I can; and then work it out?
THE CHAIRMAN: We will work the whole thing out at
that point and get it done. We will have the Town Engineer look
at it at the same time, and we will get all the improvements
done, and the only thing you have to do then, once it is put in,
just take, you know, it would be a benefit to take off the stone
anyway. They want the stone off.
MS. JOHNSTON: Absolutely. I have no problem with
that, as I said. I am just worried about, as I said, if there
was a delay in doing the road after the stakes are put down.
THE CHAIRMAN: I can't see any delay because the
meeting is in the early part of November, so you should have
plenty of time° The old-timers say that you have until the
15th of December, but the winters have gotten a little bit
warmer. You probably have longer than that; but let's use that
as a norm. You should be able to have the entire month of
November to comply with this work and get it all done.
MS. JOHNSTON: How much time does the Town Engineer
need to come up and look at it? He should come up the same day.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, just let us know once the stakes
are in. We will all come up and look at it, all right. Then we
ZBA Hearings -29- October 18, 1993
will call the Town Engineer and ask him to come up and look at
it also.
MS. JOHNSTON: Do you have a date for the next
meeting?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is going to be on the eighth,
so it should be done by the seventh, which is three weeks from
MS. JOHNSTON: What day of the week is that, do you
know?
BOARD CLERK: Yes, that is a Sunday. The 7th is a
Sunday.
THE CHAIRMAN: So --
MS. JOHNSTON: You think it will be on a Monday
again?
BOARD CLERK: The meeting, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Have it done by Thursday before.
MS. JOHNSTON: By Thursday before the 8th, okay.
MR. JOHN BOKINA: She is concerned about the stakes
being removed; they were removed once already. The road before--
THE CHAIRMAN: You mean the original monuments that
were put in.
BOARD CLERK: What is your name please?
LAST SPEAKER: JOHN BOKINA.
BOARD CLERK: And the other gentleman that was
speaking?
ZBA Hearings -30- October 18, 1993
EDDIE.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much for coming
gentlemen, and ladies.
ZBA Hearings -31- October 18, 1993
APPLICATION NO. 4196 ALLEN OVSIANIK
Application filed in behalf of ALLEN OVSIANIK for Variance
under Article XX, Section 100-101C for permission to place
canopy-type sign at westerly side wall of existing principal
building for advertising and aesthetic purposes. Location of
Property:
32930 Main Road and easterly side of Eugene Road, Cutchogue,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-97-2-15 and 16.5,
containing a total combined lot area of 1.85 acres, a portion of
which is located in the "B" General Business Zone District, and
the remaining portion in the "R-80" Residential Zone District°
8:12 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 sign as it is
proposed, and I have all the documentation on the property which
we have been reviewing, and we will discuss with this nice
gentleman who is going to give us this presentation, and I have
a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area. Burke, how are you?
Appearance: Burke Liburt,
for the Applicant.
How are you?
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't think you are going to be
too happy with us tonight, but go ahead and give it a shot.
ZBA Hearings -32- October 18, 1993
MR. LIBURT: First, something is missing from the
application, and we said we would show a sample of this
particular kind of construction. As you pointed out, this is an
application for canopy-sign. The building permit does exist for
the canopy, and we have a negative from the Building Department
for graphic or siHnage. We agree with the ordinance, which is
that impermanent material should not be used on signage; and
so what we responded to was the nature of the materials that
would be used for the signage, to wit, Te~lar-coated
material, sample of which I think you may have, vinyl graphics
which are also permanent; and I am not sure what else we can
say. The picture you have is of a Tedlar and vinyl
installation which isn't that old, almost two years old. As you
can see, it has withstood I think it is three hurricanes and two
winter storms.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is this stuff right here.
MR. LIBURT: Yeah. Tedlar --the best metaphor I
can think of for it-- it is like having vinyl siding, although
it looks like a material. There is some confusion about
materials which are used. It is not canvas, which would not
really be permanent, but this is marvelous material, actually
repels dirt. It never needs to be cleaned. Jack Rumpler
(phonetic, no spelling supplied reCord) from Spectrum Awnings,
who put up the HAVILS installation is here and can speak to
the structural integrity of it, if you have any questions for
ZBA Hearings -33- October 18, 1993
him. I guess what I really am here for is to see if there are
any questions which I might answer specifically about this.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I of course am around the entire
County on almost a daily basis, and I am aware of every one of
these things being constructed; and they certainly look nice.
It is up to us to wrestle with the idea of if we are going to
deal with this aspect as it pertains to the Code or not. We
have some things that I have to discuss with you concerning this
piece of property which does not necessarily affect this
application which is before us. Okay. And I will talk with you
about that later, okay. We will roll with your application
before us though at this particular time and see what -- Does
anybody have any questions of the gentleman who actually
constructs these? It is going on the side wall.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It is actually going to be built on
the canopy.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is the canopy itself, but it is
being placed on the sidewall of the building.
MR. LIBURT: If you will, it is a functionless
canopy. The reason we selected the canopy form was because the
wall, which I am sure you are familiar with, is frankly
unattractive and dull, commercial kind of wall. That particular
corner, it would be nice to enhance that corner, and that is
Allen Ovsianak's position; and any kind of traditional sight
whether it be wood-carved or sandblasted or painted, which would
ZBA Hearings -34- October 18, 1993
be placed on the wall, wouldn't give depth or, if you will,
further definition to the wall. It wouldn't really enhance it.
Now, the picture you are looking at now is a functioning
canopy. These are three-foot-six pro3ection. At that point it
is actually a weatherguard as well as functions for graphic,
business identification. And also the canopy. This canopy
really doesn't function that way at all. From the top of course
it is zero distance from the wall and now only comes out twelve
inches, but will give, if you will, depth or definition, graphic
enhancement to the wall with the simple graphic° I think we
have the telephone number on there now. I have convinced Mr.
Ovsianik that telephone numbers really have no place on signs
because nobody remembers them anyway. And so we would remove
that and fool around with that.
THE CHAIRMAN: I use the phrase "in the real world,"
and we will use that phrase in general (Tape ends and is turned
over) Are these actually lighted in back?
MR. LIBURT: No, that is not a backlit canopy. It
can be.
THE CHAIRMAN: It can be?
MR. LIBURT: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is this an imprinting on this canopy,
or is it actually cut out down to a different portion of the
material?
ZBA Hearings --35- October 18, 1993
MR. LIBURT: That is a good question. If it were a
backlit canopy, Jack?
MR. RUMPLER: For a backlit canopy there is several
different ways of doing it. However, that canopy there is
actually pressure-sensitive vinyl material, which is affixed to
the base of the canopy. There is nothing cut away on that
canopym There is a special material, ah, oh, there is another
material that is a backlit material, is a coolly bright
(phonetic) material which, when you are saying "cut away," is
probably one thing you might be referring to. It is where your
color is wiped off and lettering is left white, so that now this
lettering is not exactly translucent, but it is not really
opaque, either so that if you have high-intensity fluorescent
fixtures, only the letters itself will shine through; but that
is not the present installation.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is very simply just a passive
canopy as opposed to an active canopy.
MR. LIBURT: In terms of lighting, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: It certainly is not passive in
reference to its projection or its needs or its use or whatever
the case might be.
MR. LIBURT: We think that, you know going back to
the point I was trying to make earlier, --Why a canopy? It was
to give --the word "depth" maybe is not a great word here, to
give some sense of structure or depth or make it more
ZBA Hearings -36- October 18, 1993
attractive. Let's face it: That wall is unattractive. That
corner at present is not attractive. And so the discussion we
have is: How do we make it more attractive, yes? And if you
will let people know that he is conducting his business there.
There is presently --which is not part of the application, but
just as a footnote-- there is now a green border on the front of
the building. That either has been painted out or is about to
be painted out, and the front of the building will be white.
THE CHAIRMAN: Good.
MR. LIBURT: We also suggested to Allen that we, he,
paint the T-111 which is I think is the surface of that wall, a
semi-transparent gray or semi-transparent white; and he said
that he would do that. It wasn't for the application, but I
felt that if you are going to enhance it, you can't have an ugly
green stripe and a color on the wall which is indescribably
unattractive, so thes~ modest improvements I think would make
that corner --this may be a contradiction-- of a little less
commercial but at the same time giving him business
identification. That was the idea. There will be no lighting
obviously behind it.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only destruction of any of this
material that I had seen in the Riverhead area was on
Tirecraft, where they had--
MR. LIBURT: This is not that. The Tirecraft
installation I didn't do that. That is a different type of
ZBA Hearings -37- October 18~ 1993
material. As of currently, there is only one manufacturer that
has Tedlar-coated material. There are other manufacturers who
have acryllic coated and other types~ but Tedlar is by far
the best. In trying to explain to someone, really, what is this
magic material, because there are some materials that are, if
you are one level down, that are as good if you wanted the
effect of a canvasy-type texture. It does not mean that
anything which is not Tedlar isn't acceptable. It is just
another effect; but the advantage of this material is that in
fact it repels dirt. It is that slick. There was a movie
thirty years ago --I am sure we are all too young to remember--
it was called "Man in the White Suit", and he invented a
material which was indestructible; it repelled dirt; it was
fireproof; of course, they tried to kill him because he was
putting everybody out of business. And, actually, this is about
as close to it as it is. This will tend ~-nothing, of course,
is perfect. The reason this will tend not to rip in a hurricane
or windstorm is that it is intimately flexible and will retain
its shape, so that it will stretch and come back. Fibrelike
material such as canvas do not have that flex~ When they become
fatigued and deteriorate from ultraviolet exposure, they will
not flex and they will shred. This is about as resistant to
ultraviolet exposure and disintegration as possible.
THE CHAIRMAN: I thank you. it is a real educationi
understanding this. In the more important sense, we have a
ZBA Hearings -38- October 18, 1993
problem with the back building that you are attempting to
advertise, okay. And that is basically the reason why I am
mentioning this to you at this point because we would really
like to hold this hearing in abeyance --or the decision on this
hearing in abeyance-- until such time that -- you pronounce
Allen's name different than I do --I said Ovsianik, it doesn't
make any difference. We are talking about the same person. We
have before us a C of 0 which was dated July 6, 1988, which
indicates an accessory building to the main building as applied
for. Subsequent to the granting of this C of O, as you know, we
really have two uses on the property at this time. Actually
there are three: It is gas for the purposes of automobiles and
trucks; automobile repair in the front building~ and tire
service in the rear building, mufflers and so on and so forth.
This CO does not indicate that there is any use in that back
building other than for storage, and we know that the building
is being used for more than storage; so what we are asking at
this particular time is that you indicate that to the applicant,
and we will hold this in abeyance until such time that he comes
in and attempts to take care of this problem. And then we will
go from there and continue the hearing and complete the process
and so on and so forth.
MR. LIBURT: I think I follow you. ~ am a little
out,of m~ water on th~s one. Which building are you referring
to?
ZBA Hearings -39- October 18, 1993
THE CHAIRMAN: I am referring to the tire shop that is
the nature of the application before us.
MR. LIBURT: Okay. So that building doesn't have a
CO?
THE CHAIRMAN: It has a CO dated July 6, 1988,
accessory building to main building as applied for, okay, and
that is for accessory storage; and as you know as well as I do,
that it is a tire shop. And I want to be honest with you. I
would hate to deny this application based not strictly on the
merits Of the application but on the fact that we would be
advertising something that shouldn't be advertised at this timed
until such time that we give this gentleman the advantage of
coming in and attempting to legalize that business that is in
the back there.
MR. LIBURT: I understand. So what he should do or
what we should suggest to him to modify the CO or secure a
variance?
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, he is going to have to go to the
Building Department, and we will inform him of what we are
dealing with and whatever notice or denials they are going to
require at this point will be required, and we will continue
this hearing, not concerning your application, but concerning
that; and we will hold this one in abeyance until that one is
taken care of; and then we will bring tk~m all together and take
care of the who!e thing.
-40-
ZBA Hearings October 18, 1993
MR. LIBURT: So we have to address the use of that
building.
THE CHAIRMAN: Of the use of that building, yes,
because it would be fruitless for us to grant you an advertising
sign on a building that concerns this Town, and we are not
enforcement officers, but it concerns the use of that building
which is an accessory use, which is not really a --it is being
used as a primary use-- and that is where our problem is at this
point. So it would be paradoxical and redundant to do what you
have before us at this time.
MR. LIBURT: I was unaware.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure you are, and that is the
reason why I wanted you to continue and have a specialist here,
in all fairness to you.
MR. LIBURT: Terrific. Well, we'i1 have to --again,
Booty (phonetic, no spelling supplied) should make application
or speak to the Building Department?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we will apprise the Building
Department. He 'is going to have to make an application to the
Building Department, too, as a dual primary use for that
building.
MR. LIBURT: I will make that suggestion, and say he
would take care of that. Once he has taken care of that, --
ZBA Hearings -41- October 18~ 1993
THE CHAIRMAN: It may end up back here, okay, and then
we may have to draw both of them together, and then complete the
process.
MR. LIBURT: He has to address that firsH, okay.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. It is a pleasure meeting
you both, and I thank you for coming in. It is nice seeing you
again, Burke~
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak in favor of this application?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody against the application?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I will make a motion
recessing this hearing without a date.
Seconded and carried; see Clerk's minutes.
ZBA Hearings -42- October 18, 1993
APPLICATION NO. 4198 - DR. GEORGE KOFINAS
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section
100-231(A) for approval of fence height, as exists, above four
feet. Location of Property: 552 East Road, Cutchogue, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-110-7-18.2.
10:03 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal
Notice and application for the record.)
TF~E CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey
indicating the approximate placement of the fence, which is
almost totally foliated, except for the gate, which is very
spectacular, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Verity, you
are on. You have the floor; you have a captive audience.
Appearance: Jarvis Verity,
for the applicant
MR. VERITY: All I want to know is, Mr. Chairman, is
if they approve the variance.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody have any questions of the
agent for the applicant concerning this application?
(Board members nodded "no.")
THE CHAIRMAN: I will offer a resolution to approve it.
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 43
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
APPLICATION NO. 4195 PETROL STATIONS, LTD.
Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII,
Section 100-72 for approval of Lot No. 4, as proposed, with more
than one principal use for this proposed 39,219+- sq~ ft. parcel
of land (exclusive of right-of-way area). The premises, as
exists, contains a total lot area of 5.835 acres and is improved
with: (a) the northerly building which was converted in 1988
from a barn for the storage of antiques to an architect's office
as shown on the site plan map prepared by Samuels-Steelman,
approved by the Planning Board 12/14/87; (b) the front main
building utilized as a single residence and a real estate
office; (c) a separate garage structure; (d) a separate shed.
Location of Property: 25235 Main Road, Cutchogue; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-109-1-23.
8:32 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal
Notice and application for the record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the survey produced by
Peconic Surveyors, and it was originally done June 27, 1990 --
the most recent revision is August 20, 1993; and I have a copy
of the Suffolk County Tax Mapindicating this and surrounding
properties in the area. Mr. McLaughlin, you are representing?
Appearance: J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq.,
for the Applicant.
THE CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight?
J. KEVIN McLAUGHLIN, ESQ.: Good. As you indicate, we are
before you for an area variance on Lot No. 4 of a proposed
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 44
Applo No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd.
subdivision which is pending before the Planning Board of this
Town; and I know there has been significant correspondence
between this Board and the Planning Board regarding this
particular parcel~ and I know you are fairly well aware of some
of the history of this application; but just basically to review
it: Petrol Stations purchased this property back in December of
1986. In the spring of 1987 a subdivision application was filed
with the Planning Board and has gone through innumerable
revisions, at least seven or eight revisions of the map. We
were in fact in front of the Town Board --the applicant was--
several months ago, to establish the bond estimate for the
improvements when it was first discovered after lo, these many
years~ that maybe there was a situation with Lot No. 4 that
needed to be rectified. So the applicant has been pursuing a
subdivision application that has been --as far as Lot No. 4 is
concerned-- has not varied a great deal for the last seven
years. Basically, lot No. 4 as it is presently proposed and
constituted and as requested by the Planning Board, is a 40,000
square-foot lot. The front 30,000 square feet of Lot No. 4 is
in the RO District; approximately 10,000 square feet is in the
R-40 District.
All of the present structures on the property, except one
very small corner of the garage, are located within that RO
District, as it was drawn the district line by the Town BOard.
The uses on that Lot 4 or proposed lot 4 have been the same
since approximately the spring or summer of 1987; and that is
the front one-and-a-half or two-story building on the first
ZBA Hearing of October ~8, ~93 ......... ~age 45
appl. No. 4195 - Petrol~St~%~n~;7~.
floor contains a real-estate office; the second floor contains a
very small apartment, which is enhanced and occupied for the
last five or six years by Michael Gorman, who is one of the
principals of both the owner Petrol Stations and also a partner
in the real-estate business that is operated on the first
floor.
The other frame building is --that used to be an antique
sales establishment-- I think as it's shown on the property card
for this premises, has been converted into architect's office.
A building permit was secured for that, site plan approval has
been obtained for that, and a C.O. has been issued for that
The rest of the proposed subdivision would consist of three
residential building lots, one slightly in excess of one acre,
and two closer to two acres, in the R-40 zone.
The real problem here, from our vantage-point, is that
there were these three uses and have been these three uses on
this property since the spring or summer of 1987. And, at the
point when the Master Plan was adopted and new zoning ordinance,
the RO District line was drawn approximately 300 yards back from
the Main Road; and what that has done is effectively put three
uses or arguably two uses within that district. It was an
arbitrary drawing of the line which obviously had to be done
somewhere, and it has resulted in this problem for us. Again,
we went through years of application process with the Planning
Board without this issue ever being raised, and now we are
here.
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 46
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
I believe that this Board has had other applications
regarding undersized lots in the RO District. In particular, I
believe there was an application No. 4011 by Mro Fischetti in
which he was applying to convert a dwelling into a professional
business office on a parcel in the RO zone of 11,656 square
feet, which is basically less than a third of the required lot
size in the RO zone; and I believe that application was granted
by this Board. And as part of the decision in that application,
this Board indicated that the Town has created non-conformities
of properties and adopting new standards for uses in this new
zoning district, again speaking of the RO District.
I want to indicate to this Board that while there are
multiple uses in the front area of that property, and that the
area is contained within the RO District, they are not overly
intensive uses. We do have the architect's office. There are
two architects and one or two support staff there. There is the
real-estate business which basically is a business for Tom
Gorman and his son Michael, and Mike lives upstairs. Right now,
that is the only people that are using that; and what we are
intending to do is simply to add three residential building lots.
If you look at it from the total amount of acreage
available, which is 5.8+ acres, it is located within two zones°
One is the RO zone which requires 40,000 square footage of lot
area per use, and the R-40 zone which also requires 40,000
square feet. Here we have five, almost six acres of land. So,
conceivably, if you divided that by the required 40,000 square
feet, you could easily have five uses on that five to six-acre
ZBA Hearing of October
Page 47
App!. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
parcel of land. And that, in fact, is basically what we are
looking for. We are looking for the same uses. We understand
that because of the arbitrary division line of the RO District,
that does result in many of the uses being on the front portion
of the property, and that is why, frankly, we are before you
tonight to try to get some relief.
Also if you will look at the proposed subdivision map, it
becomes apparent from the fairly irregular shape, almost a
flag-lot type of situation, if you take that into consideration
along with the uses that presently exist, you see what our
dilemma is. So that is why we are here tonight. We think that
what has been done on the property has been very tastefully
done; we are trying to work something out so that we can Page 1
continue to have the existing uses, and also develop a portion
of the property for residential uses. I do have Mr. Gorman, Tom
Gorman, Jr., with me this evening, and we are here to answer any
questions the Board may have regarding this application.
~E CHAIRMAN: Could you just go over one thing with me?
Petrol Stations took title to this property when?
~R. McLAUGHLIN: December 30, 1986.
T~E CHAIRMAN: Okay. And before that, their original
location was in Mattituck, was it not, the end of Love Lane and
County Road 48?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: When did they actually move into the
building?
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 page 48
Applo No. 4195 Petrel Stations, Ltd°
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Renovations were started basically
immediately after purchase right at the beginning of 1987. I
think you have in your file a sign, a building permit for a sign
which they got toward the middle or end of January of 1987. It
was at that time that they moved into --Petrol Stations, I don't
know if that moved in then-- but the real-estate office itself
which is called Gorman and Associates moved into the front
first-floor space at that time in the latter part of January of
1987.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only reason I say that is because the
Planning Board's site plan map of 1989 shows that the building
was unoccupied, and that is the reason Why.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Clearly an error.
THE CHAIRMAN: The other issue before us is the fact that
we have a curb-cut and a roadway leading to the back property.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: There is a curb-cut and a roadway that
starts and doesn't go very far, and will not go any further
until there is some agreement with the Town.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, that, of course, is going to take 25
feet away from this property, and, therefore, is not going to
be-- When I say 25 feet, in reference to total lot width.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I would disagree with that. There's a
right-of-way over the westerly -- proposed right-of-way, if you
look at the proposed subdivision map, over the westerly 25 feet
of Lot No. 4. We have had a determination --that was an issue
that was raised back in I believe 1991-- the Planning Board had
indicated that we may have to seek a lot width variance for Lot
ZBA Hearing of October 18~t~93~ Page 49
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
No. 4. The Planning Board and I went back to the Building
Department; and they said No, that since it was just a
right-of-way, it should be included as part of the lot width;
and I have a letter to that effect. I believe you have a copy
in the file. I have actually in red underscored the Planning
Board's language regarding that issue, and they in fact agreed
that we would not have to seek a lot width variance.
T~E CHAIRMAN: Okay, we're with the understanding then as
we sit before you tonight, we are not here concerning the width
of this lot.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: That is not part of the notice of
disapproval of the Building Department; and when I went to the
Building Department, very frankly, ~ specifically asked them to
write up a notice of disapproval for any problem~ they saw with
the proposed site plan regarding any violations of the zoning
ordinance. The first time I took it to them, I will be very
honest with you, they told me there weren't any violations. I
had to go back and explain to them why I thought I might have to
be before this Board.
THE C~AIRMAN: Okay. What I am trying to do, let me just
give you a small analogy-- If we have an application before us
for a front yard/side yard/ total lot width variance, whatever
the case might be, and we find out that we now exceed 20 per
cent of the lot coverage, we are going to, of course, mention
that to the applicant in general, okay. That is the reason why
I am mentioning this, okay. I want to put this total hearing to
bed, okay. I don't want something else to come back; and in the
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 50
Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations~ Ltd.
interim, we will then further discuss that with the Building
Department because if this is an issue that has to come before
us, it should come before us in toto also.
BOARD CLERK: I was told that it was. I just want the
record to show that.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Beg pardon?
BOARD CLERK: I spoke with the Building Inspector, and I
was told it needed a lot width variance for that, for frontage.
That is why I advertised it that way. It just -
THE C~AIRMAN: The other thing I just want to ask you is:
Are you asking for all the uses now on the 40,000 square feet?
Is that what you are asking for in the nature of this
application?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: That is the way it is presently
constituted before the plans before the Planning Board.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that the way you are coming before us
also?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: That's the way it is coming before you,
but if the Board has some other thought in mind about how much
lot area should be part of Lot No. 4, it would be certainly
something that the applicant would consider.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Gorman?
T~OMAS ~ORMAN, JR.: Yes, if I may speak briefly?
THE CHAIRMAN: Surely.
MR. GORMAN: Thank you. Basically, I just wanted to
mention, we really want to work with the Town. Specifically, we
kind of got off on a bad footage here afters I guess, seven or
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 19~3' Page 51
appl. No. 4195 - Petrol sta~i~~, Ltd.
six years of going back and forth with somewhat of a paper
jungle, so to speak. Specifically, I think we should take a
look at what has already been done to the property. I think we
should also look at specifically how large these buildings are
and also the intensity of these uses. The front building is
1700 square feet. The apartment does not have a separate
entrance, on the second floor. Basically it is a one-bedroom
L-shaped bedroom and bath. That is lt. The back architect's
office is approximately 900 square feet that is occupied by~ a
husband-and-wife team, who runs a professional architectural
business out of that. The front is run by a family operation:
My brother, my father primarily. I work part-time
occasionally. But I guess my point here is that the three uses
are not an automotive repair, they are not a gasoline service
station, they are not these intensive uses which may have been
addressed on some of the prior applications this evening. They
are basically a low-key family business operation, and I think
that is really what is at stake here, and I ~ust want to address
that. We have tastefully restored the front building. I have
personally been involved with standing approvals, personally
involved with bringing out the windowsills, restore that as a
1700 historical house, into a tasteful office. The back office,
the antique barn which was a retail use according to the records
that I have prior to our purchase, at Christmas time it looks
like a Currier and Ives post card. We have tastefully redone
that building, and I just think that we want some cooperation as
ZBA Hearing of October i8~ 1993 Page 52
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
opposed to what I believe is somewhat of a mass of paper, so to
speak. It is nothing personal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Right. Notwithstanding the fact that we
are, with the understanding that the roadway which you are
planning to put in, whatever way the conformity of the
subdivision occurs in the near future, okay, exists, that you
did excavate a curb-cut most recently, and this curb-cut is
approximately how close --How close is this to the westerly
property line?
MR. GORMAN: It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman~ it was
made in conformity with the plans that were approved by the
Planning Board.
THE CHAIRMAN: So it is approximately 25 feet or
thereabouts from--
MR. GORMAN: Yes. That was closely by the State as well.
One reason the curb-cut was enacted promptly was I think my
brother and father was somewhat frustrated with respect to the
process of six or seven years, and they didn't want this
particular approval to once again go into limbo land, so to
speak. The other point I wanted to make --Do you have a copy of
the ordinance of 1986 when the front was zoned B-1 Business?
THE CHAIRMAN: Not before me.
MR. GORMAN: May I give it? (Copy was submitted.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MR. GORMAN: Also this would be section 170, Use
Regulations in B-1 District, which make reference, to a variety
of uses--
~ Page 53
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1793 ......
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stat'±0~,
THE CHAIRF~%N: Sure.
MR. GORMAN (continuing): And also the minimum lot area of
30,000 square feet, which was at the time of our purchase.
14R. GORMAN: For the record, I want to enter a copy of the
zoning map, B-1 General District which is highlighted, is now
RO. Also for the record, I want to enter Article VII, B-l,
General Business District.
THE CHAIPd~%/q: Thank you.
MR. GORMAN: Thank you. I appreciate your taking this
time out to hear us.
THE CHAIRMAN: No problem. We want to get this thing
rectified here.
MR. GORMAN: It's basically the thought that the uses are
not that intensive, that when the property was purchased, the
B-1 District was very liberal. Since then it has been downzoned
to RO, and you know I think we really ought to work out
something without going back and forth. That is the reason
came tonight.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Fnc. McLaughlin, do you have
anything you would like to add?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Not unless there are any other questions.
THE CHAIRF~N: I just want to ask you another question.
The question of adding this lot width issue and amending the
application, do you have any particular problem with that?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't have any particular problem, if
the Building Department in fact is going to require that and
give me a Notice of Disapproval on that. Again, it was my
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 24
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations~ Ltd.
understanding that that issue had been addressed two years ago;
there was a determination made that the lot width included the
right-of-way as long as the right-of-way was not constituted as
a separate lot, but was merely part of the fee of Lot 4 subject
to the rights of others to pass over it for ingress and egress.
That is where it had been left a little over two years ago. If
there is a different determination by the Building Department, I
would like the opportunity obviously to discuss that with them;
if that is the final determination, then I have no problem with
that application being considered at the same time as the
present application°
BOARD CLERK: We would also have to file new papers on
that. He would have to do separate neighbor notices, and --
THE CHAIRF~N: Just let me finish.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Again, my problem is that I have given
paper work regarding how this issue was considered and disposed
of a couple years ago. I specifically went to the Building
Department before I brought this application and had them review
the site plan and asked them to please give me a notice of
disapproval for each and every problem they saw where this
proposed subdivision plan would be in violation of the zoning
ordinance.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are referring to -- I am just looking
for the notice of disapproval. You are referring to the notice
of disapproval of September 24, 19937
MR. McLAUGHLIN: September 24, 1993. Yes. And that is
all that they put on there. So, again, I assumed that the lot
ZBA Hearing oi October 18, t993 ~i~ Page 5 5
Appt. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
width question had been resolved two years ago and was not an
issue at the present time.
THE C~LAIRMAN: And you are referring to the letter of
June 12, 19917
MR. McLAUGHLIN: And the fact that, there was prior
correspondence where the Planning Board additionally said, you
are going to have to go get a lot width variance from the Zoning
Board because you've got to subtract out the width of the
right-of-way. There was discussions with the Planning Board at
that time. Those discussions between the Planning Board, the
Building Department and myself resulted in that letter I just
gave you a copy o£ from the Planning Board saying No, you don't
have to do that because it is all part and parcel of the same
lot.
BOARD CLERK: Is there a letter from the Building
Department on that, too, withdrawing his disapproval
originally?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I would have to check my file for that.
I am not sure.
THE CHAIRMAN: I just want you to know, in all fairness,
to everybod~ here, I appreciate your giving me a copy of the
letter, but in all fairness, we are not bound by this, and all I
want to do is get everything totally involved here, so that I
know exactly what is before us; and that is basically the
situation. I am not here to find fault or cause any more
disruption in anybody's lives, other than to ~now what is before
us at this particular time.
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 56
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations~ Ltd.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Perhaps I can seek this Board's help then ~
in getting the proper notice of disapproval from the Building
Department.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will certainly send them a letter
indicating that it is something thatshould have been added. No
question about it. Thank you, Kevin.
MR. GORMAN: Thank you. Basically, I want to indicate on
what you are calling the right-of-way, I think maybe if we
understood it as an access easement, so to speak?
THE CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. GORMAN: That it probably would still be held in fee
simple title and that the fee simple area will exceed the 40,000
square feet. The front Lot No. 4 will in effect have an access
easement given to the property owners utilizing the adjacent ~
lots, that in effect the lot would and I think that is Mr.
McLaughlin straightened out that before, around I thought
approximately June 1991, we expected that, and the Department at
that time did agree. Finally, I do have one other letter I want
to enter into the record, from the Planning Board Office, dated
November 27, 1990. Basically it said that an area variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals will not be necessary. I would like
to submit this for the public record.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you, Mr. Gorman, just explain
this. Petrol Stations is a business which owns real estate.
So this is the management area of where you would manage those
properties. Together with that~ you have a small real-estate
business, where you have clients coming and going in the normal '~-~
ZBA Hearing of October 18, t993' !~~ Page 57
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
sense which, of course, we know since snbsequent 1986 or
thereabouts there hasn't been a great amount of real estate that
has occurred in this Town. I understand that. You only work
for the firm part-time, is that what you are saying?
MR. GORF~%N: Exactly. I am an appraiser and helped my
brother out between 1986 and 1990 with a large contract with the
Town of Southampton in open-space preservation° I worked in
conjunction with my brother on that. However, to answer your
first question with respect to Petrol Stations, my father has
other properties in western Long Island which he basically is
now managing. Basically it is a managerial office, an
administrative office. It is a very clean, low-key operation.
It is not like, you know--
THE CHAIRMAN: We noticed that from the Mattituck
operation. I saw one or two cars there most of the time, okay.
What is your father's name?
MR. GORMAN: Thomas, Sr.
THE CHAIRMAN: So you are Thomas, Jr.?
MR. GORMAN: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Just so I understand what is
involved in this building situation--
MR. GORMAN: And as I mentioned before, the office in the
back is basically a husband and wife. It is very innocuous,
low-key use. Like I said earlier, it is not like we are having
automotive repair uses and gas station and that type of thing.
Nothing to do with that. The name unfortunately I guess brings
up those fears, but it is basically an administrative operation.
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 58
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations~ Ltd.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your brother uses the kitchen downstairs?
MR. GORM/LN: Yes; there is no separate entrance,
Chairman, with respect to the second floor. It is an internal
--it would only work if it is a family operation° It would not
work if you or I wanted to make an investment and rent it out
for a second-floor apartment. It is just not do-able.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. GORMAN: I appreciate your time. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Kevin?
(There was no audible responses)
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that pretty much puts us where we
are at this time for the other people that are involved in this
application. Mr. Lark~ you are representing someone?
Appearance: Richard F. Lark, Esqo
MR. LARK: Yes, I represent the next-door neighbor Barbara
Haurus.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I know Mrs. Haurus personally. What
would you like to tell us, sir?
MR. LARK: First of all, they can do all these wonderful
things with the property Ghat they have just presented to you --
I submit to you, if they had some appreciation and understanding
of the zoning law of the State of New York, and particularly the
zoning codes of the Town of Southold. They can't do any of what
they have proposed here without variances and special exceptions
from this Board. Nor have they been able to do anything. And
you are going to see, with my little presentation and oral
history Mrs. Haurus is going to give you since she has l~ved
ZBA Hearing of October 18,-199~- Page 59
Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd.
there for sixty years, and with the history of the zoning codes,
that what is there today, with all these businesses on this
thirty thousand square-foot portion, are self-imposed hardship,
there are no vested rights. The building permits and the CO's
are void, and we are really going to have to start from
scratch. But they have to come here; they have to meet the
standards of both use and area variances as well as your
standards for special exceptions. The code says so. I don't
say so, and the Court cases say so. So I hope we come to the
end of the administrative road with this Board for permits for
Petrol Stations, Ltd., on this particular property because after
reviewing the record very briefly, I am appalled at the
ignorance of both the Planning Board and the Building Department
in allowing this applicant since '86 when he purchased it the
end of the year, to get as far as he has gotten. A review of
your file --because you also had an area variance hearing on
this that went nowhere-- which I will cover. The Planning Board
file indicates misleading opinions and incorrect information.
It reminds me of sorta like reading the SUFFOLK TIMES, you
know. It is more of a fiction than fact, what's in the file
here.
In fairness to the applicant, though, I am going to suggest
at the outset that the Board keep the hearing open to allow the
applicant and its tenants sufficient time to correct any
misinformation in the file and in the ZBA records, and to allow
this Board to get its facts straight concerning the property. I
think you will want to have the applicant probably provide a
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Pag~ 60
Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd.
title search and also the Town Attorney to do a zoning history
to verify what I inform you of tonight, because not to do so
--and not to have this done properly at this time-- just invites
an Article 78 proceeding; and after I submit to you after a
Court heard what is involved here, it would just remand the case
back anyway, so we may as well do it to save the Court time. I
realize that the applicant, with its activities, does have
unlimited money. The neighbors do not. (Tape ended & new tape
inserted while speaker contiuued talking. What follows is where
new tape starts.)
MR. LARK (continuing): --A little oral history is in
order so the ZBA can get a better perspective of what is going
on here. The reason I say this is, the variance application
sworn to on September 27, 1993, which is before you this
evening, would read at first blush to be a simple and pure area
variance application. The notice to the neighbors that was
furnished by the applicant also gives this impression as Lot 4
only has insufficient area. But when you look at the past
history and what is happening both at the present, and what is
proposed to happen in the future, you get an entirely different
picture; and it is very Possible that we are involved with the
use variance. Unfortunately, these other Boards and the
Building Department probably doesn't understand the difference.
But there is a tremendous difference as this Board understands
between a use variance and an area variance. In an area
variance, the applicant only has to prove practical diffi-
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 199.3/~ ~ ~ Page 61
Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd.
culties, stay away from self-imposed, unnecessary hardships, but
the use variance requires to prove that he has --land can't use
a reasonable return and the compatibility with the neighborhood
in complying with the spirit of the ordinance. The legal notice
in the newspaper though, I did note, attempts to indicate that
this is very possibly a use variance. That was a very clear
notice and it tuned me to the fact to look further than just the
application, because there is more than one use on this
property. So at this time I would like to introduce the
next-door neighbor Barbara Haurus, who has lived immediately
adjacent, personally lived immediately adjacent to this property
for over sixty years, so that she can give you a little oral
history of it, and then I will conclude with the zoning
history. Barbara?
BARBARA HAURUS: Good evening. My name is Barbara
Haurus. I reside at Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. I was born
in Cutchogue on January 20th, 1929, and have lived there all my
life. I am familiar with the property owned by Petrol Stations
Ltd., because I have lived next to this property all my life.
My property has been in my family for two prior generations. At
the end of World War II when we got out of the Service, I
married John Haurus on April 28, 1945. My parents gave us the
property next door to theirs in 1947, upon which property my
husband built our house, as he was a builder. After 1947, when
we moved into the house, I can specifically remember the
property to the east being owned by Kenneth and Lydia Cadugan
(Phonetic, no spelling supplied record]. The property contained
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 62
Appl~ No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd°
a two-story frame house which sits near the Main Road and bar~
behind the house, which is now used by Samuels and Steelman~
Architects. The house has been built many years prior, but the
barn was built between 1943 and 1944. Mr. and Firs. Fedoogan
lived in the house and used the barn for their dealings in
antiques. It was a very low-key and casual business. From what
I can remember, Cadugans lived and ran their business on the
property until 1957. I remember because my kids were about ten
and eleven years old. Cadugans sold to Walter and Josephine
Rollin (phonetic, no spelling supplied record). As Cadugans
before them, the Rollins lived in the house, and both Mr. and
Mrs. Rollin operated an estate-antique-appraisal business. Tl~ey
used the barn originally to store antiques and eventually sold
antiques from the barn, which was primarily a week-end and
su~amer business.
As you may recall, in the 1940's, until 1970, Cutchog~e was
primarily a summer community. For example, in the wintertime,
especially in January through April, the antique store was
virtually closed, and Mr. Rollin would, as a hobby, restore
antique furniture on the property. As I said, up until the time
of their death, Mr. Rollin died on August 9th of '84; Mrs.
Rollin died on March 3rd of 1986-- They lived in the house. I
know that sometime in the late 1960's and early 1970's Mr.
Rollin tried to get permission from the Town to develop portions
of the back acreage of the property but was turned down because
he did not have access to Alvah's Lane. I believe the
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 P. age 63
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol S~tibh~, ~t~.
properties from the corner of Alvah's Lane and Westwood,
including Sid Beebe's property was zoned B-1 Business because
C. Grathwohl operated the business out of the former house, Mr.
Rollin operated the antique business. My husband, who passed
away on August 25th of '86, operated a contracting business on
the property on which we lived, and Sid Beebe operated his
contracting business from the property on which he and his wife
lived.
It is important to note that all these people lived on
these properties and merely ran their businesses and conducted
their occupations from their properties. The Board should
remember that in the 1940s and '50s this road was basically a
two-lane road with no shoulder. Sometime in the 1960's the road
was widened a~d widening to where it is at the present time.
The reason I bring this to the Board's attention is that
at the present time it is very difficult to exit my driveway.
In fact, in the summertime, in order to be safe, I can only make
right turns out of my driveway, even though I want to go left,
because of the heavy traffic on the Main Road. Due to the
constant speed of fifty-five miles per hour this has become a
very hazardous condition because you cannot see oncoming traffic
from the west. From the existing Rollin driveway you have a
better view because it is a little higher. I am absolutely
shocked and dismayed the Town and the State are even considering
allowing the present owner to move the driveway directly
adjacent to my property and have increased traffic trying to
exit and enter into the driveway.
ZBA Hearing of October 18~ 1993 Page 64
Appl~ No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
I know from my personal knowledge that in the last five
years there have been numerous accidents right in front of
Petrol Stations Ltd. property. I will predict there will be
many more if their driveway is moved next to mine. The Board
should realize that since the Samuels and Steelman architect
business has been there, the traffic has been constant
throughout the week, in and out of this property. But before,
when owned by Rollins, there was no traffic or a little traffic
and then only on weekends and when people were antique-lng.
From a personal point-of-view originally I was not opposed
to the architects having a separate business on the property;
but I have been informed that the creation of this separate
business is illegal, and now the Planning Board is considering
allowing three additional lots in the rear and moving the
driveway for these building lots and the businesses on the
property to be adjacent to my bedroom and bathroom windows. Not
only will this cause noise, disturbance and loss of my privacy,
but it will be a safety hazard to those persons using the
driveway and traveling on the Main Road.
In addition, I am alarmed by the fact that Petrol
Stations, Ltd., seems to be so sure of getting the Town's
permission to mov~ the driveway that in August, 1993, it had
concrete curbing installed and entry partially paved with
blacktop. Even after being warned to do nothing further on
September 30th of 1993, Petrol Stations, Ltd., had a paving
contractor and crew on the property, and I believe the Town at
that time ordered that no further work be done on the proposed
Page 65
ZBA Hearing of October 18,~1993
appl. No. 4195 - P~rol St~tO~S~ ~a~.
new driveway. The driveway should remain where it is because it
is a much safer approach to any residence which may be built in
the rear. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. LARK: As Mrs. Haurus indicated, the applicant's
operations --do whatever it wants to do and then get the permits
later-- I don't think it is going to work anymore. I think they
are at the end of the string. Let's look at the record. Mrs.
Haurus stated the property now owned by the applicant Petrol
Stations, Ltd., was previously owned by Kenneth Cadugan. By
deed, Cadugan July 31st, 1957, both Kenneth and Lydia Cadugan,
sold the property to Walter P. Rollin. Walter P. Rollin owned
the property until his death in 1984, and his wife also was an
owner until she died in March of '86. As indicated by the
applicant earlier here, the Rollins estate sold the property to
Petrol Stations, Ltd., by deed dated November 24, 1986, and I
think they closed on December 30th of '86 and recorded the deed
sometime in January. I have that date.
It is interesting to note that zoning was adopted by the
Town of Southold on April 9th, 1957. The first zoning in
Southold was 300 feet deep just as it is today, off the Main
Road, and it was zoned "B" Business District, which allowed at
that time, when the '57 ordinance which carried through all the
way to '72, allowed a one-family dwelling in a "B" Business
District, stores and offices° The size of the lot for "B"
Business District~at that time was 7500 square feet with a road
frontage of 50 feet. It also allowed accessory uses on the same
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993
Appl. Noo 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 66
land which were customarily incidental to any permitted use, the
main permitted use. That is how the Zoning Ordinance read. So
the residential use of the house by the Rollins at the time of
zoning in '57 and the use of the barn for antiques and shed, and
the shed for storagre, as incidental or accessory uses was all
okay under the ordinance that went through in 1957. It stayed
that way -- until November 23, 1971. Then the Zoning Ordinance
in that area was amended, and the subject property along with
the adjacent properties, from Alvah's Lane down to Beebes was
zoned B-1 Business District. That allowed commercial
agricultural operations, accessory uses for them, barn, storage
building, boarding and tourist houses, banks, retail stores and
restaurants, all of which were subject to site-plan approval, at
that point. But it did not allow~ as a permitted use,
one-family dwellings, so all the one-family dwellings with the
1971~ the redoing of the ordinance, became non-conforming uses.
Okay? Which people seem to forget° They are all non-conforming
uses. Therefore, in 1971~ the antique shop, which was accessory
to a non-conforming used which was a residential use, because
the Rollins lived in the house, as you heard from the history.
MR. ARNOFF: Yet the antique shop was not permitted then
either? Is that what you're saying--
MR. LARK: A retail store could be a permitted use--
MR. ARNOFF: I didn't know what your position was.
MR. LARK: It could be a permitted use, but it was an
accessory use to them because at the time, I know from my own
personal knowledge, that Rollin, he was an estate appraiser for
ZBA Hearing of O~tober 18, 993 Page 67
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol S%~i6nS,
personal property, antiques and stuff. He ran the business out
of his house, and he put the stuff back there, refinished it and
then sold it or he bought and sold antiques there and used the
shop in the back to do that. That is at the time they bought
it. Now, interestingly enough, on October 26, 1976, the
accessory use section in the B-1 use district was amended by the
Town Board to allow uses on the same lot customarily incidental
to any permitted use on the lot, but not including a.separate
business. That is how the amendment in 1976 of accessory uses
was for B-1 Business District. Interesting.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is.
b~R. LARK (continuing): So then the, of course the B-1
zoning upgraded it from the old "B" zoning to 30,000 square
feet, with 150' of lot width, which was referred to here
before. This existed right up to the time the property was sold
to Petrol Stations. So when they bought, they bought with the
zoning in effect at that time as having a non-conforming use to
the house, which was a house within six, seven months prior to
the closing because Mrs. Rollin lived there; and then they had,
at that time they had an accessory business use to that house
which was all owned as one because Rollins had the
appraisal/antique business, and so on and so forth.
Now, obviously someone when they bought, didn't do their
due diligence as to the non-conforming nse, because as he
indicates, right afterwards --and they got a CO from the
Building Inspector dated December 31st -- I think it is part of
your record-- which is a pre-CO; it calls it "non-conforming
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 68
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
premises," but the reason that it is non-conforming, he says, is
there is an insufficient frontyard setback and an insufficient
side yard setback° Never mind the use of the house, the
residence as being non-conforming. He leaves that out.
Although he does list all the property, I mean all the
buildings. He lists a two-story one-family dwelling, a
two-story shop, one frame garage, two sheds, and he says they
are all in an "A" zone. So I submit to you, when you road that
pre-CO December 31st, 1986 Certificate, it is worthless, because
he's got the non-conformity for the wrong reason, and he's got
it all in "A" District. So I don't know what happened, but thoy
closed on that, closed that day, and life went on. Okay.
Now, that is a very uniquo situation that they had at that
time, whon thoy bought, becauso the house was non-conforming~
but the barn and the antique store was a conforming as an
accessory use which was incidental to the non-conforming use
because it had pre-existed that zoning amendment. Okay. Wow.
But when you are using the zoning law terms, that.is what the
status was at that point. Okay. Their deed was recorded
January 21st of 1987. Then they began to immediately renovate
the two-story dwelling while they say in their correspondence
and they said tonight, while Michael Gorman occupied the
residence, they started to renovate. Now, but they never
applied for a building permit to renovate it at that point, nor
did they apply at that point for site plan for renovation of
this non-conforming nor for a special exception, because to
allow at that point in a B-1 District in 1987 when they were
Page 69
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1~93~
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Star'ions, Ltd-.
doing their renovations, they would have had to have come here
to convert it, or use it or upgrade it to any type of a
residential use, they would have had to come for a special
exception or a variance and then a special exception because
that is what the Code said, at that point. They didn't do
that. They just went ahead and did it. Then they tell us that
what they did is that --and he says it tonight-- that they had,
they put a real-estate business called Gorman Associates on the
main floor and then this accessory apartment which was not
allowed at that time in 1986, until recent amendments, in a B-1
District at all, without a variance. But they went ahead and
did that.
So we now have in that, we have the Petrol which is a New
York corporation as he said, owning the property; and then
having Gorman Associates, a real-estate operation, one business,
and then the second use of the house being an apartment or a
residential-type use. Okay. Now, keep in mind, they were
admittedly changing this non-conforming use by expanding it to a
conforming real-estate use and a non-conforming apartment, all
without any types of permits. Then in the spring of '87, three
or four months later, they entered into a lease with Thomas
Samuels to use the barn which was the former antique-storage and
antique shop, as an architectural office, clearly a separate
business. Now, keep in mind that we had the B-1 Zoning at that
point. In order to do that, they had to, under the B-1 Zoning
at that point, which was a permitted use --professional
architectural office would be a permitted use, subject to
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations~ Ltd.
getting a special exception and site plan~.
that is what the Code said.
Samuels read the Code that he wantm~t~
site-plan approval. He also applied for
they never came here for a speCial exce~.i:c~o~c~t~th~s~
business on the land, which for the fir~
of that barn, was now not an accessory~o~%he~9~o~t~m~.n~
the house. That is also important to
THE CHAIRMAN: Now a primary use.
MR. LARK: Yes, but they didn't c~
exception, although they did get a
get the site-plan approval for it. And
site plan, if you look at the Planning ~I~ ~~
also applying for a minor subdivision i~
three lots at one point. Now it is two
they were applying for it, so they were
simultaneously, and in the applicant's
Board for reasons whatever kept telling
have to move your entrance of your rig~h~of~
west next to the Haurus property. You
that;then we want all the business
use that driveway by the Haurus properS7
the back. They kept telling them that~
they never came to this Board, which
lied-- not with the Building Inspector
Board. In order to validate the use eE
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1.993 ~ Page 71
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol
saying you woaldn't validate the use at that time or you
wouldn't validate it now; but what is there is not proper.
Now, to make matters worse, this architect, in the midst of
this, renovates it and moves in. He didn't get a CO for about
three years later. That is the way they do things. That is the
way this whole thing goes. Okay. Now, interestingly enough, on
January 10th, 1989, the zoning on this property as well as the
adjacent pieces, the 300 feet just like it has been since '57,
is zoned RO Office District, which permits a one-family
dwelling; and that one-family dwelling is back to okay. That
was in January of '89. However, we don't have a one-family
dwelling on this property in January of '89, okay?
We got a business and an apartment over it. Okay. Nowv
the professional and business office, which was characterized by
the architects, is allowed in a B-1 District in '89 providing
you get a special exception, and secondly the proof because that
hasn't changed, so don't need the special exception which we
don't have. Okay.
Then, for some reason --the Planning Board required it,
they say-- in August 10th, 1990, the applicant said, "The
Planning Board made me do it," files for an area variance; and
on November 1st, 1990, you people have a hearing. Some of these
issues are discussed; some are not; ~but the interesting thing of
the hearing is --because Mr. McLaughlin is here tonight and can
defend himself-- when you asked him the question as Chairman,
"Where are your CO status?" he said, "Oh, we got COs for
everything, we got a CO on the house, we got a CO on the
ZBA Hearin9 of October 18, 1993 Page 72
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
architects' office." There was no CO issued on November 1st of ~--~
1990.
Okay. January llth of 1993 the Building Inspector did
give Mr. Samuels or Petrol Stations on behalf of Mr. Samuels a
building permit for a CO --excuse me-- gave him a CO for a
building permit that had been filed on July 31st, 1987, for
alteration and conversion of a seasonal antique store to an
architects' office, so he gave him clear, independent CO.
Without a special exception. And I submit that the CO is no
good because at this point the residential office when he gave
the CO, now made it a non-conforming use again, okay. At the
time when he applied for the building permit, it was okay, but
now it is not okay. All right. So at least he had to get a
special exception to do it, and they didn't. Now what we have ~
now is, we have the three different uses on this 30,000
square-foot and when the ordinance got amended, both in the
--when it went to RO, it said that you are only allowed one use
for 40,000 square feet. It didn't say you could have three
uses. Now you would have to get a variance from that if you
were to go under that, which is what they are, I think,
attempting to do here.
Also, I agree with your analogy they are also going to
have to get a variance for the width of the lot because the
Planning Board --maybe not in this case, but historically--
whenever a right-of-way was created, especially now you are
using business property to go to residential property, which is
what this is all about-- they excluded the area as well as the
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 73
Appl. No. 4195 Petrol stati6hs, Ltd.
width from zoning requirements. In other words, setbacks had
to go from where that right-of-way stopped, and they still do
that, because I have been involved with other applications. But
this one Mr. McLaughlin says no, they didn't tell him to do it.
We are going to include it in the area and we won't include it
in the sideyards and setbacks for the sideyards. So that is a
departure from the way they have handled all other minor
subdivisions; admittedly, they were in "A" Residential Districts
or R-40 Districts or R-80 Districts where they make out and
exclude from the computation the area of right-of-way and then
make you use the setback from the edge of the right-of-way and
not the property line. But now here he says they don't. Well,
they got to be consistent.
THE CHAIRMAN: In fairness, I just want to tell you that
we have to take a short break for about two or three minutes.
MR. LARK: Okay.
THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to mention two things: The
most recent situation that occurred and I thought was a very
good situation -- that this Board has been chastised for-- is
the request to determine who has jurisdiction over these
matters, as initial jurisdiction, as an opinion, okay, and we
were asked that by the Town Board; and we then said that the
Building Department has jurisdiction of where these applications
come initially, okay, and we said that and, of course, we were
chastised for doing it. But that immediately puts these two
letters from the Planning Board concerning whatever they did,
okay, in suspect because the application went to them first.
ZBA Hearing of OctOber 18, 1993 Page 74
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
Then after making that determination, we then had a meeting with
the Chairman of the Planning Board, and it was at that
particular time the Assistant Town Attorney and myself and a
member or the Chairman of the Planning Board, and that is what
outlined these three uses and the amount of acreage that was
required for the three uses, which then precipitated this
application. Okay. Just so you are aware of how we got to this
particular point, that is how we got here. And it was somewhat
of a tough, hard road, but we are here now, and we are still
dealing with this application, and the chronological order is
absolutely impeccable, Mr. Lark, as by the way, we always get
from you. In fact, we haven't seen you in such a long time
(jokingly)° With everybody's indulgence, could we just take a
two or three-minute recess. I need a resolution, gentlemen.
MEMBER VILLA: I so move.
(Seconded and carried.)
9:35 p.m. Hearing resumed. Same presences as indicated
on title page, except TownAttOrney Arnoff was no longer
present.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not cutting your presentation Short;
but you are going to tell us what your opinion is on what this
applicant should have or what should exist or should be before
us?
MR. LARK: Yes. He has got to present a --it is a mixed
bag here, both an area and a use variance, and he is going to
have to prove the.practical difficulties test, so he doesn't end
up with this what he has got here now, this ad hoc planning of
ZBA Hearing oX October 18, 1993 - Page 75
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol $~tat~ens,
this particular piece of property with the aid and abetment of
the Planning Board and the Building Inspector. But, more
important. No matter of whether you deal with the Re Code or
you deal with the old B-1 Code, which he had, he has to get in
here for a special exception. Here is where he is going to
have problems, have problems in particular with F~rs. Haurus. As
you know, your Code --and it has the time and memorial laid out
in conditions, "special exceptions" is a bad word J-It shonld
be a special permit--
MR. LARK (continuing): Which is really what this is. In
Riverhead they call it a special permit; but he has got to show
how substantial the variation is in relationship with the
requirement. The requirement calls for one use per 40,000
feet. He is trying to get three on 30,000. He has that hnrdle
to overcome. He has got to get over the variances allowed, the
increased population density, which isn't, I submit, a great
deal here; and then whether a substantial change will be
produced in the character of the neighborhood, and whether there
wlll be any detriment to the adjoining properties. Mrs. ~aur~s
claims the way they are putting the right-of-way, the driveway,
if you would, not only for this three businesses but for the
three houses in the back-- they are putting it right across her,
next to her property, which her house sits about 5 feet off the
line because it didn't require any zoning back in '46 when she
built it, '47 when she built it-- and this driveway then would
be virtually right on her house. There is a cure for that. If
they are going to have access to go in and go outl and if the
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 76
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd°
Board is going to give them a special exception, they could as
part of the consideration --as you know you have done in the
past-- and there is no reason and it would also prevent any
further expansion whatsoever if you are going to grant the
variances and the special exception, to leave the driveway right
where it is. If you talk to the architect, he would just as
soon have it where it is. It is a much safer ingress and egress
there. And you can service both his business and go right by
his barn where he has his architects' store, and go right to the
rear of the property where that proposed cul-de-sac would be.
That would give her relief, and he wouldn't have to get over the
substantial detriment to adjoining properties.
I could have come in here with appraisals and shown what
that right-of-way is going to do of valuation to her land and so
forth, as opposed to the way it is now, as opposed to the way it
would be proposed. So if you get into a special exception
hearing, he has got to address that issue. Also--
THE CHAIRMAN: That is the reason why I raised the issue
of why putting in the curb-cut now. That I couldn't understand
that.
MR. LARK: Nor could Mrs. Haurus either. The Planning
Board, as he said, had kept telling him that is what it is going
to be, over there, over there; so, without a permit --well, he
got a State permit, I understand~- but he never got clearance
from the Town on it yet. So here is where we are.
THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Go ahead.
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 77
Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd.
MR. LARK: And then, as I said, whether his difficulties
can be obviated by some other method, both the difficulties of
locating --see, he has got some history going for him with the
t~pes of uses on the property. Legally they are not the same as
they were since the '57 zoning; but, nevertheless, there were
some uses. It is not like, yo~ know, brand new. They are just
separate uses now, as opposed to having the one use as an
accessory use. ~e has got to show whether he can obviate it by
some other method, and I snbmit her big complaint, of course, is
with the driveway; but his big problem is whether to get the
area variances, whether in view of the manner in which the
difficulty arose, considering all the factors which I have given
you, the interests of justice will be served, which the Board
has to take into consideration the adjoining property owners. I
know there is some other ones that have some reservations, but I
told them that the application for the residential lots is not
before this Board. They can talk all they want, but it is not
relevant to this issue; what is only relevant to this issue is
in effect an area variance which I submit crosscuts somewhat
into a use area also, as well as the special exceptions.
Now, in the special exception standards, he has to show
that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of
adjacent properties in the adjacent use districts. Where he has
got his driveway, which is part of the consideration that you
have to take into when you do your special exception --you know,
how are you going-to get your ingress and egress. He has to
show that he is not going to cause her any p~-oblems. She is
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 78
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
going to have difficulty unless he moves that because experts,
appraisers and real-estate people will destroy him on that
issue, so he is going to have to show that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask you a question. You are
going to continue to represent this lady?
MR. LARK: Mrs. Haurus, yes°
THE CHAIRMAN: So that during the continuation of this
hearing, if there is not a lack of movement, you will then come
in with this data that is required?
MR. LARK: Uh-huh (affirmative sound).
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not requiring--
MR. LARK (continuing): You only get into the
dollars-and-cents proof later on in the area of use thing, but
it carries over what you are doing to adjoining properties, you
know, when you read the decisions on that. Okay. Plus you have
to make, the problem with the special exception is, you have to
make damn specific findings on every one of those things in the
statuteD That is the problem with it. I don't know how you get
around that, unless he can show some alleviation, okay?
The other thing, and then it goes into the general ones,
the health and safety and general welfare and harmony and so on
and so forth, and the use will be compatible with the
surroundings and character of the neighborhood. As Mrs. Haurus
said to you, she is really not opposed to him because what
everybody misunderstands here is what goes on there today is
very nice, because they are nice people, it is low-key. The
zoning runs with the land, so you've got to be particularly
ZBA Hearing of October 18~ ~9~ ~~ ~
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd. Page 79
careful when you grant a variance and special exception --since
they run with the property, forever, until changed by some
reason, or become non-conforming with the change in zone, but
they still stay there just like a zone change-- is that you have
to be concerned just what is going to be used er not going to be
used there. Like she really has no personal objections they
are r~nning the real-estate office, and one of the people living
there. It doesn't have to be them. They could rent it out to
anybody they want. But she doesn't want all that traffic going
next to her property. She has really no objection although she
has testified that there is a significant difference in traffic
now from when the Rollins had it as an accessory antique shop,
to a full-blown architect. Because, don't forget, he has got
--What is going to kill him is the traffic study. He has got
two or three employees there. They have two or three people, so
if you even take two or three trips a day, you are going to be
up to fifteen, twenty trips a day any business day coming in and
out of there. You know, when you take your residential uses, if
you do the traffic-study people, they will come up with two cars
in the house and then you end up with four trips a day minimum,
you know, in that business, plus he has a couple employees, plus
Mr. Samuels and his wife are in there. They have separate
vehicles. They come and go. Never mind their business traffic
that comes in and out of there. You know, their clients that
come in and out of there. So she is absolutely right when she
says that the traffic is much, much greater than it ever was.
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 80
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
That is going to be his biggest problem. The State apparently
just doesn't care where they put a curb cut because--
THE CHAIRMAN: They knew that one had to go, so if that is
where they chose to put it, that was it.
MR. LARK (continuing): Because what nobody has said here
for reasons best known to somebody, and I am not an advocate of
lower speed, but the speed limit really is 55 miles an hour°
When you study the signs, as you go by the applicant's property,
Mrs. Haurus's property, you are legal at 55. As soon as you get
by it, you got to start slowing down because there is a sign 50,
and then they slow you down as you go into Cutchogue; so you are
pulling out at 55 mph (tape is turned over) --
and it is just a little too much, you know, the way the thing is
set up, especially concentrate: Her driveway and this driveway
literally next to one another coming in and out° This is
absurd, so the traffic is her biggest concern; she is not
against them trying to run some type of, you know, professional
business office over there, which is really what they have,
real-estate professional office in the main building, and then
the professional architects' office in the back building. They
have done a nice job constructionwise. She has no complaint
against that, you know, but she just doesn't want that traffic
and it is a big concern; and the problem with them, the
applicant is --I realize you only have appellate jurisdiction in
the area of variances, and you have some legislative
jurisdiction with the special exceptions because you are allowed
a bit more latitude there-- but if someone decided to take the
ZBA Hearing of October 18, ~993 ~ .~,~ Page 81
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
applicant to Supreme Court and void out all these permits, they
are not going to lose. And the point of it is, we would be back
to Square One. So I am advising just let us not waste the
money, let's see if we can get it all straightened out because
nobody wants to see them tear down their businesses, nobody
wants any of that, you know, that is not the issue here. But
you just can't continue to get frustrated with the process and
get improper advice from the Building Inspector and the Planning
Board, the same as you just said or let me put in the curb-cut
and see what happens. That will get some activity, well, it
did get some activity.
THE CHAIRMAN: I got three calls in Hauppauge from the
newspapers.
MR. LARK: Okay (laughter), so it did get some activity.
So here's where we are, so, yes, Mrs. Haurus would be glad to
work with them, but she just wants that driveway moved and she
won't stop until it is.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is her setback from the road?
MR. LARK: Her house?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. LARK: Fifty or sixty feet, something like that, I
think. That is set back fairly decent. Almost parallel with
the barn, the architects' building, somewhere in there.
THE CHAIRMAN: It was my understanding that she was mainly
concerned with the road running as close to her house as
possible. She was not necessarily --and I am not speaking for
her, I am only hearing other people that have mentioned this to
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 82
Appi. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
me, okay? She was not as concerned with the position of the
ingress and the ingress at 25 feet from her property line.
MR. LARK: That is true from a selfish point of view, but
from a good neighbor point of view, she is saying it is a
dangerous spot to be because that is where her driveway is and
it is dangerous because you can't see.
THE CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. LARK (continuing): And that is the problem with it,
trying to get out.
THE CHAIRMAN: Because I am only going with the premise
that--
MR. LARK: Her house per se is 97 feet back from the
road.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is the road wider than what actually
exists there?
MR. LARK: Yeah, so it is actually, probably been widened
out about 20 or 30 feet, so she is probably within, you would
have --this is a '67 survey-- so there has been one widening
since that. So I would say conservatively she is probably in
the neighborhood of eighty feet there° So she wasn't too far
wrong when she said sixty. Her mother's house, which is
immediately adjacent, is a little farther forward of that, so
that could be 40 or 50 feet off the road, something like that.
THE CHAIRMAN: The reason why I asked you the question
and, of course, I-am mystified at this point of where we are
going from here --okay?-- only, as you heard me say to Mr.
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 83
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
McLaughlin, that I would like to take everything in toto so that
we can clean this entire situation up, okay. The only reason
why I asked that question about the access --or the ingress and
egress-- is because I was wondering if the road could not be
bent over toward the two businesses and remain in its present
location, if that had to be the access.
MR. LARK: I am not opposed to that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know what I am saying?
MR. LARK: I do. I do. To the east as you come in.
THE CHAIRMAN: So that may be a possibility, okay. So
where we are at this particular point, I assume, is --and
correct me if I am wrong, and this is both attorneys-- We are
going to correct the notice of disapproval to include the lot
width for the right-of-way or the ingress and egress or going to
the back of the property. We are going to discuss the
possibility that a special exception or a special permit as the
case might be, may be in order concerning the use of this
particular back building as it concerns--
MR. LARK (interposing): And the main building.
THE CHAIRMAN: And the main building? Okay.
MR. LARK: Because the accessory apartment requires
special exception. It is not illegal, just needs a special
exception.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And so we are basically talking four
plus lA and B or a total of --well, let's basically mention--
and then we are talking the area aspects of each one of these
which were mentioned here. So we have all four, so we are
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 84
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
really only talking the special exception as you are indicating
on those two buildings, so we have 5A and B, total of five.
Okay. All right, so we will endeavor to make the Building
Department aware-- we will give you plenty of time, Kevin-- what
occurred at this hearing. We will see what develops after that,
and then we will keep you apprised of the correspondence and
reconvene the hearing based upon what the applicant wants to do
or what he does not want to do. The reason why I asked you that
question concerning your continued --I don't mean to belabor
this, ladies and gentlemen, I apologize-- and I am referring to
Mr. Lark now, your continued representation of this applicant
(sic), but I assume, and I want to reaffirm this, that if you
are unhappy with the way this thing goes, then any decision by
this Board will be the nature of an Article 78, which I would
think and, as you know, I would try to do anything to alleviate
that at this particular point, because I see this particular
applicant going since '86 now, we are talking seven years. We
could go nine or ten. Some of us could not be on this Board at
that time conceivably, you know, and there is no question about
it.
MR. LARK: The point I made too, what you end up getting,
the Appellate Division sends it right back here anyway, i have
learned that from experience. So try to work it out here. You
go all the way up to prove your point, and they send you back.
We don't have jurisdiction to tell you where to put your
driveway. They do. That is what the Court would say. Okay.
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 PaGe 85
Appl. No. 4195 Petrol Stations, Ltd° ~
THE CHAIRMAN: So, in other words, what you are saying is
if they spent twenty-five hundred dollars, you spent twenty-five
hundred dollars, we spent twenty-five hundred dollars, and we
are only going to be back here in 1995 or 1996 anyway. Mr.
McLaughlin?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't want so much to rebut what Mr.
Lark had to say really. I just want to give it a slightly
different flavor for this Board --and I am sure you probably
appreciate that. I think to a certain degree we were made out
to be the bad guys in the presentation. I want to submit to
this Board, we are not the bad guys here. We have been doing
what we have been told by the various Boards and Departments of
this Town for the last six or seven years; whether that be the
right thing or the wrong thing, except for the putting in of the
curb-cut itself, I think we have been relatively justified in
the actions that we have taken in accordance with the
determinations that we have had from the Building Department and
the Planning Board in the past. We are certainly ready and
willing to sit down with anyone and everyone involved to try to
work this out so that we do end up with a decision out of this
Board that is comprehensive and all-inclusive of all the
problems and will result in a decision that everybody can live
with because of all the factors that, you know, have been
presented. We have no interest in prolonging with an Article
78. I am not saying we wouldn't if we were displeased with the
decision, but we would hope to be able to work it out along some
lines that everyone can live with, and we would like to get it
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 86
Appl. NoJ 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd°
all finalized so that some day maybe we can even get the
subdivision finalized. But I don't want the'Board to be sitting
there and those people who may not be as familiar as others,
thinking that we have sat here and tried to devise a plan as to
how we get around~this Board. That has never been our
intention. We have been, if you will, diverted by other Boards
from having to come here and specifically told that we didn't
need to come here.
THE CHAIRMAN: Kevin, I never thought that in the
beginning. You know, to be honest with you, and certainly I
don't think it is something you really have to worry about. I
just want to ask something of our Clerk, and I will be right
back to you.
(Off the record inaudibly to Board Clerk.)
THE CHAIRMAN: We are only concerned with how we are going
to concisely present this material to the Building Department
and I just think maybe the better way to do it, rather than have
the entire --this hearing, for everybody's benefit, of course,
is going to be typed and made part of a permanent record, but it
is going to take us a little while to do that. A more concise
method would be just to have Mr. Lark outline what he said, plus
I will afford you a copy of it, and we will zip that over to the
Building Department and explain to them this is what happened
during this hearing concerning the next-door neighbor's attorney
as it was presentedf and let them review it and see if they want
to do anything or if they don't want. Certainly the issue of
what width is going to exist, okay. As for the special
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 87
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, ~td.
exception portions of it, that is for us to make the
determination; but certainly since the Building Department, the
new Building Department, okay, as it exists with the two
gentlemen that are in there, they are ~he ones who are going to
have to be apprised of what actually went on; and that is the
reason why I think that is probably the most expeditious way of
dealing with it.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I have no problem with that, as long as I
am afforded an opportunity to review and comment on what is
submitted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Could you do that for us, Mr. Lark?
MR. LARK: Sure.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anybody here tonight--
MR. LARK: I would be willing to meet with Kevin with the
now Head Building Inspector because I don't see, if he has the
codes in front of him, how he can read it any other way.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't have a problem with that.
MR. LARK: Then we can try to straighten it out.
THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't you do that? And then we will
all meet back here. Do you want to meet back here in Novembdr
or do you want to wait for the December meeting?
MR. LARK: It is up to Kevin.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I would just as soon move it along.
MR. LARK: I won't impede it. It's going to go anyway.
THE CHAIRMAN: You guys can do that in the next two or
three weeks?
BOTH COUNSELLORS: Yes, sir.
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 88
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations~ Ltd~
BOARD CLERK: Our next meeting is November 8th so--
THE CHAIRMAN: Again, is there anybody --We thank
everybody here for your courtesy~ Is there anybody here that
would like to say anything, that may not be here for the
November 8th meeting? I know most of it has been said. Seeing
no hands--
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to make a comment. I'd like to
make a statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is so rare that you make a statement,
Mro Dinizio.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it's maybe even an apology, Jerry.
There was a letter, a memo written about this with this
particular map attached to it at one time, and I read it and
said to myself "Gerry has to be crazy." I couldn't understand ~
what he was trying to say. And, Mr. Lark, you made it so
crystal clear to me tonight that I have to apologize to Jerry
for thinking what I thought° I just wanted to make that
statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is a first! (jokingly)
MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to thank you very much for making
that clear to me~ I really find it extremely hard to believe
that an applicant could walk into the Town Hall and actually go
through what this applicant has gone through and not be any
further than sketch --he is at step one as far as anybody is
concerned.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is because of the re-routing aspects
that occurred prior to our determination. I applaud the Town ~-
ZBA Hearing of October 18, 1993 Page 8~
Appl. No. 4195 - Petrol Stations, Ltd.
Board for asking for that determination. And, as I said, we
were chastised by other Boards for coming up with that
determination; but the buck has to stop somewhere, and it has to
start somewhere, and that is the whole purpose of it. And this
re-routing aspect only cost people time, and money.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The decision was made --I may be getting
into trouble but-- decision was made that our opinion, with the
hopes that s competent person would be making those decisions,
and maybe the "Town" goofed in this one. That's all I have to
say. Thank you very much, Dick. It was a great presentation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you again for your courtesy. I will
make a motion recessing the hearing to the next regularly
scheduled meeting.
(Seconded and carried; see Board Clerk's minutes.)
jdr
~&~ 80UT~OLD TO¥~; CLERK ~
_ Town C~r~ Town ~ ~outhold