Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/12/1994 HEARINGAPPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 12, 1994 (7:30 p.m. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Hearings) Present : HON. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman JAMES DINIZIO, JR., Member RICH.ARD C. WILTON, Member ROBERT A. VILLA, LINDA KOWALSKI, Member Secretary-Clerk to Board Absent: SERGE DOYEN, Member (due to illness) INDEX APPL. NO. Applicant Pages 4207 4208 4209 FRANK G. HETZER KIM CAMPBELL. PAMELA S. VALENTINE and WILLIAM L. MATASSONI 3-7 (none-adjourned) 8-18 ZBA HEARINGS OF JANUARY 12, 1994 -3- BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION NO. 4207 - FRANK G. HETZER. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IliA, Section 100-30A.3 (Bulk Schedule), and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for permission to locate deck addition along an existing side porch area. A portion of the proposed deck is proposed with a reduced rear yard setback. The subject parcel contains an area of 13,500+- square feet and is situated in the R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone District. Location of Property: 535 Meadow Lane, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 116, Block 2, Lot 20. 7:32 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: I have copy of a survey produced by Roderick Van ~-i±, P.C., dated January 10, 1980, with a penned-in area of the deckl and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Are you Mr. Hetzer? Appearance, Frank G. Hetzer, Applicant Pro Se MR. HETZER: I am. THE CHAIRMAN: How do you do, sir? Is there anything you would like to say for the record? This deck has been there since 1980 or thereabouts? MR. HETZER: Yes, I built the deck a while back. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. HETZER:~ I guess comments are proper? THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. HETZER: I also brought some pictures. ZBA Hearings 4 January 12, 1994 (HEARING, continued: Appl. No. 4207 Hetzer) THE CHAIRMAN: rather early in the morning. MR. HETZER: Because I was over a couple times, but it was Well, now we've got snow (jokingly). I can explain those if you wish. It's a small ten-by-twelve-foot open redwood deck, which was built actually in '81. At that point, very honestly, I wasn't aware that permits were required. The deck is located about 26 feet from the rear property line. I am advised that the requirement is 35 feet, and I would ask you to note --which doesn't show in there-- that the property to the rear of my rear line is a heavily wooded unoccupied lot, which is owned by the eState of Cliff Case, which I, with my neighbor, tried to buy and we were unable to purchase it from them only because they claimed there _ were too many people involved in the ownership to get clear title; or anyway, they just didn't want to sell it. The property line to the north would be the North Fork Country Club. In that case, if it is of any help, I am far awa~ from the property line; I think only 10 feet is required on the side. I have actually got about 30 feet over there. I measured that one off. As such a deck, I would call it a customary accessory structure in its location overlooking the golf course. It is really the only practical place for a deck to be located on this particular style of ranch-house. My glasses keep falling off here. Otherwise, we are going to be looking at a neighbor's house or the street or the woods, the woods being on the other side. It is attractive. It is certainly well concealed by yews and laurel shrubs which hide the legs and the open space underneath the deck; and I would say it surely didn't change the neighborhood in any way whatsoever, the character of~- ZBA Hearings 5 January 12, 1994 .Appl. No. 4207 - HETZER HEARING, continued:) the neighborhood, and my neighbors and neighboring golfers only give good comments. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you hide it behind that porch for any hackers (jokingly). MR. HETZER: Well, we're lucky. We're out of the line of the shot. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry -- I couldn't resist that. MR. HETZER: You've been there. You've seen it. Anyway, we have had no problems along those lines, thank goodness, and I feel that -- well my opinion is it shouldn't be a problem here, only because there really is no one to look at it from any direction. You don't see it. THE CHAIRMAN: I had trouble finding it the first time I came down, I didn't see it either. And the second time I did. I walked over basically adjacent your property, more on the golf course. As I said, it was seven-thirty~ eight o'clock on a Sunday morning, and that's when I got a pretty good view of it. MR. HETZER: Exactly. So that's all I have to say. Is there anything else that I should be saying-- THE CHAIRMAN: We'll see - do you have any questions, Rich? MEMBER WILTON: Yes. To the east of you there is a hollow. Is that on your property line or on your neighbor's? Your back yard comes flat and then there is a swale there. It's heavily wooded. MR. HETZER: Yes,. there is a little swale in there which, I '' %nk if you go back years ago --you see there is a pond at the other end of ZBA Hearings 6 January 12, 1994 (Appl. No. 4207 HETZER HEARING, continued:) that swale-- but it never gets wet in there. But that is in the middle of the lot in back. MEMBER WILTON: So anybody building on that lot would have to keep it even further east. MR. HETZER: Oh, no, I see what you are saying --Excuse me. I think that lot is probably about 125 feet across, and there is a little indentation. I thought that is what you meant by a swale. But I think when the guy built on my property, when he put our property together, I know that --because I am the second owner-- but Bob Othen (phonetic, no spelling supplied record), who lives next to me, told me that they filled, that they brought in some fill. I might also point out to you that whether it was correct at that time I don't know, the house was built in '71-- that there ia a distance from the rear property line-- I measured it off, to the rear of my house, which is 30 feet. Now, I don't know whether the rules were any different as far as distances were concerned back at that time. THE CHAIRMAN: Probably front-yard setback, not too much rear yard or-M but, as I to the variance procedure, MR. HETZER: As I' said, I think it is supposed to be thirty-five say, it is thirty. THE CHAIRM~_N: Anybody else have any questions of Mr. Hetzer? (There was no response.) THE CHAIRM3%N: This is going to remain unroofed, is that correct? MR. HETZER Yes, Qh yes. We won't touch it. THE CHAIRMAN (continuing): You are only coming in to legalize it is that correct? ZBA Hearings 7 January 12, 1994 ~APPL. NO. 4207 HETZER HEARING, continued:) MR. HETZER: Yes; if anything happens further, I will let you guys know. And ladies. THE CHAIRMAN: You don't have any objection to a restriction that it remain unroofed? MR. HETZER: Absolutely not. To be perfectly honest. THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing that, I will offer a resolution approving it as applied for, with a stipulation that it remain unroofed. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's record.) THE CLERK: Unless they reapplyo THE CHAIRMAN: Unless you reapply. Or some subsequent owner r~applies. (See Clerk's Minutes for deliberations and vote record.) MR. HETZER: Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: Have a lovely evening and a safe trip home. ZBA Hearings 8 January 12, 1994 APPLICATION NO. 4209 - PAMELA S. VALENTINE and WILLIAM L. MATASSONI. Variance appealing the December 16, 1993 Notice of Disapproval of the Building Inspector for permission to reconstruct building that is a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use. (This application notes that the subject building has formerly been utilized for three apartments, although the present use of the building is one-family. The occupancy of the building, if reconstructed, is proposed to remain at one-family.) Location of Property: 1970 Village Lane, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-24-02-24. The subject premises contains a total lot area of approximately 9,500 sq. ft. and is situated in the R-40 Residential Zone District. 7:45 p.m. (The Chairman opened the hearing and read the Legal Notice and application for the record.) THE CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C., dated and an amendment of April 16, 1993, indicating the two-story frame home that is on the center of the property and the nature of this application being the one-and-a-half-story frame house which is on the southerly tip -- actually it is probably a little more west than it is south-- and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard first? How are you this evening? Appearance: Pamela Valentine, Applicant Pro Se MS. VALENTINE: Fine. I am Pamela Valentine for those of you who haven't seen me yet, and I am one of the owners along with my husband Bill ZBA Hearings 9 January 12, 1994 Matassoni; and last night Mr. Goehringer, Mr. Wilton and some others (Ruth Oliva, Councilperson) came out to our house to conduct an on-site, fact-finding inspection in connection with this application. At that time two questions arose, one regarding the applicable flood zone, and one regarding the proximity of the northeast corner of the structure in question to the property line. From what was said on Saturday, I understand in answer to those questions we are in an A-7 Flood Zone which requires nine-foot elevation and right now nobody is prepared to supply a better estimate than what you guys got on Saturday from Gordon Price. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MS. VALENTINE: Those answers put us into a category that could be labeled least likely to receive approval on your variance application. I don't think our application belongs in that category. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MS. VALENTINE (continuing): The application is to renovate or reconstruct, if you will, a preexisting nonconforming structure on our property. We would like to use the building as a single-unit guest cottage with garage. Historically, it has been a three-unit rental. We propose to improve the exterior appearance of what is an increasing eyesore to the community. We propose to eliminate two bathrooms and two kitchens, so the three bedroom, three-kitchen unit is reduced to a single-unit guest cottage with one really half-a-kitchen, one bath and a garage. We propose to elevate the structure at least two and a half feet a~_¢e grade. It is currently 6 to 12 inches above grade and sinking. And we ZBA Hearings 10 January 12, 1994 propose to locate all electrical outlets nine feet above mean highwater mark. While this may not bring the structure within strict compliance of the 9-foot rule, we can't propose to elevate it any further if it is going to be in keeping with the historic character of Orient. If we were to raise it any further, our little guest cottage would tower over not only the main house on the property but of the surrounding homes as well. Finally, we propose to reduce the footprint. The lion's share of the footprint would be maintained, but two protrusions, one of which actually oversteps the property line, would be eliminated; and we think that the approval of this application would result in a win-win-win situation. The winners would be the owners, obviously, who could enjoy the property in the manner that they choose, the Hamlet of Orient and the Town of Southold whose appearance would be enhanced and whose density would be reduced, and the Federal Government whose policy regarding elevation of flood zones would be far more closely complied with and by the way whose chances of having to compensate us in the next 1938 Hurricane like disaster of 1938 when Suffolk County and Southold were declared Federal Disaster Areas --are greatly diminished. Should the application be denied, all those guys are losers. I think we are presenting the Zoning Board tonight with a unique situation where public and private interests benefit from permission to deviate from strict application of rules and policy; and this is the very type of situation that is envisioned by the Zoning Ordinance in its provision for the vehicle called a variance. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I just wanted to mention to you that the reason why I brought that issue up about the zone that you were in was --and ZBA Hearings 11 January 12, 1994 that portion of this is not really before us tonight -- It is up to the Building Inspector to determine if he or he is not happy with whatever you are proposing at this particular time. It would be a separate variance procedure. That is what I was more or less mentioning on Saturday -- if you were asking to vary that specific aspect of it, which is a flood-zone variance, okay? BOARD CLERK: They don't refer to variances anymore, Jerry. The applicants have to comply with the law now. THE CHAIRMAN: They have to comply with the law? BOARD CLERK: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So in any case, remember I had said to you, ~_~ have to look at the regulations because we are not privy to this situation at all times. I think I mentioned to you that the last one we dealt with was 1987. Okay, so whatever you have to do in reference to compliance with the Building Inspector on that basis is fine with me, okay. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels about it. I don't think, from my particular standpoint -- I have absolutely no problem with what you are proposing. You certainly were very gracious and your husband-- and the architect and the builder, very gracious to show us the entire structure, and we appreciate that immensely. And certainly anything you are going to do down there is going to be to a benefit, based upon the way that place is listing toward the Bay. There's no question about it. I mean, there is no other way to say it. What I did mention to Mr. Price and what I am m-~tioning to you is that we, of course, have to reduce this thing to w~±ting, right? And when I say this thing, I am referring to this ZBA Hearings 12 January 12, 1994 application, this decision. So as I mentioned to everybody on Saturday, if we put in the decision --if I propose in this decision and this Board votes on the decision-- "no closer than two feet from any property line," can you live with something like that? MS. VALENTINE: We would be, we would probably have to take the measurements; but if you want to tell us to kind of shift it this way, we are happy to do that. Whether it would be 18 inches or two feet, we kind of have to look at the back corner, too. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. When we get down to inches, you know, it is not a particular problem. The problem we t~iking.about feet, you know. That is what the give or take a few inches, run into is when we start situation is. MS. VALENTINE: Mr. Price) GORDON PRICE: Do you have any problem with inches or feet? (to anyway, No problem. We have to reconstruct the foundation so we can certainly shift it to conform with your desires. BOB SORENSON: There's no foundation there. GORDON PRICE: There's no foundation there. It's on-- THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, is there anything else anybody would like to say concerning the hearing? Yes, Bill. How are you? Nice to see you. WILLIAM GILLOOLY: For the record, William Gilloolyof Village Lane in Orient. I have no interest in this other than as a citizen of Orient and as a property owner of two parcels right near this property. I would implore the Board to act in favor and to accommodate these people. I am very~-~ concerned about the density. I have been for a long time. It is part of a ZBA Hearings 13 January 12, 1994 former boarding-house and you people did go through it, and I think elimination of the kitchens and the bathrooms and making it a one unit, if we can do anything to facilitate this. I have talked to a lot of the neighbors and they of course some of them I couldn't get from New York City, but they asked me again to reiterate that anything the Board can do to help these people restore this building would be very much appreciated by the citizens of Orient. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Bill. Does anybody have any questions before we ask if there is anyone who would like to speak against? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I'd just like to ask a question. THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: A couple questions. I would just like to kin~ of discuss something here. Let's just say that you decide that you didn't want to put the garage and you didn't want to do this, you wanted to renovate the place for three apartments. Could you do that - I mean, have you explored with the Town that you could get a permit and, within reason, without going over 50 percent of the cost of the property or whatever it is, is it feasible for you to do that? Let me tell you why I am asking this. Because when I make this decision, I want to know that what we are giving up is something that is possible. In other words, you are giving up three apartments. I want to know that you can have the apartments. BOARD CLERK: When is the last time they were lived in actually? That is what we need to know. When were the apartments lived in last, the ~=~ee apartments? If they were vacated for more than two years, then you may n~t have a three-apartment use anymore. ZBA Hearings 14 January 12, 1994 MR. MATASSONI: I don't know what the rental history of the unit is. I know the former owner did rent them out. We are constantly being asked each summer whether we "will" rent them out. It is certainly possible, even with the building deteriorating, to rent them out now, and we have turned down all those requests. MEMBER DINIZIO: Ok. So they are livable. MR. MATASSONI: They are livable now, and they are certainly rentable now in terms of--. MEMBER DINIZIO: A coat of paint, fix a hole in the floor or whatever. THE CHAIRMAN: No, I (interrupting) -- I think we can answer that question, Jim. Dick and I were both in the building, and it is one b~ilding regardless of the fact you have to walk upstairs to get to the second floor. And the building is in relatively good condition. Unfortunately, it's rotting away, and that's the problem, and that was the way it was described to me, and I can attest to that. MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess what I am getting at, Jerry, is you know, before we make a decision, to say that they can rip this entire thing down and build something brand new, okay, which you couldn't do if it didn't exist, you couldn't build a brand new, okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: I want it in the record that what we are tearing down is something that is Qf value, and that you are offering in exchange for a decent building, one-that is closer to code than the one that is now. My -~ concern is that, now you could go through these three apartments, put any 5BA Hearings 15 January 12, 1994 electrical outlets you wanted anywhere, I am assuming, okay, because you are not rebuilding the house-- you are merely rewiring it or whatever, and end up with a fire-hazard if you have a flood -- a very unsafe condition. That is what I am getting at with this flood plain thing. And I just really wanted to establish that, that there is something of worth, it will be in the record, and it suddenly makes a difference to me. I don't mean to scare anybody, but I want to make clear that you know you have something of value. You are giving it to us. Nobody can make our decision on that then. THE CHAIRblAN: Good. Is there anything you want to say for the record? Let me just ask the question if there is anybody who is opposed to Seeing no hands-- (There was no response.) THE CHAIRMAN: I don't give too much time between, you know (jokingly). These are not the McDonald's hearings. MEMBER VILLA: I have a question, too, somewhat in keeping with Jim's comments. Have you been to the Health Department at all on this to see whether you can do what you want to do? GORDON pricE: We have a letter from the Board of Trustees giving us permission to reconstruct the dwelling. MEMBER VILLA: Well, the Board of Trustees and the Health Department are entirely different. I am talking about the County Department of Health which has jurisdiction over sanitary aspects of every construction, and with a 9,000 square-foot lot which waves a red flag in my mind between w ~ls and cesspools, I think you might have a problem. ZBA Hearings 16 January 12, 1994 MR. PRICE: Well, we were going to use the existing cesspool for the three apartments there; we are eliminating two of the apartments, so 66 per cent of the former waste will be no longer needed. MEMBER VILLA: Yeah, but the thing is, the Department, the County Department has regulations; and if you are going to rebuild something, they generally require you to put a new system in. And that is going to present problems to you. So I just want you to be aware of the fact that you could walk out of here with an approval perhaps and get to the County and be stonewalled without getting an approval, so it is a very serious matter as far as they are concerned, and I think does matter to you as well, and one that has to be explored and resolved, one way or another. THE CHAIRMAN: I apologize. Before there was somebody who Was going to comment on something-- when I asked if there was anybody against it at the hearing. Any other questions you would like to propose? Bill? MR. GILLOOLY: Again, I don't want to appear as an advocate, but think it is important -- Jimmy raised the point-- having grown up in that area and spending 46 years, the apartments -- I don't want them to give the impression that this thing couldn't be used. I think, as Gerry said, you could go in there right now, walk right in, and it is really quite livable, three apartments. They are giving up something. And what worries me is, all these apartments in that area, down around where the Bay House was, for a person that lives on Village Lane, we are so lucky that as those apartment units --and I think at one point there were sixteen apartment units-- have broken up, the density has gone down in that area by a huge degree, mainly because people like these people have bought them and wanted to make it ZBA Hearings 17 January 12, 1994 --rather than a rental-- their home; and have actually, as I said, shrunk the density, which is important. So from the standpoint of the Board, you are definitely gaining quite a bit if you do approve this. I think it is a very positive thing. And from the standpoint of the Matassonis, while they probably wouldn't rent it, someone else --I remember I looked at the thing even before it was rented-- and Mr. Sorensonrenovated the building before they owned it, and it was a fantastic thing for an investor because there were four occupancies on this 9,000 square-foot piece of property that could get a valid CO. And at that.point, you know, through "grandfathering" and have it a County Health Department permit at that point in time. So you know i~ is, I think, a very important ~hing for the community to have this thing ~_ ~hrough, as proposed. MEMBER VILLA: I hear what you are saying and I don't have any problems with it, but I am just saying that if you are going in for a bUilding permit and you are going to renovate a building, or the applicant is' going to renovate a building, they are going to need Health Department approval. And you might run into a real problem. MR. GILLO~LY: No question about it. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other questions or comments concerning this hearing? Again, for the record, I understand the situation and have no particular problem with it. Hear%ng no further comments, I will make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision on it until a little later. (Seconded and carried; see Clerk's minutes.) Hearings 18 January 12, 1994 / THE CHAIRMAN: If you would like to hang around, we will be deliberating in the very near future here. We have one other gentleman we have spoken to many, many times. This is not the nature of the hearing, and he wants to mention something to the Board. You are welcome to come up here, or stay where you are, whatever you want to do. (End of Hearings) (Transcribed from taped hearings.) jdr/lk 7o-~n Ch>r~.:, %,v;n o~ -zu~koid