Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/11/1995 HEARING Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman Serge Doyen. Jr. James Dinizio. Jr. Robert A. Villa Lydia A. Tortora Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OC-Toi3é-,e '/1 / frS- 7: 35 p. m. Appl. No. 4336 - Peggy Heller (owner of Property: Nancy Dougla.ss) requesting a Variance under Article 111, Section 100-32, based upon August 16, 1995 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector for construction of a one-family dwelling with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks. Property location: 1145 Majors Pond Road, Orient; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-26-2-39.1; also known as Lot 3 on the Map of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Suffolk County File No. 9572. Zone: R-80 Residential. Chairman: I have a copy of a survey by Peconic Surveyors indicating the placement of this house on this particular piece of property with the setbacks with both the pond and the Fema zoned B area. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? How are you tonight Sir. COl\ld you state your name for the record. Bruce Anderson: My name is Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consultant representing the applicant Peggy Heller and Nancy Douglass. Sorry, Peggy Heller and Anne Wyden purchased the property now owned by Nancy Douglass. We c:orrectly notated the Tax Map for Suffolk parcel as described as 1000-26-2-39.1. This particular property is located on the southern - of Majors Pond Road in Orient is also located in an R80 zone. This particular parcel is viewed as a preexisting non conforming lot with respect to area and depth. As the board is aware of the required lot area in the R80 zone is 80,000 square feet. This particular lot has an area of 62,968 square feet. Also, and perhaps more critical from a design standpoint, the required lot depth in that R80 zone is 250 feet. And scaling off from the survey in front of you, you will note that the maximum depth which occurs along the southern side of the lot boundary is 180 feet. As we go North along the lot, the depth decreases. The average lot depth is actually 130 feet. We requested relief from the Zoning Code in two areas. The first area is a relief from the front yard setback for which a 60 foot setback is required and we're requesting that the house be located 43 feet from the front yard setback, from the front property line. We are also requesting for the rear yard setback 75 feet is required. Our proposing is for a setback of 62 feet. This particular parcel has a zoning history, as it were. In 1990 and application known as Willow Terrace Farms was submitted to Southold ZBA for area relief for four subdivision lots comprising what was known as the minor subdivision of Willow Page 2 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Terrace, Section 2. Also involving two adjacent lots known as 1000-26-2-39.5 and 1000-26-2-39.1. The 39.1 lot is the lot that we're here to discuss today. The primary basis for the request for zoning relief for the minor subdivision lots were attributed to the fact most of these parcels have separate assessments and the owners were paying separate tax bills. But apparently, the area was up zoned to R80 in the course of the applicants pursuit of subdivision approval for this parcel and thus the value to the applicant of such relief would have been achieved by increase lot yield of the proposed subdivision. At the same time, coupled with that variance request, a lot line modification was submitted to the subject parcel and the parcel adjacent to north of the subject lot which is a 39.5 lot. The result of this variance request was found in a decision by the ZBA which the ZBA denied the portion of the zoning application for reduced lot size associated with the minor subdivision of Willow Terrace Section 2. But at the same time, they approved the lot line modification between lots 39.1 and 39.5. In doing so the board recognized the need for alternative relief for 39.1 and 39.5. And also in effect, in approving this lot line modification the size of subject parcel 39.1 was further decreased while the size of lot 39 was increased. But regardless of the modification of the lot depth, regardless of modification of lot lines. The minimum lot depths could never have been achieved for this parcel and this is because the parcel constrained by two physical features. First, it's Majors Pond Road located adjacent to the parcel and of course from the other side was Majors Pond. So accordingly, under any reasonable building sensorial, relief from front yard setbacks or relief from-rear yard setback or relief from both would be required. When I got involved in working with the design and layout, my first thought was to simply split two various constraints. The front yard and rear yard setbacks. And at that time I had proposed a design and layout that essentially provide for equal setback from the front yard and an equal setback from the rear yard. For the record, this is that survey that reflected the original proposal. As you can see, all setbacks are the same, 53 feet. So however, we went through rather arduous regulatory process. It mainly had to do with Majors Pond which is a designated fresh water wetland by the DEC. And also, a wetland for which the Southold Town Trustees had jurisdiction and that regulatory process culminated in the survey that is in front of you now, as part of this application. And essentially that regulatory process played out such that the setback from the pond was increased to 62 feet and the setback from the road was decreased to 43 feet. Now, with your application as I understand it, the usual tests of practical was replaced by other criterion. I'm here to address those criteria. The first is the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted. And I would represent to this board that the benefit, the applicant would be found in the use and enjoyment of this property. Related to the construction of a single family dwelling which is expressly permitted in the zone for which this property is located. The second criterion is that that route relates to the determent, to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if variances were to be granted. You can assure this board that no aspect of the proposed project endangers the health, safety and general welfare of the Page 3 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals neighborhood and community. That is all the neighborhood and substantially all of the community is comprised of single family dwellings. Also expressed by expressive permitted by virtue of the Town zoning. Our third criterion is whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or determent of nearby properties if granted. And as disclosed in the architectural renderings submitted with this application, the proposed single family dwellings is to be of a traditional style known as a modified carriage house. Most if not all of the single family residence of this neighborhood consists of traditional style houses not unlike that which is proposed, and accordingly that criteria is met. Four, the fourth criteria is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant" to pursue other than an area variance. I can tell you that due to the preexisting non conforming lot, with an average lot depth of 130 feet, application of the required minimum front yard setbacks and minimum rear setback, would result in a building envelope that is so small as the result of a substandard house, not unlike, such as a trailer. Substandard housing in this area meanwhile would be determent to the character of the neighborhood as well as nearby properties. Your fifth criteria is whether the area of variances is substantial. I want you to consider for a moment the whole idea of zoning and that is, to set a area requirement and then apply certain dimensional requirement to that area. In proportion, for example in an R80 zone a lot depth of 250 feet, while your front yard setback is 60 feet. The proportion of the 60 feet to the 250 feet is approximately 24%. What we are proposing here; given our reduced lot depth on the average of 130 feet, is a front yard setback of 43 feet. The 43 feet compared to the 130 feet, represents 33% of that front yard. In other words, in proportion what we are proposing here is actually, works beyond portions prescribed in zoning with respect to the front yard. And actually the same occurs with respect to the rear yard. In the case of the rear yard your minimum setback is 75 feet. The lot depth is consonant at 250 feet. And that proportion results in a setback of essentially 30% of your rear yard is your setback area. What we are requesting here by our variance is a rear yard setback of 62 feet as opposed to 75 feet. And when compared to the 130 feet average setback that proportion, that area represent 47% of that required rear yard. Again, much higher than what proportionally is provided by zoning. Our sixth criteria is whether or not the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. As 1 previously discussed, our initial planning efforts were guided in such a way to maximize both the front and rear yard setbacks. We had attempted to balance these setbacks. However, as we progressed through this regulatory process having to do with wetland, the plan was changed and that change resulted in the plan before you. That is a 4243 foot front yard setback with a 62 feet rear yard setback. The 62 feet intended to provide for greater protection to the fresh water wetland. As to it's potential Impacts to the environment, I can tell you that upon receipt of our revised plans, the Town Trustees who acted as lead agency in this case, rendered a negative declaration which means that our plan as proposed will not have a significant effect on the Page 4 , October 11, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals environment. Physically, I can tell you that there will be little change to the site as no fill or manipulation of grade are proposed. And further there will be no drainage consequences of what we are proposing as all run off generated from impervious surfaces will be recharged on site. The seventh criteria is whether the alleged difficulty was self created which consideration should be reievant to your decision but shall not preclude the granting of my request for variance. And I can tell you that the alleged, that the practically difficulty was not self created. True, the ZBA granted a lot line modification resulting in a smaller lot as previous proposed. But even so, the lot depth would have remained the same, independent of the ZBA prior action. And accordingly, any previous or future owner of subject property would have been confronted with the same problem that we face in this application. Mainly, the problem of achieving the required front yard setback and required rear yard setback. While pursuing of course the dwelling that's in keeping with the area. The memorandum sent to me concludes by saying that you will grant a minimum variance, that is shall deem necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood, health, safety, and welfare. I believe I've shown that our request for variance is minimal considering the size of the lot depth of this parcel. We've also shown that the eventual construction proposed dwelling will preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood as well as safety, welfare and welfare of the community. Finally, I don't see anything that would preclude the Zoning Board from rendering it's decision tonight. This particular project has undergone a full Seqra review and handed upforthe record is the Trustees negative declaration for this project. Which means, the Sequa process is complete. Now, I would, that would basically conclude my presentation. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have and also if there are any others that raise concerns that perhaps I haven't addressed adequately, I would like the right to come back and address those concerns so hopefully we can wrap this matter up this evening. Thank you. Chairman: there was a the permit? We have some questions Mr. Anderson. Let's assume that variation of what you proposed. How would that effect Mr. Bruce Anderson: What type of variation are you referring to. Chairman: Shrinking the depth of the house. How would that effect the permit process? Mr. Bruce Anderson: Well, it depends to what degree you would shrink the house. If we're talking about a minor shrinking of the house. Of course all the permits that we've obtained from the DEC and the Trustees would all have to be amended. Of course, that would set us back greatly. Secondly, if there is a reason for reducing the width of the house, I would assume it would have to be related to one or several of the criteria and I cannot find in any way how this application, this project as proposed, how amending that would increase any benefit to the public in terms of zoning. Of ---~~-_. '"'~.,--, ~_._--- Page 5 Public Hearing SouthoId Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals course, zoning is there to protect the public. I don't think there is any reason to shrink the size of the house. Chairman: 0 K Mr. Bruce Anderson: I can tell you that submitted with the application we gave you, we gave you a contract of sale. And in that contract of sale this particular house, in it's shape and figuration it's exterior underwent quite a bit of review on the part of the buyer, and between the buyer and the seller. And what you have in front of you is something that is meticulously designed in terms of it's architect, in terms of it's size, in terms of it's scale. And again I can't see no reason for doing that. Finally. Chairman:: What's the approximate square footage of the house? Mr. Bruce Anderson: 29 hundred and 82 square feet. Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bruce Anderson: I would just like to add just one more point that, in your R80 zone you permit a 20% lot coverage, and over an 80,000 square foot lot, this provides for a 16,000 square foot footprint. What we are proposing here is something in the order of 7.3% lot coverage, about a third of what's permitted. And this takes into size the reduced size of this parcel. So, in terms of scale, we're way under what would ordinarily routinely permitted in this zone. Chairman: Good. Let's put you through the process. Mr. Bruce Anderson: OK Chairman: Mr. Villa, we will reverse ourselves as the evening goes on. Member VlIIa: Following the trend of Jerry there, I looked at your house plan and your house is like 102 feet long and 54 feet deep. Now, you got a lot that's only 130 feet. It would seem to me that you would try to work with the depth that your dealing with. And a 54 foot deep house is excessive in my mind. I mean, your saying that there is nothing to stop us from granting a permit, which I grant you. But it also says, the ZBA is supposed to grant minimal relief, minimize things, you know. You're talking a 54 foot deep house. Do you know how many houses aren't even that long, aren't that wide, never that deep. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Well, as I tried to explain before, the whole concept of zoning is in my mind is, to dedicate an particular lot area and apply particular dimensions to that area. The theory being, that the dimensions applied are in concert with lot area. And I think what I have demonstrated is that giving the reduced size of this lot, and comparing the setbacks as proposed, proportionally we are far below what would be permitted in an R80 zone. So, whether Page 6 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals or not the house in your view is a large house, or larger than other houses, from my standpoint, from standpoint of zoning to me is a different question entirely. And I think we are here to talk about zoning. Member Villa: Yes, but that's also a self imposed hardship. What you're designing a house that's bigger than what you can fit in the spot that you're allowed to build in. You're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. You've got restrictions here not only by the size of the lot, but because of wetlands and everything else. So these are the things that you have to work with. Mr. Bruce Anderson: That's correct and we've addressed the wetland concet'n and in addressing it, agencies jurisdiction has declared that we do not have a significant effect on the environment. So we don't have an environmental question here. I would still say, we are under a contract of sale that provides for very specific type of house. Member Villa: One other question I have for you. On your house plan, one of the rooms here, a dog room area. Is this going to be a business? Mr. Bruce Anderson: No. My clients have dogs and they have provided a separate area to groom. It will not be a dog grooming business. I believe a dog grooming business would not be permitted in the zone anyway. Member Villa: No. It shows on the (inaudible). I just had the question and I just wanted to ask you. Chairman: Mr. Dinizio. Member Dinizio: No, I don't have any questions. Chairman: Ms. Tortora. Member Tortora: The 43 feet Mr. Anderson. Could you show us on the map exactly where the cut goes too? It's not indicated on my map. Mr. Bruce Anderson: The 43 Feet is actually the distance between the stoop, actually the steps to the stoop and the lot line. Member Tortora: So it's the stoop. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Here's where the house starts. You have a little landing that you walk up. You go down three steps and it's measured from the last step to the lot line. And, if I may, I will show you that the actual setback of the house is so much greater. We put 43 feet in because we considered the steps to be a part of the house. --'-¥_'_"~-'----'~----- Page 7 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Secretary Linda Kowalski: Is the step area more than, how many square feet or 45 square feet. Do you know what that is? Dimensions of the step area? Mr. Bruce Anderson: The step area is four by ten. Secretary Linda Kowalski: 0 K, because there is a provision in the code book that says, step areas are exempt from the setback requirements. Member Tortora: That's what I'm trying to determine what the actual. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Well, that would increase the actual house doesn't start. The actual setback of the house, if you will is 55 feet. Member Villa: Can't be. Member Tortora: Yeah, because if you come look Bob, see what he's. Member Villa: It's four feet, it's 47 feet, it's not. Chairman: Well, we haven't figured out what that front portico is. Mr. Bruce Anderson: We're talking about four foot landing here now. If you're going to tell me that the landing is part of the house, than your correct. The landing are part of the steps and we're talking 52 feet. Member Villa: Wait a minute. He has me confused now. Member Tortora: Come see over here. This is the only way you will see it. Chairman: Well, he got it. Mr. Bruce Anderson: At the last sensorial we're looking at 47 or 48 feet. Member Villa: It's 47 feet. Member Tortora: So,if you could see it better on Jerry's on Jerry's map. Member Villa: I have the same one. It says four feet. Secretary Linda Kowalski: If it's not larger than five by six, down from the setback requirement. Chairman: It's showing here as six. Page 8 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Secretary Linda Kowalski: Than you're over that and it does count as part of the setback. Jerry, he's larger than five by six so we do count it as part of the setback. Chairman: So it's really 47, right Bob. Member Villa: Yeah. Mr. Bruce Anderson: We should also not confuse a setback from the front lot line with the actual edge of pavement. Chairman: Right. Mr. Bruce Anderson: If you look on the survey, you have a road shoulder in there so even though in your mind, or someone mind, it might be too close from a visual standpoint, off the road. You could certainly add another ten feet to that dimension. Member Tortora: To the actual. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Yeah, from the actual room. Chairman: There is a big drain there too. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Excuse me. Chairman: A big drain, a fixed drain right in front of· the, probably. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Are you referring to the dry wells. Chairman: Yeah Mr. Bruce Anderson: Those are down on the southern end of the property. They are not directly in front of the house. Member Villa: Well, that just confusing the issue. You have to go by the lot line so it's 47 feet. Mr. Bruce Anderson: No, what I meant from the standpoint of visual. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Your dimensions on the stoop area was four by ten, you said. Chairman: Yeah. Secretary Linda Kolowski: So, that's ten feet deep. So if you're 43 feet from the property line and you add the ten feet. Member Villa: No, you add four feet. Chairman: Four feet includes the entire porch also. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Ten feet wide. Page 9 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Chairman: That is a width. Mr. Bruce Anderson: That is a width. Four is a, it rather projects from the building. Secretary Linda Kowalski: So it's 47 feet to the actual wall of the house. Member Tortora: And just on thing Bruce, on this. Is that 47 feet from your lot line, the edge of your lot line. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Excluding the steps, yes. Member Tortora: To the road. Mr. Bruce Anderson: No, to the road you would add another ten feet so it would be 50. Member Tortora: To what do you actually own this? Mr. Bruce Anderson: Excuse me. Chairman: He only owns the property. Member Tortora: Inaudible. Chairman: It's a private road and you have a right of· way over it bu t you don't own the road. Member Tortora: You don't own that ten foot piece, that ten foot piece that you're talking about? Mr. Bruce Anderson: No. I meant that as a visual. The actual road is setback off the property line. Member Tortora: All right. Chairman: Mr. Doyen, questions. Member Doyen: No. Chairman: 0 K, we thank you. We'll see if anything is generated through the audience and if you have anything to say before we close the hearing give us a yell. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Thank you.· Chairman: Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this application. Is there anyone that would like to speak against the application. 0 K, any further questions from Board Members, Bob, Jim, Lydia. 0 K Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion of closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Page 10 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 8: 05 p. m. Appl. No. 4338 - William J. Wagner requesting a Variance under Article XX, Section 100-205.1, based upon the June 16, 1995 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector for placement of a freestanding sign, as built, similar to former preexisting sign in this R-40 Zone District. This sign is accessory to a nonconforming use established at the premises for sales of antiques in conjunction with owner's residency. Location of Property: 7130 Main Road, East Marion; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-31-6-6. Resolution and interpretation. Chairman: I have a copy of a survey of the house which was produced by Roderick Van Tyle pc dated April 3, 1975 indicating the approximate placement of the sign in the front yard area between the house and the Main Road. I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone that would like to be heard on this application? Good evening Sir, how are you? Will you state your name for the record. Mr. William Wagner: William Wagner. Chairman: Is there anything you would like to say. Mr. William Wagner: Well, our home shop has been an Antique shop since late 1928. It has had a sign out front, since that time. You have a letter I believe from Mrs. Schulty, bearing that who was born in that house. It's continuous. It's been a continuous shop since 1928 to the present time. It has had three signs.- She has had the first over at her other house in East Hampton. The second one I have out in my car which is slightly smaller than the one I have now. When the post war, sort of rickety on that sign, I looked across the street at Edna Brown's Real Estate Office and went across, measured it and then had a sign made up about that size, maybe slightly smaller. All we're asking is, if the sign is taken away from the front of house, we are out of business. Chairman: sign now? I understand that. What is the approximate size of the I didn't measure it. Mr. William Wagner: It should be listed. Secretary Linda Kowalski: It's all on here. Chairman: 0 K. There are two reasons why I asked that. So that it's in the record anyway, 0 K. But, we have it. All right, we'll start on this side while you're there Mr. Wagner. Do you have any questions of this gentlemen. Mr. Doyen. Member Doyen: No. Chairman: Ms. Tortora: Member Tortora: No. Chairman: This is an unlighted sign, right. """"'--- Page 11 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Mr_ William Wagner: Yes Chairman: Bob. Member Villa: No, all I can say is that it's been there for years because my wife has shopped in the shop. Chairman: While we have this gentlemen here, well let me go through the whole process. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application. Is there anyone that would speak against this application. Does anybody have any objection to the site of the sign it's proximity to the road at this particular time. 0 K Does anyone want to offer a resolution. Member Doyen: I will make that motion, granted as applied, unlighted. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Do you want to word the resolution the way I had it. Do you want a copy, it's on the left here. I was going to give you the draft so you could read it. Member Dinizio: Oh, OK. Do you want me to read this into it. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yes, just the highlighted part there. Member Dinizio: Everybody has read it I assuming. Resolved that hereto approved and determined that Section 100-205.1C shall apply to this ground sign as an accessory use to a non conforming antique sales and repair shop. Do you understand what that means Sir? We're saying that this sign doesn't apply to your business but rather an accessory to your business. We're not increasing your non conformity in any way, 0 K. Basically, we'll allow you to replace that sign when things happen to it. You know, say it got. Mr. William Wagner: You know, I specifically did not make it larger. Actually our shop is known by my wife Dorothy B. Wagner Antiques. All we did was put up a sign which was absolutely the same, really, as the previous one, which just said antiques. Chairman: 0 K. Member Dinizio: So it's further resolved that hereby determined that they obtain approval from the Building Inspector for new signs which are accessory to legal established non conformance uses. Subject to size, dimensions, locations, setbacks and other sign restrictions governed by divisions of the zone district applicable to said use and as the same were a sign accessory to conforming use. It's not a non conformance sign, is what we're saying. Chairman: Good. Thank You. All in favor Aye. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4339 - Gina Maxwell requesting a Variance under Article IlIA, Section 100-30A.4, for permission to locate accessory storage shed in the required rear yard and partly in the side yard, as built and re-located from former front yardlocation, Page 12 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 and Article 111, Section 100-31B(3B) for an increase of (former fire house building), Orient; Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-25-3-3.1. Chairman: I have a survey dated March 19, 1991 again from Roderick Van Tyle pc indicating the two and a half story frame old fire house building which was converted to a dwelling. And the nature of the move from what was the present location closer to the street in the side yard area, to what we construe to be the rear yard area, an increase of the 96 square feet on the overall, 20% of the project of block coverage. I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone that would like to be heard in this application? How are you tonight. Could you state your name for the record? Gina Maxwell: Gina Maxwell. Chairman: How are you. Is there anything you would like to add. I need an accessory shed shed to store my lawn furniture, my bicycles all sort of garden equipment. You know, I tried to create a shed that looked like the fire house that would be esthetic pleasing and didn't detract from the beauty of the area. I painted it the same colors and everything. It's like a new fire house. Chairman: Are there any utilities in the building itself, electricity or anything? GinaMaxwell: No. Chairman: No. Are you planning anything in the building? GinaMaxwell: No. Chairman: Let's see what the board has to say. I guess we'll go down to Mr. Villa first. Member Villa: Actually, the way you have theshed drawn in, you have, the way I looked at it, the length of the shed ran parallel with the street, right. Gina Maxwell: Yes. Member Villa: And yet the way, 0 K I'm sorry. Gina Maxwell: The way it is now. The length of the shed is p<lrallel with the street. Member Villa: Yeah, 0 K. So you actually have it in what you consider to be, alternate No.2 Gina Maxwell: Yes -~._,_._~.~-_... · Page 13 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Member Villa: Because on your, that's what got me confused. Because on your survey you show, present location. But it's not there. Gina Maxwell: No. Chairman: That's when she filed the application, I assume. Member Villa: This is just a one family building? Gina Maxwell: Yeah Member Villa: What do you use the ground floor? I mean, it was a fire house. Gina Maxwell: It's my art studio. Member Villa: There is no room for storage or anytWng else. GinaMaxwell: No, not for lawn mowers and things. It wouldn't be, it's an art studio. I use it to create my art work and it's a room as far as I'm concerned, and it's not a garage. I don't have a garage and I need a garage. Member Villa: Because we actually granted a variance on this building not to long ago for increase lot area for part of. Chairman: For a deck, second story deck. Member Villa: The rear part of the building. So what are we talking about in percentage here now? Has anyone figured that out. Chairman: See if the building Inspector file. Secretary Linda Kowalski: It's 96 square feet over what the allowable, lets see. You could calculate what it is. You have all the dimensions. You can calculate it. Member Villa: We had granted an increase lot coverage prior to tWs, so your exceeding the 20 percentage. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Right, so whatever the percentage was at that time you tack on to 96 square feet and that gives you probably another half percent. Member Villa: What does that bring us up to? Secretary Linda Kowalski: Probably a half percent more. Jerry, if you want me to calculate it. Are you doing it? Page 14 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Chairman: I was just looking at the numbers on the survey itself and I didn't know if they were significant to this particular, or germane to this particular lot. Member Dinizio: The lot coverage with the new construction would be 30.88% that's our previous action. Chairman: Right. Member Dinizio: 1992. Chairman: O.K. That was the deck. Member Dinizió: That's with new construction, 30.88. Member Villa: What is the lot area? Is it the same. Secretary Linda Kowalski: The lot area is about 9200 square feet. 89 by 94. Member Dinizio: It says here 21. Secretary Linda Kowalski: What is that? Member Dinizio: This is the building (inaudible). Secretary Linda Kowalski: It's actually 90 by 94 to make it easier. Member Villa: 84 60. So you're talking another 1% plus. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yeah Member Villa: So you're bringing this up to a least 32% coverage. Chairman: The situation of lot coverage in an existing situation, I realize that it increases it. However, the applicant not only, this is a matter of need. I understand what you're saying. Mr Dinizio. Member Dinizio: I have no objection to this. This is rather unusual building to live in in the first place. You know, I mean, one or two more percent on that lot considering the houses down there, I don't think it would be out of character. Chairman: What we are in effect saying. There better be a great need for the garage. 0 K. Member Dinizio: I guess you're right Jerry. GinaMaxwell: I better keep my lawn mower in there. Chairman: Certainly don't buy a Mercedes. Gina Maxwell: Don't worry about it. Page 15 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Member Tortora: Is there any reason why you couldn't put the shed more than three feet off the property line. GinaMaxwell: Well, right now it's up against a hedge, which is very tall and actually I think it's more pleasing not only to my neighbor but to anyone that would look at it. To have a hedge, instead of having it in the middle of the yard. Member Tortora: That's on the Melinger side. Gina Maxwell: Right, if it was out any further, I think it would obstruct the view and I think it would be more displeasing. Chairman: I -think it's a good spot. Secretary Linda Kowalski: any closer than three feet, feet. Well, the code says that you can't go but you can go further away than three Chairman: Mr. Doyen. Member Doyen: No. Chairman: O. K. Anybody else in the audience like to speak in favor. Anybody like to speak against. 0 K Hearing no further questions, Is there anyone that would like to make a motion on this. Member Dinizio: I'll make a motion. Chairman: Granting as applied for Jim. Member Dinizio: Yeah, no lights. Well I guess we shouldn't restrict the electric, but no plumbing. If you want to put an outlet in there, I guess you're welcome to the light. Chairman: 0 K I have a motion to second. All in favor. 8: 20 p m App!. No 4342 - George and Carol Kraebel requesting a Variance under Article 111A, Section 100-30A.3 for permission to locate new dwelling with reduced setback from the westerly property line which encompasses a private right-of-way easement. Property Location: 7285 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-126-10-1.5. R-40 Zone District. Chairman: I have a copy of the survey indicating the nature of this application as being approximately 45 feet from that side and that's where the reduced side yard is based upon the fact of the right of way that leads to, I believe three other parcels. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicting this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anyone indicating the Kraebel? How are you. Are you Mr. Kraebel? Mr_ Kraebel: I'm Mr. Kraebe!. Page 16 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Chairman; How are you tonight Sir? Mr. Kraebel; OK Chairman; What would you like to state for the record? Mr. Kraebel; Well, other than, the front of the house is usually it's most eye appealing side. As for characteristic features windows, doors and things like that, that are outstanding. And on the to locate those things so that they face Peconic Bay Boulevard, similar to the otlìer houses in the neighborhood. The design esthetic is such that it requires equal distance, otherwise I could reduce it. It's a very modest house. It's 1880 square feet, 72 foot long. There is no way to reduce it. We searched for the plan for six or eight months to find one we liked. That's all I can say. Chairman; OK. Let's start with Mr. Doyen. Mr. Doyen, do you have any questions.? Chairman Doyen: No thank you Chairman; Mrs Tortora Member Tortora: Not at this time Chairman: Mr. Dinizio Member Dinizio: Did I just miss something or what. What is the actual setback on the right of way? Mr. Kraebel: 85 foot, from the side it would be 45 foot. That's a right of way side. That's called a front under the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman: The right of way is 25 feet actually 25 feet wide. Mr. Kraebel: 25 foot and the house is another 20 foot. Chairman; But as the right of way exists now, it's against the fence. It's really only ten feet wide. So you have another 15 feet until you get to Mr. & Mrs. Kraebel's property. Member Dinizio; Wait a minute. If you were to pave the entire right of way , it you were to pave that. Mr. Kraebel: Oh no no, it's not paved. Member Dinizio; No no I know. I just want it in my mind. You say 25 feet from the right of way but it looks to me like. Mr. Kraebel; No No. It's 25 foot from the building line, from the lot line. (- Member Tortora; 0 K, but it's 20 feet from the right of way. -.--.,-.- Page 17 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Mr. Kraebel: That's correct. Member Dinizio: You could say that. If it were paved it would be more. Mr. Kraebel: That's correct. I pay taxes of that right of way. Member Dinizio: Yeah, I see that. Mr. Kraebel: And the right of way is 500 foot long. Member Dinizio: I thought I was looking at, it's 20 feet, 45 feet from your property. Chairman: OK Are you done Jim? Member Dinizio: Yeah. Chairman: OK Bob. Member Villa: No, no questions. Chairman: in favor of application? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to this application? Anyone like to speak against the Mrs. Tortora, you have something. speak Member Tortora: Serge just wondered and now I'm wondering too. Chairman: What. Member Tortora: Mine says 45, his says 50. Chairman: But we're going by the survey, OK. That's just a sketch, so. Secretary Linda Kowalski: That was the survey 20 feet. Member Tortora: 20 feet. Chairman: 20 feet to the actual, to the unpaved portion of the right of way or the property line. Secretary Linda Kowalski: No, the property line is. Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry. The property line is the other. To the unpaved portion of the inside line. I'm sorry. Member Dinizio: Say that again. Secretary Linda Kowalski: 20 feet to the inside unpaved portion of the right of way. Member Dinizio Right. Page 18 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Chairman: properties. OK and that right of way services three other Is that correct? Mr. Kraebel: Well actually, two owners. There are three properties, but one person owns two of them. Chairman: Oh, they do. Mr. Kraebel: So there is two people back there, two families back there. Chairman: OK Mr. Kraebel: Immaculatelot. This was a Catholic Daughters of America Camp I don't know, it goes back a ways. Chairman: Right. Now the gentlemen and the ladies that own the back piece that was the Chapel, they own that together. Mr. Kraebel: Yes. Chairman: So whatever lot numbers they own. Mr. Kraebel: Yes, and of course they were notified. Chairman: OK Does anyone want to act on this or do you want to hold it. Member Dinizio: I can't see any reason why we should hold it. Chairman: OK well, we're entertaining a motion from you if you like to. Member Dinizio: Again. Chairman: Again, sure. Member DiniziO: Well I'll make the motion. Chairman: You'll be the motion bearer of the evening. Member Dinizio: I'll be the designated motion person. Member Villa: Seconded. Chairman: All in favor, Aye. Have a lovely fall, spring, construction. Mr. Kraebel: You have the Martini's here and the Thompson's here. I didn't know they were here until they told me they had trouble hearing the board. Chairman: OK. --~.. Page 19 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Mr. Kraebel: And they are here to support the Heller-Wyden application. I would like to if you would, perhaps we could show them just the exterior foundation of that plan. Chairman: Why don't we give them, why don't you take whatever they want to borrow, as long as we get it back and take them outside and show them. Mr. Kraebel: OK. I know you just closed the hearing but they didn't. Chairman: Yeah, do you want that. Mr. Kraebel: - Yeah. Chairman: Take it. That usually works out the best. 8: 27 p. m. Appl. No 4340 - Joseph and Susan Grillo requesting a Variance under Article XX111 , Section 100-231 for permission to extend height of a portion of proposed fence from 4 ft. to 6 ft. along the westerly edge of the applicant's land used as a private right of way, and the northerly end near the entrance onto Peconic Bay Boulevard for a height of four feet, which will not conform to Section 100-232B in that the required height exceeds 2.5 feet above average street level without a required isosceles triangle having 30 ft. sides along each corner to preserve lines for traffic. Property Location: S/s Peconic Bay Boulevard known as 365 Mes·robian Dr. (Private Right of Way), Laurel; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-145-4-12.1. Chairman: I have a copy of the survey of the applicant in a different name but it doesn't make any difference indicating the right of way and the areas that they are requesting, a six foot fence. I have a copy of, again that was from a Roderick Van Tyle pc survey of October 27, 1989. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I believe you are Mr. Childs Sir. Mr. William Childs: That is correct, William Childs. Chairman: OK We do have a letter from another person over there. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Mrs. Holfelder. Chairman: Mrs. Holfelder, I don't know, you got it. Mr. William Childs: I just got that today. Chairman: We just want to make sure you have it. OK, you're welcome. You have the floor. Page 20 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Mr. William Childs: I am one of seven residence on that Mesrobian Drive and we have some pictures to show just what we are requesting. What is existing now and what we hopefully intend to basically give the community, that the fence will be on, privacy, give us privacy, and bring some conformity to the area. Also, improve the line of sight both going out to Peconic Bay Boulevard. Also, as it exists now it's impeded with the existing fence. I just received that letter from Lucian Holfelder today and there is, it seems like there is a positive thing in there because she does indicate. I tried calling her this afternoon but I got no response back from her. I was going to suggest, because in the letter it's stated that she did talk to her family and she's willing to go along with some type of a fence. She stipulated some type of drawing here. We're willing to work along with her in anyway we can. One of the reasons we were hoping to have the good side of the fence on, our facing us, would be for repair purposes more so than to have them look at the other side, the bad side of the fence. Some of the photos, I don't know what George Johnson might have presented to you, but there is already an existing foot stockade, etc etc. There are four foot fences that need repair and we would think that headlights coming in and out would actually go towards there property to go to Peconic Bay Boulevard. What this lady, Lucian, what I was going to suggest to her, if she possibly wanted a double sided six foot fence. We're here to try to make, not enemies. We're just trying to bring our community together and make it a little more private and a little more safe for our area. Chairman: Do you want to try to call her tonight before we close this hearing or do you want. Mr. William Childs: I did try her. Chairman: Do you want to postpone the hearing until the next meeting and try and get everything resolved here, because we still have some people that are somewhat hanging here. You know what I mean. Let me understand this. You are a member of this community. Mr. William Childs: Yes. Chairman: And so therefore you are in favor of the changes in the fence as you propose them. Mr. William Childs: Yes Secretary Linda Kowalski: What do you mean, people hanging. Chairman: Well, the Holfelder issue is one that has not been resolved. Secretary Linda Kowalski: That's the only one I'm aware of. Chairman: So, I mean. We could, it's an early evening if you go out and call them, if you so choose too. I'm sure we're going to be he 1'e till 9: 30 easy. Page 21 , October 11, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Mr. William Childs: I have no problem with that. Chairman: Well, why don't we do that at the culmination of this then. We'll just recess it for a little while. Member Villa: The question is, the gentlemen just said that, he would be prepared to have a double sided fence. Mr. William Childs: Right Member Villa: But are you prepared to have a double length of this because if one hears about it. Mr. William Childs: Right. Member Villa: You will be faced with the rest of them doing it too. Mr. William Childs: Good point. Member Villa: So that's got to be. Mr. William Childs: I got to watch out what I write because I'm only here representing six others. Member Villa: Because you know what's going to happen. If one gets it, other ones can turn around and say, hay, why should I be looking at the back of the fence when I could be looking at the front of the fence. Mr. William Childs: Well, what bothered me. The point that I was going to bring up with the discussion about the good side and the back side was that for repair purposed alone, it wouldn't do us good at all if we're having a fence on the Grillo property line, we could not repair the fence if anything did happen. That was my case. Other things popped into my head after reading it because she drew some public design here. I don't know what would appease her but at least there is some type of little opening, where she says, however. After speaking with some members of my family, she's willing to go along with the six foot fence. So, I don't know whether to appease her by putting flower pots. But then who is going to take care of flower pots. Whatever it would take we're willing to go along with any suggestions. So maybe I'll try and call her and I did try to call her this afternoon and I did leave my name and number. Chairman: Do you have a specific question? Member Tortora: It would probably be alot easier, you're under no pressure from us. We could recess the hearing. Chairmau: We'll still take your testimony Sir. So don't worry about that. Member Tortora: Aud allow you to try to work things out. Page 22 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Chairman: Right Member Tortora: And you're under no pressure to get it done tonight. Mr. William Childs: All right. Member Villa: While Mr. Childs is here aiso, what I understand the application, the first house off Peconic Bay is the pink one. Mr. William Childs: That's correct. Member Villa: That's going to be four feet because otherwise you'd be blocking tlÍere windows, because there smack up against the fence. Mr _ William Childs: And we're offering to take away, even in the letter, we agreed to take all the fences away and dispose of them without causing undue problems to the existing on that property. We're trying to just get this community thing together and just present it in that manner and hopefully this is the first item. It was sent to your office October 10 and I guess Linda mailed it right away and I got it this afternoon. Chairman: If we decide to recess it for the next meeting would you give us the idea of which side we're going to deal with here, you know. Are we dealing with the good side to the neighbors on the South Oakwood or what are we doing, OK. . Mr. William Childs: I would say we want the good side facing us. Chairman: OK Then you'll have to tell us, you know. Are you willing to go double sided if that's, that's another issue. Mr. William Childs: Then I'd have to bring that up to. Chairman: That's an issue that's going to cost alotof moneyso you're going to talk to them. Mr. William Childs: I really don't want to. The point is good because I don't want to mention to her that we would do this and then the next thing you know, everyone wants the thing and it's a double fence. So, I don't know whether. I don't know what we would have to do, but let me get some feedback from her and then I let her, I guess, get in touch with you on her decision. Chairman: Anyone have any questions of Mr. Childs at this point? Member Dinizio: I just have a statement that you're under no obligation to put that fence one way or the other. Simply, as far as I'm concerned, if you have a neighbor that you want to negotiate with, that doesn't bind you to them. Like the other neighbors, has to do the same thing for them after we approve that fence. I want you to be aware of that. You could put up a four foot fence, good side, bad side out. Whichever way you want. Are you asking for a Page 23 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 six foot fence we have to in our minds, determine whether this is a feasible thing to do. In my mind it is because it's people back yards and you're protecting them. But if you want to work with this Mrs. Holfelder, that is up to you to do. I would say, no one else is complaining and you get the approval, the other people. They had there chance to comment. I'm assuming that everybody got a notice. .Just so you know. Mr. William Childs: Let me stretch that a little further and say, if I get in touch with her now I'll come back maybe with the same, and I'll present it that way. Member Dinizio: I'm just saying to you, we're not going to, one way or the other. Chairman: You may choose to buy a more expensive fence where both sides are the same, and put the posts on either end of the fence, and that certainly would rectify the whole problem. And all we'll do is adjust types based upon what we think is the appropriate thing to do. Mr. William Childs: All right. Chairman: I mean, I think that's an area you should investigate, personally. S("cretary Linda Kowalski: That is also one other options and that is. You could close the hearing tonight and let the board make a decision based on what's there. It depends. If you want to take the extra time for another month, another meeting, to hold off, or. Member Dinizio: I'm willing to let him go out and call her and come back. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yeah. Mr. William Childs: Yeah, I'll call her. Member Tortora: Don't make any promises though. Mr. William Childs: Yeah, I don't really want to go through promises because I don't really have the. Member Tortora: You don't have the extra money. Mr. William Childs: And at least she did get feedback again from her family to basically go along with it, so possibly. Chairman: We're talking about a 4 foot 6 foot normal stockade fence which has three rails holding up, the vertical pickets up. -I Page 24 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Mr. William Childs: Right Chairman: And that's it. Right at this point. Does anybody want to address the issue of 4 foot, 6 foot at this time as it pertains in the application. Member Dinizio: Only at the beginning. Secretary Linda Kowalski: We have to talk about the first 30 feet. Member Dinizio: Right, that's all. Secretary Linda Kowalski: The height. Chairman: OK, so what do you want to talk about. Then well let this gentlemen in the back speak. What do you want to talk about? Member Dinizio: Well I just think we should restrict the height at least. It looks like it is already. So just mention that in any decision we make, that that be four feet. Chairman: Right, we may have. Mr. William Childs: Excuse me, we are taking that into account, that pink house in question. If we put up a six foot fence his windows would be blocked, so his whole house would be", whole house to his area would be four foot and then it would go up on a six foot plain. If for some reason, I believe, it might be written in the future, that the house is knocked down and the window site does not have a problem we would be allowed to put a six foot fence to match the existing going out. Chairman: Sure. Mr. William Childs: And the line of site on Mesrobian when your exiting that would be addressed also because it's a tough. You have to go out almost to Peconic Bay Boulevard to see the existing fence and that will be addressed. Other than that, I do have other pictures. I don't know how many pictures. I don't know if you guys went down there. Chairman: Yes we did, everybody. Mr. William Childs: Well, all right so then you basically, and the fences that are existing, most of them, are the good side facing us anyway. And it would be privacy because we go to the beach in the right of way, and if people are entertaining they do have there own privacy and that's what we took into consideration. I will try, I'll go out and call, I'll try calling her. I did call her. Her number is right here but as I said, there was no response from her. I was going to offer some. Chairman: Right. Page 25 , October 11, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Mr. William Childs: I was going to offer some flower pots or something on the six foot fence but it would be her responsibility to maintain them. We can't go around and maintaining it. As far as having a good side, bad side. I was going to say, the repair end of it would be our responsibility and it would be impossible to go on bet property to repair any problems of the fence. There is heavy feliage there in alot of spots anyway. Chairman: You should stay here during the hearing to see what else developes, so don't leave. Mr. William Childs: OK Chairman: OK. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Mr. Douglas Seeth: I will Chairman: OK Your name Sir for the record. Mr. Douglas Seeth: Douglas Seeth Chairman: How are you doing. Mr. Douglas Seeth: Mesrobian Drive. I'd just like to refresh your memory with some pictures. Chairman: Sure. Mr. Douglas Seeth: This is the fence of the lady who was objecting. We want to replace it. Chairman: Right Mr. Douglas Seeth: Now isn't that a beauty. Chairman: Yeah. They don't make those fences anymore. Mr. Douglas Seeth: Also, if you recall this, several sections of six foot picket fence already there. Chairman: Right Mr. Douglas Seeth: And this the crazy site line, the controversial thing, to see tile existing four foot fence goes to within ten feet of Peconic Bay Boulevard right now. Chairman: That's the pink house on the end, as you turn in. Do yeu want those back Mr. Seeth. Mr. Douglas Seeth: If you would like them, you can keep them. Sure. Mr. William Childs: They can keep them. Page 26 , October 11, Public Hearing Transcripts Southo]d Town Board of Appeals 1995 Chairman: We can keep then. OK thank you. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Thank you. Mr. Douglas Seeth: We'll see if we can straighten it out. But you actually said though, that we could maybe double fence just that one property and then the others. After the meetings closed they didn't show up, so we wouldn't really have to do the whole thing because it would be a terrible expense. Mr. William Childs: I think maybe we just better not suggest anything, really. We'll call her and see. Chairman: Please stay here during the hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to speak against the application? Sir. We'll take that back Bruce later. OK Excuse me one second Sir. Go ahead. Mr. Jay Buscemi: Good evening, Jay Buscemi. I'm a neighbor adjoining the Grillo property. Secretary Linda Kowalski: How do you spell your last name please. Mr. Jay Buscemi: Buscemi. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK, thank you. Mr. Jay Buscemi: On the tax map it's Bennett. It didn't get changed too often. Chairman: Are you on North Oakwood, South Oakwood. Mr. Jay Buscemi: South Oakwood, that's correct. Chairman: What lot number are you on. Member Villa: Fourth lot down. Chairman: 13, OK Mr. Jay Buscemi: Yeah, I have a couple of questions Sir. I'm not decided if I'm for or against the fence yet. I guess I don't understand what's going on. Section 100-231 does that prohibit fences higher than four foot anywhere? Chairman: Front yard. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Front yard he said. Mr. Jay Buscemi: Front yard. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Can't hear you. Page 27 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Mr. Jay Buscemi: Can, if a six foot fence that's being proposed, is that within the codes, current codes or not, as a hike. Secretary Linda Kowalski: If it were a side yard or rear yard? Mr. Jay Buscemi: Side yard or rear. My rear yard? Chairman: No, their rear yard. Member Dinizio: That's a good question. Secretary Linda Kowalski: They don't say. Member Dinizìo: If that was put on your yard, it would be a different story. If you were putting it on that maybe. That's why it's here. Because there is a question of that. You know, is it appropriate. That's why we can grant the variance and that. Mr. Jay Buscemi: Ok, I understand. Chairman: who's line. That's my question. That's the issue. I have no idea who's fence is on Mr. Jay Buscemi: Are the existing fences in the neighborhood broken down, the one belonging to the Grillos's? Did they put those up originally? Chairman: Wait, wait. You've got to approached the board with a question. Secretary Linda Kowalski: We can't hear the answer. Chairman: Use the mike here. That's my question. I have no idea who's fence is on who's line. That's the issue. Mr. William Childs: What's your first name. Jay, Bill and this is Doug. Doug is a resident there for a number of years. I'd say about 35 years. All the fences were put up by the owners on our side except the six foot picket fence. Mr. Jay Buscemi: Right, (inaudible) So the fences that are adjoining my property now belong to who. Mr. William Childs: I think Bea Pectic, Fred Pectic wife the Doctor, (?) who used to have his office in that pink building down the end. Chairman: Lived down on the bay, on Mesrobian. Mr. WilHam Childs: Right, that's correct. Chairman: Regardless of that issue, all right, the issue that is before us is the reconstruction of this fence is on this right of way Page 28 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 property. It's not on any body else's property. OK Just so you're aware of that? Mr. Jay Buscemi: Well, OK. That's part of my question. I'd have to object to a six foot fence on the back part of my property for several reasons. It will reduce my air flow in a hot August day so I'd have to say 3 foot maybe 2 and a half foot, maybe it's there now. I certainly don't want to block that. It doesn't use the morning sun-light to some degree. But I'm really concerned about limiting wildlife access. The rabbits and the squirrels will be banging their noses into the six foot fence and they won't be able to get over it. It's just something I feel strongly about. I don't particular like having my view air blocked from that back. Now, I'm not objecting "to a fence per say. The six foot seems excessive. If there is an alternative, possible a four foot fence wouldn't be a problem to me. I can really only speak to my property line so if another neighbor doesn't objects to six foot, you can go down to four foot, get back up to six foot. But I object to six foot fence on my property or adjacent to it at least. Chairman: 0 K, that's great. Thank you. It's not that great that you object, but it's great that you can. 0 K. I think what you see here is a need to redress some of the issues of what you might want to do. So why don't you get in touch with Holfelder and get back to the group, you know, the five or six property owners and come back in November and tell us which way you want to go. Mr. William Childs: All right, fine. Chairman: point. And I think that's the clearest vision we see at this Mr. William Childs: Well, I have to just try to zero in on which piece of property Jay has. Do you have a garage Jay? Mr. Jay Buscemi: Yeah, adjoining the property. Mr. William Childs: All right. So, he has a garage adjoining the fence, that's already taken up a large percent of what land he does have. That obviously is higher than six foot. So, I don't know what percentage of the land he does have but there is a number of different garages there too. So, I don't know what other than tossing it back to the seven other homeowners and trying to get in touch with this Holfelder and then we'll come back November. Chairman: Try to give us some indication as to how far the fence is from the existing structures as in Mr., I'll refer to him as Bennett, because it is Bennett on the survey, rather than Mr. B's garage. Mr. William Childs: Right. Chairman: There really should be access between the garage and the fence. You're going to end up with leaves debris and you're going to end up possibility of someone flicking cigarette over. l Page 29 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Mr. William Childs: Fine. Chairman: I'm not saying anyone is going to do it, it could be someone riding their bike down the road. Mr. William Childs: OK Mr. Jay Buscemi: Less than two feet. Chairman: Less than two feet, OK. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak for or against this hearing before we, this is not the final hearing, we're going to recess it. Seeing no hands I make a motion, recessing the hearing until the next' regular scheduled meeting. Mr. William Childs: OK Thank you. Chairman: Now remember, the hearing is actually closed, OK. Now you're asking us to adjunct something to the hearing? Mr. William Childs: Yes, they simple couldn't hear you. Chairman: I understand. Mr. WIlliam Childs: The way you closed the hearing and that seems to be the problem. I didn't know they were here. Chairman: OK Mr. William Childs: We all just met. Chairman: How do you do tonight, Sir? Mr. Jody Martino: My name is Jody Martino Secretary Linda Kowalski: This is on the Douglass hearing Mr. Jody Martino: I live on the Terrace Lane which is the adjoining road to Major Pond Road. Chairman: How far down the road Sir? Mr. Jody Martino: I am at the end house of Terrace Lane. Chairman: OK, so you're in the corner. Mr. Jody Martino: And that's where the turn is into Major Pond. Chairman: OK Mr. Jody Martino: I see no objection to this house going in. I think it would add to the value of all the other properties and as long as there is no business. We understood like dog boarding which we would disapprove of, but we heard it wrong Page 30 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Chairman: OK Mr. Jody Martino: And we find, I find nothing wrong with the house going up. Chairman: I apologize to you. Normally, what we do, we recess the hearing, take a little five minute break Mr. Jody Martino: Right. Chairman: And we put everything down. In the future if you wa.nt to look at anything, please just give us a yell. We'll be very happy to do that. All right. Mr. Jody Martino: All right. Chairman: We thank you for your opinion Sir. Mr. Jody Martino: Thank you. Chairman: Anybody else. Thank you. We a.gain close the Douuglass Hearing. 8:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4341 - Jerad Motel Corp. (a/k/a Sunset Motel) requesting a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-243A and 100-243B based upon the September 7, 1995 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, for permission to reestablish preexisting nonconforming efficiency apartment use in the existing footprint of this preexisting nonconforming building, portion of which were recently damaged by fire. The property contains a nonconforming lot size of less than five acres and is located in the RR Resort-Residential Zone. Property location: 62005 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-40-1-1. Chairman: I have a copy of the plans and specification for the new building proposed. And I have a copy of the survey dated July 26, 1995 indicating the approximate location which Is of similar location to the building that was damaged by fire or destroyed by fire, actually. And of which is 134 feet from County Road 48 and approximately 220 feet the high water mark on the great Long Island Sound. I assume we have Mr. Johnson back again. Chairman: How are you. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Anderson. Chairman: Anderson, pardon me. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consultant representing the Jerad. I want to correct something in the notice in that, what we were actually requesting here is not a interpretation of the Building Inspector's decision. Before I open Page 31 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals up, 1 want to hand out exhibit's that I will be referring to. This will hopefully make it very easy on you. I'm handing the chair the original which contain some signed affidavits. The remaining members of the board have photo copies affidavits and that's the only difference between those two versions. Those exhibits include the following. The first one, Exhibit A is the Building Inspector's notice of disapproval, September 7, 1995. Exhibit B which is what follows contains select portions of the Town code that mayor may not be affectable to what we are requesting. Exhibit C is a copy of the Town assessment card dated November 4, 1961 shows the Town's assessment of the Sunset Motel to include efficiency units. That's followed by Exhibit D which shows a affidavit signed by Donald Levitt declaring the unit lost by fire to have contained cooking facilities prior to the fire. Exhibit E is an affidavit signed by Carol Duback declaring the kitchen facilities to have existed in the unit lost by fire, prior to the purchase of subject property by the JeradMotel Corporation. Exhibit F is a copy of the Southold Town Zoning Code adopted on April 9, 1957. Exhibit G is a copy of the commercial package policy, the insurance policy which establishes the value of subject premises. And finally H which is a copy of a sworn statement which establishes the value of the loss. Now as I said, why am I here. Well, first of all we have a terrible personal tragedy that have been experienced by the owner's of the Sunset Motel. One of the worst things that could happen to anyone, is to see major portion of your business burned to the ground. That prompted us to, of course, want to rebuild it, in place and in time. And in the later part of August we submitted a building permit to do precisely that. That building permit was responded to by a notice of disapproval dated September 7, 1995. And the reason for that disapproval in that notice is that under Article 24 Section 100-243A & B, the proposed construction doesn't meet the requirements of this section. Action therefore, required by the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town Planning Board and other applicable agencies. I'd like to read that specific section. It reads as follows. 100-243 speaks to non conforming buildings with non conformance uses. Part A reads that a nonconformance building containing a nonconformance use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, or moved unless the use of such building is changed to a conforming use. That's followed by part B that reads, a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming use which has been damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of more than 50% of it's fair value shall not be repaired or rebuilt unless the use of such building is changed to conforming use. Now I submit that the Building Inspector erred in rejecting my building permit. I'm not seeking a use variance. Rather, I'm seeking an interpretation of the Town Code establishing the applicants right to rebuild the motel in place and in time. And to start my analyses, I have to ask the question, how did he erred. First part is, the Building Inspector declared that the Motel lost by fire is a nonconforming building, and as you turn to 100-13 of your zoning codes titled definitions, nonconforming building construction is defined and it reads as Page 32 Public Hearing Sou thold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals follows. A building or structure legally existing on the effected date of this chapter any applicable amendment thereto but which, by reason of such adoption revision or amendments, but which fails by reason of such adoption revision or amendment to conform with the present district regulation for any prescribed structure or building requirements such as front, side or rear yard building height, building areas or lot coverage, lot area per dwelling units, dwelling units per building, parking and loading spaces etc. which is continuously maintained aftE)r the effective date of these regulations. Now, I can assure this board that, this is not a nonconformance building. This building complies with the front yard requirements set forth in your bulk schedule. That bulk schedule requires a 35" foot front yard setback. What is proposed here, which is the exact replacement of what was there, is 134 feet, way beyond the required 35 feet. The side yard regulation require a 15 foot side yard with at total aggregate of 30 feet. And what we have here is a 49 foot side yard with an aggregate of 170 feet proposed, in the same building and the same location. Their rear yard, 35 feet is permitted, 255 feet is proposed. Your building height, you require 35 feet is your maximum height. What we are proposing here is a building that is 25 feet high. The building areas lot coverage, we permit 25% lot coverage. This, including all the other buildings are far below the 25%. Finally, lot area for dwelling on the Motel unit, the code provides for one unit per six thousand feet. What is proposed here is the one unit with the rebuilding, one unit with seventh one hundred square feet. The number of parking, finally the number of parking and loading spaces are. In your code you provide 7,000 feet and in calculating the existing parking lot, exclusive of the driveway that leads into it, we have 9100 square feet. So we confide with every physical dimension and therefore this building is not a nonconforming building. Second, the building that the inspector declared, that the use of the building lost by fire is a nonconforming use. Section 100-13 of your definition set forth what are resort motel is. This is a resort motel. This definition includes a building, or group of building containing individual guest units for transits on daily basis or vacationers on a weekly basis. Resort motels may include accessories such as office or personal service facilities, beach cabana, and in spirit of course, vacation amenities such as bathing, sunning and swimming and that sort of thing. And such is the case at Sunset Motel. In fact, Sunset Motel, I'm informed has a two day minimum stay and many of their guests actually stay a week or even a month enjoying this resort. And importantly, these guests contribute to our local economy which you would think would be important to this board. Most importantly though, the definition of resort molel does not preclude cooking facilities. They said, please do not confuse a motel unit with a dwelling in it. If you look at your definition sections where dwelling is, you will find that dwelling unit is a building or a entirely self contained portion thereof which must contain a minimum of living area of 850 square feet. And all units lost by fire in this motel, are less than 850 __ _ __ ___m'~_____.___.M_._._ _ "I , Page 33 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 square feet. In fact, the largest unit lost by fire is approximately 566 square feet. So now, if you were to determine that the motel lost by fire is a nonconformance building, I would direct your attention to 100-242 of the zoning code which is the portion on the nonconforming buildings. Part A reads as follows: With respect to nonconforming buildings with conforming uses, nothing in this article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconformance building containing a nonconforming use, provided that such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to regulations pertaining to such buildings. Any rationale or zoning analysis in my view, would take into account the entire site and attentions directed to 100-242B which reads as follows: This deals with the reconstruction of a damaged building. A nonconformance building containing a conforming use that has been damaged by fire or other causes, to the extent of more than 50% of it's fair value shall not be repaired or rebuild unless such building is made substantially to conform to the height and requirements of the bulk schedule. Now, if you could turn to exhibit G. in that package that I've given you, you will see the insurance policy declaration and I've highlighted to you the building portion of that policy. Those portions add up to the sum of $1,310,000,000.00 If you turn to Exhibited H which follows it, you will find the sworn statement and proof of loss. And that statement declares that the loss experienced by my clients is $365,228.00. and you divide it by the total worth of this and you come to 28% and of course 28% is less than 50%. Now, even if you were to decide that the motel lost by fire is a nonconforming use. I would remind you that, of course, hotels are expressly permitted in the resort residential for which this property falls into. Even if you would decide that the motel, loss by fire is a nonconformance use by virtue of the cooking facilities housed in four of the eight units lost by fire. You would be directed to look at 100-241 of the Zoning Code which deals with nonconforming uses. These sections are all in that package, I believe it's Exhibit B. But, before I do so, there should be no dispute that the motel lost by fire contained four units that housed cooking facilities. And in Exhibit D, you will find a sworn statement by Donald Levitt by which he states the following. At the time Jerad Motel Corporation took title which was in 1978, and prior thereto based upon my inspection of the premises, I can state the following. Kitchen facilities existed in four of the total of eight motel units that existed in that structure that was totally destroyed by fire and which is the subject of this application. Chairman: You're telling me that there was eight units in that motel unit. Mr. Bruce Anderson: There are eight units, four of which contain cooking facilities _ Secretary Linda KowalskI: In that one building. Page 34 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Chairman: In that one building. Mr. Bruce Anderson In that one building. Now, we were able to find a previous employee of the Sunset Motel. Her name is Carol Dubeckand she also signed a statement. That statement reads, that she worked at the Sunset Motel during the year 1966. At that time, throughout her employment there, they existed kitchen facilities again in four out of the eight motel units, that existed in that structure that was totally destroyed by fire. Finally" if you take a look at the Town's assessment records which are placed as Exhibit C. These assessment records disclosed that the Motel unit lost by fire contain four efficiency units. Efficiency unit means a unit with a cooking facility and that the owners were assessed for these efficiency units an impot'tantly. This assessments continued to the present. Now, if I may, I'll t'eturn to the section of the code dealing with nonconforming uses and that is 100-241. You will note that the opening paragraph speaks to the lawful continuance of nonconforming use undet' certain listed circumstances. First, among those circumstances is that no building containing a nonconforming use can be placed on a different portion of the lot. Now, we are not replacing the motel unit in a similar location. We are replacing it in a exact location. And for the record, I will hand you a January 6, 1978 survey prepared by Roderick Van Tyle that shows the location of that unit and that location is exactly the same, the exact same location that we propose to build this motel. Chairman: How big was that building? Mr. Bruce Anderson: I don't know. It's on the top of my head. Chairman: That's all right, you can answer it later. Mr. Bruce Anderson. Second, the second circumstances is that a nonconformance use can be increased. We are provided for the same use, four units with cooking facilities for that. Your third circumstance under this particular section of the code speaks that, no nonconformance use can be changed to another nonconformance use and of course we're not changing anything about the use of this motel. Your fourth circumstance speaks to, states that no nonconformance use can be changed back to a less restrictive nonconforming use. Again, at no time has the use of this motel changed. Your sixth circumstance is that, no nonconforming use can be rebuilt if it is damaged by fire by more than 50% of it's fair value. And as I previously pointed out, the value of the motel has been established at a certain amount, $1,300,000,000.00 and the loss incurred equals 28% which is less than 50%. Your seventh circumstance is that a nonconformance use cannotbe reestablished where it has been discontinued for more than two years. And given that, this fire occurred from Aprils 3, 1995 the two year period has certainly not elapsed. Now hopefully, I thoroughly analyzed the reason why a Building Inspector should make such a grievous error in delaying my building permit which I am entitled to as a right, I've drawn the following conclusions. My first is, his quoting of --.---.---..-..------" Page 35 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Section 100-243A & B as in his word, the catch all zoning criteria, as a r>eason for denying my building permit, represents a basic lack of understanding of the Town's zoning code. Particularly, if his hang-up was the in kind replacement of the cooking facility, and what I mean by that, if that was what was in his head when he wrote that notice of denial. He wasn't quoting the right section of the code. He should have quoted, perhaps a nonconformance use. It's not a nonconformance building and a nonconforming use. The building conformance meets every single dimensional requirement there is on the books. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Except for one thing. The size of the property. It's less than five acres. Mr. Bruce Anderson: No Secretary Linda Kowalski: Right Mr. Bruce Anderson: No so. Secretary Linda Kowalski: You told me it was less than five acres. Mr. Bruce Anderson: The lot is less than five acres. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK Mr. Bruce Anderson: But if we turn back to the definition of a nonconforming building, it doesn't speak to the lot size. In the case of the motel it speaks of the density. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Except that in today's code, the use goes with the lot size, you can't have the use without the five acres and that's why he described it that way. Mr. Bruce Anderson: You cannot treat this as a fresh site. Secr>etary Linda Kowalski: That's your opinion and that was his opinion, so just for the record I'm mentioning it. OK Mr. Bruce Anderson: OK but if we look at non, definition of nonconforming building. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yeah, I know. Mr. Bruce Anderson: There is nothing that speaks to the lot size. In the case of the motel, it speaks of the density and we're well beJow the allowable density is, despite the size of the lot. I think that the Building Inspector did not consider the site as a whole, in view, the Joss of the moteJ unit as if it was located on a separate parcel apart from the larger motel complex. I think he essentially broke the site up into smaller and smaller units. Perhaps to demonstrate, there 100% of a use had been lost by fire. But to take this Jogical step further, I would suggest to me that if I had a motel and I had a stove in my motel, the stove broke down Page 36 Public HearIng Southold Town , October 11, 1995 TranscrIpts Board of Appeals and I had to replace that stove, my use, my facìlity use for that unit would be extInguIshed. You take hIs logic and you extrapolate it, that's exactly what you have lined up wIth. The thIrd Is that, I thInk the BuildIng Inspector vIews the reconstructIon of the motel lost by fjre, as the same as a proposal to construct a brand new hotel on a vacant parcel. He apparently believes the action on the part of the ZBA, that actIon is required on the part of the ZBA for a specIal exception use permIt and further actIon would be required by the Planning Board for sIte plan approval. Secretary Linda Kowalski: He didn't say that. You can't assume he'd say that. Member Dlnlzìo: It say's It right here. ActIon required by Town Hall. Secretary Linda Kowalski: It doesn't say specIal exception. No, he dIdn't say that, he didn't say variance. And also, I was just curious, was all the testimony, all the evidence about percentage given to the Building Inspector so he could consider it before he wrote the disapproval. Mr. Bruce Anderson: I met with him on two occasions and we went over this. Secretary Linda Kowalski: You gave him the percentage of the total nonconforming use at that tIme. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Yes, because he had the survey in front of him. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Ok, I'm just curious. Mr. Bruce Anderson: He had the plans in front of him. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Because I didn't see it in the file. Member Dinizio: Could I just interject for one second. That's his responsibìlity to ask for that. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yeah Member Dinizio: Not this gentlemen's responsibility to give it to him. He's applying for a permit. If the Building Department is going to deny it, there going to deny it on the grounds. Secretary Linda Kowalski: The reason I'm saying that because this is an appeal of the building permit record and when I got a copy of the record, that was not in there. So I'm asking you, if you had it we should have it too and that way the board wIll have it. Mr. Bruce Anderson: All the information is contained in the building permIt because the building permit consists of a survey. It ---~---_._"-~..." Page 37 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals also consists for plans for the unit. So all the information is there. Secretary Linda Kowalski: No, the percentage I'm talking about. Mr. Bruce Anderson: It's all there. I'm sure you may have to pull out a scale and measure it and I think that's what we pay these people for. Secretary Linda Kowalski: No. Chairman: Can we ask you a question, Bruce. How much farther are you going to go? Mr. Bruce Anderson: About two minutes. Chairman: OK Mr. Bruce Anderson: Of course a special exception approval would speak to the use which is established here. And of course, a plan board site plan approval would speak to the physical arrangements of structures, landscaping and parking, which is also established. We have a set arrangement of buildings. We have landscaping, we have parking. And fortunately, we have the Zoning Board of Appeals and the board derives it's authority from 10271. And essentially this board does four things. First it hears appeals. Second it grants variance. Third it issues special exception and fourth it renders interpretation. And I'm respectfully asking you to render, to use that fourth power for interpretation and ask you to do three things. First, I would like you to declare that the proposed reconstruction applies to zoning, because it does. I think you should also declare that the site plan approval from the Planning Board is not required, because it isn't. And finally, and most importantly you direct the Building Inspector to issue the building permit which I am entitled to as a right. And furthermore you can do this today because there is not Sequa required in this application. We are talking about the issuance of a building permit which is ministerial action, which is a type two action, which means no Sequa reviews required. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Sequa was done by the way, earlier in the evening. The board made a negative declaration. And the reason is because of the way you applied for it. You applied for it as a variance, based on that notice of disapproval, you did not apply for it on an interpretation or reversal. So you're doing that now, so we've incorporated that in the file. Just so you know, we're already done the Sequa, it's been done. There is no reason to mention it. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Someone faxed me over a memo from the Planning Board. 1 don't know who did it. It's a very short memo and it s tarts off by saying. The Planning Board would like to comment on the above actions as follows: Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yeah, I faxed that to you. Page 38 Public Hearing Sou thold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Mr. Bruce Anderson: You faxed that. Secretary Linda Kowalski: We got it at 3: 30 pm this afternoon. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Thank you very much. I absolutely hate being ambushed in a public hearing and I really appreciate that. But apparently, the board feels that C and R should be allowed for seasonal use only. First of all, the motel is used on a seasonal basis. Second of all, I don't think that this board nor for that reason the Planning Board has the authority to make such a requirement. Generally, when that type of requirement is made because it is absolutely necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people. There is nothing in support of this. I don't know where this came from but I was not very happy to receive it. I just requested that you ignore that memo. Any questions. Chairman: Yes, can I write on this survey that you supplied me for 1978. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Sure. Chairman: OK. Starting with the cottage, one family framed cottage down below, that is one unit. Is that correct. Mr. Bruce Anderson: That is correct. Chairman: OK The building that is on the easterly side of the property and which is termed two story framed motel building. How many units in there? Mr. Bruce Anderson: I believe that. Chairman: Eight units. Member Dinizio: Jerry, could I just stop you. Chairman: Yes Member Dinizio: What type of unit is in that one unit. What type of unit. Chairman: What's in that unit. Mr. Bruce Anderson: real question is, how we're getting at? Maybe I could cut to the chase here. If the do you have kitchen facilities. Is that where Chairman: No, I just want to know total units first and then we'll go back on kitchen facilities. Mr. Bruce Anderson: OK. What we have here. We have 18 units total. Chairman: You had 18 units. "I I Page 39 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Mr. Bruce Anderson: We had 18 units. Chairman: Yes Mr. Bruce Anderson: Plus one office / residency, if you wí1l. The two story motel unit to the east, the one lost by fire, has about an average square footage of about 525 square feet. Chairman: Per unit. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Yes. The guest cottage to the south has a 759 square foot unit plus 184 foot of decking, approximately. The guest cottage to the North has 960 square feet approximately, plus 192 quare foot pOÌ'ch, again approximately. Even though as I said before, the site is 3.1, the density is one per 6,000 square feet, we're way below that. Chairman: OK. The office, the one story office that you see as you drive in, that's the office which only houses the manager's quarters. Mr. Bruce Anderson: That's correct. Chairman: OK. How were these building heated? Are they heated a t all? Mr. Bruce Anderson: Electric heat. Chairman: OK. You guys don't seem to understand, I want it in the record so I understand that. I read this application but I want it in the record. OK now, the 18 units as it exists right now, are 14 units and a manages quarters. That's what you have on site because four units were destroyed. Is that correct? Mr. Bruce Anderson: Eight units were destroyed. Chairman: Eight units were destroyed. OK, now you have ten units and a managers quarters. All right. Now we'll start with Mr. Doyen, any questions. Mr. Doyen: No Chairman: Ms. Tortora Member Tortora: The ten units, you have ten of the eighteen and a separate managers office. What percentage of value did you put that at, dollar value. Mr. Bruce Anderson. Of the unit lost by fire? Twenty Eight percen t . Member Tortora: And if you didn't have use of, if you could not replace this structure, what would your financial loss be? Page 40 , October 11, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Mr. Bruce Anderson: Well again, that speaks to a use variance and we're trying, we're not requesting that. Lets assume 28%. MemberTortora: I that a significant amount, you haven't given any kind of amount. Mr. Bruce Anderson: I don't have to because I'm not asking for a use variance. I must tell you, but I don't mean to snap at you but alot ef business people don't like when government reaches into their bank account and tries to figure out if they are making too much money and decide their variances on that basis. And even though I saw that memorandum on use variance, I would ask you to just stay away from that. My clients are sensitive I bet, as I would be if I were them, as you would be if you were them. Chairman: OK, we'll go over to Mr. Dinizio. Member Dinizio: I would just like to ask you. How many of these m~its, a total of 18, how many were efficiencies with the stoves and all. Mr. Bruce Anderson: 16 Member Dinizio: 16 were efficiencies. Mr. Bruce Anderson: You know, in all tile other units and all the other buildings, all contaiu kitchen facilities. Member Dinizio: With the exception of four that were in, that burned down. Mr. Bruce Anderson: That's right. Member Dinizio: OK, so four burned down. Four efficiencies are gone out of, how many, sixteen. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Correct. Member Dinizio: No, that can't be. It's got to be four out of. Mr. BP~ce Anderson: Four out of fourteen. Member Dinizio: Four to fourteen. Mr. Bruce Anderson: That's correct. Member Dinizio: nonconforming. Less than 50% of what is considered to be Mr. Bruce Anderson: Well, you know again, it's not nonconforming. Member Dinizio: In other words, you couldn't build hotels today with efficiencies in it. You can't do that. Page 41 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Mr. Bruce Anderson: I think so, as a right. Member Dinizio: No, you can, OK, because you have them. I'm not stating that. AI! I'm saying IS. If someone cane into us today with a new motel, and asked for kitchens, it couldn't happen. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Tel! them why, Jim. Member Dinizio: Because it's in our code. Secretary Linda Kowalski: No, no. There is another reason. A formal interpretation was done by the Zoning Board which supersedes the code and that is why. Just so you know. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Wel!, I can't speak for any interpretation. Member Dinizio: No, I'm not asking you to, I'm asking you. Mr. Bruce Anderson: But I can tel! you that your definition of resort motel does not preclude, cooking facility, it doesn't. You know, there is a distinction between a dwelling unit and a motel unit. This in not a dwelling unit. We are below the 850 square feet. If I came in with a hotel, with more than 850 square feet, you could construe that to be a dwelling unit and then say, dwel!ing units are permitted in hotels. Member Dinizio: I had thought that, that was our interpretation with the motel next door and they were over 80 feet. Secretary Linda Kowalski: That was a different situation. Member Dinizio: My point, I guess what I'm getting at is, the units that were burned down were less, even if you were just to build motel units and have these efficiencies, it's less than 50%. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Absolutely. Member Dinizio: So those units have been. You're only asking for us for that anyway. Mr. Bruce Anderson: I don't care about the next door neighbor. Member Dinizio: Right, and you're not asking us, let me get this straight, to grant you anything. You're mealy asking us to interpret the code, ok. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Interpret the code. I'm asking you to do three things. I'm asking you to exercise your powers of interpretation. Member Dinizio: Right. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Declare that this conforms with zoning. Tel! us we don't need to go to the Planning Board because I can't get a Page 42 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 straight answer out of them, OK. And tell the Building Inspccíor' 10 give us a building pernút because we're entitled to it. Member Dinizio: Well, I think one decision makes all three of those. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yes Mr, Bruce Anderson: I would hope so. Secretary Linda Kowalski: I want to ask on thing Jim. You were talking about less than 50%. Just for the decision, when I put jt in there, 50% of what? The number of units or 50% of the floor area. Member Dinizio: Well, you can go. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Can we talk about that. Mr. Bruce Anderson: It doesn't matter. Anyway you want to figure it, Secretary Linda Kowalski: Is it both, is it both ways. Member Dinizio: It would work both ways. 50% of the efficiency units and 50% of the entire structure itself. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Right. Member Dinizio: Which one would address use, and the other would address set backs. Secretary Linda Kowalski: I was just clearing it up for the record. OK, thank you. Member Dinizio: No, no. That's what we want to do. Chairman: OK Member Dinizio: That's all I have. Chairman: Mr. Villa Member Villa: The only question I have. There were buildings there that looked identical. The one on the left or the west burned down. There is still a two story building. You're telling me that the eight units are all efficiency. Mr. Bruce Anderson: The one that burned down. Member Villa: No, no. The one that's still standing, Mr, Bruce Anderson: Yes Chairman: Yes, the two story. I I ,.- Page 43 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Member Villa: So the only one that had strictly motel units was the one that burned down. Mr. Bruce Anderson: The only structure that contained any units without kitchen facilities was the structure that burned down and of those, there were four. Chairman: OK. Thank you. Mr. Bruce Anderson: Thank you. Chairman: Would any member of the family or anyone else in this first row like to speak. Mr. Levin, how are you tonight? Mr. Levin: We're a third generation family that lives in Southold. We like to preserve the quality of life as well as everyone else. In my experience, in 40 years in the motel business, I can say, people prefer units with kitchen because it makes there stay more enjoyable. We're tourist oriented and if that can make the people happy, lets give them a kitchen unit if they want it. How about the handicapped. We have handicapped rooms. They want to cook in or whatever they want. A refrigerator so they don't have to go out for every meal, we have it. Chairman: OK, right. I just want you to be, yeah. Mr. Levin: They allowed the vineyards to have kitchens so they would enhance their business. All we're asking for is, put back what we have. Chairman: Right. We understand that. I just wanted you to know, we will recess this decision, this hearing OK, and we will discuss it tonight. I have no idea if we'll get to a decision tonight, but we'll try to. It depends on how late we go. Reserve decision until sometime later tonight. Your welcome to go home. You can leave a member of the family here. You know, sit in on the grilling and the gnashing of teeth. OK Mr. Holtz, I think you. Mr. Holtz: Before you recess, Id like to say something. Chairman: Surely Mr. Holtz: My name is Fred Holtz. I've lived in Greenport for many many years, and I at one time resided at the Sunset Motel, when we had a small fire in my house. And 1 testified to the fact that there were kitchens and excellent units. I've knows Mr. Levittall my life and his family, and they run an excellent business, and I think it definitely would be travesty if he wasn't allowed to replace this. Because it definitely provides with something that is needed in this area. And someone that does as good a job as they do, and builds a beautiful building and keeps it that way, is certainly an asset to the community. This would not be Page 44 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 right, not to let him replace this building. So I ask you please, to give this favorable consideration. Chairman: For the record Mr. Holtz, how long were you a member of the Zoning Board. Mr. Holtz: Oh, 16 years. Chairman: Thank you, Sir. Sir. Mr Matt McKiernon: My name is Matt McKiernon. I own a lot adjacent to the motel and we have absolutely no objection at all to replacing that building, the way it was. Chairman: Thank you. OK. How are you tonight Mr. Price. Mr. William Price: My name is William Price, just for the record. I've lived here for many many years, as you know and this conversation here tonight, I am kind of shocked beyond belief. That when a man or a family suffers a tragedy, as having a building burn down to the ground, and he can't replace it. There is something with your laws to do, to even give him that objection. And for somebody to ask a question, how much less would he earn if he didn't replace that building, that's beyond all belief. Thank you. Chairman: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak. Questions from the board. Seeing no further questions I make a motion reserving decision till later. All in favor. 9:43 p.m. Appl. No. 4343 Henry and Linda Steffens requesting a Variance under Article IlIA, Section 100-30A.3 and Article XXllI, Section 100-239.4B based upon September 14, 1995 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, for permission to construct alteration and addition to existing dwelling, which is proposed a reduction in the side yard and bulkhead setbacks. Location of Property: 4522 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-128-4-19. Chairman: I have a survey produced by Kenneth Abrusio but he's with Young & Young I believe. I have the changes and modifications indicated on the survey in diagonal lines. I have a copy of the building plant and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Denis, we're ready for you. We're ready to grill you. Mr. Don Denis: OK thank you. I have with me Mr. & Mrs. S teff ens. Chairman: How do you do. Mr. Don Denis: They will answer any questions that you may want to direct to them. I was retained by the owners to add to their residence which is on Peconic Bay, Great Peconic Bay, which has a right of way on it to Peconic Bay Boulevard that is not visible from -----_..__.^---~- Page 45 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Peconic Bay Boulevard. We were proposing to add to the rear of the property which has been farthest to the zoning setbacks and we're proposing to eliminate a garage. It's a small two car garage and build a three car garage to the north, which will conform to the required setbacks of 50 feet, which will be set at 52 feet. We've been denied by the Building Inspector because the side yard, the total side yard is less than required, the required being 35. You could wind up with a 31.2 total side yard which is 3.8 feet short. It's also a section of the house which is approximately 14 feet long and is one story. The resulting side yard there would be 20.8 feet which is in access of the minimal requirement of 15 feet. On the east side of the property we make no proposal to increase the size of the house, or move towards the east property line. On the side facing the water, the question about the setback from the bulkhead, it's our proposal to construct a bay with a deck on the second floor which falls behind the existing setback of 49.9 feet from the bulkhead. We feel that this is a small intrusion into this area, and into this yard, but is not any increase or decrease rather in the 49.9 feet. The existing house is probably 1300 square feet of livable space. It has a porch on the water side which is unheated, but has been enclosed by glass. The house has many room all of which are very small and inadequate for family use. What they intend to do is increase the size of the house to accommodate children and grandchildren, in the future. I think that's about what I want to say. I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Just a little history of the house. Mr. Steffens family purchased the house in the mid sixties and I assume it predates zoning. The house is a very light construction. It's a typical summer bungalow that you find along the water. It does have a basement but the walls are unheated, 1 mean not insulated and the glazing is all single, and they really would like to upgrade this to a more permanent home. Chairman: Did the Steffens build the second bulkhead, that two faced bulkheads system. Do you know. Mr. Don Denis: That I can't answer, I guess. Chairman: Can you guess? Mr. Don Denis: We do just as part of this application though. I did sent you a copy of the letter of non jurisdiction from the Department of Environmental Conservation. And we also received a Suffolk County Health Department approval for a new sanitary system. Chairman: Right Mr. Don Denis: Abandonment of existing system which is located adjacent to the house and right along the property line. Chairman: OK Mr. Don Denis: They also have had public water extended into the house. ...-.,..--.-- Page 46 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Chairman: Oh, great. Mr. Don Denis: Previously before, it had a private well. Chairman: Good. Mr. Doyen, any questions. Member Doyen: No questions. Chairman: Mrs. Tortora, any questions. Member Tortora: The property is very narrow. You don't appear to have alot of options. Mr. Don Denis: No, it's only 73 feet wide. Chairman: Mr. Dinizio Member Dinizio: The concrete walk that's across, that's along side the house with a 20.8, you know, it's existing. Mr. Don Denis: Yes Member Dinizio: Then you putting, just a deck there. nine feet. have a deck. It looks like you're How wide is that? Is that five feet or Mr. Don Denis: I didn't follow that. Are you talking about. Member Dinizio: The new deck, it says. Mr. Don Denis: Are you talking about the new deck on the water side. Member Dinizio: Well, no no. It's on the side of the house. It's on the side where you have 20.8. Chairman: It's on the west side Member Dinizio: It's on the west side of the house and it say, proposed addition your appointing to. Mr. Don Denis: Yeah, the proposed deck is on the water side not on the west side. The west side is actually an extension of the house. That area is sort of cross patched. Chairman: Right. Mr. Don Denis: I can't describe it. But that dimension is 20.8 is the line of the house. Member Dinizio: Right,ok. So that is the house. Then there is a concrete walk I guess, alongside. Page 47 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Mr. Don DenIs: The only part that sticks into this intrusion, into the total side yard, is the four foot. Do you see where it says concrete walk, there is a four foot dimension. Member Dinizio: Right Mr. Don Denis: It's a four foot by the fourteen foot. And that's a single story. Member Dinizio: OK, ok I see that. Chairman: Where is that. Mr. Don DenÍs: Where it say's proposed addition. Chairman: Right Mr. Don Denis: Where that arrow goes in, that section right in there is 14 feet by 4 foot. And that's the only part that less the total 35, and that's a one story portion. Just an extension of the ki tchÐll. Chairman: OK, Mr. Villa. Member Villa: I'm just trying to follow that too. There is a nine foot. Mr. DonDenis: The nine foot, that's a total addition. The four foot is the projection that goes into the total side yard. Do you follow that? So actually, we're going out five foot which would give you the proper total side yard. Then there is an addition proposed, which is part of the total addition, of another four feet and that section is only fourteen feet long. Member Villa: The 49.9 you are referring to, is it basically only that front line of that deck is then, what your saying is basically, is parallel to the bulkhead. Mr. Don Denis: It runs parallel to the bulkhead. Yes Sir. Member Villa: So the existing point is would be on the easterly pain t of the house. Mr. Don Denis: Correct. It's the northeast corner, the southeast corner. I'm sorry. The southeast corner is 49.9. Member Villa: It's hard to determine whether that was parallel or not. Mr. Don Denis: So actually, we would not in any case go beyond the 49.9. Member Villa: I have no more questions. Page 48 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Chairman: OK Could I just ask you to come up here one second. I'm a little confused about one thing. Mr. Don Denis: Sure Chairman: obstruction house is. Assuming we're in that position, just if there is any there. This is, we're sitting there. This is where the Mr. Don Denis: This would be the west side, this would be the east side. This is the area that you're talking about is actually encroaching into that area. Mr. Don Denis: Right. Chairman: Yet, you cross patched it all the way down. Is this just a walkway going down to it. Mr. Don Denis: No. Actually what it is, is this is the line of the existing house here. Chairman: OK Mr. Don Denis: He crossed patched all this which is not a problem. Chairman: And this is the four foot by fourteen. Mr. Don Denis: Four foot by fourteen is what is the problem. Chairman: OK Mr. Don Denis: And the other part that Mr. Villa brought up. The line of the 49.9 is to this corner. Chairman: Right Mr. Don Denis: And what we're proposing would be behind them. Chairman: OK Mr. Don Denis: And it's just a bay window. Chairman: Right. Do you understand that, ok. Thank you very much. Let's see what developes with the hearing here. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone that would like to speak against this application? Hearing no further comment. Thank you. Does anybody have any specific objection to this application. Member Villa: No. Chairman: Anybody like to make a motion on the application. Member Tortora: I will Page 49 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Chairman: Mrs. Tortora will. Member Tortora: I'd like to approve it as applied for. 9: 56 p. m. Appl. No. 4344 - Bernard Fisher requesting a variance under Article 111, Section 100-32, based upon the September 18, 1995 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, for permission to locate proposed dwelling with reduced side yards on this 2.96 plus acre parcel, which parcel contains a nonconforming lot width of 61. 78 along New Suffolk Avenue, and slightly wider at the building setback line. Property identification: 520 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck; County Parcel No. 1000-114-12-4. Zone: R-80 (abutting R-40 and HB Zones along New Suffolk Avenue). Chairman: I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick Van Tyle pc dated November 6, 1995 and the indication is a proposed home well set back indicating 11 and one half feet on one side and 15 feet on the other side, and approximately 75 feet from the title wetland area. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indica ting this and surrounding area. Who would like to be heard? Mr. Gregg Fisher: Good evening. I'm Gregg Fisher, Bernard Fisher's son. Since I've never done this before, I'll keep it brief Chairman: Oh, they will be kind and not grill you to bad. It's getting late. There is less grilling as the night goes on. Mr. Gregg Fisher: According to the paper that I received I supposed to try and address the five issues that you're going to think of. The first one is, whether an undesirable change will be increased in the character of the neighborhood. We asked the two neighbors who will be principally effected by the house which are the Reasners and the Mercier's what they thought and they wrote letterof support. Mr. Reasnerindicated to me, I should say Mrs. Reasoner that they were happy about the house because they were told by a real estate that it would increase the value of their house, because right now it's kind of unsightly vacant lot. And also, the only problem any neighbors had back there was that, kids tend to congregate behind Handy Pantry and litter alot. A house would also tend to eliminate that problem so actually I think it would be a benefit to the neighborhood. 2. One of the benefits sort by the applicant can be achieved by some method, due to the Town Hall Trustees and the DEC pushing us back 75 feet. We're in the pole shape of the flag lot and I have house plans. It's a modest dwelling, less than 1500 square feet. I'm not really sure what else can be done. There's no other place to build on this lot because most of it is wetlands. This is the only buildable portion and it's a very narrow portion. On whether the variance is substantial. I don't think so. Whether the variance lot will have an adverse effect on the impact or physical environment or conditions of the neighborhood. I guess, that most of the neighbors around us are thrilled that the house will be there as a buffer against Handy Pantry and any kids coming. Finally, Whether the alleged conditions were self created, there is Page 50 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeais absolutely nothing else to be done with this lot because of the DEC and the Southold Trustees. Chairman: OK We'll start with Mr. Villa this time. Member Villa: 1 have no questions. Member Dinizio: Me neither. Member Doyen: No Chairman: It's hard to believe. Please note that in the record. Mrs. Fisher: - Be brief is better Mr. Gregg Fisher: I remember watching the O.J. Simpson trial. Chairman: While you're standing there Mr. Fisher, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak other than your wife, or that nice young lady in the back, in favor of this, she's welcomed too. Is there anyone that would like to speak against the application. OK Does anybody have any specific thoughts on any changes or any objection to this? I sure you would have lodged them at this point. You may want to make a motion. All in favor say Aye. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4344 - AMAC, Inc. (SUKRA ILGIN) requesting a Variance for relief of Conditions NO. 3 and 4 of ZBA Determination rendered March 25, 1992 under Appl. No. 4074 which Conditions read as follow: " . . .3. There shall be only one entrance for the convenience store area, that being located only at the east side of the existing building; and 4. There shall be no entrance way between the gasoline sales of the building to the convenience store area. . . . " Property is established as a gasoline service with accessory convenience sales. Location of Property: 7400 Main Road, Mattituck (Laurel School District); County Parcel No. 1000-122-7-1. Zone: B -General. Chairman: I need a motion to recess the Sukru Ilgin. Secretary Linda Kowalksi: I need a date on that. Chairman: Next regular scheduled meeting, November 8th. OK All in favor say Aye. Appl. No. 4317 - Edwin and Donald Tonyes. - Two dwelling units or three units have been requested. concluded on 9/13/95). N/s Main Road, Southold. Zone District. single family (Hearing us Hamlet- Business Chairman: Without belaboring this particular topic. Does anybody have any objection to Tonyes as long as he brings the building Page 51 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 up. I mean, incorporates the two lots. Brings it up to specific standards thatboth the Building Department and the engineer, his engineer, addressed and covenants to the second lot for the and Member Villa: If he has covenants to the second lot, he has to Incorporate to that building. Chairman: That's what I said, as a covenant, right. Discontinues the use of the subterranean apartment in the front. Member Villa: And no business in the garage. Chairman: And no business in the garage. Member Villa: And you're making it a two family unit. Chairman: Yeah Secretary Linda Kowalski: Two apartments. Member Tortora: Nothing downstairs, no business downstairs, no apartment downstairs. Secretary Linda Kowalski: What do you mean by downstairs? Chairman: Front unit. Member Tortora: Subterranean unit. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Subterranean unit, ok. Member Tortora: inaudible Chairman: He can rent a he does with the garage. profit. garage, but that's it. I don't care what It can't be rented for a business or a Secretary Linda Kowalski: What do you mean. Rent it to go with one of the apartments. Chairman: Yeah Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yeah, well you have to clarify it. Not as a separate rental or use. Chairman: Right Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK, yes. Chairman: And we have to address again the engineer's report and what the Building Inspector is required to bring the building up to code. Replace the shingles that are falling off the building_ Member Tortora: The wall, all those things are (inaudible) Page 52 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Chairman: Yeah. because of ceiling Department. Possible, second accedas to the second floor heights. That's all, that's all Building Secretary Linda Kowalski: What was the other part, you said something about front landscaping. Did you say something about front landscaping? Chairman: No, not me. Secretary Linda Kowalski: The front of the building. Chairman: No, the building is fine. It's all redone. Member Dinizio: We're putting in the decision that, the building has to be remodeled. Chairman: No, I want the shingles replaced. Member Tortora: The ones that are falling off the building. Chairman: The ones that are falling off the building. It looks like holy heck. Member Tortora: On top of the old lady's head. Chairman: Yeah. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Secretary Linda Kowalski: On top, where are the shingles, on the side of the house. Chairman: On the east side. Member Dinizio: Was that a violation of some code or something. Chairman: Sure it is. Member Tortora: Yeah, N Y S requires. Chairman: Why because, there happens to be asbestos shingles underneath it and the next things to go is asbestos shingles. Secretary Linda Kowalski: So how about if I say, easterly side shingles to be brought to code. Member Dinizio: I was just wondering if we're qualified to make that judgement. Chairman: Yes, it's a health safety and welfare violation. I have no intentions of voting on it unless that's incorporated in it. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Can I word it, the easterly side shingles to be brought to code. Chairman: Yeah. Page 53 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Member Dinizio: I always thought the Building Inspector was tbe person who, you know enforced the code. Chairman: We are asking the Building Inspector. We are requesting from the Building Inspector that along with the renovations that both he and the engineer have indicated ok, under fire code, that we asked for, that the shingles be replaced on the side of the building. That's all. Member Dinizio: We're talking, I'm sorry. Chairman: I don't care. Member Dinizio: It's out of our realm. It's not within our purview to tell a person what kind of shingles in the preliminary Chairman: I will be damned, I will be damned to vote on an application that does not complete the entire thing that we are dealing with, ok. We are incorporating lots. We are precluding uses of garages. Member Dinizio: Right, right. Chairman: And we are completing the building. If they are going to repair the interior of the building, they are going to repair the exterior of the building also. They are going to keep with the code. It is a . . Member Dinizio: Right, but is it the code to have a broken shingle on the side of the building. Chairman: It's not a broken shingle. It's about six courses of shingles. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Is it a fire code Jerry? Member Dinizio: Well, what fire code does it violate. Secretary Linda Kowalski: That's what he's asking you, what code, fire code, right. Member Villa: Aesthetics code Member Dinizio: What aesthetics code. We don't have one. All I'm saying is, let the Building Inspector take care of things that the Building Inspector takes care of. Chairman: We are requesting that he addresses this. MemberDinizio: We don't have to do that. He is required to, enforce the code of the Town. If that is in violation of the code of the Town then he'll take care of that, that's his job. Secretary Linda Kowalski: How about if we put in a decision and in the findings, it was a concern, not put it as a condition. Page 54 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Member Dinizio: What, that we are offended by the looks of the building. Secretary Linda Kowalski: No, we're concerned about the safety of the singles flying. Member Dinizio: You don't believe in that statement, I'm sorry. No, I tell you. Secretary Linda Kowalski: I don't care. Member Dinizio: Jerry why can't we just let it up to him and Mr. Tonyes is going to do what he has to do. Chairman: And he'll leave it just the way it is. Member Dinizio: Well maybe he will. Chairman: Someone clipped that side of the building and pulled the shingles off when they were driving up there. Secretary Linda Kowalski: But if the Town doesn't enforce things Member Dinizio: It's their business Chairman: That's why I'm putting it in the code. Member Dinizio: No, no. Chairman: In the decision. So don't vote on it. Member Tortora: There are elderly people in there and you are responsible. You're granting alot of variances. Member Dinizio: We are not responsible for that Lydia. Unfortunately, that is not our responsibility. That's up to the Health Department. Secretary Linda Kowalski: All right. Member Dinizio: That's up to the Building Department. Secretary Linda Kowalski: There is one other thing then Jerry. Member Villa: I have a motion made. Do we have a second? Member Tortora: I'll second it. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Wait, wait. There wasn't a motion made. I think we were just discussing it. He didn't make a motion. Member Dinizio: I was just waiting to see. ~. _..__~~_____ w .,-.....---- Page 55 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Secretary Linda Kowalski: He was offering it. Kind of as a discussion. Member Dinizio : And I'm just discussing one point of it. Member Tortora: Jerry is making a second of it. Member Dinizio: Well, could we clarify that then, please. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yeah, we're not done yet. Jerry wants to put that in there, but I understand there are alot of other health and safety factors to be mentioned. Do you want to listall hundred of them. Chairman: Sure Secretary Linda Kowalski: I'll write them down. Chairman: Yeah. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK. Tell me what they are. Chairman: They are all incorporated into thing. Secretary Linda Kowalski: No, I don't think they are. Member Tortora: The Buildings Inspector report, the o"ne Secretary Linda Kowalski: You have files there Jerry. Chairman: I'm not going to do a Buildings Inspector job. Secretary Linda Kowalski: If you do one thing, Jody Adams is going to say , why didn't you address the cockroaches, why didn't you address the other things in the back of the building. Member Dinizio: Right, right, right. Secretary Linda Kowalski: And I have to answer her. So I will say, call the Chairman, and then you will have to answer her. Member Dinizio: Let's let the Building Inspector take care of that. Secretary Linda thing you might everything. Kowalski: No, I mean, if you going to do one as well do the Buildings Inspectors job, do Mem ber Dinizio: We address basically the uses of the property. I mean, we agreed that something pretty decent and now the Building Inspector has to do his job. Get the cockroaches out of there and raise the ceilings. Page 56 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Chairman: Cockroaches are not the Buildings Inspectors, it is the Health Department. Member Dinizio: Well the, I mean if he sees it, he's violating everything or the Health Department, whatever. It's not our business. Secretary Linda Kowalski: There is nothing in the Building Inspectors letteraõout shingles Jerry. I have it right here. Chairman: I'm asking you to put it in as a recommendation. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK Chairman: That is it. Secretary Linda Kowalski: it was in someone's report. No, but you had mentioned before that It's not in a report. Chairman: I didn't say it was in a report. people get this. I don't know where you Secretary Linda Kowalski: You said it was in Joe Fischetts's report. Chairman: I never said it was in Joe Fischetti report. I said it IS. Secretary Linda Kowalski: All right. Chairman: Put it back. Member Dinizio: No, I don't want to her it again. Chairman: Did you ever hear such ridiculousness over four shingles. Secretary Linda Kowalski: He grills people so we grill him after. You know, we make up for it Member Doyen: Why can't you just say, can't comply with all other buildings as applied for. Member Dinizio: Right, there you go. I'll agree to that. Chairman: All I want is, you agree to anything. All I want is a recommendation that the shingles on the exterior, on the east side of the house be repaired or replaced. Member Dinizio: No. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Do you want to do it on your own memo without the board, Jerry. _....-._".-..---~_..._,_._._~- ._---~---- "-'~-'''-- Page 57 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, 1995 Transcripts Board of Appeals Member Dinizio: Right. Chairman: I want to incorporated it in. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Whose making a motion then. It's not a motion. Chairman: I am. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK Chairman: All it is is a recommendation that the shingles be replaced along with all the issues that Tom Fisher raised on September 22, 1995 and Joe Fischetti's report which we asked for. OK, let me get the date of that. Secretary Linda Kowalski: I have it . Member Tortora: But a permit should be contingent Chairman: And the covenant, covenanting the westerly lot. OK Secretary Linda Kowalski: Well, I would suggest to you that you have it deeded into one and do that before he gets a building permit. Chairman: Yeah, he has to do that. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK, all right. Member Tortora: Upon him meeting those approvals. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK, thank you. Those two apartments means no business in the subterranean unit. Garage is separate. Ren tal can only be rented as a accessory. Fire and building codes, you're not putting that in, right. I put that in by mistake. Inspect the shingles and if needed to be brought to code that they be done. Chairman: Right. Secretary Linda Kowalski: And subject to the 922 letter and Joseph Fischetti report. Chairman: Right. That the building be brought up to a two family habita ble apartment. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Is that all of them. Chairman: Yeah Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK Member Dinizio: Can you just say it over again, please. Page 58 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 Secretary Linda Kowalski: That the applicant is required to incorporate both lots into one by having a new deed drawn and recorded prior to obtaining a building permit, ok. Or CO for the two family apartments. That the special exception is limited to two apartments and not multi dwelling or any of the other things as we know, put that in the findings. No business in the subterranean unit. Member Tortora: No habitable that's not habitable, that does not include the flash down . Secretary Linda Kowalski: No habitable area or business area in the subterranean unit as accessory. Member Tortora: Above ground, subterranean. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK, two apartments above grade level. Chairman: And the front apartment be used only for dead storage. The subterranean be used only for dead storage and seal. Secretary Linda Kowalski: I don't even think you should say that because that's a different definition than what the State code may have. Member Tortora: Just make sure that it reads that you can't go ahead and rent that out as well or the garage. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK Member Tortora: The place down the street. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK, accessory garage may not be a separate rental. It must be accessory to one of those apartments. Chairman: Right. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Ask Building Inspector to inspect the shingles on the easterly side and if necessary have them brought to code or replaced. Chairman: Right Secretary Linda Kowalski: Also condition is to, are you requiring a condition to the 922 Building Inspectors lot Jerry. Chairman: Sure, it got to be brought to code. Secretary Linda Kowalski: And Joe Fischetti's report regarding bringing the two apartment use up to the New York State code. Chairman: Permanent is subject to the Incorportationof the lot, into both names, or whatever names that the property is in, ok, ---,---'---~--- ~~---,- Page 59 Public Hearing Southold Town , October 11, Transcripts Board of Appeals 1995 ( thereby sterilizing the westerly lot and that the building permit is subject to those two. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yes, I already said that. Chairman: That's all. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Is that OK Jim? don't make me repeat that. Member Dinizio: No, jt sounds good. It sounds exceUent. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Don't make me repeat that. Chairman: OK AU in favor. ...~-~., ]------,.,. Prepar~~1from tap~e r ~ordings I -ÑÕ.F¡ËË~m¡SÃÃf:fÏ ''-fÃÃÑŠèÃîBEÃf-,U i l--'Þ " . --_.,-~,~. ¡ ~ .. BY '-"" ' ! --;------r. -" -- ~ ':~: '-A"~~' )UJ; - -' /L) V';;:- JIll' ~.... - I ~..L~~ "..__ . v I <Tc\\'~: '~":'_-j_'..., ....., - -- ~ I """"TT '...., -' ._~~':I.