Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/08/1995 HEARINGAPPEALS BOARD MEMBERS 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 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 7:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4353 - HELEN RUTKOWSKI . This is a request, based upon the November 15, 1905 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, in which applicant was denied a building permit to add a second story and to convert existing boat facility-accessory building to single-family dwelling use due to prior restrictions under ZBA action #2032 dated 5/1/75 and #1954 dated 2/27/75. Location of property: 1025 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-35-4-7.2 (and 28.16). Zone District established 1/9/89: R-40 Residential Chairman: I have a copy of a survey produced from Roderick Van Tuyl pc originally surveyed on November 9, 1972 and updated July 31, 1981 and then the most recent date is October 4, 1995 indicating the erosion of the bank and the placement of the one story frame home, in it's proximity to the erosion which is right at zero if not a little worse than that, and the approximate relocation of tile dwelling, approximate 100 feet from the lip of the bank. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties ill the area. How are you tonight Mrs. Brown, Mr. Brown. Mr. Jeff Brown: Very well thank you. Chairman: Would you like to address the board and tell us your opinion. We have been up there of course as you know, and we are aware of the severe problem that you have. You did explain to me when I was up there, the reason for the replacement of the house or the relocation of the house in the position that you want it relocated. I assume your son because of that large depression on the other side of the driveway, that you were explaining to me. Mrs. Doris Brown: That's (inaudible). If you could keep it away from that. Chairman: OK Mrs Doris Brown: That's what we're trying to do. Chairman: Great, thank you. Is there anything else you would like to say. Mrs. Doris Brown. OK, no. I'd just like to thank you all for coming over. Page 2 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mr. Jeff Brown: Thanks for all the help you've giving us. It's a hard thing to do to disrupt something like this after 55 years. As you all are aware, I'm sure. It's sort of like one of you ladies ripping the stone out of yonr engagement ring and putting it someone else and leaving what's left still on your finger. We thank you very much. Just as recently as today, Mom has reevaluated the whole plan and thinking that we might not even need or want the variance, and move it to an entirely different spot. Chairman: OK Mr. Jeff Brown: Now this sounds totally insane and I point out, but we're looking at the reality of putting it as close almost as it is now, and the subsequent decision of nature to come along and just to do what it's done all along. Even if you were to grant this to us, I think it's a real consideration. I'm going to leave it in her hands, the ultimate decision. If you approve the variance tonight, I would say that we would take that into advised consideration, but we might opt for another spot, sortofdirectly in back of where it is. I would have to say, totally out of harms way. Chairman: You mean where the cars are parked. Where that one car was parked. Mr. Jeff Brown: Correct. where that Oldsmobile was l~arked at the Chair~nan: Approximately, time. Mr. Jeff Brown: Were you folks up there today? Member Tortora: Yeah, would that be to the South. Chairman: Yeah Mr. Jeff Brown: Basically, a southerly direction. Member Tortora: Not in the east. Mr. Jeff Brown: Correct. Chairman: More to the east, yeah. Mr. JeST Brown: Basically south. Were you folks up there today. Member Tortora: I've seen it. Chairman: No I wasn't up there today. Mr. Jeff Brown: Not today. We were under the impression that somebody, that maybe some of you would have come up today about 3 O'clock this afternoon. Page 3 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Secretary Linda Kowalski: Well we thought Mr. Villa was going to be able to locate it. Member Villa: I tried but we couldn't find it right away. Sorry about that. Mr. Jeff Brown: We waited, we just measured it but, and you have obviously seen it in the past. We will happily accept, if you accept the variance. We would like to reconsider everything at this time and maybe bring it back to the attention of whomever before we make this final decision. Member Tortora: Well, are you going off of some of the recommendations, the soil conservation. Mr. Jeff Brown: Well, we would be well back of all lines, the Coastal Hazard Erosion line, 100 foot setback line, and the adjoining neighbor's property lines if we chose to put this back to where relocated. Linde, back near those, where those other cars were, exactly. Secretary Linda Kowalski: You were going to explain to the board why you chose this spot on the map because of some trees and cobblestone. Could you go into that a little bit like you explained to me in the office that day. Mr. Jeff Brown: Yes, sure Linda. You mean the spot'that you would be approving for us. Secretary Linda Kowalski: That you're asking for in the application. Yes. Mr. Jeff Brown: There are some rather large red cedars that are immediately adjacent to our first choice that you're considering tonight, that have to be removed. The land slopes off quite abruptly. If we were to be requested to be behind the setback, I would imagine that just the disrupted mess of removing all the trees in proximity to the house, would be harmful to nature. It's flatter than where we were considering the first location tonight, allowing more access for digging and foundation creating. Chairman: Why don't we do this Mr. Brown. Why don't we hold the hearing in abeyance. Why don't you get the proper location for the new site to make sure you don't need a variance, OK, because you never know when you start drawing diagonal lines, you never know what the situation is. You know, the house is in the way so you have to get. Mr. Jeff Brown: That is a good point, Jerry. Chairman: And you let us know. If you want us to withdrawer this one, you jnst withdrawer this application. The Building Inspector says, no problem. You're within 100 foot from the closest possible point. Say you're 105 or .110. You don't need the variance. You Page 4 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southoid Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey just jot a little thing in the mail to us. Please withdrawer the variance number such and such. We are going to build in the alternative location, and this way, now. If you want to remain in the location that is before us tonight, then we'll just reactivate it at tile next meeting and we'll deal with it, and we'll just grant it or deny it. Mr. Jeff Brown: I think that's quite reasonable. We were standing out there at sunset tonight and just trying to face reality on this and both of tls were saying, is this the wisest thing to do. To put this up close again, as it was put 55 years ago when it was built. Chairman: Sure. Mr. Jeff Brown: it is now. With more land then in front of it obviously than Chairman: Yeah Mr. Jeff Brown: So we have to look at this with pretty hard cold light and try to understand if we. Chairman: I was going to ask your mother that question when I was up there, except it started raining so hard that we both got soaked, and I was on my way to another meeting in about an hour or so. So I told bet, and she invited me in and I said I don't have time to do that, I apologize. Mr. Jeff Brown: This is about a week ago, I guess. Chairman: No, no actually it was right after the hearing, right after we said, this is about three weeks ago. Mr. Jeff Brown: OK Chairman: And you had just left. You were there but you had just left. I was going to ask her that question. Why didn't you choose theother,location the location that you're talking about now. Secretary Linda Kowalski: I did ask him in the office and you said that there was a sloping of the land there. Chairman: No, no no. That's on the west side. This is on the east side Secretary Linda Kowalski: Oh, I see. Chairman: There is actual flat area where there's no trees even. Mrs. Doris Brown: I think that neighbors. would be too close to the Chairman: Right, yeah. Page 5 November 8, 1995 Public ttearing Transcripts $outhold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mrs. Doris Brown: I was then thinking of going all the way back. We would have to go all the way back and we would still be safely within the 100 feet. Chairman: OK, sure. Mr. Jeff Brown: We hate to put you all through this because its been. Chairman: No problem. Why don't you just get a hold of the surveyor alld find out the approximate footage in reference to location. This way you'll know if you need the variance or not, and then we'll go from there. Mrs. Doris Brown: Is it necessary to have this whole thing resurveyed if you're within your proper limits. Chairman: As long as the Building Inspector is happy with it and he'll grant the permit, that's the issue. That's the person you have to keep happy. Member Tortora: As long as you're within that 100 foot setback then you don't have to come back here at all. Mrs. Doris Brown: How do you (inaudible)to your neighbors? Secretary Linda Kowalski: You're outside that 100%. chairman: No, no. She's talking about side yard setbacks. Secretary Linda KowalskI: 20 foot side yard. Chairman: Yeah, but they would never want to go that close anyway. Secretary Linda Kowalski: No Mrs Doris Brown: No. Chairman: So why don't you do that and this way you have the option, it's still open to you if you choose to not utilize the alternative location. Mr. Jeff Brown: OK. I appreciate it all very much. I don't know any of you except Linda, and she has certainly taken us by the hand and pulled us through this. Chair~nan: Well, I'm from Mattituck and I know erosion. Mr. Jeff Brown: Well we know it very well now ourselves, thanks alot. Linda, I'll talk to you more about this latest idea because it just seems to me, it makes more sense. Chairman: I think it does too. P'age 6 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yeah, it does. Chairman: I agree with you. Me~nber Tortora: Really, because that whole area has a serious history of erosion. It may be a little more trouble but it's worth it. Chairman: And you probably will get a little less view too, but that's (inaudible) it. Mr. Jeff Brown: We stood up there tonight and said, are we flaunting this by trying to go sort of to the side, as opposed to ~naybe more back, and is it worth it. Chairman: Right, OK. Have a lovely evening. Mrs. Doris Brown: Thank you very much. Chairman: Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this? Is there anyone that would like to speak against it? Seeing no hands I make a motion to recessing the hearing till regularly scheduled meeting December 6th, 1995. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4346 - REGINALD MINOR. This application is based upon October 3, 1995 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, wherein applicant is requesting a b{lilding permit for an accessory in ground swimming pool, and which application was disapproved on the following grounds: "Under Article lllA, Section ]00-30A.4 proposed construction shall be installed in the required rear yard. Under Article XXlll, Section 100-231, fences in residential zones shall not exceed four feet in height in a front yard. Under Section 45-8 a building permit is required before a fence can beinstalled or replaced." Location of Property: 360 Private Road #1 (Stephenson Road) Orient; Parcel No. 1000-17-1-12. Chairman: Survey, Xerox copy dated October 12, 1993. On the survey is the pending pool area approximately 123 feet from the north property line, approximately l0 feet from the rear property line which is in effect, the side yard also. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in tile area. Would somebody like to be heard. Mr. Reginald Minor: Yes Chairman: How are you tonight Sir? Mr. Reginald Minor: First of all as far as the pool goes, where we would like to put it is what we consider our back yard. Chairman: Right Mr. Reginald Minor: It's a very unusual piece of property, very long and narrow. If we didn't have the two private roads, we would Pt~ge 7 November 8, 1995 t'ublic Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey have a back yard. But because we do have two private roads, we've been told that we have two front yards. It's really the only leveled place on our property that is cleared of trees and so forth, that we felt it would be the best place to put the pool. If we put the pool any place else, you would either be to close to the house or we would have to take down numerous trees and get some light into the pool area. Chairman: Is there any reason why you chose 10 feet to the side yard and not, instead of 12 or 13. Mr. Reginald Minor: Well, there the actual distance from the back to Birds Eye Road to a slope that goes down to the driveway. It's approximately 40 feet. That's why we picked the 10 feet. So we'd have 10 feet from the building line to the pool. Then we'll have an 18 foot pool. Then we'll have some area on the other side of the pool where we could walk around the pool. Chairman: OK. What kind of decking would you be putting around the pool, on that side? Mr.' Reginald Minor: On the side facing Birds Eye. Chairman: Yeah. Mr. Reginald Minor: We're not sure yet, probably some sort of stone because we do have a embankment coming down slightly' from the property line. So we want to put something there that would also. Chairman: Be impervious. Mr. Reginald Minor: Sort of retain the bank a little bit. Chairman: OK. The reason I ask that question is because we're tight at 10 feet so if your going to want to put a wood deck, a raised wood deck that also would be a required setback situation. So, if the board was so inclined. Mr. Reginald Minor: It wouldn't be a deck. Chairman: That's why I asked the question. The board would be so inclined, if the beard was so inclined to grant it 10 feet. We certainly wouldn't want to see sophisticate raised decking on that side. Mr. Reginald Minor: No, no. If anything it would be more of a patio type of walkway. Maybe a brick walkway going, from one end of the pool going to the end. Chairman: There is no anticipation of ever roofing this pool or enclosing it in any way. Mr. Reginald Minor: No. Page 8 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Clmirman: OK. Is there anything else. middle of a presentation. I kind of caught you in the Mr. Reginald Minor: Not as far as the pool goes. Chairman: OK Let's talk about the fence. Mr. Reginald Minor: OK. I have a letter here from the owner of the property, Mrs. Grace Lomas, who has been on the property and has owned the property, her family for over approximately 75 years, and the letter states that for the past 70 years that she can recall, there always been a fence of that height on the property ill the back, there. I also have a letter from Mr. Reid Mahaffy who is the only house that would be effected by the fence, and the height of the fence. Chairman: On the other road. Mr. Reginald Minor: On Bird's Eye. Chairman: OK Mr. Reginald Minor: And he also states that he would like to have the fence there because, what it does it prevents him from actually looking right directly into our property and into our, one of our bedrooms and two of our bathrooms. Chairman; Now, how high is that fence which is there now? Mr. Reginald Minor: Six foot. Chairman: Six foot even, OK, good. Mr. Reginald Minor: Would you like to see. Chairman: Surely, thank you. Mr. Reginald Minor: This is a letter from Mahaffy. Chairman: Right Mr. Reginald Minor: And we just have another letter from the other person on that road that we had a right to, Aquino. Chairman: OK Mr. Reginald Minor: Speaking that she'd like us to put the pool ill. Chairman: Great. Mr. Villa, do you want to start with this gentleman? Member Villa: I don't have any questions. Page 9 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Soutbold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Chairman: You don't have any questions. Mr. Dinizio: Member Dinizio: No Clmirman: OK, Mrs. Tortora. Member Tortora: No Chairman: There speechless tonight. This is unbelievable. While you're standing there, we'll see if anybody else would like to speak in favor of this. Anybody back there. Mr. Reginald Minor: This is Mr. Edwards. Chairman: How do you do. Mr. Reginald Minor: The pool contractor, Id like to have put the pool in. Chairman: OK, great. Mr.. Edwards: Just from a construction point of view, the site that was chosen to put the pool, is probably the best site for building a pool, and all the land that's to the North of that site, comes on graduallyonan incline, we require retaining work. And everything that's South of that site, is all treated wooded and we'd have to take down the vegetation. And asking for the 'ten foot setback, the reason for that is, Mr. Minor explained is that right there is the driveway and we want to be able to keep the earth in place and in going out further would require larger retaining walls to put up. Chairman: OK Mr. Minor, the six foot fence is just that area that penciled in. Is that a what we're talking about here. Mr. Minor: Yes Chairman: Which is directly. Mr. Minor: It runs from the North end of the property to just about, a little bit below the area where the pool is. Chairman: OK, do you want to give me a estimate to below the pool area is there? You know, how much are we talking about, 40 feet, 50 feet. Mr. Minor: The total length of the pool. Chairman: No, no, no. How far the fence would extend? Mr. Minor: Beyond the pool. Chairman: Yeah Page l0 November 8, 1995 Pnblic Hearing Transcripts Seuthold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mr. Minor: It would probably be just about at the end, maybe ten feet. Chairman: Ten feet. Mr. Minor: From the end of the pool. Chairman: OK, ten feet. We'll go with that,ok. Mr. Minor: I have no plans to put any £eneing beyond that point unless it would be below the four foot, because of the pool area itself, that we might want to fence in. Chairman: And you discussed with the neighbors, did we get into which side of the fence here. Did you discuss with the neighbors which side of the fence you put toward them, and which side you're putting toward yourself. The good side or the bad side. Mr. Minor: It's already there. Chairman: And you're not changing any of this fence. Mr. Minor: No. Chairman: No, ok. I got the impression that you were going to go ond take this fence out and eventually put a new fence in. Mr. Minor: No, no. Chair~nan: Are you leaving the fence just the way it is. Chairman: OK, I apologize. Mr. Minor: Just the way it is. Chairman: OK Mr. Minor: And if we have to put any additional fencing for the pool, ok, that will be the four foot. Chairman: OK, of course, sure. Is there anyone else that would like to speak against this. Seeing no hands, does anybody have any objection to this application. Member Doyen: No Chairman: Would anybody like to make a motion. Member Villa: I'll make a motion. Member Doyen: I'll second it. Chairman: Granted as applied for. Page 11 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4340 - J. GRILLO. (Recessed from October 11, 1995). Variance for fence height location commencing near Peconic Bay Boulevard and running to the south along the westerly side right-of-way known as Mesrobian Drive, Laurel, NY. 1000-145-4-12.1. Chairman: Just hearing from the October 11 hearing in reference to J. Grillo. Is there someone that would like to speak. How are you tonight Sir? Mr. William Childs: My name is William Childs and I was present at the last meeting. Chairman: How do you do. Mr. William Childs: Tonight I have George Johnston, Mr. Grillo's agent who is representative to answer any questions or precede with the proceedings. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Before you start we got a letter, last minute fax, well I should say today from Mr. Buscemi and he's compromising with a five foot scalloped fence as described by Mrs. Holfelder. I give you each a copy of it. Mr. William Childs: Fine Secretary Linda Kowalski: If you want to read it before. Mr. William Childs: Thank you. Secretary Linda Kowalski: It should be in the updates. Mr. William Childs: Basically Linda, does this sort of reflect what I said in my letter, essentially. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Well you said alot more. Basically you said that you were agreeable to either four or five foot scalloped fence but not anything higher than that. And he gives his reasons why. Chairman: You guys want to digest this and we'll go on in the next hearing. Mr. Willian Childs: Fine Secretary Linda Kowalski: You need a motion to recess it. Chairman: Yeah, I need a motion to recess it. I'll make it in a second. 7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4348 - MR. AND MRS. THEODORE PETIKAS. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIX, Section 100-239.4, based upon the October 17, 1995 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector wherein applicants are Pbgc 12 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey requesting a building permit for a 6 ft. wide deck entry from the easterly side of the dwelling to a Building Inspector wherein applicants are requesting a building permit for a 5 ft. wide deck entry from the easterly side of the dwelling to a proposed raised deck area within 100 feet of the low bank of the Long Island Sound. Property location: 52755 Soundview Avenue, Southold; County Tax Map Parcel No. 100-135-1.27. Chairman: We have a penned in area indicating, how are you doing Mr. Petikas a deck on the east side, is that five or six. It looks like six by twenty four. OK, six into six by twenty four by twenty by fourteen, ok. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map. How are you tonight Sir. Mr. Petikas: All right, thank you Sir. I'm here as you know to ask you people, to give permission to build the house, deck, 20 by 20 on the west side of their house facing to the woods. And all the access I have to that if I get a permit from the site of the house and I ask permission for you to let me have a walkway, towards the back. That way I could have my children, my Godchildren to avoid walking through the bushes. Chairman: Right Mr. Petikas: I go through there (inaudible) and the family have a copy of the permit, for you to accept. Chairman: The DEC per,nit Mr. Petikas: My plan. Yes~ the DEC and also I have a permit from the Trustees. Also, I give you people a permit for you people to decide. Chairman: OK. I just want to explain to Mrs. Tortora. Mr. & Mrs. Petikas were in several times on this house. We did eventually arrive at a amiable. I refer to it as a situation in which they were allowed to construct this house on this piece of property. We, they have constructed the house. The house is very nice and they do have a problem with alot of sand, going and coming. Hopefully, it's coming not going and I mean it's literally a sand pile there, and that's the reason that they are requesting the deck. Not only for the ability of sitting out there and enjoy the water, but the ability to access the house. It's that about what you're looking for. Mr. Petikas: Yes Chairman: We'll start with Mr. Doyen. You've been speechless so far. Member Doyen: No questions Chairman: No questions, all right. Mrs. Tortora, do you have any questions. Page 13 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Member Tortora: No. If I could just see your map. Chairman: Sure, ok. Mr. Dinizio: Member Dinizio: No, no questions at all. Chairman: Mr. Villa Member Villa: Yeah, I have a little problem within the fact that we did go around as you said, several times on this before and the applicant ca,ne back a second time and said, why he wanted a house aud we ended up granting it. And now they're back again as soon as the house is built looking for another variance and I just feel a little put upon. Secretary Linda Kowalski: That was side yard, that wasn't from the sound. Mr. Villa: Well, it's side yard. But this is also unstringing into the side yard to an extent, because Richy was very adamant about keeping the eight feet, and now we're infringing on that and I. Secretary Linda Kowalski: I mean, he's also a foot back from the Bay. Member Villa: You people just keep coming back and back and back. I just feel that. Mr. Petikas: This is going to be the final. I don't need anything else there. I can live with the rest of it. You know, I have to have access to that. I don't have any access to it now. I don't have any door frown the( ) The only door I have is from the side. Member Villa: That's the way you built the house. I mean, the house is only built. What can I say. Mr. Petikas: Yes, I understand. The neighborhood, that happens to belong to the Town, the property belongs to the Town, so I don't bother anymore, if it five feet or if I'm. Member Villa: I realize that, but you had a very very narrow lot and you know, we had to bend over backwards to grant the approval the first time. I just have misgivings about people that keep coming back and the peacefully needing that, so I'm sorry. Chairman: OK. The deck is proposed unroofed, no roof at all. Mr. Petikas: No. Chairman: Completely open to the water. Mr. Petikas: Right Page 14 November 8, 1995 Public tIearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Chairman: OK, and the side yard. All right. Let me see what developes. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application, other than the applicants? Anyone like to speak against the application? OK. Are you suggesting anything at this time, Bob, in reference to a mitigating factor. Membec Villa: Well, we were. Chairman: I don't mean to put you on the spot. Member Villa: We were concerned about tile side yards. Chairman: Right. Mr. Petikas: By the way, you mentioned their six feet. I think it's five feet. Chairman: Five feet, ok. Mr. Petikas: Yes, no six feet. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Oh, it's my. I'm sorry. Mr. Petikas: So right now I have three feet. There is a little deck coming down. By tile way, the property goes wider in tile front of the house, twelve feet. Chairman: Right Mr. Petikas: From the point of the deck where it starts, where the walkway starts, that about eleven. Ten and one half or eleven, at that point goes out to twelve. The corner that on the Bay side. Chairman: Right Mr. Petikas: And the reason I ask for that is, that five feet, two people can walk back and forth, you know, going back to the pool. A walkway is not for anything, just to walk back and forth, you know. Not going down and out. Chairman: OK. What we'll do is kick it around and you're welcome to stay, yon know. We'll see what we can work it out. We'll do the best we can, that's all we can do. We've been around, around, around, and we'll do the best we can. Mr. Petikas: Well, for two years. Chairman: We're just happy you're there and everything is stable and everybody is doing all right. Mr. Petikas: Yes. Chairman: Hearing no further comments, we'll close the hearing and recess the hearing. ~'age 15 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Secretary Linda Kowalski: Reserve. Chairman: Reserve decision. We'll probably, in about an hour we'll be entertaining it, ok. So as I said, you're welcomed to stay or yo~ could just call us tomorrow, whatever the situation was and see what we can work out. Have a good night. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Who would like to second the motion. You made a motion, right. Chairman: Yes I did. Member Villa: I'll seconded it. 8:20 p.m. (Recessed from October 11, 1995) Appl. No. 4344 - AMAC, INC. (SUKRU ILGIN) requesting a Variance for relief of Conditions 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 elltrance way between the gasoline sales area of the building to the convenience store area... " Property is established as a gasoline service station with accessory convenience sales at: 7400 Main Road, Mattituck (Laurel School District); Parcel #1000-122-7-1. B-General Business Zone District. Chaimnan: OK. What condition is that exactly, what number condition? Secretary Linda Kowalski: It's three and four. Chairman: There shall be only one entrance for the convenience store being located at the east side of the building and there shah be no entrance between the gasoline, ok. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Both of those. Chairman: Both of those, ok. Do you want to rewrite any of those, saying anything different. Secretary Linda Kowalski: The committee make a motion. Member Tortora: It would be three and four Linda? Secretary Linda Kowalski: Yes Chairman: This is a total abolishment of both of these, or any modification of these, or what? Se,~retary Linda Kowalski: You want to make sure that they. Chairtnan: How do you do that? Do you want to carve some other phrase out or something like that, or do you just. I don't know whose making this motion. Page 16 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Member Doyen: Do you want to discuss it later. Chairman: Yeah, I think what we'll try to do is discuss it later and I think you will get a decision tonight. Member Tortora: Just to rephrase it. Chairman: We'll rephrase it, ok. What we're only concerned about, if there ever, maybe if these gentlemen sell the station and there is ever a problem that occurs in the future, we just want to have tile ability to address it again if something comes up. It has nothing to do with your clients, yourself or anything Hke that. We understand the problem. Garrett Strang: OK. Chairman: It sounds like we have great unanimity here. Garrett Strang: Ok. Thank you very much. Chairman: OK, have a good night. Garrett Strang: You too. Chairman: Anyone else like to say anything before we, ok. Hearing no further, I'll make a motion on closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. All in favor. 8:23 p.m. Appl. No. 4349 - PHILIP LAGRECA. This is a request, based upon the October 13, 1995 and October 26, 1995 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, in which applicant applied for a building permit to add a deck to existing dwelling, and received a building permit to add an extension at the rear of dwelling. Upon Article 111, Section 100-32, Variances are requested for a reduction in the rear yard setback at 465 Hyatt (private) Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-54-01-11. Chairman: I have a copy of the survey produced by Robert Van Tuyl and I have a copy of the area that is the request. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map. How are you tonight, Sir. P. Castellano: How you're doing. My name is P. Castellano and I'm liere for Mr. LaGreca. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Could you please spell your last name, please. P. Castellano: Castellano Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK, thank you. Chairman: OK, you're on. Page 17 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mr. Castellano: There is a problem with the, on the permit that said, ten foot existing and it turned out to be nine feet on the survey. There is also an error in the measurement froin the rear of the ten foot extension to the property line which says 20 feet. It supposed to say 29 feet. Chairman: OK Mr. Castellano: As far as I know there was a stop work put on the job because of the fact that appearance. Chairman: I'd agree to Hyatt Road. Mr. Castellano: OK Chairman: Because I started on the east and ended up on the west and then went right across the house, down the middle and turned around and came back and I said, made a determination that this has got to be the only house that it could be. And sure it was, after I hit about 15 of them, but I got there, all right. We'll start with Mr Villa. Any questions Mr. Villa. Member Villa: Not really. The new addition has been completed across the back, right. Mr. Castellano: Yes Member Villa: And the deck on the right side of the building as you looking at, is going to be replacing that brick patio that goes out to that ~ence? Mr. Castellano: Yes, but it's strange. The road only comes out five feet and leave some of the existing patio there. Member Villa: Only five feet out. Mr. Castellano: Only five feet out to the side. Member Villa: To the sides. So you had 12 and you're only coming out five. Mr. Castellano: Yes. Chairman: So that leaves 24 then. Mr. Castellano: Right Member Villa: So some of that brick patio and that screening fence. Mr. Castellano: The screening stays the same and the brick patio stays. We just going to add, basically the large steps to the patio doors. Page 18 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Sot~thold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Member Villa: But it still going to go out sixteen feet the other Mr. Castellano: No. It's only going to come out five feet. Five feet on an L shaped, around the extension, just in front of the doors. Basically is a. Member Villa: Well, it's going to come out five feet instead of the 12. Mr. Castellano: Right. Member Villa: The other dimension was 16. Are you going to go back 167 Chairman: I got 14. Mr. Castellano: Five feet. It's only going to be five feet all the way around. Secretary Linda Kowalski: So it's only going to be 13 feet length. Mr. Cas tellano: Right. Chairman: So it's going to be 13 feet now. Member Tortora: So it's going to be 13 by 2. Member Villa: Mine says 12 by 16 on that. Chairman: Mine says, 6 by 14. Member Tortora: Mine says 6 by 14. Mr. Castellano: OK Secretary Linda Kowalski: You can't look at the building permit. You got to look at the sketch. He's looking at a building permit. There is another map in there Bob, keep going. Chairman: Now were back to square one. Mr. Castellano: Basically we're are putting a five foot deck in front of three patio doors that we installed. Chairman: I'm still trying to interpret this. Secretary Linda Kowalski: You're the one that had it Jerry. Chairman: This one says 30. Why don't you show us where you have it. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Right here. The first one you had. Psge 19 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey M~,nber Tortora: This one says 16. Member Dinizio: On an existing or on. Secretary Linda Kowalski: This one, right. This one says, here. Member Tortora: Member Dinizio: Member Tortora: Member Tortora: Mr. Castellano: Member Tortora: Mr. Castellano: Member Tortora: Secretary Linda Kowalski: Clmirman: Just mark it. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK, I don't have that one with me. See that one says 14. Member Villa: Or 16, it says 16. Mr. Castellano: It's going to be. So far it's pretty close to the second, a second distance away from the house, five feet. Five feet here, five feet here, fourteen here. Actually it's going to be 15 feet here. It's going to be 15 feet from here to here. Right, because it's five feet all the way around. i'd like to see another. Could you mark it. Just let him mark it. Let him mark it and he can initial it. When things change like that, you have to let us know before the hearing. Chairman: OK, I'll let him initial this one. 5 and this has changed to 15. Secretary Linda Kowalski: What's 15 Jerry. Chairman: From here to here, and this is 14. Right. Mr. Castellano: Yes Chairman: And this if 14 . So that 14 exists. fine. Steps are exempt. Are we all set? Secretary Linda Kowalski: Well, it's ten and five. Chairman: It's ten and five, ok. This is going to be unroofed Mr. Castellano: Unroofed. Chairman: How high off the ground. This has changed from This is out, this is Page 20 November 8, 1995 Public Heaeing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mr. Castellano: It's only going to be 18 inches. Chairman: 18 inches. Mr. Castelauo: Not enough (inaudible) Chairman: As per agent. Member Villa: You know, it would be wiser to have the applicant submit a sketch with the corrected dimensions on it initialed, so that we have it in the record. Chairman: Yeah, I'm doing it that. Member Villa: On the initial survey or plans. Chairman: Would you do that. Would you ]put something together and bring it over tomorrow morning. Mr. Castellano: Not tomorrow morning, probably Friday morning. I'm working. Chairman: Friday we're closed. You can be in Monday, all right. Mr. Castellano: Monday will be ok. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Are we going to hold up a decision? Member Villa: No, we can make a decision. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Well, that's what I'm asking. Chairman: We just want it for the record. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Just for the record. Chairman: Everything that you just did, that you saw me incorporate based upon your input, ok. Member Tortora: As long as we have this. Secretary Linda Kowalski: We usually ask for the final map anyway. Chairman: OK, we got it, we got it, ok. All right. Secretary Linda Kowalski: As long as it doesn't hold up a decision. Mr. Castellano: Back here of plans two. It's written down on this application. It says 20 feet from the area. Chairman: Right. Mr. Castellano: Ten foot extension. Chairman: It's really 20. Page 21 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mr. Caste|lano: It's really 29 feet. Chairman: Right, yeah. So it's 29 inclusive and we're going out 5 feet, so it's 24. Mr. Castellano: Right. That's a big difference. Cb~h'man: Yeah, it sure is. Let's just see if anyone has any questions? Anyone have any questions about this appeal # 4349. Sec~'ct~l'y Linda Kowalski: LeGreca Chairman: OK. Who wants to make a motion. Member Villa: I'll make a motion. Secretary Linda Kowalski: What is the motion. Chairman: Granted as changed. Member Villa: Remains basically a five foot wrap around deck. Chairman: Right, remain unroofed. Member Tortora: Pending a revised Map. Cllairmau: Right, all right I'll seconded it. All ill Mr. Castellano: OK. That means we can continue building that. Secretary Linda Kowalski: That means you have to go back to the Building Department and ask them to lift the stop work order and then get your permit approved for the deck. Mr. Castellano: OK. Well, I live in Ronkonkoma and I working in Westbury and this is a out of the way thing. How far, how long, what do I have to do. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Check with the Building Department tomorrow about the stop plan order and then someone going to submit a amended plan for the five foot deck to the Building Department. Mr. Castellano: OK, good enough. Thank you. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Your welcome. Chairman: Mr. McCarthy: We're skipping you over for one minute and we're going to the last hearing and then we're going back to you, ok. Mr. McCarthy: OK Chairman: Last hearing of the evening we're skipping over McCapthyfor about five minutes. Edward and Jean Zuhoski Page 22 Nove~nber 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey 8:44 p.m. Appl. No 3451 - EDWARD AND JEAN ZUHOSKI - This is a Variance requesting relied under Article XX1V, Section 100-2.14B for permission to construct an extension of existing carport which would be located with a reduced front yard setback on this nonconforming lot (substandard lot area and width). Location of Property: 18250 County Road 48, Cutchogue; County Tax Map Parcel No. ]000-96-4-1.1. Chairman: I have a sketch of the carport and I have, which appears to be about 12 by 30. Twelve by, I'll ask the applicant. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Chairman: 10 by 12, ok. Mr. Zuhoski: Fine 10 by 12 Mr. Zuhoski, how are you tonight Sir? Chairman: Is there something you would like to add for the record. Mr. Zuhoski: I'd just like to turn this in to Linda. Secretary Linda Kowalski: OK Mr. Zuhoski: It was posted. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Thank you. Chairman: This is only a ten by twelve carport? Ten out and twelve wide. Mr. Zuhoski: Yes it is Chairmal~: OK Mr. Zuhoski: We're going to the west off the existing one. Chairman: Right. It's going to remain open with just the roof. Mr. Zuhoski: It's made up with just like lattice work. Chairman: Lattice work, similar to what you just have on the one side. OK Mr. Zuhoski: On the original one Secretary Linda Kowalski: Where the entrance. Chairman: The entrance will be toward the private right-of way. Mr. Zuhoski: To the west, headed to the west. Chairman: OK. Mr. Doyen, do you have any questions? Psge 23 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southotd Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mr. Doyen: No Chairman: Mrs. Tortora, no. Secretary Linda Kowalski: You have a gentlemen that wants to speak. Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry. I'll be right with you. I always, I'll be right with you. Member Dinizio: No, no Chairman: Mr. Villa Member Villa: No, no questions. Chairman: Sir Mr. Fenton: My name is Joseph Fenton. I'm appearing on behalf of the Appadulas who own the property to the south. Chairman: OK Mr. Fenton: I also represented them when they acquired the property, last December. The acquired it from Mr. Zuhoski and his brother, who owned it. At the time when the survey was done, it was apparent that the carport that he was using opened up to the property that they were acquiring. He also had a driveway that perked around and went to a right of way. As a condition of the sale, he was required to remove the driveway and to stop parking on the property that was being sold. Chairman: Is this Lot 1.2 Mr. Fenton: His lot. Chairman: The lot that he was parking on. Or was he parking on, 1.4 Mr. Fenton: He was parking on the lot he was selling. The lot tl~at adjoins. Chairman: I got two lots, that the problem. I've got 1.1. Secretary Linda Kowalski: To the south. Chairman: I got 1.2 and 1.4. Secretary Linda Kowalski: 1.2 is to the south. Mr. Fenton: Ail right. I'll show it to you. I have to do tlLis survey. Chairman: Right, ok. Page 24 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mr. Fento~: This is where he was parked, this area. Chairman: OK, so it would be encompassing 1.1 and 1.2. OK Mr. Fenton: His carport. Chair~nan: Right. Mr. Fenton: Is on the property line. Chairman: OK, right now. Mr. Fenton: It opens up. Chairman: OK, right now. Mr. Fenton: That's right. Chairman: OK Mr. Fenton: If at least he stopped. He took away his wood pile and. he took away this. Chair'man: OK, good. Mr. Fenton: No problem. We had given him six months to do that. Here's a copy of the license agreement that we drafted. Chairman: OK Mr. Fenton: The sketch that he shews on the application. Cb~drman: Right. Mr. Fenton: Does not show how far from the property line the new carport is goillg to be. Chairman: OK Mr. Fenton: It is our understanding that we would turn, take down theold carport and turn it facing the right of way Chairman: Yes Mr. Fenton: Which he's not doing. Chairman: That's correct. Mr. Fenton: We find no permit ever, that was ever granted for b~ilding that carport in the first place. Chairman: OK Mr. Fenton: I don't knew what the history is. Pnge 25 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Sou(hold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mr. Zuhoski: Sir, I have a CO for that carport. Mr. Fenton: I know. The CO was granted recently and under what circumstances I can't fathom. The, like the Lord, the Building Department works in mysterious ways, and I just don't see how without a Variance, he's gotten a CO for that carport. I think it was built surreptitiously think that this process should countenance and sanctify a carport that violates the code. We have no problem with his doing what he said he would do at the closing, that is , turn the carport and face it the other way, and keep it as far away from the edge of the property as possible. Chairman: OK Mr. Fenton: The existing carport opens up on to their property. You can't get into their carport except through their property. It's silly to leave it there. And I think the code is there and the concept of not building on the property line is there for a reason. If my clients want to put some strawberries there, they want to get as much light as possible and I see no reason to leave the existing carport where it is. Chairman: OK Mr. Fenton: If you want to investigate the circumstances the under which that CO was granted, that's up to you. I spoke to Mr. Fisher, he was involved in the granting of that certificate of occupancy and he was very upset when he found it was on the property line, not ten feet away. Chairman: OK. Is there any thought on your part Mr. Zuhoski of cutting that carport back. Mr. Zuhoski: Sir, I cut 17 foot of that carport back and ordered by Mr. Fisher request and I have done that, and I didn't know what else I can do. Chairman: Can we see, if we were to go out there can we see the monument at the south end of the property and see how far this carport is away. Mr. Zuhoski: The carport is, it's the ramp that's pretty close to the line. The carport is not close to the line. Chairman: Right. So what we'll do is go out and have another inspection and we'll get back to you. Mr. Fenton: That will be fine. Chairman: Right, and we'll mention it to the Building Inspector what we've found and we'll go from there. OK, and we'll do the best we Page 26 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mr. Zuhoski: I'm still take off 15 foot of that, which I took more than 15 foot. Chairman: You took off 17 foot off you say. Mr. Zuhoski: Right. Mr. Fenton: The sketch doesn't show that anything has been taken off. Chairman: OK, you know, we're not surveyors but we'll do the best we can in reference to estimate it. Mr. Fenton: We have no problem having a carport there. Chaimnan: Right Mr. Fenton: We just want to keep as far from the property line. Chaimnan: Property line. Mr.. Fenton: As possible. Chaimnan: OK Mr. Fenton: And we think that there should be a resolution of the old carport. It should be closed off and should be mo~red back. Something of that sort. Chairman: OK Right Mr. Fenton: There is nothing in the record of moving back 17 feet. Chalmnan: OK Mr. Fenton: Mr. Shindow looked at it. You will see that it's been taken off. You got to have it stacked up on the other side of my house, against the fence. All the timber is laying there, so I know it's been taken down. Chaimnan: OK So we'll recess the hearing and we'll go out and do a reinspection and we'll come back. We'll see what we found and we'll go from there. Is there anyone that wants to speak against or in favor of this hearing? Should be in favor or against. Hearing no further comment I'm recessing the hearing till December 6th. All in favor. 8:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4350 - THOMAS McCARTHY. This is an appeal for an Interpretation based upon a Stop Order issued on 10/]8/95 by the Building Inspector suspending all work for the reason that construction fails to comply with Article XX1V, Section 100-242A and B-1 of the Zoning Code which at sub-section provides that P~ge 27 November 8, 1995 Public Heariug Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey "...A nonconforming building containing a conforming use which has been damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its fair value shall not be repaired or rebuilt unless such building is made substantially to conform to the height and yard requirements of the Bulk Schedule." Location of Property: 375 King Street, New Suffolk; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-7-8.3. Chairman: This is appeal #4350 in behalf of Thomas McCarthy. This is an appeal of an interpretation on a stop work order issued 10/18/95 by the Bailding Department suspending all work for the reason that the construction failed to comply with Article 24 Section 100-242A. And B1 of the Zoning Code which is a sub section of B1 advised that a non-conforming building containing a conforming use which has been damaged by fire or other causes by more than 50% of it's fair market value shall not be repaired or rebuilt until such building is made substantially conformed to the highest yard requirements of the Bulk Schedule. Location of property is 375 King Street, New Suffolk, County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-7-8.3. OK. The nature of this piece of property is the thing that the board is aware of. Over the past years the board has had variances, and not ~necessarily variances, but we did a subdivision on it and so are ~ware of the piece of property. We are aware of what was on this piece of property at the time and we're certainly aware of what exists /low. We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map iudicating this and surroundnig properties in the area.. I'm reading at this point so anything you don't hear at this point just let me know. The pa system in tiffs room has never been the greatest so I apologize. Who is representing you Mr. McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy: Mr. Moore Chairman: How are you tonight Sir. Mr. Moore: Fine, thank you. Also, I have Mr. Cuddy here representative the purchase of the property. He will be speaking momentarily. This will be one of the last chances I get to appear before you. Chairman: Congratulations. Mr. Moore: Thank you. We will miss the opportunity but we're glad to be here tonight. You're being asked tonight to consider a couple of sections of the code, 242A and 242B division 1. We just, and I ask your indulgent as I tell an allegiant s~ory. I ask you to not interpret that section as you believe it to be as you read it again. What I'm saying is, when you do a term paper and you don't want any typographical errors in it, you get someone else to read it for you. You know what you've written down the first time, go back to 242A and B1 and read it with as fresh a look as you can, even titough I know you've been down that way before and you've read it on other variances application and hearings. I'll tell you why, because tile language of it demands close scrutiny. I took an art class and i'm a lousy artist at the high school here and a fellow Page 28 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey stood up and drew a sign that said, Paris in the the Spring. And he flipped it up and said, what did it say, and every single person in the class said, Paris in the Spring. It didn't say that. It said Paris in the the Spring. We all read it as we perceived it and want it to be and reacted to it immediately. So I ask you as you read 242A and B, to give it as fresh a look as you can. Mr. Cuddy is going to get into the nuts and bolts of the language with you and I implore you to do that when you read it. As you mentioned Mr. Goehringer, this property has been the subject of repeated consideration by varions Boards of the Town. As for the zoning board, it's part of a subdivision application which was approved for undersized lots, significantly sized lots and it was approved with the house in the location where it is now. The division was also approved by the Planning Board. Subsecluently, Mr. McCarthy came in seeking a variance for a front porch and the only issue before the board was lot coverage percentage created as a nonconforming by that front porch. The board acknowledge and recognized the side yard setbacks as being established by the existing structures and allowed that building to be extended forward on the property and enlarged. The building permit application that was submitted was for demolishing, additions and new constructions were all on there. I tell you this because I want you to understand, we're not talking about some clever devious person whose out there trying to find a way through the code and make monkeys out of the Building Department or the Zoning Board or the Planning Board or anyone else. In retrospect, this could have been taken care of much earlier on before any construction had he had proper guidance and some help in suggesting. But this has been reviewed numerous ti~nes. Nothing has changed in the house from the plans that were approved by the Building Department. They were submitted. They showed the expansion of his home and nothing is changed in that regard with the exception of the variance for that front porch. Now this property having been reviewed by the Suffolk Zoning Board twice, by the Planning Board and the Building Department has been inspected several times. Let me give you one thing. One exception has to do with the change in the building permit, had to do with the foundation. A note was put in on a survey suggesting or ( ) that the foundation that was there didn't meet the building code and was requested that it be replaced, and the building code was amended to allow that replacement. I'm just going to give you a photo copy of the survey showing the hand written notes of the applicant, or rather the applicants brother Joe, and the notes of the Building Department acknowledging the amendment of that permit. Chairman: By the way, after your presentation, of tape everything to the tables down there, we're going to take a short recess and let everybody look at them and then it will be fresh in their mind when we're ready to go. Mr. Moore: I'll leave the plans up here as well then. C ha h'man: OK Page 29 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Secretary Linda Kowalski: I just want to mention to you Bill, we've made a complete copy of the building permit files and they have been put in the record already. Mr. Moore: Thank you. As I was saying, the property was subject of il~spections, construction inspections. On at least two occasions, on the 18 and the 20 I have copy bill inspections as well ~or you. As I was saying, the house has been renovated, it's been enlarged and reconstructed all as called for in the plans. When you look at the plans that have been reviewed by the Building Department, and were approved by the Building Department, there is nothing on there indicating what would remain, what would be replaced. There is a notation there about examining the foundation for it's efficiency. Like I said, when it was determined to be insufficient, it was replaced with the Building Department blessing. Now, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Cuddy who wants to talk about 242A and tile interpretation that we ask you examine their and somehow how we found ourselves in 242B. When you notice the stop work order, makes reference to both places, you can't be in both places. You got to be somewhere or the other. But I submit to you, we didn't start in 242B. We worked within 242A with the blessing of the Building Department, your board. The Planning Board was involved in creating this lot as a separate lot, the Planning Board as well. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Cuddy and have him answer any questions as well. Chairman: How are you tonight Mr. Cuddy. Mr. Cuddy: Fine. My name is Charles Cuddy and I'm an Attorney and I represent Dr. Goldberg. The reason I'm here tonight is because Dr. Goldberg is in the room, a buyer, purchases of the McCarthy property when it's finished, when the house is built. And besides the pain and time and also money that Mr. McCarthy is suffering, so is Dr. Goldberg, because he's waiting for this house and this is a serious problem because it's a stop work order. I don't think I ever appeared before this board, perhaps any board in connection with a stop work order. It's serious to a degree that people are absolutely hurt. Dr. Goldberg has spent of his own money, prior to closing $20,000.00. That's aiot of money to, at this point to be juggling with. I would hope that the board would cot~sider a number of things. If I may, I'd like to hand you, in case it's not in front of you, copies of section 242 and I'd just like to review it a little bit. Section 242 has really three parts to it but the B part is divided into two. I think we're only concerned about tile first part of that. But it's Section A that caught our attention. The reason that Section A is sufficient to us is because you have to get inside and look at what it says as far as what you can do, and you also have to realize you can't be in both sections. It's virtually impossible to start in Section B if you're in Section A and I believe that the two sections are completely separate. And yet, every time someone goes to the Building Department at least I'm told this by Mr. Fish, that they run the sections together. I don't think they can run together. Section A is very clear. It tells you what you can do. If you're going to make any meaning out of it, it Page 30 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey has to bare reasonableness by itself. And what it really says is, that you can enlarge a building, not only renovate it, but you can enlarge it. Mr. McCarthy I understand from what I've heard from hhn, from the Building Department, did exactly that. He came in, he gave them plans. Plans, by the way have never be amended. They are the same plans that he presented. He's followed them to a T. Itas aot changed them one idiota. I think it's worthwhile noting and I think as Mr. Moore was about to say before, that there has been inspection after inspection of the things he's done. No one told him he was doing anything wrong. The stop work order essentially came out of the blue. It was not something that was led up to. It was, you went too far. What he went too far with, was what is in Section B. You don't get to Sections B if you're working in Section A. I think you both, I think that everybody here can realize this. That if you're going to be in one Section or the other, you have to start with that particular section. If you start with A, you're in A. If you start with B, then you'd get inside B, but to get to B you have to have the 50% rule. You have to reduce the valuation by 50%. He wasn't there to start with. So, I'm saying to you that A applies completely, not B. But, just to get the argument out of the way, B apl)lies. Then there is a question, as to how much value is reduced. Not, how much structure, but how much value. I was before Gary Fish, the Building Inspection that issued this stop work order on the 18 of October, the day he issued it. He said to me in the presence of other people, that if the engineer who gave evidence to him of the original intension in this matter, Mr. Sandbeck would produces a letter saying that it did not exceed 50% in v~lue. That is, a reduction in the building did not exceed 50% in value, he would reconsider his position. I had that letter dated today, it's for Mr. Sandbeck and we'll offer it up to the board. Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Cuddy: So in some, if we get to B, we believe that we're out of B at this point because of Mr. Sandbeck's letter. But we hold that in fact, we really were an A to start with and when people read this, they go from A to B and jump back and forth, but you just can't do that. That's unfair and I think it's unfair for several reasons. This is a vague, vague ordinance. This board in 1992 and 1993 said to the Town Attorney, that they would like this section revised. They would like it reconsidered, because no one really knew what it really meant. I have copies of various things that you've have written over the years. I'd like to put some of them in evidence if it's not before you. If it is, I'll just hold on to it. Member Villa: Can I ask a question first. If Mr. Fish said, he would reconsider this, with submission of the letter and we're here because of the stop work order, why aren't you before Mr. Fish to g(~t the work order lifted and then we, it would be academic, wouldn't it. Mr. Cuddy: We did that at 3 O'clock this afternoon. At that point Mr. Fish said, as I understand it, I was not the one that delivered Page 31 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Sonthold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey it to him, that the matter is on before the Zoning Board and essentially took a stonewalling position and did nothing. We did exactly what he suggested. Member Villa: That doesn't make sense to me, I mean. Mr. Cuddy: It doesn't make sense to me either, but that's what he did. He said, and I'm saying to you, that he said to us, he would reconsider. He's now in a position of probably not reconsidering. We also invited him to this meeting so that there wouldn't be any delay and he's not here either. Because I anticipated that sort of thing is going to happen. Member Villa: OK Mr. Cuddy: What I was saying is that this board has visited this property on a number of occasions, right here and what's happened and should be on the record is that. Twice Mr. McCarthy came here in 1992 and 1993 and you are case number 4100 and 4185 and got approval from you for the subdivision. This is a unique piece of property. It is a filed subdivision map with a small lot and there is a real question as to whether this is conforming or nonconforming at this point. But I have those decisions, and in those decision the board spent alot of time of the size of these lots. You also made a another decision in August 1995 of this year, having to do with the size of building that was on this lot and he asked to h~ive a porch, that was extended, as you recall in the front. Implicitly, in that decision, you indicated that the side yard, which is 1.1 feet, is acceptable because the porch went right out to that side yard. I don't understand how all of the concerns, the scheduling the bulk scheduling concerns, how the code hasn't been addressed by what Mr. McCarthy has done. Dr. Goldberg question to me was, why did this happen? I said to him, I don't know why it happened but when you read the code, I can understand the difficulties that someone has. But, I'm asking you not to visit all of those difficulties upon the applicant. I think you would have to be more than a Philadelphia Lawyer to understand the interpretation that's given to this code because the sections are not clear, did not utilize anything correctly and they think it's unfair when the Building Department has inspected, reinspected, excepted the plan. Mr. McCarthy came back. Got his Zoning Variance which implicitly recognizes side yard, can now say to him. You've done something that's wrong particularly Mr. Sandbeck that said, we don't exceed 50¥,. And I would therefore ask you to really look hard and rescind as the code perinits you to do, rescind the stop work order and I don't believe that the impact on anybody is going to be significant. t{~ was going to be allowed to build on this lot. There is no question about that. Simply what's happened now is a question of interpretation and I think interpretation that was made was incorrect, factually and that's what Mr. Sandbeck says. If I may, I would offer these documents. Chairmaa: Thank you. Page 32 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Member Dinizio: Can I ask a question? Chairman: Sure Member Dinizio: Mr. Cuddy. You just said that we're here to, I guess judge an interpretation by the Building Inspector. What exactly did he determine? What is this interpretation of this, What was he basing it on. You know, it's unfortunate I can't ask him that question but I guess I can rely on you to tell me, not what he said. He has here a stop work order, based on I understand, you know 242 A &B, I understand that. We dealt with that a couple of ti~nes before. But I'm trying to make this, I'm trying to get the connection between that law, that piece of paper you just gave us and what I saw down there. Can you elaborate on that? Mr. Cuddy: What I understand he said, is that by completing the work at this site, Mr. McCarthy by taking down part of the building, took down more of the building than 50% of fair value remain. In other words, reduced it beyond the 50% value point. We say, that's not true. We also are saying, that doesn't necessarily apply. That it shouldn't apply. But, that's what his position has been. The A & B came only after I discussed this with him. I'm not snre if he was an A or B and quite frankly I don't think he knew whether he was an A or B, but we got the understanding from him, that he thought the value of this building had been reduced to beyond 50% and therefore we had to comply with a certain number of requirements. It's our position that it hasn't been. O~r engineer says that it hasn't been and I don't think there will be any testimony that will show otherwise. Me~nber Dinizio: OK, can I ask you this question? We have a copy of the Building Department records, Linda made copies. But I don't see any point. Was the foundation inspected before you back filled. Mr. Cuddy: The foundation was inspected. Yes it was. Member Dinizio: It was. Secretary Linda Kowalski: We have a copy. Mr. Moore: The certificates were handed up. Member Dinizio: Was the old house still there? It wasn't. Mr. Cuddy: I think that Mr. McCarthy can explain better than I can step by step because he was on site, he was the builder. But, and I think the answer is that the foundation was inspected. The building was moved off the site. The building was put back on the foundation then went on, taking down. I'm saying to you and I'll finish this statement. That the building was then taken apart by Mr. McCarthy a~1d parts of it were put back together. I understand that's exactly what happened and Mr. Sandbeck today is saying, looking at what's there, he went there in July, much before we started this. He's saying, that it complies with this requirement, Page 33 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Sonthold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey ii' this applies. But, that's what happened. The building, yes, was the building moved, it was moved, yes. Was the building taken apart? Yes it was if that's the concern of people. Was it put back together. Yes, it was put back together and that's Mr. McCarthy's position, but he can certainly tell you more than I can. Member Dinizio: Right Chairulan: OK. I need those Jim. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Sure, there in the file. Chairman: t just need them. I'll put them on the table. I'll give them right back to you. All right. I'm just going to hold up and take about a five minute recess. We have been going about an hour and tilter quarters and we with the. Who was that? Mr. Charles Watts: I just would like to say that, with your indulgence. In lieu of all this rhetoric that's been flying around here. If anyone of the panel were to go and look at the situation. Auyoae could look at that situation that exists, would clearly see as plain as the day. That's about all I have to say. Chairman: What's your name Sir? Mr. Watts: My name is Charles Watts Jr. Chairman: We'll be back to address the situation. All right. I need a motion. Me~nber Tortora: You need to recess for about 10 minutes. Chairman: Yeah. Seconded. All in favor Aye. Chairman: Mr. McCarthy, I think you were next. How are things tonight, Sir? Mr. McCarthy: I'd just like to address the issue. I'm sure that alot of residence from New Suffolk are here because they see the structure that's there and they may not know the intricacies of the code and neither did I until I got into it. I had to when I was thrown into it. The building plans that are up there were approved by the Town. I've been before this board several times. I want to make sure that everything that I'm doing is conforming with the Town code and [ sub~nitted the building plans with the Building Inspector, and he approved them. i followed those plans. I'm not trying to deceive anyone or any neighborhood or any other property owner. When I found that the foundation under the existing house was no good I said, wait a second, I have a problem here. I could have probably pressed on and tried to get away with something. I didn't do that. I went back to the Building Department and said listen. On my plans it says, verify the condition of the existing foundation and replace if necessary. Once we got into the digging, we found out it was necessary. Went back in and I told that to the Building Page 34 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Soutbotd Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Department and I said, this is the problem. They charged me m~other fee, which I've paid many to this Town on this project. They amended the permit and they said carry forward. And I'm sitting here in front of the board with a real problem, and the problem is time and the problem is money and the problem is weather, and I don't know what else I could have done on this project other than what I did do. I fried a plan and I got a permit, t can up with a problem and I think I did the right thing. I went back to the Building Department and addressed it with them and kept building according to my plans. I have not varied. I have not changed. I bare not done anything. I can understand the people in the neighborhood not being happy. I've sent out neighbor notices on thepropertyseveral times when different issues were in front of the beard. No one has come to a meeting on any of these things that I've sent out paper notices out too. Mrs. McGowan: Excuse me. I never got a notice and nobody that I know ever got a notice, never. Is there anyone here that ever got a notice. One. Do you live in New Suffolk. Yes, I live in New Suffolk. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Was this sent to adjoining property owners? Mr. McCarthy: That notice that was filed is what the Town requires us, the notice to the adjoining property owners and I have sworn affidavit. It says, I've sent them, I've given th~m mailing receipts and signed cards from the neighbors that I was required to send them too. And I'm trying to comply with the law. Perhaps the neighborhood feels, that the entire neighborhood should be notified, maybe they should address that with the code committee. But I've tried to address every issue of the code as I gone along. I don't think the question is, tonight whether or not the house can be there. The question is, how did the house get there and I think some of the neighbors want to address that issue. The house is permitted to be there under the code. I'm allowed to enlarge and expand the dwelling that was there and I've done that. I don't feel that I've gone beyond what I asked to do and I feel that I've keep in rule with tile plans. If there is a question, whether or not this code should be in place, perhaps the same people that are here tonight, can put their heads together to address the changes in the code and what they want to see as members of the Town. Maybe that's something that positive that can come out of this thing. I know financially, I'll be home and I've tried to follow through everything to the letter of the law, to what I presented to the Town for what they have my approvals for. Thank You. Chairman: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. McCarthy. OK Member Tortora: [ do. I was not on the board when this was originally approved. This was disapproved for those of you in the audience who don't know the sections of what we're referring too. It was disapproved under two Sections of the Code. One Section is 100-242A which refers to nonconforming building with conforming Page 35 November 8, 1995 Public IIeaping Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey uses. It says nothing in this article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming use provided that such action does not creating any new nonconformance or increase in the degree of uonconforma.nce with regard to the regulations pertaining to such a building. Exception which is 100-242B discusses reconstruction of a damaged building. It has two different parts in that. Part B: A nonconforming building containing a conforming 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 rebuilt unless such building is made substantially conforms to tile height and yard required in the bulk schedule. My question to you, has this, was this building damaged by fire, hurricane or anything else. Me. McCarthy: There is no damage. I don't feel that section of the code applies because I see the building permit as a continuing, from the time you take it out to the time you close it out with the CO. I've been stopped with that continuing in saying, now you have a dmnaged building, do you belong in this section, and I said how did I get to be damaged. It talks about fire, it talks about other things and it talks about damage. What's been done down there, I have done with mca and equipment and it's not from my understanding of definition, and from what I think the code is trying to say for damages, some act of God. I'm operating on the continuing of a building permit and I get it yanked somewhere along the process saying, well you really should be over here but now we're taking a look at you and you should be over here' and we're stopping you. Member Tortora: Was your building permit issued for a reconstruction? Mr. McCarthy: On my building permit application I put down, I believe addition, alteration and demolishing. And I had all three boxes checked on my permit because that's what my intention was to do. Member Tortora: Reconstruction, enlargement or remodeling. Mr. McCarthy: If you have a copy of it there. There were three different sections that I checked on the building permit that I filed. Once the work was done, there were several different inspections on the foundation. There was the first inspection, where you break off the snap ties and you have to repair the concrete for the hole that was incursion. The next on for the down proofing inspection. That was inspected and approved. And then you have to do, a foundation location survey. I had to have the surveyor come out again and survey the foundation exactly where it was relative to property lines and submit it back to the Building Department. I did that and tbe Building Department said ok, you can start framing. I start framing. I got atot of money and time invested into this project aud after they say start fra~ning, now I'm stopped. I have a pcoblem with that. Page 36 November 8, 1995 Public }{earing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Member Tortora: Thank you. Chairman: Anybody else have any question of Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Watts: Did anybody do anything about, I mean. Chairman: Wait a minute Mr. Watts. We're just doing this up here. We'll be right back to you. Mr. Villa. Me~nber Villa: Well my question is still again, why we here and why the Building department didn't respond to that letter, if that's what the ~greement was in keeping with the letter, they would reconsider it. I should think that that would have resolve it. Member Tortora: I should think, we're having trouble with, 242B is applicable Member Villa: Well, that's what I'm saying. Mr. Fish eventually said, he would reconsider. He gave him the letter and because it was today I suppose and tonight was already scheduled, he stonewalled it Secretary Linda Kowalski: He should be given a chance to address it at least, if that's what he asked for and he did ask for that. He mentioned it to me. Mr. McCarthy: It was mentioned to him this afternoon §nd I personally did not present it because I was not in Southold later on this afternoon. But when it was presented to him, Gary is going back and forth between the two sections trying to interpret the code. I think the code needs help, I really do and it's tough on the Building Department too, Because I don't know if they know, which way to go and they look to the Zoning Board for that help. And the way that the code is written, it's difficult for them as well. r can see now, where this problem can arise. I surely really wouldn't want to see anybody else in the position that I'm in, and the neighbors are in, and that Dr. Goldberg is in, Because it's something that, I'm sitting here with clean hands and I firmly believe that because I asked for permission to do these things, I paid the fees, I've received the permission. I've built according to the plan and when the problem came up, I brought it back to the Building Department and paid another fee. Now I have a problem. I can understand tBat the neighbors are upset, because I've done everything I said I was going to do, and that I had permission for and I'm asking for the board to please consider that. Chairman: Jim Member Dinizio: I don't have any questions. Cbairman: The only thing that I had a question about was. During the period of time that I was down here, which was, I guess prior to, around the 10 of October and that general arrangement. I did see the platform of tBe deck constructed on the foundation, ok, Page 37 Novetnber 8, 1995 Public Ileaping Transcripts Soutbold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey and of course I was called by a neighbor to take a look at the problem that was existing, which was water run off at that time, and I noticed that the old structure was placed integrated within that deck area, ok. Now, the addition to the structure, I'm sorry, when tbe visual first story was constructed, the old story was integrated in that new structure? Mr. McCarthy: It was. What we did. Gary had a similar question because when he went down there he saw a pile of debris off to the side yard which happened to be, the front cottage, which was moved to the rear of the property and it was demolished and he thought, timt his first resd on it was. That I took what was on my foundation demolished and all, right next to it and somehow try to circumvent the code and try to fool somebody and now I've got this brand new building that's not, that's not the case. It's not what happened. Anybody that was down there during that time saw, I had a house mover come in, they picked up the cottage. We excavated underneath the cottage and we poured the new foundation, at great expense. It would have been easier to do something other than picking up that house and setting it back down. Member Villa: Let me ask you a question at this point. When you say the house, are you talking about the 26 by 14. Mr. McCarthy: Yes I a~n. Member Villa: Because there was a framed shed in the'back that, as I remember it, you could have almost blown on it and it would have fallen down. The framed garage on the right hand side was in pretty bad shape too. Mc. McCartby: They held maybe, I'm not an engineer but they held, maybe about 5% of tile value for the entire structure was in that particular area. They might have comprised a greater footprint, they ouly had maybe 5% of the value but Member Villa: That I won't argue, with you. Mr. McCarthy: We have a copy of the pre CO that I would like to enter into the record. Before I was involved in this property, Gary Fish did an inspection on this particular building. The pre CO states building code violation on that side wall for I believe, fire, New York State Fire & Building Prevention Code and he has it stated on this one particular building, that this section of the building was not in good shape. So, it was an issue that I really couldn't even work with the wall that was there, because it held no value and it was in bad condition. And in 1990, the pre CO inspectiou report said it was in bad condition. Clmimnau: OK Member Villa: But what you lifted up was basically only the main structure. Page 38 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Soutbold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mi'. McCarthy: Yes it was. Chairman: The only other question was, going back to the foundation itself. What caused you to basically elevate the structure and put the new foundation in? I know you mentioned it already but I just want to hear it again. Mr. McCarthy: We were under the impression that we'd be able to work with the foundation that was there, and that's what my building plan said, and it has a darkened area of the foundation which has a pre existing foundation. Chairman: What was that foundation? Mr. McCarthy: It was cement block. Chairman: OK. Was the cement block actually grouted. Was it interconnected and made as a unit or was it? Mr. McCarthy: It was made as a unit but does not conform to today's standards as being tt~ree feet above the frost line and having a fototing of a particular size. Chairmall: I see Member Villa: And it wasn't 28 feet wide, right. Mr. McCarthy: I'm sorry Melnber Villa: It wasn't the full 28 feet wide, it was only the 14 feet. Mr. McCarthy: It was 14 feet wide and there was a slab for the garage, and there was an exterior foundation wall that held up the wall that was in poor condition, that was one foot above the property line. Member Villa: But now you got the foundation going over the full 28 feet. Mr. McCarthy: There was a foundation at the property, at one foot off the property line, where the wall of the garage was there, removed. There was a foundation there. Chairman: All right, I think that completely completes my situation and we'll see what. i really don't want to get into something that's counler productive issue here tonight, but I will take information from the audience. I'll start with Mr. Watts and after this anything you want to say al: the end, we'll go from there. I just, go ahead. Mr. McCarthy: I just like to add just one point on the foundation. Had I proceeded with the other foundation the way it was and not did what I do, I'd be in a catch 22 situation. I'd be asking the Building Department for a blessing on the structure and Page 39 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Sonthold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey they're snpposed to be lookiug at the foundation and saying, part of this foundation conforms and part of it doesn't. So it wouldn't have met the new, New York State. I say the new New York State code, the New York State Building code, so I had to do something, and I did what I felt was right. Chairman: Good, ok. I just want to mention one thing, that this is a preliminary hearing. This is not a variance application, this is not anything of that nature. This is a preliminary hearing on the stop work order itself,ok. There may be a time when either myself or s board member may stop you because we may be going too far into an area that's not germane to this particular hearing. Just so you're aware of that situation. I'm saying that because, I mean, there may be other things that may be forthcoming from this. Mr. Watts. Thank you for waiting. Mr. Watts: Thank you very much. If I may, at this point. I'd like to defer to Mrs. McGowan, Janet McGowan and just offer my remark anyway. Also, if you did look at the, with regard to the grade level of that house and the water run off, just that alone speaks for itself. If anybody looks at that, I'm sure you'd find that.. If I may defer to Mrs. McGowan. Chairman: Mrs. McGowan, how are you tonight. Mrs. McGowan: Nervous. Chairman: Nervous Mrs. McGowan: Why don't I just, I have some ideas so I thought I'd express them. I'm here to express my opposition to Mr. McCsrthy's petition for permission to construct a dwelling at 375 King Street New Suffolk, with insufficient side yard setbacks. My reasons are as follows: 1. The setback is indeed insufficient. The minimum setback should be ten feet for a new building. The grade elevation is csusing run off onto my property, which in turn is causing destruction of my hedge, fence and garden as well as bringing mud and water into my garage, which will eventually cause damage. 3. In his effect to give himself more sun by positioning his dwelling so close to my property line, he's depriving me of sun and light that I have always had. This will cause my shrubs and hedge to saffer and die and my. The building is excessively high compared ~o the previous structure resulting in sun and light deprivation. So [ don't have a house next door. I have a wall over there. My property is devalued. There is no room for anyone to work on the east side of the house or the fight a fire unless they come onto my property. My fence has been used to prop up scaffolding and dirt has been piled up in my hedges. Building materials has been dropped from the roof into my yard. The dirt has been piled behind my fence using it as a retaining wall. I'd like to comment on the short environmental assessment form filled out by Mr. McCarthy. Number five asks: Will tile project significantly effect drainage flow on Jason sites and Mr. McCarthy answered no and asserted ultimately. I say, it's already effected drainage flow and would Page ,10 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey like to know what ultimately moans. Number 8 asks: Will the project have a major effect on the visual character of the neighborhood. He answered, no and I disagree. Number 9. asks, will the project adversely effect any impact on any site or structure of historic importance. Mr. McCarthy answered no. The fact is, my house is an historic landmark and is being adversely effected and this proves it, if you want to see it. Chairman: We'll give that back to you. Mrs. McGowan: I hope so. That's an original. Secretary Linde Kowalski: Let me read it. Mrs. McGowan: It was a Methodist mission in case you want to pray anytime. Chairman: It was a Methodist mission and a New Suffolk School. Mrs. McGowan: I have questions. Was the builder completely behest when filling out the building permit regarding restrictions covering the old footprints. How can he use footprints, that leans to an old chicken house. My contention is, that the original permit was issued based on false information and the foot prints of the lean to, a very old chicken house, also covered the dwelling. There's not one structure. Only the cottage was living quarters. There were no doors or other means of access between the original cottage the shed and the chicken house. Where's the 50% of the existing building which the builder was supposed to preserve. I think it's in the dumpster. My action will be taken against the builder. They are not following what was permitted. It's the original permit, null and void. Mr. McCarthy told me when I questioned the close proximity o[ the building to my property, everytking he was doing was legal and I naively believed him. Mr. McCarthy told me, his building would increase my property value. Again, I naively believed him. I know now that it would do anything but. Mr. McCarthy told Joe McKay and me, that he would not increase the grade behind the house. He then proceeded to do just that after dark. Although Mr. McCarthy on the questionnaire for filing with the ZBA application answered no to the question, are there any proposal or changes to alter land contours. He did alter the contours. I'm protesting this building not only for myself but also my children and my grandchildren and my community. Chaimnan: Thank you. Is there any other spokesperson. Yes Sir. Mr. Michael Simon: My name is Michael Simon and I live in New Suffolk. We've heard from two lawyers who have tried to talk about what Mr. McCarthy told, the intricacies of the Town code. Now, the lawyers have made two decisions about the Town Code. One is, they said that since there seems to be an apparent inconsistencies between part A and part B and we wonder if we're in part A. We have to make up our mind. The other thing is that the code is unclea~-. As Mr. McCarthy said, the code needs help. Now, there Page 41 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey is a principal of statutory interpretation that Lawyer's use and that courts use and that is, when you have trouble interpreting the statute, yoo pretty much have to go on what counts as fairness and equity if tile code really does need help. And if we find out we c~unot resolve the tension between part A and part B, then we do wilat was suggested over here. You look at the property and you look to see that what happened could not have been what was intended by the framers of the Town code. To replace a shed and a chicken coop with a high building. And if you have to come up with a tortured reading of the code, in order to somehow legitimate that. And th¢:n you have to say, Ah yes, the good people of New Suffolk really mean well but they don't understand the intricacies of the Town code. I submit that if we look at the intricacies of the Town code, we may come up with a different interpretation that would be more consistent with the wishes of the neighborhood. Chairman: Before this board divided this property, there were four dwelliug units on it, ok. Those four dwelling units had preCO. from the Building Department, all right. This board eliminated that oae dwelling unit, which you know. We've already discussed this with Mrs. McGowan and she referred to it as the chicken coop. I bad, no knowledge it was a chicken coop. It may have just been a chicken coop etc. etc. I have no idea. But, there was C O on these structures which are dwellings, all right, and so I understand your concern but they were pre CO just so you're aware of that situation, ok. So we were starting from what, regardless of the condition of it, the type of it, so on and so forth, we were starting from the premise that it was a dwelling. Mr. Simon: OK. Chairman: All right. Just so you're aware of that. Mr. Simon: One final comment. One questions whether it fits under 1-100-242 BI. If that has been damaged by fire or other causes to tile extent or more than 50% or it's fair value. I think one of those possible other causes, could very well be included as demolition, and that seems to have been what had happened. So that may very well fit under Section BI. After all, if demolition isn't destruction, I dou't know what is. Cbairmau: Thank you. Anybody else. Yes Sir. Could you state your name for the record. Thank you. Mr. Josepll McKay: Yes, my name is Joe McKay and I'm the presideut of tbe New Suffolk Civil Association. I've lived in Suffolk for quite some time and I'm also very very familiar with this property dating back to the time when it was first put up for sale aad before there was a buyer. I have been through all the building and excused myself to the tenants that were living in them. Looked at ~bem very thoroughly and was totally familiar with the property. At the time tbat Mr. McCarthy bonght it and requested a minor subdivision into four lots, by the time he went to contract on it, I guess, we would say. I had written a letter on June 29, 1992 on P~ge 42 November 8, 1995 P~blic Hearing Transcripts Southotd Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey behalf of the Civic Association saying that, In my opinion it didn't make sense that there should be four individual owners of thissmallproperty. That it could only result in deterioration of the neighborhood. I suggested that it be subdivided into two. When the, after the hearing and when it was decided that it should be three properties, and the one front cottage removed. I thought, that wasn't exactly what we were thinking, but it does make sense in terms o£ what could be done here, and I think I felt a little bit opthnistic. Imagine, that back building which Mr. Villa said was 26 by 14 was the residence portion. Imagined it being moved somewhere on what was now a third lot and been added to and expanded and it could have been very attractive. Instead, what happened is that 26 by 14 residence with a chicken coop and a shed attached onto the side towards that property line. Yes, that chicken coop and shed did come within a foot and a half of that property line and they were low structures, and they didn't take up the entire 36 feet of the length of the residence part of the building either. So then, what was applied for was that the, a residence be renovated and that's another issue. I don't think a renovation has occurred here. That would be 64 feet long and 24 feet wide. Now, 64 feet included 12.4 inches of front enclosed porch and it's different from the drawings that I see here. What we currently have is a 64 foot and 4 inch line of building that is 12 or 15 feet high. I'm not sure and that wasn't stated on his permit request, what the height was. But a 64 feet and 4 inch line of building, that is 1.5 feet from the property line, and it sits there like a hulk. It's like somebody with a landmark pr~perty in one of the five boroughs of New York suddenly-having the 50 story office building put next to it. It's not dissimilar in ~e~'ms to what it does to the light. $o that is what it looks like visually to us. In terms of total square footage of enclosed space, with both building before. The back Northeast thing, which was on the original lot three, and the attached chicken coop and shed, and the front building with it's enclosed porch. The total enclosed square footage was 1226 square feet. And now we have 1530 square feet, enclosed and much much higher and on a much higher foundatiou. Mr. McCarthy says he had no intent to deceive and I can only dispute him based on some of the numbers that I see. The permit application that he originally submitted says, that he was asking for a building that was 52 feet long but that building is 64 feet 4 inches long and it's all enclosed under one roof. There is a full basement under 52 feet long by 24 feet wide. There's a basement under that, But as part of the roof. The roof enclosed the entire structure which is the front porch, 64 feet long. Chairman: Is that a basement or a crawl space? Mr. Joe McKay: There is a basement under the 52 by 24. Chairman: I looked at it today and it looked like a crawl space to Mr. McKay: Perhaps crawl space is the right answer and there is no foundation under the porch but it's all enclosed under one roof. On this permit application, in both places where it was asked, what Page 43 November 8, 1995 Public }Iearing Transcripts Soutbold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey would be the height of the new structure, it was not indicated and uobody seems to have asked for it. Mr. McGowan: i did and he wouldn't tell me. Mr. Joe McKay: Where it was asked, what would be the value of the construction being done and that permit is part of your file. It said, somewhere 36 to 48,000.00 dollars or 30 to 48,000.00 dollars. There is absolutely, and I think that number plays to something about what was the value that was going to be added to this. There is no way that that structure that is being built is under $48,000.00 dollars. I've built and I've seen lots of building go up all over this Town and there is no way. It's got to be at a minimum, twice tba[ much. In defense of himself, and Mr. Moore has also very quickly defended him and I was surprised that they felt very quickly that they needed to defend themselves as far as deceit is concerned. That usually always tells me, that there is deceit going on. What we saw in New Suffolk and New Suffolk is a good walking Town. People walk around and looking all the time. What we saw is, that the old building, the back one of these two cottages was moved aside and the front one was moved aside. Then at one point, the back building was .lifted up and put on this new foundation and in the meantime the building up front was left sitting back, in the back of the property. And then one day, I mean literally, this happened over night. The building that had been removed from the front, was sitting at the back of the property was demolished and in the dumpier and the old building that was sitting up on thig new foundation was all of a sudden gone and in the other dumpster next to it. That was what we saw. That's the way it appeared to us. One of the things that I'm concerned about as President of the Civic Association beyond this individual case is, what kind of precedent are being set in our Village. We've had, we currently have a vision committee that is studyhig what is the future of our Village. It has quite a history and it has quite a look. It's not a fancy place but wereally love it. We had some architect look at it and they came away and s~niled and said, there is not alot of architect that is really sensational. The look of this Village is in what you see overall. The overall picture is really charming like a Maine fishing Village. If we keep allowing things like this to happen, like this project, whether they co,ne about as a result of ( ) by ti~e part of the Building Department or whether they come about because of deceit of developers. That we're not going to have a main fishing Village. We're going to have something very very ugly that's, alot o[' tight buildings that's close together with very little air and very little light between them. I don't think we can allow that to happen. We have a variety of letters from people in the community which will be submitted during the time that you are conducting your investigation. And certainly, any questions that you have with me, I'd be happy to answer. Chairmaa: [ just want you to be aware that you did run a little aw['y. We're again referring to the stop work order, ok. I let you Page 44 November 8, 1995 Puhllc llearing Transcripts Soutbold Tewn Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey go but we're going to disassemble what you said and take the bits and pieces that we think are germane to the stop order. Mr. Joe McKay: I didn't understand. I thought Mr. Fish was goiug to be here and I understand the stop work order had left Mr. McCarthy several options and I don't know what those options are. Are they part of the record? Chairman: I don't know why. Member Tortopa: Would that be the 50% value. Chairman: I have no knowledge. Mr. Joe McKay: My assumption is that he didn't like any of the options and therefore he appealed. Mr. McCarthy appeal is on a dif[erent basis than Mr. Fishers stop work order that was issued. They are two different things. My contention is that the stop work order, that this is not a renovation. That this is totally new building and that the values here. There's no question of the 25% or 50%. This is 100% new building. There may be one old stick there someplace but, that's about it. Chaimnan: Thank you. Mr. McKay: So I'm sorry. I meant to be germane to the issue here. Thanks. Chairman: Right. ok. I do want to move it along a little bit, sure. Yes. Mr. Greg: My name is Greg and I live in New Suffolk. Granted, I'm a newcomer. I grew up in Southold. My girlfriend and I own the property next to Meehan's house. It seems that the entire Town of New Suffolk is built houses, one on top of the other, but that's part of the charm. I don't believe that he's going to build some white ugly stucco monstrosity. He's putting vinyl siding, colonial ( ) which I believe fits into the rest of the community. Granted it's higher than the building that was there but Mrs. McGowan house is higher than the building that was there. Chairman: Greg, you kind of have to, you know. Mr. Greg: What step's Iam from building a home 18 feet high as opposed to tile rest of the community which is probably two story's high, three story's high. I just don't know what the problem is. received a notice that the building was being built and I am under the assumpiion that other neighbors received the same notice. I believe that Tom followed the law, let everyone know what was going on and if they had any exceptions, the neighbors, why didn't they come forward before. It seems that were kind of closing the barn door after the horse is out here. The building is there. I think he followed what he was supposed to do. I don't see the problems. Page 45 November 8, 1995 Public tIearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Chairman: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Greg: Another thing is Iam will be a newcomer. Iam, there will be about 4 people. They will be an asset to the community and [ think we should all welcome him to know and maybe it will be a good start. Mrs. McGowan: That has nothing to do with the building. Chairman: OK Mrs. McGowan: We like them, we welcome them. We don't like their building. Chairman: OK Lets wrap this up. Yes Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore: It would be a great situation if we could find a win, win solution. Chairman: There is never a win, win solution. Mr.. Moore: I'm going to try to looking for it. Many times you can find it but you have to look. I'm afraid that in this instance, it doesn't exist. The problem is that you got a code poorly written. Yon can work within one section. Plans and permits that were approved. The issue as far as your question, Mr. Villa about the ~oundation. This board itself, when it dealt with the issue of the front porch, acknowledge and recognized the established setback along that property line. So, I'm not putting blame anywhere. I'~n just saying, in the course of the review of this process, all things being equal. I mean Mr. McCarthy is saying how for instance, had anybody interpreted this for him or if this issue arisen, he would loved to have torn the whole thing down, moved it 10 feet over, dig the foundation, dig it, put it and do it, and that would be great, and the problem I think would have been resolved. We didn't have that situation. It evolved into that problem through this odd interpretation and this problem that the lawyers are talking about not jnst rhetoric. I know the board appreciates and understands the difficulties of applying the code. You can't find a win, win answer here. Bnt you can't visit the failings of a code and debate the reasons of interpretation, which this board itself has acknowledged, as far back as three years ago, which had not been resolved upon an applicant. I don't call it deception. I don't believe he was deceived. You've got an intangible situation here. It's not a great impact on the neighborhood here. Tom would have been happy if they said, forget it, don't do it this way. Move it over 10 feet and go. He's beyond that point now, that's the problem. When you analyze this code the way I ask you too, at the very beginning of the hearing and what Tom was talking about, how we went through this process, you'll find one. His analysis wasu't unreasonable. You may disagree with it but it wasn't unreasonable. And number two, if there is a vague way to read this code line where we seem to agree, your board as a group agrees, and write to the Town Attoruey seeking so,ne help on this thing. And as yo~ know, in Page 46 November 8, 1995 Public Ilearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey statutory interpretation, the Town is stuck with a strict reading of it, and does not get hold against the property owner. It's unfortunate for the neighborhood as a whole, but that's true interpretation gets applied when it comes to Zoning law, and I know you know that. Thank you. Chairman: Mr. Villa Member Mr. Villa: I have a comment to make here and sitting here, it's a learning experience here too to an extent and I think that when we addressed the first application before us, for a subdivision, I don't think Jim or myself at least having something happen like this. Chairman: I don't think any of us did. Member Mr. Villa: We looked at a four home situation on a very small lot and thought we were accomplishing something by eliminating three dwelling units instead of four. I think we were remiss, perhaps with that point of not limiting the size of the structure. Because when you look at this section A, the Building Department was within their rights because they granted a permit allowing up to 20% lot coverage, which is allowed under the code and that did not circumvent or break any of the codes, They're allowed the offset, the side offset was established already so basically they were within there rights to do so. I think, we were probably remiss in not putting conditions in our approval for the subdivision, and limiting the lot si'ze. Be that as it may, the Building Department acted upon their jurisdiction. I don't see why yon're here, to tell yon the truth. I think basicaliy, the Building Department issued a stop work order. I don't know on what basis. Mr. Moore: Right. I think some of the comments that we're addressing, we're revisiting the issuance the permit back when it's usually done, and that's when all the comment addressed that fact tenight. Member Mr. Villa: I know, as long as I sit on this board, if there ever comes another subdivision of a similar lot like this, in New Suffolk or anyplace else, I'm going to be looking and remembering this application and seeing that it doesn't happen again. At least if I have anything to say about it. Chairman: Bob, you made one mistake and that is, you said, we did not designate lot size. We did designate lot size. Member Mr. Villa: Lot coverage, I'm sorry. Chairman: We did designate lot coverage. Member Dinizio: We did. Chairman: We said it was, as per code. P~ge 47 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Towll Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Member Mr. Villa: Wait a minute. size of the houses. We didn't envision in having the Chairman: No, we didn't envision that the entire house be extricated from the foundation. A new foundation be placed underneath the house. That the property be regraded and that all the things the code, be covered. Metnber Mr. Villa: All I'm saying, that in a small lot situation like this. Perhaps we can't go to 20% lot coverage. We might want to restrict it further and have it so that there are small cottages on it this thing and not a big monstrosity. Chairman: That's fine but as long as you're aware that when we made this decision, this decision was made as per code. Mr. Villa: Yes, I realize that. Chairman: And in concert ok, and in concert what this gentleman said overhear, that the major portion of the problems that we have occur in areas where there are small lots. Member Mr. Villa: Yeah Secretary Linda Kowalski: And it's not lot coverage, it was side yard. Member Mr. Villa: We are going to have to address that in the future. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Side yard Bob. Lot coverage was addressed. It was the side yard setback that was not addressed and that's the issue that's nonconforming. Member Dinizio: Well, we're discussing this now. I mean, certainly the man gave something up and in that contexts, you know we gave something up also. And certainly the size of that house, I never envisioned that. However, the person that is supposed to be envisioning that allowed the foundation to go there, without question. Member Mr. Villa: But it's within the code. Member Mr. Dinizio: Right, I agree. Metnber Mr. Villa: And I'm saying that we may want to put further restrictions on lot coverage instead of allowing 20% on these small thi~gs. Maybe we might want to say 10% or 12%. Something that limits the size. Chairman: I'll be right with you Dr. Member Mr. Dinizio: I wouldn't agree with you. I wouldn't be discussing that right now. ?age 48 November 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Secretary Linda Kowalski: It may not be legal. Chairman: Dr. Goldberg wants to make a statement. Dr., how are you tonight. Dr. Goldberg: Good thanks, I'm Dr. Goldberg and I hope to live in that house someday and I'm glad that some of the. Well, one of the difficulties for me is obviously, this is a test case for you guys and I see this is a problem for all sides and I agree with Mr. Moore, that there is a real problem trying to come out with a win, win situation. That, with my going ahead with wanting to purchase this, you have to put a degree of trust in the builder and in the situation of tile codes which I understand very little. And the anguish that this is causing, as you can understand. It's like baying the rug pulled out from under your feet three quarters into the building and the construction, and the money. You are aware wbat that can do? I want a solution which not so much satisfies me, because I want to be in New Suffolk as a contributing member to this community, as a Dr. one day. But I wanted to satisfy some of or as many of the neighbors that I can, and I can see that some of the problems are justified iii terms of feeling, not necessarily in terms ol~ the code issue, but I don't want to be there with neighbors appalled at what's going on. I think that Tom had worked very reasonably and [ trust him implicitly and I brought to him numerous problems especially with the adjacent neighbor, and to try to come up with solutions. And I'm not here to have him deceived her or anyone else or leas[ of all ale with my money or his money. I ~vant a solution which satisfies Mrs. McGowan and I don't think it's going to be easy solution. If it costs money to do that, so be it. I want to come into this community with a sense that I both desire to be here, and that I have a sense of belonging here. This is not a precedent case that beco~nes very difficult for you to sort out and I think Mr. Fisher categorically said, you show me an engineer's letter saying, 50% to me. That seems pretty satisfactory, ! think. I'm not going to give you advise but I hope that's obviously taken into serious consideration as a way to resolve this without Mr. Joe McKay: I would just like to suggest that, as we look for solutions to this. I mentioned before that the house as it appears does not look like ti~e drawing that [ saw, and I'm wondering why that is, and I realize that the original request was for a building ttlat was 52 feet on the property line and a porch that was set off as it shows in the drawings, to the west of the eastern side of the building. Then, when the variance was requested, it simply was request:ed for 64 square feet, additional porch. But what that meant, was sot, that the drawing as it was shown, required that variance. Wheu ti~e variance was approved then the building took on an entire new dimension and a wall that extended another 12 feet 4 inches a~ong ihe property line with Mrs. McGowan and which brought that building, in all it's looniness and without a window, brought it right almost to the back of her building. So that was another ~2 feet of very very high wall to enclose this porch and I think as we look for sotutiens. By tile way, that new piece, of the porch, of the enclosed porch, now will enclose the backside of a fireplace, the Page 49 Nove~nber 8, 1995 Public Hearing Transcripts Southold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey brick chimney. And I think as we look for solutions, one area might be, to say that if we went back to that original drawing partially, tbnt the amount of border of this building on her property is going to be 52 feet rather 64 feet and 4 inches. That begins to make some very very smart sense. This is hard to do. Not grab without a ) Me~nber Tortora: That's ok. I don't know if what you're saying is true tlr isn't true. I simply don't know. But the Building Department is also the enforcement agency of the Town and if you feel that there is a violation, that's the only agency that can take it up. I hate to sound like we're passing the buck but what we're looking at here tonight is a very cut and dry question. They and the Building Inspector has simply said that the applicant has not failed to comply with 100-242A and B. Not the size. t was looking at Mrs. McGowan list of things and I said, what could we help her with and there is not one of them because none of them are within our jurisdiction. Mr. Joe McKay: Is there no communication between this group and the Building Department. I sense the . Chairman: There is excellent communication. Member Tortora: It's not that. We're not the enforcement agency. Mr. Joe McKay: I understand. Me~nber Tortora: When you say to us, that the building should have been 52 feet and now it's 64 feet. We don't have any, that's up to tile Building Department to take action there. If that's the case. Mr. Joe Mci(ay: Well, I guess I'm really saying it for the record and hoping that other people will see it as I've seen so much of what has been discnssed here. But I did get the sense from what Mr. Goebringerand Mr. Villa said. That we're going to be seeking sotations so I felt that I might suggest this for the record. Chairman: Could I ask you to give this back to Mrs. McGowan for me. Thank you. Mr. McCarthy, as long as you keep it quick and get going. We have a couple of things we have to deal with here. Mr. McCarthy: I just like to address. I really don't want to beat this lhing to death because as Lydia just mentioned, it is a factual question, whether I did or didn't comply with what was permitted. I think that the residence of New Suffolk should know that in your ueighborhood, iii the R40 district that's down there, you can go 35 feet tall and it can happen next door to you. And it can happen 10 feet away from the line. What were saying, is my building is very tall but it certainly is not a two and one half story building, which is what is allowed. I understand the problem and I hoping that perhaps they can put themselves in my shoes for a minute also. I have a group plans and I looking to move forward with them. I'm Page 50 November 8, 1995 Pnblic Hearing Transcripts Sonthold Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey sorry for any harm that it's caused them but there is run off water in the rear area. I wrote Mrs. McGowan a letter and told her I would be working with her on that. I would be putting in a small retaining wall in the back, to hold back some of the graded dirt that's back there. She also does not have a gutter on the rear side of her garage. I offered to place one there at no charge to her when I was doing my own gutters. I looked to mitigate the problems that may occur down the property line. I'm putting a dry well in the back yard and my gutters on that side of the house, will be piped to the dry well so the roof runoff will not come onto her side of her property. I've tried to address the issues as they come up and my offer stands. I will still put a small cra, if you will, retaining wall in the back to hold the dirt. And I will still put a gutter on her building because it needs it and some of the water , that's coming into her garage is all ( ) group. Mrs. McGowan: It is not Chairman: OK Mr. McCarthy: It's not workable either. Chairman: It's very rare that you've got me speechless tonight but I have no, i just absolutely have no answers for this particular situation. I do want to press on. I apologize for this. I'm not taking anything away from anybody. My concern is, where do we go £rom here, ok. We do not have the Building Inspector here. The letter been delivered to him. If you want the Building Inspector here, you know, we could have a special meeting with the Building Inspector here and see what the story, where we're going to go from here. You know, we can make a decision on this if the board is so inclined. I have no easy answers. I'm speechless on this one. Dr. Goldberg: Just one thing Sir, if I may interrupt. I think that Mr. Fish clearly by his non presence here tonight, has left this for you to make a decision on this. Chairman: Well, Mr. Fish. I did see him. I did speak to him this afternoon and he did have a family situation that he had to deal with tonight. His mother was coming out of the hospital and he had to pick her up, and I think it was Stony Brook Hospital, and so. That in my opinion is a legitimate reason, not to be here. Secretary Linde Kowalski: What he's saying is. Instead of Gary making a decision of tile new evidence that was given tonight. Chairman: Right, we'll make a decision. Secretary Linda Kowalski: Gary is saying, let the board make a decision on the new evidence. Because there is new evidence that Gary is not active on. Chairman: Sore, I agree. Mr. Watts: May I please just suggest just one last thing. /.g(~ 51 November 8, 1995 I'ul)lk~ Ilearing Transcripts S..Iheld Town Board of Appeals Typed by - Noreen Frey Mr. Waits: I'd Hke to ask it it's possible perhaps, the Building Inspec(or or whoever, maybe perhaps several people, might come and view this situation and just by viewing it, I'm sure there will be a determination made ou the liability of the evidence. · 1 ~r~ ~: Tim! was Mr. Waits speaking just for the record. OK. lloaring no further commeut I'd like to make a motion closing the heariug and reserviug decision. All in favor.