Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/26/1996 HEARING Filed "as is" (Needs proofreading) TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGSHELD JUNE 26, 1996 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOAi~D OF APPEALS 7:32 P.M. Appl. No. 4373A - RONALD J. NLiYER, Applicant-owner is requesting a Variance for alternative relief, under Article 111A, Section ~00-30A.2, and/or Section 100-30C, for occupancy of second building in conjunction with use and ownership of main dwelling, as a single parcel. Locat{on of Property: 7735 Main Road, East Marion, NY; County Ta.x Map Parcel 1000-31-2-26, a corner lot containing a total land area of 25,210 square feet. CHAIRMAN: i have a survey which the board is familiar with from prior hearings in this particular matter, indicating the two story framed dwelling on the actual corner of Rocky- Point Road, and the Main Read. And then the offset of the second proposed two story framed dwelling, in the rear of that on Rocky Point Road. I have a copy of Suffolk County- Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Mayer, how are you tonight? Would you like to use a mike and we'H grill you for a Httle while - MR. RONALD MAYER: Is it (microphone) on? CHAIRMAN: Yes, it's on. Just pull everything out there so you are comfortable, pull the podium out. MR. MAYER: OK. i just want to say hello to the board members again, and just to kind of go over the last meeting. You know, as everybody knows, not everybody, but I was rejected for the property split, and it was OK for me to come back, and maybe seek relief. The board knows that this is a financial hardship situation. As per my affidavit, I stand to lose a lot of money because of fraud pePpetrated on me. On number ---, on the board's decision six E Mr, Chairman, it states that if t ( ) ,Nas achieve by some method feasible, other than the area variance that I went for. Maybe I should have given a few alternatives, the last time I was here. Again, that's hindsight. I was --. i should have done that. I would like to approach the board with the facts that, ~ stand to lose as per zhe affidavit, not to rehash it, close to over $150,000.00. Page 2 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Maybe even more on this particular deal, where a CO was forged on me~ and i just thought I would have that, when I took it back. I would like to maybe approach the board, with maybe a few alternative uses. Either a Mother and Daughter, or a one family house that cannot be split off~ or sold to any other party, unless that party is busting the whole property. CHAIRMAN: When you refer to one family, you're referring to the back building as far as i understand. MR. RONALD MAYER: Yes Sir, Yes Sir. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. RONALD MAYER: That's currently been used as a two family for the last seven to eight years, for members of the audience who might be here on tkis. And~ I subsequently, if there are any neighbors here, found out that it's zoned a one story non-habitable accessory building. Because it's not going to effect the immediate area, to any great degree, and it's been used as such. I'm not looking to profit off the sale. I'm still going to lose a lot of money. I'm just looking to limit my losses here. I would like the board to maybe consider, just a one-family, that I can't sell. That's just part and parcel with the front house. Or a Mother-Daughter situation, where there are a lot of situations around now, where --. I have one and maybe some other people do, where kids can't buy anything, and they have to come back and live with Mom and Dad. Maybe, this could be, that situation, which would add a little more value to the place, and help a family out. Or a one family house that could be rented out, for somebody that needs additional income to help him carry a mortgage, that wants to live in Southold Town. For me to ---. I don't know what to do with this buildin~ if i'm totally rejected. What am I supposed to do? Take a 2500 foot building down, board it up. Everybody knew that this was being used, and it was continually used. Again, i don't want to rehash all of this, but i don't know what this buildin~ is supposed to do. i'm stuck. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with the building. If t ~don't get some kind of relief, that I could use that house as a one family or a Mother and Daughter. Sep's farm stand is across the way. The commercial thing is up the road. There's rental properties around it. That's all I'm asking for. The last time they said well, go after Porfiris. The Porfiris are bankrupt. He's a very sick man. He doesn't care. They're gone, they're history. I can't collect anything from them. I could go after a fraud on them. That's not going to help me any. Probably, the family will welcome that. They will put ~hirn in a hospital. They wouldn't put him in jail~ to help his alcoholism. Page 3 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Seuthold Town Board of Appeals Meanwhile, I'm stuck. So, I come to the Board of Appeals for some kind of relief, i come up with these two suggestions, and I would like to leave it at that. CHAIRMAN: Let me just reiterate those. The first suggeslion is to make it a one-family house. MR. RONALD MAYER: Yes CHAIRMAN: OK. Coupled with that is--? MR. RONALD MAYER: Either a one-family or a Mother and Daughter. The difference being, as far as the way I'm looking au it is. A one family can be rented To other than blood relatives. CHAIRMAN: Right MR. RONALD MAYER: Mother and Daughter, blood relatives. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Mr. Mayer, what is a "Mother and Daughter"? We don't have a definition of that in the Code. MR. RON MAYER: A "Mother and Daughter" is, let me think of the proper word on this. There are a number of ways you could explain it. Either a son or a daughter living in a dwelling that's on the property, that is related so the owners of the property by blood. A one family would be that anybody other than blood could go in there and rent that property. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You mean, like a studio apar~men~ for family use only? MR. RONALD MAYER: Yes, in other words, the owners of the main house. Like if I moved into that main house, I could only rent it to either my Son, my Daughter. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, family. MR. RON MAYER: Or their husband or spouse. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK. MR. RONALD MAYER: The other way it would be rented to --. I could rent it to your Son and Daughter. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That would not be a Mother-Daughter then. MR. RONALD MAYER: Then that wouldn't be a Mother and Daughter. SECRETARY LtNDA KOWALSKi: OK. Page 4 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. RONALD M~tYER: I'll just throw those two options out, and I wouldn't be able to split that or sell it, or the owners that purchase from me, wouldn't be able to split that or sell that either. It would have to be sold as a part and parcel of one particular property, and used that way. I don't see any adverse effects. It's been used that way from eight to ten years, and I believe everybody I thought it was legal. CHAIRMAN: Are there presently two kitchens in that building? MR. RONALD _MAYER: Presently two kitchens. It's been used as a two family since '86 or '87. I'd be, you know --~ because it's a one family I would have to pull out a .kitchen, and I'm w~Jling to do that~ take the kitchen out. Under the !aw, I'm not sure how SouthoId is. Just because a house has two kitchens doesn't necessarily make it a two family either. ! mean, I've seen houses where a one family has two kitchens. But I would be willing to pull that whole kitchen out, and use it as just another room, if I could just get it as a one family, and to be able to rent it. Again t am not, even if it goes to that, I stand to lose at least $40,000.00. The other way, it just skyrockets, because as the broker was here the last time, stated that the market value, if that had to be boarded up, I'm only going to get $160,000.00 roughly for that one family house. That's what she's telling me. At least the other way, maybe I could get $215,000.00. She says, $220,000.00, and I'm in $250,000.00, if I can't use it. I might have to wreck it. I don~t know. That's another major thing t have to contend with, ! guess. That's really ail at this point I have to say. CHAIRMAN: OK. MR. RONALD MAYER: There was a, again, -we went over this the last time that, you know, a lot of parties that were in office at that time, knew this was illegal. Nothing was done. ! got a CO that was presented to me at the closing, that said it was a legal habitable one family. I don't have it in front of me, how that CO read. The broker went down and picked up the papers and found! out it was not habitable. So, !'m back before the board again, and I'm throwing this open to you, Mr. Chairman, to see what you and the board could do. CHAIRMAN: histead of doing rounds, is there anybody that would like to ask Mr. Mayer a question, or reflect on anything he said, prior to us going on~ because we did spend a substantial amount of time the last time on tt~is. MR. RONALD MAYER: Did everybody, I'd just ]~ke to ask this. Did the board read my affidavit as to the history of this? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Page 5 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I was just wondering. The square footage of each floor for the decision? MR. RONALD MAYER: 900 to 1,000 on each floor. I think I exaggerated a little, but I think it's about 900 per floor. I'm being taxed as a habitable dwelling too, on that particula~ house. CHAIRMAN: OK. I just have one thing to say after, but I'm just going to go through the audience. Docs anybody else want to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against this application? If the board could come up with some creative way, your open to any alternative situation, OK. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Someone has a question (in the audience). CHAIRMAN: We'll be with you in one second. If the board can come up with any creative way of dealing with this, you are open to any suggestions. MR. RON MAYER: I'm open to any reasonable suggestion, I mean, you know. CHAIRMAN: OK. MR. RONALD MAYER: I don't know what that would mean. CHAIRMAN: I don't know, we haven't gotten, we did do some deliberating before, but I mean, we couldn't come up with --. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: But, there was no discussion on alternatives. Tlzis is why Mr. Mayer said he wa~ted to come back. At the first hearing they only talked about the subdivision p~oposal. MR'. RONALD MAYER: I have one alternative ~hat-. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: And he had questioned MR. RONALD MAYER: If you come up with a reasonable alternative that ---. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's right. MR. RONALD MAYER: Doesn't affect the area, and that everybody could li-v-e with. I mean CHAIRMAN: Yes MR. RONALD MAYER: That's ali, yes. CHAIRMAN: Page 6 - June 96, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. RONALD MAYER: I'll answer any questions. CHAIRM~AN: OK MEMBER VILLA: I was going to say-. If it doesn't affect the area, but if we go ahead and grant two houses on one lot, that sets a precedent for the whole Town. MR. RONALD MAYER: I don't understand how, it's been effective for ten years anyway. MEMBER VILLA: No, but it was always illegal from the word go. mean, it was never legally to be built as an occupied building. Maybe you didn't realize that, but the way the building permit was issued, it said, "non-habitable building." We had the old Building Inspector here who said they knew it was that way but they could never get an inspection of it. They couldn't get into the place. MR. RONALD MAYER: Why couldn't they- get into the place? MEMBER VILLA: That was Ms rational for not acting on it. I don't know. it seems like a weak argument to me. By the same token~ it was still always illegally occupied? MR. RONALD MAYER: And there are a few ethers tike that too. MEMBER VILLA: Well, that doesn't, two wrongs don't make it right. MR. RONALD MAYER: I agree. MEMBER VILLA: And you admitted that at the last meeting, that it was illegally occupied. That's the point that's before us. It's an illegal building and you're asking this, the Zoning Board to --. MR. RON MAYER: But they gave the building permit for it. MEMBER VILLA: They gave a permit for a non-habitable building. MR. RONALD [~LiYER: Yes, but they did inspections, and everything else. (Inaudible), they did inspections. CHAIR1VLAN: A-s you know in the past, we've done some creative things, and this board prior to your tenure, prior to my tenure, has done things, and during my tenure one that ! can remember is one over in Ma¢tituck, where that house was actually destroyed and there was a garage that was converted to a dwelling, OK. In the board's decision it said, that it was supposed to be used in conjunction with the main house. I think it was not 15 seconds after the Town Clerk stamped the decision, that the _kitchen was moved back in, and that's just the way it's been. It's been two separate dwellings on the same Page 7 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of ~ppeals piece of property. So, these things don't work when they are detached. That's the problem. I'm being honest with you, OK. MR. RONALD MAYER: That's why t want to zero it in, that it's a Mother and Daughter, or that they can rent, a Mother and Daughter becomes ambiguous too, because they just say, "well, If t could rent it to my Son~ I can rent it to somebody else." So really, that's a little ambiguous. I understand that, so I'd just tike to make it ---. MEMBER VILLA: At the last hearing I suggested perhaps buying a lot in the area, and moving it, and you just dismissed it. MR. RONALD MAYER: No, I didn't dismiss that. But, if you did read my affidavit, this is a financial hardship situation. You want me to move a house, pay $40,000.00 or $50,000.00., and you're going to make me lose another $50,000.00 wi~h you're thinking, no. That's not reasonable. MEMBER VILLA: OK CHAIRMAN: Could you stand up a Little so we could get you on tape, if you wouldn't mind. Thank you. MS. DEBORAH WINDSOR: I just have a couple of questions about the property. What is the approved status of the primary business? Approved as a one or two family dwelling? CHAIRMAN: One. It's been there for a --. MS. DEB WINDSOR: It's been occupied illegally as a two family dwelling. MEMBER TORTORA: No, there's two residents on the property. One has a legal CO, the residence. MS. DEB WINDSOR: The larger front one? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: The other one was approved as a "accessory non habitable building". MS. DEB WINDSOR: The front building has two kitchens though, right? MR. RONALD MAYER: No. CHAIRMAN: Not to our knowledge. MR. t~ONALD MAYER: That's the back building. Page 8 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. DEB WINDSOR: The back building, the non-habitable has two ldtchens? MR. RONALD MAYER: Right. MS. DEB WINDSOR: Do ail these feed into the same septic, or cesspool? MR. RONALD MAYER: Two, separate water lines~ two separate septic. MS· DEB WINDSOR: Water supply· MR. RONALD MAYER: Yes. The same water supply off the same well, witli two separate septic. MS. DEB WINDSOR: That's what you see on your -- CHAIRMAN: We don't have a survey indieating this. MS. DEB WINDSOR: You don't have a survey that shows two separate septic? MR· RONALD IVb\YER: Hold on one second. Maybe I do have that for you because I have one .... . SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's not required for the variance to CHAIRMAN: Yes. It's nice to know· SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's not really, ( ). MS. DEB WINDSOR: And all these are pulling off a single well. CHAIRMAN: To our knowledge. MR. RONALD MAYER: Yes. MS. DEB WINDSOR: OK. So there is no setback requirements for the wells, for cesspools with respect to the cesspool, and with respect to the well? MR. RON MAYER: Not if it's used under one. I tried to get a property split that ~zould do that, and that's what they rejected me on the last time. CHAIRMAN: But the issue is, first of all it was an ambiguous application. MS. DEB WINDSOR: Right. CHAIRMAN: OK, which we~ve used t~_e word ~or~ed has been used here, so on and so forth. When the Health Department and Mr. Villa Page 9 - Juno 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals was Chief Engineer in the Health Department for 33 years, to my right. In some cases reconstruction, they did not mandate updates, between wells and cesspools. I have no idea what developed on this one. I have no idea what the Building Inspector required and I have no idea what the Health Department required at the time. t can't tell you. MS. DEB WINDSOR: So when you, if you make a determination that Zoning, the Health Department would still have to come in and make sure that ---. CHAIRMAN: Only if we divided the property. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It may be a new jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN: Only if we divided the property, SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They would decide it. MS. DEB WINDSOR: In the primary residences, is a single family ( ). Can you use that? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MS. DEB WINDSOR: Did we determine at the last hearing, that the building was truly less than la feat? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That wasn't a subject to a variance. That's not a issue that was discussed or brought up. MEMBER TORTORA: He was asking for area variance to subdivide his property. MS. DEB WINDSOR: I was just wondering ---. MEMBER TORTORA: An acquired variance in zoniug is 40,000 square feet. He has approximately what, 25,000 square feet. He originally wanted two lots 12,600 square feet. So his application was for an area variance, and he needed also variances on iris side yards. MS. DEB WINDSOR: OK. I was just interested in what the septic situation was. CHAIRMAN: The minute you see an old house, OK, and this is an old house. I mean, the house could probably- be 60 years old, right. You're not going to see any major changes in anything septic. MS. DEB WINDSOR: OK. CHAIRMAN: Unless the house is destroyed by fire, and in that ease Page 10 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. DEB WINDSOR: It ~as. CHAIRMAN: I know, but not down. It was only gutted, OK. In most oases the Health Department is just going to let it --. I'm not speaking for the Health Department, but I'm speak~ag from prior situations of things that I've been involved in. MS. DEB WINDSOR: I'm a Httle suspicious myself about, an accessory building that has two kitchens in it. Trusting that it's necessary going be only used by a single family. You know, counting fan~Jlies is exactly how you got into this problem in the first place. You were trying to keep track of who was Hying there, and Vic Lessard went on at length about it~ because you're sitting on the side of the road, trying to count people going ( ). So, I guess I'm just curious about how you legislate that. CHAIRMAN: How do we legislate it.. We don't grant it. That's how you legislate it. MS. DEB WINDSOR: Right. CHAIRM~kN: The best way to deal with it is, to merge the buildings into one. Then, you never have to worry about it again because it becomes basically, a self situation where each person is watching another --- what each other person is doing. MS. DEB WINDSOR: What do you mean by merge? CHAIRMAN: Put them together. MS. DEB WINDSOR: Physically you're talking merge. CHAIRMAN: Physically. MS. DEB WINDSOR: Breezeway. CHAIRMAN: No, right against each other, as one ui~Jt. Ok, Mr. Mayer, I thank you. One more question. Yes? ROBIN IMANDT: I live in the house next door to, CHAIRMAN: Could you state your name for the record? ROBIN IMANDT: Yes CHAIR~tiN: Thank you. ROBIN IMANDT: The property size is approximately the same, and i would hate to see in the area, second houses in what to us, is a yard. And to me it's supposed ~o be a !ow. I understand it's a low Page 11 - June 26, Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals population density area, and I really think it should be kept that way. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I didn't catch the last name. ROBIN IMANDT: Imandt. SECRETARY LtNDA KOWALSKI: Thank you MR. RONALD MAYER: Kept which way? CHAIRMAN: You have to face the board. MR. RONALD MAYER: I'm sorry. Kept which way-? CHAIRMAN: I have no idea. Kept which way? ROBIN IMANDT: As it is zoned to be right now. CHAIRMAN: As a one family. ROBIN IMANDT: As a one family house on a lot. CHAIRMAN: One family, OK. MR. RONALD MAYER: Why? I don't understand because it's been used this way for 10 years. ROBIN IMANDT: tt hasn't been for 10 years. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer, this way. MR. RONALD MAYER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN: That's all right. No problem. It has not been legal, That is the problem, and that's the issue we have at hand here, OK. If it was a barn or a garage or something of that nature, which was raised, put onto the center of the lot. As we know, it was cto2er to the center of the road, and raised and reconstructed in the center of the lot, which has another one family dwelling, which is at least 60 years old. MR. RONALD MAYER: Yes, OK. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comments. I'm sorry. Yes, Ma'am. BARBARA Planz: I have one quick comment. A while back I was sent a letter by the broker for me to sign saying that, or requesting Page 12 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals me to write a letter Saying, that I wouldn't mind the lot being split into two. CHAIRMAN: Yes BARBARA Planz: What I wasn't ---. I mcan, I just -wasn't made aware of the fact, so. I'd just like to say that I'd like to extend, I mean, the letter that I had written to them. CHAIRMAN: OK. Can we have your name for the record? BARBARA Planz: Barbara Planz CHAIRMAN: OK. Let me say this to you. If that ever happens again, and you don't have the luxury, because most of us work during the day, and -we don't have the chance to get down here. Then, just ask us to recess the hearing for a couple of minutes, and look over the file, you know, and we'd be very happy to do that. BARBARA PLANZ: i know that now. UNKNOWN: Linda, did he apply for two variances on this property? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What are you talking about? UNKNOWN : Did he put in an app!ieation for a area variance and easements. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: On this one? UNKNOWN: Yes. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: He's applying for alternative relief on more than one unit on the lot. It's a use variance. UNKNOWN: (Inaudible) SECRETARY LiNDA KOWALSKI: For what. ( inaudible ). MR. RONALD MAYER: I don't know about any alternatives other than what i just discussed with the board except that, I have to keep going with this. i can't financially stand the gap so I have to keep going with other avenues. So, I really hope we can work t~his out. CHAIRMAN: And for the record. How much is the property Hsted for at this time? MR. RONALD MAYER: Two, i think it's $2!5,000.00 or $2~5,000.00. I think it's $225~.000.00. Page 13 - June 26, t996 Public Hearings Sonthold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Thank you. At this point, the Chairman made a motion, seconded by Member Villa, it was I~ESOLVED, to declare the hearing closed (concluded), reserving decision until later. Ayes: All Members. End of Hearing. Page 14 - June 26, ]996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Prepared by NoreenFre~ part-time typist~ from tape recording. 8:00 P.M. Appl. #4389 TIMOTHY GRAY AND JIMBO REALTY: The owners are requesting a Special Exception as provided under Article X, Section 100-10tB of the Zoning Code, for use of a portion of the property as a dwelling unit for occupancy by an on-site manager. Location of Property: 43560 and 44360 County Road 48, Southold, NY; Lots #8 and 9 as shown on the Minor Subdivision Map for Pudge Corp. approved by the Planning Board on or about 7/]9/82. Property Tax IVIap Designation: 1000-59-4-8 and 9 (two separate lots to be combined as on for this building and site plan project). Zone: B General Business. Total Size of Combined Lois: 2.8+-acres. 8:00 p.m. Appl. 4389 - TIMOTHY GRAY and JUMBO REALTY. As authorized under New York State Law, Section 274-B-3, the owners are applying for Variances from Article X, Section 100-103, subsections A & C, of the Zoning Cede, for: (a) excessive !engZh of two proposed buildings and (b) reduces front yard setback of two proposed buildings. Location of Property: 43560 and 44360 Country Road 48, NY; Lots #8 and 9 as shown on the Minor Subdivision Map for Pudge Corp. Property Tax Map Designation: 1000-59-4-8 and 9. MR. JIM GRAY: Good evening. My name is Jim Gray. What we're asking on that property is to put as storage building o~1 there, and these building are going to be climate controlled, so they have to be large, in order for the inside to be air-conditioned. The setback is supposed to be 50 feet. We want to go 90 feet back. CHAIRMAN: OK MR. JIM GRAY: I'm sorry The setback is 100 feet. We only want to go 90 feet, because we have to have a big enough building to have the inside air-conditioned, and the outside ( ) for a storage building. The ( ) is 154 feet and ---. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Mr. Gray, I can't hear you too ' well. Could you put the mike up a little closer. CHAII~MAN: Hit that button on the mike there. MR. JIM GRAY: That's OK, now. SECRETARY LINDA KAWASAKt: Try it. MR. JIM GRAY: Is it OK now? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No. We still don't hear you. CHAIRMAN: Hit it on the mike. Page 15 - -June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. JIM GRAY: How's that. CHAIRMAN: That's great. MR. JIM GRAY: Good. We're asking for Caretakers quarters on the property to give it security, and the caretakers quarters will not be rented to anybody at any time, and not have any children. It's just a caretakers quarters ( ), large operation. We'd be glad to give the board any gmtaranteed that tlmis will never be turned into a shopping center, or any retail sales operation. If it works out we'll put in deeded, that we've done so. We need two stories to get that much quality of air conditioned space inside the building. And the maximum height will be about 22 feet. It's done in good taste, landscaped to your specifications. Whatever you want. CHAIRMAN: OK. The reason for the air-conditioning is, and heat I assume. MR. JIM GRAY: Yes CHAIRMAN: Is to put ex-pensive things in these storage buildings as oppose to MR. JIM GRAY: Antiques, clothing, whatever it might be. CHAIRMAN: I see, and have you laid out what each unit would consist of, how much room. Mt{. JIM GRAy: I don't think they're going above 12 by 15 in size. They may go as small as 5 by 10. Something like that. CHAIRMAN: Interesting. Now, the reason for the 120 foot building is what, as supposed to four separate building at 60 feet? MR. JIM GRAY: Welt, then you couldn't air-condition it because, you wouldn't have enough outside building around it to insulate the air-conditioning. Otherwise it would be prohibited, an air-conditioned building, just for storage purposes. CHAIRMAN: I see. MR. JIM GRAY: That's the sole reason. CHAIRMAN: Now, the other operation is not heated or air-conditioned, right. MR. JIM GRAY: No. CHAIRMAN: OK. So tlfis is a first. Page 16 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. JIM GRAY: This is the first climate control. Full climate control. This is a speciality building for antiques furniture. Anything --, no mold, nothing happens to ii. Wood does not dry out. CHAIRMAN: Interesting. OK. I think we'll start -~rith Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: This is like a self storage kind of a thing. MR. JIM GRAY: Yes, it is. MEMBER VILLA: Like compartments. How do you get into them? MR. JIM GRAY: Well, there will be doors around the place. You will come into the door and go into your quarter. MEMBER VILLA: Each compartment has a door. MR. JIM GRAY: No, no. Only on the outside front, there will be an overhead door for storage, or rear storing within 15 feet. But then the others, you have to come in through a main entrance, and go through, into a room, because they would be inside units. MEMBER VILLA: The outside units would have doors on them? MR. JIM GRAY: The outside units would have overhead doors, small doors, yes. ( ) lined doors. MEMBER VILLA: So how is that going to be climate controlled 'if they have al! these --. MR. JiM GRAY: They won't. The outside units will not be climate controlled, ( ). It's like, this room was inside the inside. The whole building would be easy. It's easier to air-condition tlzis room, as far as having this building just separated on the outside, by itself. MEMBER VILLA: And how do you get up the second story, for, elevator ? MR. JIM GRAY; We know they're in both buildings. MEMBER VILLA: Well, you don't even know how many units that would even be in there, because you're sa?lng, it's going to be 5 by 15 or 15 by 20 or ---. MR. JIM GRAY: Probably. It's going to be 5 by 5, 5 by 15, 5 by or 20. MEMBER VILLA: That's on the inside. MR. JiM GRAY: That's on the inside and outside. Page 17 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: Hew can you have a five foot building with an outside door? MR. JIM GRAY: You have like, locks. They won't be on the outside like a ( ) inside a side door, where you go ill 10 feet and behind it, the front one, and then you have a small door going into a small room. My Granddaughter ( ). MEMBER VILLA: It's going to be like a small maze. MR. JIM GRAY: Yes, like a honeycomb. CHAIRMAN: Interesting. MR. JIM GRAY: Typical mini-storage. CHAIRMAN: You'd think ---. MEMBER VILLA: It's not typical mini-storage. CHAIRMAN: No. MEMBER VILLA: I'd say it's not typical mini-storage. Typical mini-storage has overhead door, overhead door, overhead door, and any of the uikits back to back, and that's -- MR. JIM GRAY: They have turned in large department stores into mini-storages. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I'm sorry, go anea~. MR. JIM GRAY: OK SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: ~They have elevators and ---. MR. JIM GRAY: Elevators, enclosed building completely. CliAIRMAN: There are secure compounds in each unit of these buildings. MR. JIM GRAY:. Yes, absolute top security. Has to be. MEMBER VILLA: what is the demand for sometl~ng like that out here? Have you done any study on that or anything? MR. JIM GRAY: Yes. We run the mini-storage here in Town now, and we're at capacity, beyond capacity. We lost an awful lot of business mdthout climate control. They go into the other end, and there is nothing in climate control past Riverhead. You have to go ( ) airport to get ---. Page 18 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: You're saying, you can't have a climate control on outside units, even if they're no doorways or anything, on the outside units. MR. JIM GRAY: These outside units. It's like adding a room on here. That room would be air-conditioned, but that would help insulate tlzis room to be Mr-conditioned. MEMBER VILLA: I can understand that. But, why wouldn't that room without adding on a unit, be air-conditioned? I mean, you're saying~ you have to have a building this big, because you have to have inside rooms that are air-conditioned. MR. JIM GRAY: That's right. MEMBER VILLA: Why can't you just build a smaller building with air-conditioning? M]~. JIM GRAY: Well, the size of the building. I'm allowed to build the size of the building on the lot. It's the idea that we want to build one big building, two story's high. But if ---. MEMBER VILLA: But, that's against the code though, as far as dimensions go, right. MR. JIM GRAY: No. Only on the w2dth, on the front. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, 60 feet. MR. JIM GRAY: Yes, but I'm allowed to cover, the coverage of the lot. CHAIRMAN: Oh yes. MEMBER VILLA: We realize that. It's the configuration. MR. JIM GRAY: The only thing that prmhibits me from increasing a building on the ground floor, is the setbacks and the side yards. So we have to go up. CHAIRMAN: You want to look at one of these buildings? MEMBER VILLA: What? CHAIRMAN: Do you want to look at one of these buildings? MEMBER VILLA: Back West. CHAIRMAN: Yes Page 19 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: Basically, it's not going to be engineering people down there, in air-conditioned building. It would seem like --- CHAIRMAN: No, but what he is having is pull ups on the outside. So, what he is using the wall in back of that as the insulating wall, to back the honeycomb up to that. MEMBER VILLA: I realize that. But, that outside wall is not going to be, not the greatest to look at because, you have ali these doors in it. CHAIRMAN: Right. It's going to be like the one on the Expressway at Exit 65. MEMBER VILLA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MEMBER TORTORA: I -- CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute, it's Mr. Dinizio turn. MEMBER DINIZIO: I assume that --. The reason why you're not dividing it into four, sixty foot buildings is because then you would have to have two additional air-conditioners units, four additional walls. Meet certain setbacks, tf you're looking for efficiency, building a nice square building, obviously. This the way it looks to me Mr. Gray. Be it 120 feet long, the efficiency you are going to gain from that is, having a single air-conditioned unit in each building. The reason for the size of the building is that you'll gain insulation, from the outside walls. Am I correct? MR. JIM GRAY: That's right. CHAIRMAN: And outside storage, unheated storage. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not concerned about doors. Those don't offend me. You got maze one. What I'm thinking here is. We're looking at the law of Southold Town, that says, you have to divide this up as four. You're supposed to divide this up into four buildings. You have a lot, that's only so wide, and so deep. certainly looks 'to me like, this would be a more efficient use of !and, then dividing it into four separate little things, with the four air-conditioning units, and MR. JIM GRAY: Also, they are much smaller units. If you make them 60 feet ~de, you have to have driveways on each side. The Fireman have to get around these tilings. MEMBER DINIZIO: Righ[. Now, is this the plan? ts this the current one? Page 20 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southotd Town Board of Appeals MR. JIM GRAY: Yes, that's the plan. MEMBER DINIZ!O: There was one. There was one only 35 feet between the two building. But, this is the one. MR. JIM GRAY: This is the one that we want to go by. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK MR. JIM GRAY: No SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They didn't mention it. MR. JIM GRAY: But I know I have to supply the number of parking spaces ( ) of building. There is enough land there to do it. MEMBER TORTORA: What I'm concerned about is the 100 foot requirement in the layout that you have, wonid appear to force you to some extend to put the parking in the front, and 1991 the Town in some fashion, hosted a group of Planning experts from USUK and aisc from De. Lee Koppetman former director of Long Island Planning Board, and Dick Yarro, another expert planner. And at this conference there was a lot of discussion about the quote-unquote, sea of asphalt in Southold, in front of commercial buildings. It was general agreed at the time, that this was not a good planning technique. We didn't want to do this. We wanted to do away with this, and what I'm really concerned about is, the new requirements. The new !00 foot setbacks requirements, particniarly on a plan like this, really needs no alternative, except to create that sea of asphalt in the front, which seems to be contrary to our comprehensive plan. So, what I wonid like to suggest. I think there are a number of alternatives that can be looked at in this plan, thai can accommodate you and the community, and work within our jurisdiction as the Zoning Board of Appeals. I for one, would Hke to look at those alternatives during the next month. Get some kind of an idea, what kind of parking will be required because that is directly tied to my decision, on whether to grant this variance, what degree, and I'd like to look at some other alternatives. MR. JIM GRAY: I see what your getting at. We have a 25 foot setback out front, and we could ---. MEMBER TORTORA: 25 foot buffer zone. MR. JIM GRAY: Buffer zone, rather, yes. We could increase that and reduce the number of parking in That, beeause we have more than ample parking. So, i wouldn't care if we gave you the ample parking amd 75 foot landscape, there in the front. I wouldn't object Page 21 - June 96, ]996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals to that one bit, and we would landscape across the front, the way the board sees it, with trees and stuff, and it would be hidden baok far enough. You'd never see a parking field from the street because it's high above the g~.ound. It must be 10 foot higher than --. MEMBER TORTORA: This board csul't put conditions on, as far as parking. As I said. To me, parking is directly related to the grant of the setback variance. I'd like to look at it, and with the board sit down, alld go over the next month, and look at some of the alternatives. CHAIRMAN: I think you may also involve the possibility of meeting with members of the Planning Board. MEMBER TORTORA: Very good idea. CHAIRMAN: OI(, that's what we're going to have to do Jim, if that's all rigllt with you. MR. JIM GRAY: OK, sure thing. CHAIRMAN: OK, we have one mere person, Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: No questions. OK. MEMBER VILLA: Jerry. CHAIRMAN: Yes MEMBER VILLA: In meeting with, I'd like to see some sort of a plan of the building, so you know what you're looking at. MR. JIM GR~kY: Definitely. MEMBER VILLA: And also, you just mentioned something that i had concerns about. The land is high, but there is nothing that says, you're not going to go in there and level that down to the highway. I mean, I'd Hke to see a Toro as to how that thing is going to end up. MR~ JIM GRAY: We have no intentions of lowering the ground. We leave it the way~( ). MEMBER VILLA: Yes, well. That's ( ). I'd like to see that on paper, so that I have something MR. JIM GRAY: Let's see where it's going to go. ( ). CHAIRMAN: OK. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak Page 22 - June 26~ 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals against the application? OK, hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing for the next regularly scheduled meeting. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Could we get a date with that, July 24. CHAIRMAN: Sounds good. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to discuss that. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I've already given out the signs Jim. MEMBER DINIZ!O: I may not be here. Page 23 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southotd Town Board of Appeals 8:18 p.m. Appl. No 3627 (as Amended). LILLIAN VISHNO. This is an application for a Waiver under Section 100-26 of the Zoning Code, based upon a disapproval issued under Section 100-25A, for three lots (erected by deeds between 1947 and 1967) which have been determined merged as one parcel due to common, ownership since on or about 7/1983, confirmed in the Building inspector's Notice of Disapproval issued 5/24/96 under Section 100~25A. Property described by deeds dated 10/6/67, 6/17/55, 11/26/47, 6/17/61, predecessors in title, and acquired 1/26/84 by Lillian Vishno. Former County Tax Map Parcel Lots ~44.1, 45, 46, 47, and Section 48, block 1 (now identified as 47.1); and former subd. Lots ~s 16 and 17 on the 1904 Map of S. Buel CorwJn Estate. Zone District: R-40 Residential CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey indicating the lots on the corner of 9 Street and Corwin Street, and the house indicating, the center of it. Lot A is proposed at 49 by 99.95. Lot B a~ 50 by 99.6t and Lot C, which is the house lot, which is ---. Welt, we'll ask. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you Hke To be heard? How are you? MRS. VISHNO: Good evening. Nice to see everyone. Thank you for hearing my appeal. When I purchased the property back in 1984, the owner told me that inadvertently, the property lots had been merged, upon the death of her husband. I suppose when you're trying to sell a property, it sounds as though it's going to be easy to unmerge. Well, 12 years later I did research, and indeed there were four separate deeds for the property. I also have an old survey done by the Van Tuyl's from 1947. I believe I submitted that to the board, and that also shows very clearly four separate lots. When you look at the property even today, the parcel was treated as three separate parcels. There is a planting along the driveway of the house to sort of separate it, from the parcel. believe, I show it on the map survey and, they're other plantings on the other side that sort of treat it as separate parcel. When the property, when the properties merged. It's a rather modest house, in a modest neighborhood, and the property taxes were quite high, because there is a large parcel of land, and I think it would be a hardship to sell the house at a reasonable rate, and still have the high property- tax. Also, there is commercial property directly across the street from the land that I'm talking about,, on Corwin Street. Also, in the same block, the block of Corwin and 9th, and I think it's Wiggins, that runs along the back. They are houses built there, that show the old property parcels. They're smaller consistency as ( ) to some of the others. It's a rather weird configuration, with the parcels. I'm hoping that the board will see Page 24 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals fit to conform to the original property lines, and consider dividing, and giving those lots back, the way they were. CHAIRMAN: OK. We're going to start over with iVIr. Doyen this time. MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: No questions. Ms. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing, t don't have it in front of me. The old map which you refer to, which was the 1904 map. On that map, which is apparently this map. MRS. VISHNO: I'm looking' at a 19---. MEMBER TORTORA: This is dated 1904. SECRETARY LiNDA KOWALSKi: Mrs. Vishno doesn't have that one. I got that one from the Assessorrs office, so you might want to -- MRS. VISHNO: I don't have that one. I'm looking at !947. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: We got the oldest map, the original sub-division map of Corwin, Buel Corwin. CHAIRMAN: We'll give you that. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That shows how the lots were laid out~ baek then. MEMBER VILLA: The frontages are the same. MRS. VISHNO: Oh MEMBER VILLA: As it is now. MEMBER TORTORA: And actually, that correspondents with the current Real Property Tax Map. The sub-division line goes right to the middle of your house, on all four lots. MRS. VISHNO: Yes, well. I was looking at this one. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI Yes, she has the one that was changed later. MEMBER TORTORA: That. was tile proposed sub-division. MRS. VISHNO: Wei! now, this is even earlier than that. This is i947 and it certainly doesn't look like this one. I've never seen this one before. 'Page 25 - June 26, 1996 Public Bearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: No well, that one is also similar to --. I guess you haven't seen this one either. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: County Tax Map, today. that Lydia. She has MRS. VlSI{NO: Yes, I do. MEMBER TORTORA: The County Tax Map isn't exactly parallel to lhis, which shows the property line for the four lots, going right through the middle of your house and your garage. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, she's buying it though, based oa the 1947 map. That's when she purchased. MEMBER VILLA: But that's not the way it was sub-divided. MRS. VISHNO: Well. MEMBER TORTORA: It's been there --. SECRETARY LiNDA KOWALSKI: Yes, but the --. MRS. VISHNO: Yes, but the two center lots are not an issue. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Different centuries. MRS. VISHNO: That's what I understand. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: doesn't bind you to ---. Yes, but the way the law is. It CHAIRMAN: What she really is saying, Lillian. The lots now running this way. That's what she's saying. The Tax Map, 47.1 are now running. The dotted line are now running in the opposite directions, through the center of the house. Not vertically, but horizontally. That's what she's saying. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: But when it was deeded to Mrs. Vishno, prior to zoning. This is why she's asking for waiver because it was deeded like many other lots. In Town, they could be of ally size, any dimension. They didn't even have to be on a sub-division map in order to qualify for asking for a waiver. And lhat's where we are. Not 1908, it's 1947. CHAIRMAN: Right SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: We could probably go back to 1800 and probably find another map. Who knows, right. Page 26 - June tiS, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Where we are, in t996 Real Property Tax Map, which there are two lots running right through the middle of her house. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you would like to say? MEMBER TORTORA: No, other than. ~[hen you purchased this, from what I can see on the Tax Maps, you wanted to create two, 5,000 square foot lots. Is that correct, roughly? MRS. VtSHNO: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: And the parcels are about one hall acre. When yon purchased this, apparently the prior owner, according to the property tax card 53184 combined, into four parcels, at that time. That's what's on the property card, MRS. VISHNO: Yes. When I purchased them, they had been combined already. MEMBER TORTORA: So, you've been receiving one property tax bill, since. MRS. VISHNO: Yes MEMBER TORTORA:: Since the time that you owned it. And since the time that you've owned it, it's been in one ownerskip. Is that correct. MRS. VISHNO: Yes MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: Well, t have the same concerns that Lydia does. This is a R-40 zone, and you actually have a lot that size, that slightly over [[9,000. square feet, which is only hall of what zoning allows. You're ~asking to actually make three lots out of it. MRS. VISHNO: Wet1 again, as I say, the consideration there, in that same block. It doesn't actually abut my property, because Costeilo's comes in there. But, if you look at the County Map, there are two houses that are built on that block, on lots that are perhaps. They may even be a little bit smaller, than what I now stand for here. So, MEMBER VILLA: Yes, but they predate. They go back quite awl:die, right. Page 27 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. VISHNO: Yes, yes they do. MEMBER VILLA: Do you live in this house? MRS. VISHNO: No, I don't. MEMBER VILLA: Have you ever Hved there. MRS. VISHNO: No~. and it's also adjoining an apartment, sort of complex, and as I said. The commercial across the street, it's difficult to cope with, that !and there and that house. CHAIRMAN: Ot(, anything else? MEMBER VILLA: Basically then, you actually purchased this as an investment. MRS. VISHNO: Yes CHAIRMAN: Liltian, while you're standing there. Let me see if there's anybody in the audience that has any questions, that may relate back to this anyway. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody Hke to speak against the application? All right. We'll see what happens. We thank you. It's so nice to see you again. MRS. V!SHNO: Thank's very much. CHAIRN[AN: Hearing no further comment I make a motive closing the hearing, and reserving decision until later. All in favor, aye. Page 28 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals 8:30 p.m. Appl. 4393 EDWIN E. GRAEB. This is an application for Special Exception Use of an established Accessory Apartment, as provided by Article 111, Section 100-31B (14) of the Zoning Code, in conjunction with owner's residence at 16645 Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-115-2.4. Zone: A-C Agricultural and Residential. CHAIRMAN: We have been to the house and we've seen the floor plan. The house is a stately house, in excess of I00 years old, and we are familiar with it. It is the second story that is the nature of this application or the special exception. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Graeb, would you like to be heard? MR. GRAEB: Mr. Chairman, this is an application for a non-conforming apartment into one that is conforming, and has been in existence for roughly, 12 years. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Graeb or his daughter? Bob. MEMBER VILLA: Does this basically have a C of O, the way it was constructed? CHAIRMAN: You mean the house? MEMBER VILLA: Well, he put the dormer in? CHAIRMAN: Well, it was always a two story house, right. All you did was convert it. MR. GRAEB: Yes. It did have a CO for the ---. CHAIRMAN: Existing house. ' MEMBER VILLA: The certificate of occupancy of '85, is for the dormer. So, they must ---. The question I, the ceiling height, ( ) height because I know they get hung up on ti~at at times, without a C of O. MR. GRAEB: You can give him this. In fact, you have a copy of it. MEMBER VILLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Jim. MEMBER DINIZIO: No CHAIRMAN: Lydia. Page 29 - June fi6, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Beard of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: What's the total square footage on the house? MR. GRAEB: I don't recall right offhand, but you do have a diag~ram submitted with the application. MEMBER TORTORA: You do but it's ---. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSK! : About 1800 or 1900 feet? MR. GRAEB: I'm sorry. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: 1800 or 1900 square feet total, both floors. MR. GRAEB: Yes. The apartment, I think the minimum requirements are 450 square feet and it does exceed that. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes MEMBER TORTORA: No. I'm just concerned about that. The only other thing I though was very nice, some concerns about off street parking. We did not look at that when we were there~ and we do need three spaces for the off street parking. MR. GRAEB: Right now, there is one driveway and previous ( ). It's just an ( ) on it, one driveway. There is ample room to park three cars. MEMBER TORTORA: So, you would have no objection. MR. GRAEB: Not on the street. MEMBER TORTORA: As far as to put that in .... . MR. GRAEB: No objeetion at all. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Is there a garage used for parking? MR. GRAEB: Yes, yes SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You can count that space too. MR. GRAEB: Single ear, that my daughter uses. CHAIRMAN: OK. Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No CHAIRMAN: ts there anytbJng else that you would like to add to the record Mr. Graeb? Page 30 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. GRAEB: Nothing more. I think you all visited the place and seen it. CHAIRMAN: Right. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Laurie, anything else you would like to add? Nothing, OK. Any other questions that we left unturned.? Nothing, alt right. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Jim wants to make a motion. CHAIRMAN: OK, make it. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to make a motion that it be approved as applied. CHAIRMAN: OK MEMBER DINIZIO: Three spaces I guess, they have to follow the law. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, you just add the conditions of the code~ right. MEMBER TORTORA: What were the second part --. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Added the conditions of the code that's specified in the code, A through J. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. CHAIRMAN: Second. Page 31 - Juno 28, 199~ Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals 8:35 p.m. Appt. No. 4388 EDWIN C. KIRSCHERF. This is an application for a Variance from Article XXIV, Section 100-'7.44 based upon tho Building Inspector's Notice Of Disapproval issued May 3, 1996, for proposed addition at rear of existing dwolling with reduced rear yard setback at less than the 35 ft. requirement. Location of Property: 395 Inlet Lane, Greonport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. t000-43-4-35. CHAIRMAN: On this one we have a survey from Roderiek Van Tuyl PC~ dated ---. It was amended on September 10, 1956, amended on June 8, 1988, and resurveyed June 23, 1986 indicating this one story frame home, and pending in the rear is the addition that they are requesting, at 21 feet to the rear yard. How are you tonight Sir? Could you just state your name for the record? MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: Good evening. My name is Edwin Kinseherf. CHAIRMAN: How are you? MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: i'm looking for an additional 14 feet. I intend making it my permanent home, and this additional footage will enable me to enlarge two rooms that w~fd make it a lot more convenient for me. CHAIRMAN: OK, we'll start with Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No CHAIRMJkN: Mr. Dinizio MEMBER Dinizio: No CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: Were you the owner when this was split up some time ago, when t~hey had another hearing? MR. EDWIN KiNsCHERF: Bog your pardon? MEMBER VILLA: I said, this looks like it was a subjeet of a fire ZBA decision which granted a subdivision. MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: I've owned this property sinco 1951, but it has merged on me. I went through the process of having it reviewed and having i~ reverted back to it's orig~mal status. Page 32 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southotd Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: The house in the back that was previously part of it is not --. You don't own that one. MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: Yes, I styli own that one. MEMBER VILLA: And the house thai was built along side of that, is the third lot? Do you own that one too? MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: Inaudible SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's not part o£ this application. MEMBER VILLA: I realize that. I'm just curious of what the ownership was. MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: There is a parcel that actually is 100 by 200, and it's split up into three parcels. The front parcel is 100 by 100, and the back parcel is 250 by 100, with a house on that. MEMBER VILLA: I was there at the site. I saw the one house. I was thinking it was the second house on the lot. MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: No MEMBER VILL~Y: So basically, you would not have any opposition because you own that other house. MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: No, I hope not. MEMBER VILLA: I don't have any other questions. CHAIRMAN: OK. Is there anybody else, while you're standing there, in the audience, that would like to speak against this application? Is there anybody that would like to speak for the application? I don't have any particular problems with it. I'll be honest with you. I thank you for coming up and speaking Sir. MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: I thank you £or your time and consideration. CHAIRMAN: Ar~ybody want to move this, or what do you want to do? MEMBER VILLA: I have a problem with this. CHAIRMAN: You have a problem with tlfis. MEMBER VILLA: Pretty close corner ( ). MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask for the record establish plans. CHAIRMAN: Sure. Page 33 - June 26, 1996 Public HearinCs Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: It's in your application that it did not mention in the application. What is the reason why you don't want to have this on a different level, a second story, the bathroom? MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: i can't handle stairs very. welt. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you just state that for the record, please. MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: I'm a little handicapped and stairs is not the ---. That's why I~m retiring out here, because it's all on one level. MEMBER TORTORA: And that's why you want to -- MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: Extend it a Httle,' yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Is there anyplace else on the property, where you could put this bathroom, where it would be easily accessible to you. MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: Not really. CHAIRMAN: This is not just a bathroom, it's an addition which includes two rooms. MEMBER TORTORA: ( Inaudible ). CHAIRMAN: OK thank you. Sorry to make you get up again. MR. EDWIN KINSCHERF: That's quite alright. CHAIRMAN: I g~ess we're going to close this and reserve decision. I'll make that motion Ladies and Gentlemen. Page 34 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals 8:43 p.m. Appl. No. 4387 - DONNA I. WEXT~ER: This is an application for a Variance from the Bulk Setback Schedule, Column "i," based upon the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval issued April 24, 1996, for proposed addition at rear of existing dwelling with reduced front yard setback at less than the 60 ft. requirement. Location of Property: Inlet Lane, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-43-4-35. Size/Zone: 1.8 acre lot in an R-80 Residential Zone. JENNY GOULD ESQ: I'm here for Dr. Wexler and Mrs. We:der tonight. Linda I'm assun~ing that the board got all the facts. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, they have all the new information. JENNY GOULD ESQ: One thing I would tike to do is start off with. To amend, or modify- the application. Originally, the application was concerned with ---. Yes, we're dealing with a 60 foot setback, but the house was originally constructed in 1981 on a 50 foot setback, which is how the plans were originally submitted to the Building Department, in conformance with a 50 foot setback. My application addresses the garage encroaching into that 50 foot setback, but it should also address the facts thai the steps to the front door will be in that 50 foot setback, and I also want to add that. It's a relocation of old steps to the front door, which also encroached into the 50 foot setback. It looks to me about the. same distsmce. I!m just ---. If you have the existing survey? CHAIRMAN: Yes, we tb_hak we do. JENNY GOULD ESQ: You'll see the steps. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They have it, but you can show him again. JENNY GOULD ESQ: This was the main ( ) section. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Is it a 35 foot setback, though? The old steps; because remember ---. I thi~ the new steps are closer, that's the difference, similar. JENNY GOULD ESQ: ( ~naudible ). SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, you're right. JENNY GOULD ESQ: On the steps, the proposed new steps, will be 35 feet from the road. It will be a terrace effect going up, and it will be landscaped. We think it will look nicer than the old steps, wkich sort of went straight up. it will be nice addition to the )property. ! don't see where there ~,~qlt be any determent ~o the Page 35 - June 26~ 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals neighbors~ who's property is totally landscaped and shielded from the road, and no impact on the environment. Because of the topography, in order to enter the first level of the house~ the first floor, you need a set of steps. Otherwise, your front door is going to be the basement. That's how ii was before and we're just proposing a relocation of the steps. SECRETA_~Y LINDA KOWALSKI: It's about 12 foot high, right. JENNY GOULD ESQ: Right. The old steps were 12 foot high too. Because the first level, the grade hasn't changed. On the garage, what happened was. As it was under construction~ Dr. Wexler realize that he couldn't fit a full size car in the garage unless it was modified. So, on the fact that you got to show the difference between a 60 foot and a 50 foot setback. It's really a very small encroachment into the 50 foot setback. At most, it's four feet and it goes down to zero. I don't know what tiffs word footage would be? but itts a very small eneroaehment. Again, t don~t think this is something that would bother the neighborhood, and certainly the benefit to my eiient. It's not a determent to anyone else. So, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN: I don't have any at this particular time. I was up there last week and it was extremely enjoyable. I can assure you, it's a beautiful spot. We'll start with Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: No~ I think you just explained it. I wondered why that garage doers came out with that wing. Is it the length of the ear. JENNY GOULD ESQ: It's the length of the car. It was just a gap- It just had to be corrected. CHAIRMAN: OK. Mr, Dinlzio, MEMBER DINIZIO: I was wondering where the stairs was, so I went out there yesterday, and someone explained it to me. So, your right, it's goin~ to be more landscaped than stairs actually. JENNY GOULD ESQ: It's going to be quite attractive. It's going to be very nice. MEMBER DINIZIO: The extension on the garage doesn't appear to be closer to the front yard, if you look at it. It doesn't appear that way. CHAIRMAN: There are so many angles that makes it diffieult to visualize, from the ground. MEMBER VILLA: For the record, you might want to say that basically the access to it, is a private road too, right. Page 36 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals JENNY GOULD ESQ: It is a private road and when you consider that there is no, on street parking. All the cars wdll be in the garage. So, from a neighborhood standpoint, it's quite desirable to have it that way. MEMBER TORTORA: I have no questions or objections. CHAIRMAN: OK, while you're standing there, let me just ask the audience. Is there anybody else, that would bLke to speak in favor, other than the applicants. They are welcome to speak too. Anybody like to speak against? OK, hearing no comment, anything further Ladies or Gentlemen, on the board? Anytllh~g further that you would like to ask the Attorney? I ~uess we're done. Anybody want to offer a resolution. MEMBER DINIZIO: We'll just have to clarify- the setbacks I guess. So, I'll make the motion that we grant it CHAIRMAN: As applied MEMBER DINtZIO: 'Right, as applied. We need specific setbacks for the steps, and that little addition for the garage, so that ---. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It might be 46 feet. Do you thi~k? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm thinking 30 somewhat feet. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: To the building. JENNY GOULD, ESQ: I only know what we calculated yesterday, that I obtained from the architect. He says it's 35 feet from the road. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: To the set. JENNY GOULD ESQ: To the gate step, it would be 35 feet. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: We're talking about the btdlding, though. JENNY GOULD ESQ.: To the property line. MEMBER DINIZIO: From the property line. Well, the property line is ( ). SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What is it from the building, though. From the building? CHAIRMAN: From the building? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: 45 feet, 46 fees you think. Page 37 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southotd Town Board of Appeals CHAII[MAN: Will you call in tomorrow and ask, and call us back. JENNY GOULD ESQ: Yes SECRETARY LtNDA KOWALSKI: We'll put them both in the decision that way, OK. JENNY GOULD ESQ: OK CHAIRMAN: OK MEMBER DINIZIO: To the property line. 25 feet to the property. CHAIRMAN: OK JENNY GOULD ESQ: It's probably 46. CHAIRMAN: 46 JENNY GOULD ESQ: It's only four foot. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I thought it was four feet. JENNY GOULD ESQ: I could verify that. It's four feet at most. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It is four feet from the house. From the protrusion from the house into the Everybody's talking at once. (inaudible) MEMBER DINIZIO: To the steps. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, to the garage. MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh the garage, OK. The steps are definitely going to be --. Those steps are going to end up much closer. JENNY GOULD ESQ: Right, ( Inaudible ) MR. WEXLER: That's called landscaping. That's not a building. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but just specifically, ! want to be sure that we include that in our decision. MR. WEXLER: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: So that you're not coming back later on, because you exceed some JENNY GOULD ES(~: It will be much better for you. MR. WEXLER: Absolutely. Page 32 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Anything above eight inches Dr. is required billable, and there is only a small exclusion for a small set of steps. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: 30 square feet. That's it. CHAIRMAN: 30 square feet and you have exceeded that by nine fold. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I'd also like to mention that I asked for the setback from the building because, that's also a different setback, building the steps. Building is not part of the landscaping. I have to define that in the findings. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: When you're saying that, the building is four feet. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Four feet. CHAIRMAN: Right, OK. 4 to 6 feet, so you're into --. MEMBER DINIZIO: With all that said, I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye. Page 39 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southo!d Town Board of Appeais 8:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4394 WILLIAM and ELEANOR FORTE. Applicants-owners are requesting a Variance based upon the May 29, 1996 Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval, under Article XXIV: Section 100-244B for Permission to build portion of a new principal building (garage portion) with a reduced front yard setback. Location of Property: 1155 Harbor Lane, Cutehog-ue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ~1000-97-6-12.$; also referred to as Lot 3 on the Map of Minor Subdivision for Peter and Elioys Sterling. CHAIRMAN: The applicants are applying for a variance, which indicates the nature of this application produced by Roderick Van Tuyi, dated November 24, 1982 and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indieathxg this and the surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? MR. FORTE: Thank you, very good. Thank you for hearing me Mr. Chairman, and members of the board. CHAIRMAN: No problem. MR. FORTE: I would like to build a one story ranch on this one acre property, that I purchased many years ago, in 1982 from the Sterling family. Of course, over a period of years the setback rule has changed, and there is a problem here. There is a private road between my property and the neighbor, and instead of, .... . Well, the requirement is 60 feet setback from my garage. I'm asking a setback of 42 feet be allowed. CHAIRMAN: OK, we'll start with this side of the room, Mr. Doyen, Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: Have you considered any other locations on the property, for the ~arage not to require a variance? MR. FORTE: Well, it makes sense to face the garage to the center of that driveway. My neighbor has the same garage situation. He's facing his garage towards that center right of way, and it makes sense for me to do that also. To turn the house sideways or to put it in another situation, wouldn't make much sense. It would really destroy the character of the house I'm going to build, or would like to build. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Di~fizio MEMBER DiNIZIO: No CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa MEMBER VILLA: Yes, my question is basically you're saying, you're asking for a 42 foot setback. But that's a 30 foot right of way, Page 40 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals with 15 of which is into your property. So, do we really have a 42 foot setback, or do we have a 27 foot setback? MR. FORTE: I tkink the rule says, it has to be 60 fee~ from the center of the driveway, and the -- SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: The Building Inspector usually uses the center of a right-of-way, especially when you own half of it. MR. FORTE: So, it would be 42 from the cenmr of the private road. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, I see that. i was trying to clarify in my mind, whether it was 42 feet or 27 feet. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: 42 feet from the cenmr of the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN: Well, the issue is. You have a right-of way over a right-of way, right. MR. FORTE: Correct. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Plus, he owns that portion of it. CHAIRMAN: Plus, you own half of it. MR. FORTE: I own half of it, yes. CHAIRMAN: OK MEMBER VILLA: If it's still considered as roadway, the offsets are generally from the roadway, right? That's the question. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What's your question again? MEMBER VILLA: The 60 foot setback is from the roadway, right? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: The Building Inspector has determined that it's 42 feet from the middle of the right-of-way, when you own that portion of that right-of way. ok. So, that's how I'm answering that. It's 42 feet, not 27 feet. MEMBER VILLA: Inaudible SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: He's asking for a variance of 18 feet. MEMBER VILLA: Now, who has the right to use this, other than yourself? Page 41 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. FORTE: There are four acres hera, two on the rear and two on the front facing Harbor Lane. The two people in the rear of course, need this private right-of-way to get to their homes. So, there are four people only using this right-of-way. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How is the other side of the property where the neighbors house, his garage. Does it come off that right of way also? MR. FORTE: Yes~ Mr. Hoffa whose here i ttkink this evening. He built his new home and his garage faces that right-of-way. He uses that. He has to use that. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How close is he, about? MR. FORTE: He is about 51 feet, I think from the center of that right-of-way. The law changed recently. It went from 50 to 60, I was told. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It was changed in Deeember~ actually, if you came in prior to that, you could have gone ~dth the 50 foot setback. CHAIRMAN: inaudible SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: This is an old subdivision that was done under an old code. The way the old zoning code was written back in December, it said, you could refer back to the year that that subdi~dsion was approved. At that time it was a 50 foot setback. CHAIRMAN: OK MEMBER VILLA: So, he'd still be asking for 8 feet at this point, instead of 15~ SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, a variance --- . That's right Bob. Yes, $ feet. MEMBER TORTORA: Not according to the Buildin~ Department, Notice of Disapproval. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What does that say. MEMBER TORTORA: Notice o[ Disapproval says 60 feet is required. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, under toda?s code. CHAIR~IAN: Under today's code. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: it changed in December. Page 42 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: It changed in December. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: When we changed the merger law, we took out that provision that said, you could go back to the old. subdivision zoning regulations. MEMBER TORTORA: Inaudible MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn't have to say it. SECRETARY LiNDA KOWALSKI: It doesn't have to say it. I'm telHng you --. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not the law anymore. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's not the law. He refers to today's law. CHAIRMAN: OBi~ While you're standing there, is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak ag~ainst the application? OK, anything else of this gentlemen while he's standing there? Any other questions. Anybody have a specific problem with this application? MEMBER VILLA: If there is no opposition I will vote. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to make a motion Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: Yes, I'll make a motion that we approve it as applied for. CHAIRMAN: OK. All in favor, aye. Page 43 - June 28, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals 8: 05 p.m. Appl. #4379 LISA AND NIKOLA GALJANIC (Continuation) Front yard setback for new dwelling. 1065 Bay Avenue, East Marion. CHAIRMAN: Is the applicant here, or the builder? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSK!: The builder is here. CHAIRMAN: Hi, how are you, tonight. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Saetta CHAIRMAN: Thank you for those great stakes and all thht ---. We had a great t~me there last Saturday. We woke the owners up but MR. RICHARD SAETTA: Just stakes it out and they really--. On the survey it shows 17 and change, to the road. It's actually in line with the deck. The foundation itself is 29 feet, and the overliang of the second story is 23 feet. Our reason for doing that was to stay as close to the letter of the law, which I explained before, so that you'd be able get into the house and keep it, a line up in the foundation, so that we could run water off, and keep the foundation deep enough in the ground that it would not be considered ( ). CHAIRMAN: OK MEMBER VILLA: You're going to have asL'< foot overhang, on the second story. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: Yes. It will actually be 23 feet, the actual building line itself, and the second story will be 20 feet. It might have been a little confusing the 17.6 we're showing. That's the line we want to keep the deck on, as you come off the road. Which, Lf you look at the elevation it would probably be a little lower than the actual crest of the road, where you came off of, to enter the house. CHAIRMAN: OK MEMBER VILLA: Is that second story going to be, that kind of overhang ail the way around it. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: Yes MEMBER VILLA: Cantilever effect all the way around it. MR. RiCHArD SAETTA: A cantilever effect att the way around. Page 44 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: OK, Mr. Division MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I visited the site. CHAIRMAN: Again. MEMBER TORTORA: It's a very unusual site. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen, no questions. Anybody else, any questions for or against this hearing? OK, I guess that's about it. Does anybody have any recommendation they want zo bring up at this point? No. MEMBER VILLA: Well, Lydia wants to put in there, that she doesn't want any excess fill in the backyard, to block up any of that drainage. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: (Inaudible) There would be no excesses --. CHAIRMAN: You're also trying to keep those tree's that are down there~ in the bole. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: That's right. CHAIRMAN: And hold. MEMBER TORTORA: One of the concerns that I had that I discussed with the other board members that, if we required that the house be moved further back, that it would require additional fill. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: Yes MEMBER TORTORA: And that is a natural drain into East Marion ~ Lake. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: Yes it is. MEMBER TORTORA: I would not like to see any infringement in lhat area. So, actually I support your proposal. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: Thank you. MEMBER VILLA: 'Now wait a second now. You're saying that --. i'm lookin~ at a further complication here. The e~-~is~ing grade back there, is 9 foot 6. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: Yes Page 45 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: And the septic system is going to go in there, and the finished grade. The septic system is supposed to be 12 feet, so there's is going to be three feet of fill in the back. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: In the septic area ( ) . MEMBER VILLA: Well, that's where the briek patio is, so I guess that's going to be gone. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: Where that patio is now, if you look at the yellow basin, i don't know if you have it. I'll explain it. 9.6 is the very, very, lowest elevation back going towards the lake. Where our foundation is, is actually i0.6 is the elevation of the grading. We're really higher than the DEC requirements or ally other requirements. The lowest section of that property is 9.6. We're not going to be involved working in any of that area, that 9.6. MEMBER VILLA: Yes MR. RICHARD SAETTA: We're going to work in the area's that are above that. MEMBER VILLA: Yes MEMBER DINIZIO: This slopes quite a bit from one side to the other. MEMBER VILLA: It's still close to 12 feet here, when you're finished grading on that septic system. I just wanted to point that out. CHAIRMAN: Yes MEMBER VILLA: If you ~o there and you see some fill, it's going to require some ---. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: What we're trying to do is, maintain as much o[ the natural terrain as we can, because people don~t want to use it either. They like it like that. The other options are not---. I mean, ! think this is the simplest. The building look nice. Ali the neighbors have signed ( ) letters to the Zoning Board saying, they would like to see t~his happen, and we did it in the simplest way, without interfering with as mnch as the natural terrain as we could, to give these people a house on this piece of property and I don't understand ---. I mean, what we're trying to do is maintain that property. CHAIRMAN: Right MR. RICHARD SAETTA: As bes~ as possible. CHAIRMAN: You see, we couldn't ---. Page 46 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings · Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. RICHARD SAETTA: The other options are to extend off the existing house, which wouldn't bring us ( ). We're trying to do the right thing. CHAIRMAN: Right MR. RICHARD SAETTA: And it was a tot of work and study that went into this, to make this the job that it should be. MEMBER DINIZIO: What was obvious to all of us, was that you were building a house that was compatible with that particular piece of property. The stakes indicated that --. I could just envision more or less living in the tree's, because that's what it going to be like on that second deck. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: A tree house there. MEMBER DINIZIO: We aH pretty much discussed that, when we were there. We woke the people up and they left. t didn't know that there was anybody in the house~ but --. We appreciated., i certainly did, appreciate the fact -- CHAIRMAN: I did too. MEMBER DINIZIO: That the stakes were there, and that one large stake that was on the tree was the indication~ an indication of just how the house is going to wash out, so it was helpful for you to do that~ and I appreciate you doing that. CHAIRMAN: OK MR. RICHARD SAETTA: Is there anything else that I can answer? CHAIRMAN: So, are you going to go with that or what? Are you going to go with the Resolution? MEMBER TORTORA: I'll make a motion to approve this as applied for, or with the condition that no excess fill be placed, except around the cesspool. MR. RICHARD SAETTA: OK MEMBER TORTORA: The cesspool area. CHAIRMAN: Second. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Would you ~fike to give a distance, when you say around it? Do you want to give a diameter? CHAIRMAN: Three foot around. Page 47 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. RICHARD SAETTA: Witkin the Suffolk County Board of Health requirements. MEMBER DINIZiO: Ten feet. MEMBER VILLA: It's got to be leveled 10 feet, beyond th~s added to the cesspool. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: So, it's about a 20 foot diameter, Lydia MEMBER TORTORA: OK SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: 20 foot diameter? OK MEMBER TORTORA: Bob, is that OK? MEMBER VILLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Second. All in favor, aye. Page 48 - June 96, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals 9:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4391 JOHN AND PATRICIA McCARVILL. This is an application for Variances, based upon the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval issued 5/30/96 in an application proposal to "subdivide existing lot", and disapproving the project under Article lllA, Section 100-30A.2, for: (a) insufficient lot area of proposed Lot ~3, and (b) insufficient yard setback(s) of existing principal barn building. Property Location: 150 Water~ziew Drive, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. t000-78-7-32~7. Zone: R-40 Residential Flood Zone: (Proposed Lot #3 - B Zone CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey, Roderick Van Tuyl dated May 8, 1996 indicating the #1, ~2, and #3 lots. The third lot is the one that's the nature of this application. I have a 'copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Moore, would you like to be heard? PATRICIA MOORE, ES(~: Yes, thank you. Patricia Moore, 315 Westphalia Road, Mattituck. I represent Patricia and John McCarvill. John is here today with his father Roger. I pass this property every day, and have been marveling at the development that's gone on. It's just been transforming this " fixer/upper" into, quite a piece of property. This property, and it's all being done by the McCarvilt family. So this is sweat equality, at it's best. The property was known as ~he Zebroski. The Julius Zebroski farm, the three aero farm, part of the three acre property, with the barns, the house. Well essentially, two barns and a house. While Mr. Zebroski believed, my understanding that he believed, that if he never did anything to his house, lffs taxes would remain consistently, and the tax bill that's showed it's $1200.00 in 1996. I think this theory I ~ess, was right if you were twilling to live in a dilapidated area. The variances that we have, that we're requesting are really for Lot 3. It's a 30 foot front yard setback from the existing flag or the lot tine. This is one of the lots that's creating, and it's going to be a flag lot. We hope it will be approved to be a flag lot, and the barn which is shown on your survey, is presently there. It's on foundation, and it's a massive structure, and that is 30 feet from the front property line. The square footage which shows on your survey for this particular lot, is 37,295. However, tiffs square footage is for the Planning Board, does not include the right~of-way. We have to exclude the right-of-way square footage. So, in realitv the lot is in fact, a ~205 square :eot, from a total square footage 38,795, so we're short ~ 40,000 square foot lot. Page 49 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings SouthoId Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: You're talking about the flag, not the right-of-way. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: No, the flag in total. MEMBER TORTORA: That's including the right-of-way. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Correct. So, that the actual square footage to the Zoning Board is concerned with is 38,795., OK. MEMBER TORTORA: Where is the right-of-way. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I'm sorry. It's a flag lot. It's not a right-of way. It's part of parcel 3. You see the flag. CHAIRMAN: Just the flag~ parcel 3, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Right, OK. MEMBER VILLA: Clarification for the Planning Board purpose, they consider it 37,000., righT. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes. The Planning Board does not include the flag as part of their square footage calculation. So, when we prepared our survey~ we had to exclude that square footage. MEMBER VILLA: So, if we're granting a variance, we have to ga-ant it for 37,900 or -whatever it is, 95. How could we consider the flag, if they don't? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, it also ---. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: The subdivision regulations doesn't exclude that square footage. I mean, the Zoning Board regulations, it's a lot area. CHAIRMAN: Bob, it's a deeded piece. We can include it. It's absolutely ridiculous. If it was a right of way common, as we had in the last hearing, to four people, all right. We could only include that portion of it, that was generic to this particular piece of property we had in the hearing before. This particular piece is only serviced by that piece of property, and is deeded to it. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: It's an exclusive strip, as part of the lot 3 zone. But, whatever number you choose to use, i will ( but just keep in ccnsideration that, the square footage that is necessary for purposes of making this a 40,000 square foot lot, is 1205, OK. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of the front yard setback, is that the barn is going to be converted to a house. Page 50 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southotd Town Board of Appeals PATRiCIA MOORE ESQ: It's a prineipal structuz-e. CHAIRMAN: Right PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: It could be converted into a house, or the Building Department in order to get a CO for the barn as a structure, a principal structure. CHAIRMAN: OK PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Still needs the front yard setback. CHAIRMAN: OK. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to jump the gun on that. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: No, no. I'm happy to answer any questions you have them, on the way. I have --. Mr. MeCarvfll did me the favor of photographing, before and after. It really is an incredible property. I have tile first photograph, if I could approach you. CHAIRMAN: Sure PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Is the house. It's a Victorian, or he tells me, it's a Victorian house, and it will be improved ult~tnately as a Victoria. There's two photograph's. The top picture is the before, and the bottom picture is the after. Just so you can see the entire parcel, OI{. The subject property shows you the barn here. There are two photographs of the barn. Again, the top picture if the before, and the bottom picture is the after, Here's the Winter picture before, and then the afier. Ti~at also had additional improvements. As you can see, there is an extra bay garage on the bottom, and there is also a foundation and a retaining wall. So realistically, this structure has been establislled. The setback has been established. We ean'l do anything with it. It's there. Here's another photograph of that, before and after. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: We have to copy these Jerry, before we give them back. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I can leave those for you. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Oh, you're going to leave them. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes~ those are for the record. SECRETARY LtNDA KOWALSKI: OH, thank you. I can give them back in a couple of days. PATRICIA MOOI~E ESQ: Oh, no. I don't need them. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK Page 51 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: The structure showing on your survey, as a shed, is a barn, and that again you see the before and after. The top is the before. The bottom is the after. This is ---. I don't know. I didn't describe it, but --. This is the right-of -way. I don't want to say the right of way~ the flag driveway. CHAIRMAN: The flag driveway. MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on Pat. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes MEMBER DINIZIO: This picture i'm looking at now, is what. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: That's on the survey as a shed. I don't know why it's called a shed, but that's what they called it. MEMBER DINIZIO: This is what you see from the front. This building here, is what you see from the front, from the road? MEMBER VILLA: That's the barn. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You see, -Jim. MEMBER DINIZiO: It seems to me like ..... . PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: No. This is the barn, and this is the shed. MEMBER DINIZIO: This is the shed. So this is what you see, when you drive by. I see the house --- PATRICIA MOORE ESQ. When you drive by, you see ---. MEMBER DINIZIO: You see the house and then you see this --. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: You see this angle, right. MEMBER DINIZIO: You don't actually see this. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: You should be able to ---. Mr. Dinizio makes a good point, that really. The distance from the road to the first structure, ~s 168 feet. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. PATRICiA MOORE ESQ: So, you don't see very much, when you're looking from the roadway. MEMBER VILLA: Looking from the roadway, the shed is actually taller than the barn. Page 52 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes. MEMBER VILLA: Higher. CHAIRMAN: It could be. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Pardon. It could be. There still there and they are old barns. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: There is a hill in the back zoo, right ? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Is there a pair of hills. MR. McCARVILL: If you shoot a Hue across the roof. If there is a foot difference, it's alot. MEMBER VILLA: (inaudible) Mit.. McCARVILL: You actually have to ( ) to see it. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. Mrs. Tortora has a question. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the shed going to he. The shed looks like a huge barn, going to be used for? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well, it will probably continue as a barn, and ideally~ either of those structures, could be converted into a house. Architecturally, they're both unique. I could see, being an architect's daughter, I could see myself, very happily redesigning either one of those structure's, as a very unique house. But, at this stage in the game. This is John. He and his wife are newly married. It's their property. I don't see anything occurring in the immediate future, but as a possible down the road, one of those could be converted into a house. MEMBER TORTORA: At which time he would come back, for some kind of a variance. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Probably wouldn't heed it, because the structure's are already established. It would be just a building permit, to convert a barn, either barn, into a residence. You would only be allowed one residence. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSI(I: Right, right. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: With an accessory barn or garage. You would have two residency's, so that's why I'm astdng. MEMBER TORTORA: Right Page 53 - June ~6, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, the nature of your application now though, is that 30 feet also. CHAIRMAN: That's why they're determim]ng that, that is the primary structure. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: That's why they want it, yes. For the Building Department at a later date, won't have a ---. MEMBER DINIZIO: You could apply right now~ without asking for that 30 feet, as long as you called it an accessory structure. They didn't deny you for thai. CHAIRMAN: Yes they did. SECRETARY LtNDA KoWALSKI: Yes they did PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well, they denied me for the ( ) increases a lot, that requires a structure, with 30 ~oot setback from the front. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so they did. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Maybe, that's why they denied me. CHAIRMAN: They did. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's only for one of them. CHAIRMAN: And it's undersized. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Oh yes, the lot and the undersized. There are two variances here. One is the undersized lot and the other one is the front yard setback, from the front property line, which is actually 168 fee,t from the road. MEMBER VILLA: Would there be any problems with having some wording, or covenants for something, that only one of these structures would be converted into a habitable building. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well, that's what the code is now. MEMBER VILLA: ! know that's what the code is, but we sit here and we face this all the time, where these things get converted and suddenly we're looking at two houses on a lot, and t don't want to see that happen again. PATRICiA MOORE ESQ.: Roger has a question as to that. He's obviously, the one -- Pa~e 54 - June 26, t996 Publie Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ROGER McCARVILL: I believe that, the buildings --. Were you there? CHAIRMAN: Yes MR. ROGER McCarvill: Where the sidewalks go up, there is a separate little attachment to what's marked here as the barn. That's attached by all the concrete, the foundations are all attached. If you notice that. It would probably be considered an attached building. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, it won't. MR. ROGER McCarvill: No, oh, OK. But, if one was going to be converted and it was my choice to do either, or, I would assume that the barn, that's marked on your survey would be the house, because it has a full blast proof foundation in it, where the barn has a fou~da[ion. But the way- the building is situated, you would always be looking at the barn. MEMBER VILLA: When you say barn or barn? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well, they call it a shed, but it really is a barn. MR. JOHN MCCARVILL: You see it as a barn. They have it ~--. MEMBER VILLA: I'm looking at it. Both of them are barn's, but they are identified here as barn and shed. So, could we identify it so we know what we're talking about. MR. ROGER MCCARVILL: The barn would be the one literally, blast proof foundation. The shed would remain a shed. MEMBER VILLA: I don't have any problems what you do with either one. I just want to see k limited to just one. MR. ROGER MCCARVILL: It would be only one, naturally. MEMBER VILLA: And I'd like to see a commitment to that now, so that down the line, we're not faced with suddenly having this thing as two, and it's'before us again for a variance. MR. ROGER MCCARVILL: No, that would never happen. MEMBER DINIZIO: %Veil, I don't know. I think I would object to that. If they would purposely ---. They are entitled to join this shed with the barn and make it that size house, as long as they don't e:cceed ~the 20 or 30% lot coverage. MEMBER VILLA: If they do it h~ that manner. Page 55 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southotd Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: As one family. MEMBER VILLA: If they do it as two things, i don't want --. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSK!: He's talking about separately. PATRICiA MOORE ESQ. tf you had two separate residence on that property, you wouldn't be allowed --. The Building Department wouldn't authorize two residences. MEMBER VILLA: If you were here for our first hearing this time, you would have heard that there is someone looking for two houses on the one lot, because it was built completely illegal, but it's not only a second dwelling, but a two family dwelling. So, t don't want to be sitting here --. MR. ROGER MCCARVILL: I think you would only, if you had kids in it, the shed. MEMBER VILLA: With barbed wire around it. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You can't keep your kids in the shed either~ though. That's it. You can't have Hying area in the shed either, I mean. MEMBER DINIZIO: Build a breezeway, and you can keep PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: We don't have a problem with that because really. It's what the code requires, and if they were to do any-thing Hke that, you would get them ultimately. MEMBER VILLA: Well, I don't want to be sitting on that again. That's the problem. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ. Hopefully, it will be beyond our MEMBER TORTORA: Jim, just put any changes in the proposed use~ will have to meet Town Hall Town requirements. CHAIRMAN: Let me propose on thing here. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Just don't say- anything. They- knew they have to be --. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I have trouble here only because of the ( ). I apologize. I just feel like I hade one of those MEMBER VILLA: Bob, I'm -- SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You don't have to say anything. Page 56 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TOi~TORA: I'm not sure we have to do anything because essentially, he's going to get a CO, if he wants to convert the barn, into a residence. He will have a CO for residence he'll use on the barn. He can't get anything on the shed, without coming to the Building Department. MEMBER VILLA: I realize that. I would just like to have that commitment in writing, that's ail. MEMBER TORTORA: OK MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I object to that, for punishing him, because you had an application from someone else, that was totally different from this. Let the man live by the Laws of Southold Town, and we don't have to tell him that he has to, because he knows he has too. That's why he's here. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKi: I think Pat's saying, that he is complying, and they all agree to one- one family house. That's all we're asking for, right? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Don't dietate to us which one, or how it should be designed. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's right PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Beeanse then I would object obviously. But, to have a single family house on a one parcel. SECRETARY LiNDA KOWALSKI: We!l, ok. The only thing is with the shed. The back building, if you convert that into a house. CHAIRMAN: No, you can't convert the barn into --. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, but I'm just saying. Pat just said they could convert either building, if you convert the hack building, that's going to put an accessory structure in your front yard. He would probably disapprove you, and have you come back for an accessory in a front yard. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes, but then we would have to come back for ( ) SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKi: That's right, so. As long as you know that. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Thank you CHAIRMAN: OK MR. ROGER MCCARVILL: (inaudible) Page 57 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else, Ms. Moore? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: No CHAIRMAN: Ok, good. speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody else that would Hke to application? Yes. Speak against the KATHLEEN TOLE: ! have a few concerns. ! own property on Main Bayview, directly- across the street, and it shares, to my understanding a common right-of-way, with property that is now subdivided. Being a recent property owner --. C!IAIRMAN: Wait a minute KATHLEEN TOLE: You're shaking your head. Does it or doesn't it. If it does, Ill try to get some answers. CHAIRMAN: No, there are no rights-of-way to our knowledge over this property, that have been presented to us, ok MEMBER TORTORA: None to our knowledge. KATHLEEN TOLE: No right-of-way of ( ). MEMBER DINIZIO: No KATHLEEN TOLE: No right-of-way. MR.. ROGER MCCARVILL: have. Is it listed someplace, when we should KATHLEEN TOLE: No, because we're trying to get an understanding of part of our concerns. CHAIRMAN: Don't mean to take the wind out of your sails. KATHLEEN TOLE: Oh no~ no. This is all good news. I came a long way, believe me. You say- also that you can barely see the barn from the road. CHAIRMAN: You have to give me --. KATHLEEN TOLE: You're talking about the development of this property, and what's visible and what's not visible, i would just tike to understand. Are you saying that what would be future development, is barely visible from the roadway? You just said the shed. i think what's referred to as the shed, is barely visible. CHAIRMAN: You have to refer the questions up here, ok. Page 58 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals KATIILEEN TOLE: There was a statement that concerns me, that they want this separate variance for this property, which is apparently less square footage than is normally required. CIIAIRMAN: Right SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Right KATIILEEN TOLE: One of the statements that was made was that it was --. On oue hand, we had this magnificent crumbling edifice, out there. And that it's barely visible from the roadway, and I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. CHAIRMAN: Everything is visible now. foliage down. They have taken all the KATHLEEN TOLE: More than visible. CtIAIRMAN: That is correct. KATHLEEN TOLE: It is exceptional, visable. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I'd be happy to answer. KATHLEEN TOLE: It's that front, that front smaller barn, that you're talking about. CHAIRMAN: The both barns are on one piece of property. ahead, Ms. Moore. Go PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I think that what I was talking about was, Mr. Villa's comment about the height of the barn, and what was visible from the road, and my comment was. At 160 feet, the visibility of the top of the barn was deceptive , and it was not as visible. Now, whether I didn't state that dearly enough, I apologize. KATHLEEN TOLE: OK PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: We were discussing the view from the roadway. No, that property is clearly visible. and --. I pass it every day. So, you see it. of the barn The houses KATIILEEN TOLE: All right. Again, I just have a general feeling that development in the area, and what's going on down the road, and suddenly being ( ) with this development, directly in my site here. I share with Mr. Villa's CHAIRMAN: Villa Page 59 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals KATHLEEN TOLE: Point of view that. What we're doing is setting up for a future additional variance, and it concerns me very much. We're entering into --. Of all the considerations that you confront constantly, that you've had. I've read various articles in Ioeal newspapers, and all concerning the water, concerning the traffic, concerning the bike route, that's coming down there. I'm wondering if that is part of the consideration of this board. CHAIRMAN: Could I have that last one? KATHLEEN TOLE: The bike route. CHAIRMAN: The what? KATHLEEN TOLE: The bike route. Did you see the article? This partioular area, where they are proposing a bike route, I'm seeing tremendous development along this area. This being part of it, and i'm wondering if that's ali part of the consideration as well. MEMBER TORTORA: If you'd like I'H road you what's in our code, and also, what's a New York State Code for us to consider. There are five factors under two, New York State Town Law for us to consider in reviewing this application. It involves a balancing test, to these five factors. 1. One - Where an undesirable change will be produced, in the character of the neighborhood, or determent to nearly properties, if granted. 2. Whether the benefits sort by the applicant, can be achieved by some method feasible, for the applicant to pursue, other than a area variance. 3. Whether the area variances is substantial. 4. Whether the variance will have an adverse effect, or impact, on the physical or environmental conditions in the neigtlborhood or district. 5. Whether alleged difficulty was self created, which consideration shall be reiative to our decision, but shall not preclude the granting of an area variance. Those are essentially the five factors which by Law, we are mandated to consider. KATHLEEN TOLE: I'm curious as to the application at this time also, for a variance, when it was stated that there is no expectation that anywhere in the immediate future, nothing happening. It's what, was said. If nothing is happening. If the property is not being developed, why would a variance at this point, be necessary. MEMBER TORTORA: They're asking for a variance because, under our Zoning Code. Our Zoning Code requires 40,000 square feet i~x this particular district, which is one acre. There, the particular Page 80 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals lot in question, is 38,795 feet, including the right-of-way. Which, as you can see, is a very minimal variance. So, under the balancing test ( ) one on one, the variahce requested in this respect is certainly not substantial. The other variance they're requesting is, for a front yard setback for the barn. The code requires 40 feet. There asking for 30 feet. MR. ROGER MCCARVILL: No. It's already 30 feet, correct? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ. Everything is there. MR. ROGER MCCARVILL : You know, the barn. That's really net MEMBER TORTORA: Those are the two issues before us, and they are the only two issues~ in relation to the five factors which t --- CHAIRMAN: To answer your question on why, now. If they decided to changed the area to 80,000 square feet, they wo~Jd be precluded from doing it. So~ why not now. I don't ~Luow the people~ but why not now. I know Roger. I've known him for years, but I --. Not socially, or anything like that, but why not now. tf that's what they propose to do, then that's what they're proposed to do. KATHLEEN TOLE: Ok, thank you. CHAIRMAN: OK, yes. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I failed to inclnde something that I have in my file. Mrs. Stigliani, who lives right next door to the house, who will be the most effected property owner, writes a latter to the board. Dear Zoning Board, I strongly support the MoCarvill subdivision and variances application. She was very much in favor. Liked what the McCarviil's had been doin~ to the property, as far as improving it, and would be happy to have more neighbors around her. So, you can ask her. It's strictly from her mouth, and she will -~-. MEMBER VILLA: For the record, you said to the North of the property. She's actually !o the South. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: To the Southeast, pardon me. I don't know my directions. MEMBER VILLA: You floored me with that one. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I'm sorry. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: She's across Bayview, right. Page 61 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I'm looking at Bayview Road and going to the North of Bayview Road. CHAIRMAN: OK. For the reeord, I do work for SuffoLk County. I did have this file in front of me in 1995. I did traipse all over this property, in the overgrown sense. And this nice Lady, that you just read this letter, saved me. Because, if you had seen what I looked like, when I came to that p~operty. I look bad enough now, but I looked like the wrath of God, and I am completely, completely, amazed at the amount of work that the McCarvHl's have done,, on this piece of property. Phenomenon job, realty and that's ail I can tell you at this point. Is there anybody that would like to offer a Resolution? MEMBER VILLA: Mr. ( ). They own the entire three acre's, right? PATt~ICIA MOORE ESQ: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. MEMBER VILLA: I'm saying, they own the entire three acre's, one, two and three. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes CHAIRMAN: By the way, that's when Mr. Zebroski owned that piece of property, and just prior to his death. He was still alive at the time the County had taken the property. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: The County took the property? CHAIRMAN: Yes, we took it on 5/10/95. And I assume it was redeemed on 12/22/95 because that's when it was deeded to Mr. McCarvlit. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'll make a motion that we grant it as applied. (unidentified) : Why? MEMBER DINIZIO: A, 30 foot setback and the 357 what is it, 3S -- MR. CttAIRMAN:' 30. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 32. MR. CH~kIRMAN: 38 and 950. BOARD SECRETARY I(OWALSKI: 38795. MR.. CHAIRMAN: He had 7950. Page 62 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Sonthold Town Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 795. MEMBER VILLA: I still would like to have a statement in there if we, if it's agreeable to the applicants to have one house on that lot. MEMBER DINIZIO: My motion doesn't include that. MEMBER VILLA: I would like it added. MR. CHAIRMAN: If Jim is lucky enough to get a second, I mean I shouldn't say that. If Jim gets a second, OK, then, we'll go around that motion first if he's adamant about it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I have to say that Jim's motion does not mean they can have more than one house on that lot. MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MEMBER VILLA: I realize that. I just wanted it for clarification purposes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK. I know, I'm not mentioning it to him, i'm mentioning it for the record only. We don't want to leave any~ any of those areas open like that. MR. CHAIRMAN: OK, Is that the motion Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Who wants to second it? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll second it. All in favor. BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Bob, you going along with this? MEMBER VILLA: I'm in favor of it, but, i still would, I'd like to make sure that I would like to have that clarification. PATRICIA MOORE: Would it be better if we could submit a letter? Au affidavit saying' that we have no intention of converting or pul:ting two houses on the one lot? Would that make it easier for everybody, rather than put .... MEMBER VILLA: !~m not looking for ( on the deed, I'm just looking for something in the record. Page 63 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE: No, it won't be. It would be something in the record which we say, so that you can say it's self imposed hardship if we come back to: you. MEMBER VILLA: Right, thank you. PATRICIA MOORE: OK. MR. CHAIRMAN: OK, so the motion is carried. (audience person) : What's the vote? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's five to zero. It was approved. MEMBER DINIZtO: They're sending a letter to us. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, it's just a letter added to the file. PATRICIA MOORE: We'll put in the record. I'll have it for you by the end of this week. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. BOARD SECRETARY K©WALSKI: Thank you Pat. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming. Page 64 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals 9:45 P.M. Appl. No. 4392 - ALEX KOZLOWSKY TRUSTEE MR. CHAIRMAN: This is an application for a Variance from Article III, based upon the Bnilding Inspector's May 21, 1996 Notice of Disapproval for permission to locate accessory tem~is court with a setback at less than 20 ft. from all property Lines (Section 100-33B4), and with fencing over 4 ft. high in a front yard area (Section 100-231). Location of Property; 6300 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, N.Y.: Parcel No. 1000-86-7-2.1. Zone: R-80 Residential. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's only one thing I want to mention. I got a call today from Carol and she confirmed that the size of the tennis court is 54 x 114. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Say it again, Linda. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 54 feet wide by 1i4 deep. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: That's the amended? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's the amended tennis court size, JOSEPH FISCHETTI: 54 wide by 114 deep. That's the amended tennis court? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: OK, before you speak Joe, excuse me just one second. Again I have a letter from Virginia Ellen Cooper. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Cropper. MR. CHAIRMAN: Cropper, pardon me. It could be anything by tkis time, I apologize. Its not that I have an aversion to your name, i apologize. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's also a letter from Jen Gould in there, 'Jerry, under that letter. MR. CHAIRMAN: OK, I understand, but I'm merely referring to this letter, OK, of which there are specific concerns mentioned within the letter. Then I have a letter from Jennifer Gould indicating, I think this is, what before the change was made? OK, reinstating the decision that was made in 1977. OK, you're welcome to proceed, i spologize Sir. Page 65 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Good evening Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, I'm Joseph Fischetti, Hobart Road, Southold. I'm representing the Kozlowskys, I'm a professional engineer. Our original application was amended as received and the amendment was actually done during a we were in discussions with the neighbors at that time and also with a, tennis court operators tried to reduce the size of the of the court and to alleviate some of the concerns of some of the neighbors and that's why the new location4 The new location right now is a ( ) a 23 feet back and we included a side yard in the original application of right now is 10 feet and the original is 6 feet. In t977 --. In reviewing the files in the office from the 77 hearing, and Rudy Bruer's files. The zoning at that time was R40 and the original Resolution at that time again as you, the board probably knows. One of the Resolutions was that there would be no diminishing of the side yard requirements of the structure built on the lots created by the actions ( ). At that time the zoning was R40 and the side yards minimums requirements were 10 feet. That's the reason we located the ( ) to be 10 feet, and you think the location right now in discussion it with both adjacent neighbors, seems to be satisfactory with them. We have read Ms. Cropper's letter, and we go along with some of the recommendations that she has for buffer plantings on the side, and the black fencing. I have a question for the board, and maybe you could answer it for me, When an application, an accessory structure such as this is, is a structure as such, when the walls are made of fencing. Is it a fence or is it a wall? It seems to me that it's really a wall. If it's a structure than --. CHAIRMAN: Then it's a wall. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Then it's a wall. I just wanted to bring that up because I didn't agree with the Planning, the Building Department's disailowing that, but we szill put it in anyway. So, I don't think that it's fencing. I think it is a wall. CHAIRMAN: We determine that way back in '86. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: OK CHAIRMAN: Down Arrow Head Lane, the issue of structure, ok. Now, let me just explain. Ms. Cropper, she lives to the West side. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: Is that correct. Am I pronouncing your name correctly? MS. CROPPER: CROPPER. Page 66 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southoid Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I apologize, I sincerely do. Now, this was originally ---. Tkis letter came to us when the tennis court was going to be built basically, in front of the electrical service, as it goes across the property, right. Now since, you have taken t~his and placed it on the opposite side, 10 feet from the other neighbor, some 524 feet back from Indian Neck Lane. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: This was ( ~ ) discussion with ( ). CHAIRMAN: Still proposed the 10 feet. MR. JOSEPH F!SCHETTI: Correct CHAIRMAN: OK, all right. What else do you want to say? MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: I think that's it. I have Mrs. Ewald here. No, they are not here. ( ): No, Mrs. Ewald sent a letter. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, she called today. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTi: t know, I discussed it with her, when we did this~ and i sent here a certified letter. So, it was supposed to come in the mail. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's in the file. It was here Monday. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Good SECRETARY LINDA: She brought it in very early Monday. She called today, and wanted to come but she couldn't be here. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: I know she said verbally -- SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's right here. CHAIRMAN: Oh yes, i've got it here. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETT!: OK good. We did try to take into consideration bo[h neighbors, when -we did this. CHAIRMAN: Good, she had another problem. Lighted or unlighted? MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Unlighted CHAIRMAN: Unlighted. 10 foot fence. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: The fence --. The walls, and this is why I bring it up. Between the time that the application was made, was Page 67 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals at 9 foot. Discussing it with the tennis court people, they want the two North and South walls to be 10 foot, droppLng down every 15 feet to eight, six to four. So it's really coming doyen. At the fence line, it would be at four. So I never wanted to make a new application but that's the way it's going to be. It's going to from 10 foot at the rear, at the North and South lines, and down eight to six to four. MEMBER VILLA: Four feet at the level ---. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Four feet at the level would go 10 foot high and it would say 10 feet, for 15 feet and then drop dowuq to 8-15 feet, drop down to 6-15 fe~t, a~d then the center would be about 30 feet-at 4 feet. CHAIRMAN: Good MEMBER VILLA: So actually, where the net is on the court is only going to be four feet high. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Yes, because they assume that there isn't a need for back stop there. CHAIRI~N: That's the new --- MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: That's not me, that's tennis court people. CHAIRMAN: That's the new --. It's like a teardrop. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, I understand that configuration, but I played alot of tennis in my life, and I can't understand that configuration. I'm sorry. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: ( ) MEMBER VILLA: You ~tse just as many balls of l~gh bounces in the middle of the court, as you do at the end. In fact, at the end the balls are coming down. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Again, I bring this up because it's part of the structure, and we're not asking for fencing. But seeing that we're .here, and I want to bring out e:mactly what's being done, that it will be done that way. CHAIRI¥[AN: OK. So the only issue then is, the 10 feet as opposed to the 20 feet. So the question that I have, that I will ask you -- MEMBER TORTORA: What about the height of the fence? CHAIRMAN: ! don't care about the height of the fence. Page 88 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm saying. Those are the two issues. CHAIRMAN: But ! mean, I don't care if it's nine feet or ten feet, ok. But the issue is, why the 10 feet as opposed to the 20 feet. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: We cannot right now. We've reduced the size, the -~idth of the court to 54 feet, and we just cannot get by-. it's going to be impossible to get by the tennis court. CHAIRMAN: You mean, with the driveway. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: With the driveway. CHAIRMAN: Yes, t was down there. It was kind of tough. MI{. JOSEPH FtSCHETTI: Yes. It can't be done. MEMBER VILLA: Is that providing a full double court width? MR. JOSEPH Fischetti: It's a full double court, and we feel that still that, we're again consistent -~-. I'm not going to take deference to Ms. Ewald letter but, there is the Resolution that I can tell you, seven. It doesn't specifically- state. You could take that either way. It just say, no diminution of the side yard requirement. Again, at that poh~t in time, we're talking about 10 feet. Ms. Cropper's house is 10 foot, seems to be from the property line, and we're not doing anything minimum from thaT. So, we think we're still consistent with what was there at the time, or what assumed to be. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you can give us Joe? Can you give us 127 Can you give us 147 I mean, you're the engineer on the project. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: It's pretty tight. Also, it's less trees. We tried to locate this as you see. We put it out there. It will just make everytking that much more tighter. We can build a court as tight to ---. You know, we're not taking any trees down because you can build that court right next to any vegetation. But it's just very difficult to do that. You won't be able to play, and the driveway will be ---. We only have right now~ a minimal size driveway, just t~ keep it adjacent to --- CHAIRMAN: I know. i backed out of it. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Excuse me. CHAIRMJkN: I backed out of it vdth my old car of course. You probably have less brush on both sides now. ( ): Try it in a van. Page 69 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: OK. I guess we'll go with Mr. Villa first. MEMBER VILLA: No, do you have anybody from the audience. CHAIRMAN: We didn't get to it yet. MEMBER VILLA: Well ok. MEMBER TORTORA: Let's ( ) hear first. MEMBER VILLA: The only other question they asked if they could use black fencing. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: That's fine. That's probably what we want to use anyway. MEMBER VILLA: Is it an all purpose court? MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Pretty much so. MR. CHAIRMAN: Jim. MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Lydia. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'll research it after the comments from .... MR. CHAIltMAN: OK, let's see what else develops during the hearing and we'll get baek to you. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: OK. MR. CHAIRM~AN: Who else would like to speak in favor? Against? JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: Jennifer Gould, 828 Front Street, Greenport. I'm appearing tonight for Ellen Cropper and Cecelia Kempter who is not here. As was mentioned their co-owners of the property which is to the West of the Kozlowsky property. You know, the first thing I'd like to say is, I'm glad that we came to compromise on this and maybe go over the points that we're in ~greement on. 'Right now the proposed court, Mr. Fischetti's 524 feet from the road or from the house? We understood it was from the house. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: No, it's from, it's, it's the dimension is from the house. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: From the house. MR. CHAIRIVIAN: Oh: From tile house. Page 70 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: From the house, OK. MR. CHAIRMAN: OK, I got 523. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: 523 from the house. MR. CHAIRMAN: 523 from the house. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: I think for everyone's piece of mind, in the resolution you could address exactly where the court is going to be placed 524 feet from the house and we have no objections to 10 feet from the property line because it's away from my olients' property. I don't know how the Ewatds feel about it but I'm telling you how Cropper and Kempler feel that it's OK with them on that side. MR. CHAIRMAN: To answer your question, the letter that I have dated says "I approve of the new location of the variances to side yard set and front yard fence ordinances. I am the property .... " BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's from Mrs. Ewald. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: That's Ewatd. I'm representing her. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you said you didn't k_now how Mrs. Ewald felt. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: Oh! I'm sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm explaining to you how she feels. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: OK, she, she, left, she's OK with that, OK, good. The black fence is acceptable now. This is the first we've heard about this tier business. We thought it was going to be a straight across fence and frankly I think it would be !ess obtrusive if it were a straight line and that's what my clients would prefer to see a straight line fence rather than this jagged thing and I agree with Mr. Villa. I don't understand how this keeps tennis bahs in and they're going to be going all over the place. They always go out like, you know, if you throw it, it wi]] always break down. just don't get it. I don't think it's goner, it doesn't sound like it's going to be very attractive and they really prefer a great deal of conventional fence rather than ...... MR. CHAIRMAN: 10 feet all away around? JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: With 30 feet, what is it 30 feet opening Joe, in between? JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Excuse me. Page 71 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CHAIRMAN: 30 feet on the opening? The center opening at the neck? JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Yeah, the center is about 30 ft. MEMBER TORTORA: applied for 9 feet. Would it be 10 feet or 9 feet? You originally JOSEPH FISCHETTI: They originally applied for 9 feet. That's why I said, that it's part of the structure if I build the house there at the 10 foot. It's, what we're talking about something that, I'm willing to go and my client is willing to put the pine trees. I mean with the pine trees there you're not going to see anything anyway, so, I mean I'm willing to do that too, put pine trees around it. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: trees? I mean,. You're going to start off with 8 foot pine JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Well. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: I mean, if you're willing to . MEMBER TORTORA: We actually, Mrs. Gould we actually did put that in as s condition in an application last month and we said 8 feet at height. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: I looked at some of your old ones and I seen, some I've seen 8 feet, some I've seen 4, I thought 4 was ..... . MR. CHAIRMAN: The issue is continuously maintained. That's the issue. The issue is not the size of the tree. (Everyone speaking at one time) JOSEPH FISCHETTI: I tilink once the trees are there, you're not going to see any jagged area, and I can't make that decision tonight whether they can go across, because I know that my clients wanted it that way when they discussed it and maybe because it's a savings, maybe because they want to jump over the fence ( ). If we put the pine trees there I think, you know. MR. CtIAIRMAN: This hasn't topped the hearing yet for the tennis court in Fishers Island. (Laughter) This one has not yet topped that, but, we're getting close, go ahead. (Laughter) JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: We'll get back to the fence in a minute, but, the only other condition that we would like to address is the 1977 hearing. In that hearing, parts of that, the neighbors were, were upset about the subdivision to begin with and I assume that's why the conditions on the setbacks and no further subdivision were put in Page 72 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals and I understand that maybe the side yard requirements were only 10 feet in 1977 but in 1996 the 20 feet and if we can all agree on how the court should be and it sounds like we're head. lng in that direction. My clients would only like that prior decision modified with respect to this one application because according zo Town Law 267(a) it requires the unanimous vote of the Board to even reconsider that prior decision and that would ....... . MR. CHAIRMAN: So you want the 20 feet? JENNIFER GOULD ESQ : No. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, no, .... . JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: No, I don't want the 20 feet, I just want you not to totally reverse The I977 ..... MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what we would be doing. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: But you don't have to. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, for other szructures. She's saying if, if they build other accessory buildings would they comply with the 20 foot setback. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: Right. Did she again reconsider it in zerms of a unanimous vote rather than a split vote because it's a sensitive issue. It was 20 years ago and it still is today. I think that's only fair, I mean, the Town Law says, you know, if you'r~ going To reconsider you have to do it unanimously and you also have so consider the best in rights. Not jusI the best m rights of the person that got the subdivision, it's the people on the side and their predecessor [n title were the Ruszs and on the other side of the Ewaids were the Katzenburgs and they were the ones who were opposed. MEMBER TORTORA: Mrs. Gould, a, we did ask the Town Attorney about this. We were very concerned about your memo, -we took that very seriously, we wrote a note to her asking her specifically about this on June iTth and received a reply from her zoday. Is it airight if I read that ( )? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yeah, sure. MEMBER TORTORA: In the question, the question was, "Can the Appeal Application based on the Notice of Disapproval under today's Code sllow a former ZBA condition to be modified if the Resolution is not unanimous?" Her response and I quote, "Is depends on whether you consider this a rehearing of the original decisions, same facts and conditions, considering the lengths of time it seems likely that ;his is a new ~ame and not a rehearing. Thus, a unanimous vote is Page 73 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals not required." So, I'm just, you know, she is our legal counsel because I didn't read what you had prepared for us and took it, we ali took it very seriously. However, that's her opinion. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: Well, that's her opinion and of course I have mine and I think it's one of those issues that could be litigated. I know she's read the case law and I've read it too. You know, it's,' it's not clear cut as most things are not. It's not black and white in the law in terms of how, how, if it's considered a new ..... . MR. CHAIRMAN: Could t just say something about that, OK. JENNIFER GOULD: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand your concern, OK. What we would be doing if we were to allow this applicant to proceed on the 10 feet we would be modifying that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Under new circumstances, for today's Code. MR. CHAIRMAN: Under new circumstances. We would be modifyiug the 1977 decision, OK. Now, which would mean that everything else would stay status quo which is I th~nk is you concern, the 20 feet, airight. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: So not withstanding what we just heard OK ---. JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: Correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: We could only modify that. Again, not withstanding with what we just heard. Probably if we had an unammous vote. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: With another application too, if they ever came back for something else. MR. CHAIRMAN: For something else. You know based upon that decision of 19~7~[, so let's see how it goes. I mean, it's nice to mention it but., t, you know, I think, I think that we're goner, goner try to see if we can live with the 10 feet. I don~t know, if we call or we can't. We haven't gotten to that issue yet you know, so let's see what happens. Ag~ain t don't mean to, you know, i just JENNIFER GOULD ESQ: i just, I just wan~ it on the record, you know, what we're addressing now, OK. EHen, tonight is the first thing we heard about the fence. You bays to tell me how, or tell the Page 74 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Board how you know, how upset you are by the fence. They have to know because they have to consider it in the decision. VIRGINIA ELLEN CROPPER: Well my preference is that it be the standard tennis court .... BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: She should really use the mike because I'm not going to t)-pe this Mrs. Cropper, somebody else is going to be transcribing it, so their not here tonight. VIRGINIA ELLEN CROPPER: My preference would be that the, it be a standard style tennis court with a straight fence simply because sitting in the woods if you do happen to see the top of tlmis fence and all the jigs and jags it simply draws you eye to not one of my favorite structures, so I would simply find it more pleasing if it were a standard style tennis court. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Mrs. Cropper can you see the tennis court from where your property is? From your house can you see? VIRGINIA ELLEN CROPPER: Well you'll be able to see a house cleared area. We have it cleared down about 320 feet from the Kozlowsky's front door, plantings and clearings and where the leaves off the trees indeed I'll be able to see it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: From your house? VIRGINIA ELLEN CROPPER: Yes, not in the summer time. It's only in the winter, definitely. MR. CHAIRMAN: OK, we're talking about plantings around the entire tennis court, is that correct? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. get a clarification on that? I was just going to ask. Mr. Fischetti, on the west side you're going to have tennis court fence and you're going to have approximately 23 feet from that fence to the property line? JOSEPH FISCHETTI: That's -- MEMBER VILLA: Now, where is the driveway going to be? Is it going to be right adjacent to the tennis court, MR.. CHAIRMAN: Same location. MEMBER VILLA: With the trees on the west side? JOSEPH FISCHETTI: It's going to have to that's why I need the e.~:tra room also because !0 feet with $ foot pines, you know you're Page 75 - June 26~ 1996 Public Hearings Southold Towla Board of Appeals just going to fill that and you can keep the tennis court, the pines pretty tight~ but it's still going to take up at least 6 feet. MEMBER VILLA: Well my question was you're going to have the pines right next to the tennis court, or you're going to have them on the property line? JOSEPH FISCHETTI: On the west side. Let's see. Let me see if I MEMBER VILLA: Where's the driveway going to be? JOSEPH FISCHETTI: The driveway is on the west side. MEMBER VILLA: It's on the west side. It's in that 22 feet? JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Correct. The pine trees have to be on the west side next to tlke driveway and the driveway wq_'il be pushed as much MEMBER VILLA: Well, that's what I'm saying. Are the pine trees going to be on the west side of the driveway or are they going to be next to the tennis court? JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Oh! I'm sorry. I'm assuming that they want to block not the driveway but, the tennis court. MR. CHAIRMAN: They want to block the tennis court. They got to be next to the tennis court. MEMBER VILLA: Wel]~ you would block, you would block the view of it anyway if it's on the other side. I'm just saying you wouldn't even see the cars then if there's --- VIRGINIA ELLEN CROPPER: It would be more attractive. Yes, it would if it were planting it on the westerly side of the driveway. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: That's fine, wlzichever, it doesn't matter to me MEMBER VILLA: On the property line in other words. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Which ever way I've got to plant it is (interrupted) MEMBER VILLA: Would you even mind if they infringed over the line a little bit because pine trees ~et big and your restricted with 23 feet bu~ you have to get a driveway. VIRGINIA ELLEN CROPPER: So long as the tree itself is on their side, the planting of the tree. Yes I know they obviously grow. Page 76 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southotd Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: I mean the bigger they are the better for you and if they spread they're going to have to spread on to your property but you want them to, i just wanted to get that clear. VIRGINIA ELLEN CROPPER: Exactly, that's fine, of course. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Yes we have you. She has her trees, she has buffer trees against her house right now. VIRGINIA ELLEN CROPPER: They're working very nicely. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: They're working very nicely but she's got them also and they're you know, sought of hanging over on Kozlowsky's side but, we understand that. MEMBER VILLA: That's what I'm saying, you've only got 23 feet so you get a big pine tree in there your going to have it close to the line. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Because otherwise the tree is more than one person speaking at the same time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I jus~ ask. Now, we're putting the trees on the opposite side of the driveway closer to Mrs. Cropper's line. Ms. Cropper, it's Ms. Cropper? VIRGINIA ELLEN CROPPER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms'. Cropper's line, so therefore we're going to have trees, driveway, tennis court, trees. VIRGINIA ELLEN CROPPER: Wl~at are we going re do about the Top of tile court? Will it be the north south side? JENNIFER GOULD: Yes, the north south side. The south side is going to be (interrupted) JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Those are old. They just take it down. We have trees on both sides (static, inaudible). JENNIFER GOULD: I would assume that the north south side would be planted with trees also. MEMBER VILLA: Jerry you didn't hear that. MR. CHAIRMAN: What? MEMBER VILLA: She said that she assumes that the north side which are the ends would now also have trees on them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Page 77 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Just a question. I mean I don't mind doing it but on the north side you can't see that side of the fence from the house. That's the north side and the south side. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's do this Joe. We'H see what the decision goes~ OK, but we would Hke, I'd Hke to look at this as OK as a pilot, alright, once the trees are planted without trees on the north side, OK, just to see how much visibility there is, airight. I mean we look at rights-of-ways, we look at, you know we look at finish ( ). I'm going to look at Donald WexlerVs house when it's done because I want to see what this, what this, the landscaping so on and so forth, how it impacts the entire piece of property, atrlght. But conceivably we'll ( ), OK, but maybe they'H be a waive, maybe we'll waive it out based upon what we say. JOSEPH FISCHETTi: OK, I got you. MR. CHAIRMAN: You know what I'm saying. ! mean i've done this before but I think that's the way to go because it may be overkill. JOSEPH FISCHETTI. If it's a problem I mean a couple more trees. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it may be overkill, you know what I'm saying because you still have room, you've got to have room for a 20 foot driveway. You know what I'm saying~ the drive-way may not be 20 feet wide but you know with the overcut and all the rest that is really tight going in going in there now. Very tight. I mean you can't get, I~ve got to be honest with you and some people, you can't get a fire truck in there now. That house is going to go down, airight, that you can't not get a fire truck in that driveway. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: We'll just knock the pine trees down. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The tennis court might go first, right. MR. CHAIRMAN: So, I'm just saying that OK, so you know we'll see what we can do, but, I'm going to come out and look after this thing is constructed. I'm not referring to it as a thing, OK. I am referring to it as a tiring but it's an object, alright, for the purposes of playing tennis~ but we're going to see how it impacts the surrounding property owners bn the north south side. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's also a new Fire Lane Law. I don't know if you're aware that it was adopted by the Town Board, two weeks ago. You did, you asked it already. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I was going to ask that question. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: !~m sorry. Go ahead. I'll let Jim ask it. Page 78 - June 26, 1996 Public tIearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: meet that code? JOSEPII FISCHETTI: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with it ( How are you going to plant those trees, and still ). ( ) 15 feet from everything. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, and then they that. Ilow wide do these trees ( ). have to be trimmed to going to The black pines will grow, but Black pines are on there way out on Long Island. CHAIRMAN: Right MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Spruces. there not growing more than --. MEMBER VILLA: MEMBER VILLA: That is what I'm saying. She doesn't mind if they infringe on her property, as long as there planted on --. CHAIRMAN: Right MEMBER VILLA: On this piece of property, so -- CHAIRMAN: We're really tight here. This is tight. MEMBER VILLA: If we plant them at ( ). JENNY GOULD ESQ: She's suggesting that you plant them on her property. MEMBER VILLA: It could be 25 feet. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Whose suggesting that, Mrs. Cropper. CHAIRMAN: But then it's the responsibility to maintain them. MEMBER TORTORA: Your property or maintenance property. CIIAIRMAN: That's the problem. So, there is no problem. You could plant them right on the line. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: You plant them right on the line. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Alternate the trees. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: You get pines that are not grow. You don't want evergreens that are going to ---. Page 79 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: Yes, I know. I used that, but there are other pines that are not more than 10 feet in diameter, which would encroach ---. MEMBER VILLA: You get arboreta's and you won't see through arboreta's and they get to be 20 feet tall. ( Everyone's talking at once) inaudible. CHAIRMAN: OK. Is there anybody else that wants zo speak in the audience regarding this hearing ? Ok, seeing no hands. Now, the issue is. Are we modifying the 1977 decision? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well we are ---. CHAIRMAN:' Let me just recap this. We've heard Mr. Fischetti's arg~ment in reference to width, all right and ( ) As far as I'm concerned, ( ), if you bring it over another 20 feet, and you add that one, I don't know how you're going to get pine trees in the driveway in there. MEMBER VILLA: Well, you have 23 feet, and it only calls for 15 foot piling~ so you have 8 feet. That means, if you plant them on a Hne, you can get a tree that can become 16 feet wide. That's plenty of ground as far as I know for getting a dense evergreen. CHAIRMAN: OK MEMBER VILLA: Right SECRETARY LINDA I{OWALSKI: As long as you plant it on the Hne and att. That's ~ot to be. That's 115 feet long too, right, the trees would be planted, Joe. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: I'm sorry. Is this the length of the tennis court. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: The tenghth of the tennis court ok, and it's probably what, about 12 feet apart or 10 feet apart. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETT!: I would say, you need them to grow so I would say 10 or 12 feet. So~ we're talking about --. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: 11 or 12 feet. MR. JOSEPH FISCHETTI: 11 or 12 feet. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, thank you. The only thing I want to mention that, when Jerry was talking about the rehearing or changing the prior condition. If the board does grant the variance tonight, and it's not an unanimous vote, and it's based on today's Page 80 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals zoning code, and it doesn't necessarily amend the old variance. Do you know what I'm saying? If it is unanimous, and they decide that is going to amend the old variance, then it could effect future proposals. That's 'why Jerry is asking the question. Which way does the board want to address it? Do you want to address it as a new variance under today's code~ without changing the former variance with the former conditions. MEMBER TORTORA: Linda, this 267812 that you refer to. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKi: Well, that's for a rehearing when you modify a prior variance. MEMBER TORTORA: That's what she's referring too in' her ( ). SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: But this is not a rehearing. That's why you jump down to the next questions, Lydia. i asked her two questions. The first question was. If the board has. a rehearing, if the board, read the question again. You have it in front of you. What does the question say? Do you want me to read it? MEMBER TORTORA: ( ) SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Reference~ ZBA condition of a subdivision from 20 years ago, is an application for rehearing with unanimous vote of those present required to amend, and she said yes, ok. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Excuse me. This was a not an application to amend a former variance from a subdivision 20 years. So, I asked another question. I said, can an appeal application, based upon a notice of disapproval, issued today, rudder today's code, allow a former ZBA condition to be modified if the Resolution is not unanimous, and a rehearing is not held. She writes hack and says, depends on whether you consider this a rehearing of the original decision, same facts, same conditions. Considering the length of time it seems likely that this is a new issue, because this is a new code, has new requirements, ok, and is not a rehearing. Thus a unanimous vote would not be required. So she's saying, if today's code was still I0 feet, and this application same in, it would be the same circumstances as 20 years. So, you would have to treat it like a rehearing. Today's code is 20 feet. There is new circumstances. Did the Zoning Board 20 years ago, foresee that our code was going to change. No, they didn't and that's why there is new circumstances before the board now. If they should give a variance less than a 10 foot setback, it would require a rehearing, because then they're going into 20 years ago condition. The code at thor time. MEMBER VILLA: You know, I look at that different. I'm not a Lawyer, I'm an Engineer. Page 81 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's what the Town Attorney told me. MEMBER VILLA: But it seems ( ). The way I read that, you had a hearing and now you're ha~-ing a rehearing with the same facts and tile same requests, which is not the case. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's right. That's what I'm saying. MEMBER VILLA: That's what was decided and they just put some conditions into that hearing, that's all. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes MEMBEr< VILLA: And now we're looking at something different. I don't look at that as a rehearing. It's a ( ). To me a rehearing would have been, another request for the same basic thing that they asked for back in '77, which was granted. I mean, they granted the subdivision at that time. They weren't asking for a variance on side lots. They were granting a subdivision, and to me this is not a rehearing. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, the Town Attorney says, it's not a rehearing. Only if the board decides it's a rehearing. Then they have to reapply. MEMBER D~NIZIO: But certainly if they had asked for a six foot variance, then ---. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI Then that would be. MEMBER DINIZIO: But then I think, that particular qualification of no further encroachment would apply. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes MEMBER DtNIZIO: He's not asking for that. He's merely asking for what he asked last time, under the new code which happens to be 20 feet. MEMBER VILLA." But again, our decision. Could we not just limit the approval to the tennis court. That would kind of offset, for anything in the future. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: This is only for a tennis court, nothing else. JENNY GOULD ESQ : That's what t asked for, that you don't modify the prior condition. That's exactly- what I asked for. Page 82 - June 26~ 1996 Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They have to make that clear, when they make their decision. MEMBER DINIZtO: I wo~dd be willing to put the same thing in that they- put in 20 years. Which is no further encroachment on today's code. JENNY GOULD ESQ: Right, correct. That would be ( ). MEMBER DiNIZIO: Right JENNY GOULD ESQ: Because what they're saying. They have right vested under that prior hearing in 1977. They don't want those ( ). SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's right. That's right. JENNY GOULD ESQ: And that's a reasonable request. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKt: The board can put another thing in and say it doesn't ( ). MEMBER VILLA: And if you look at it basically, they only be able to get an accessory structure, and the unique thing about this, is that it's only a tennis court with fixed dimensions, and if they were /~ looking for something else, or building, there would be no reason why they couldn't keep an offset. But the tennis court is a little unique, so. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's right. MEMBER VILLA: So basically as I gather, your client Ms. Cropper doesn't have objections if we put the right restrictions in. JENNY GOULD ESQ: Right. t think that, one of the concerns about the ( )solved the problem about the trees on the property line. In the Winter time, it's a much different picture than what % you saw when you went out to visit the site. You can see through all of that. CtIAIRMAN: That's what we're going to look at Jen. MEMBER TORTORA: Do you have Winter photograph's?. JENNY GOULD ES(~: Yes we have photographs if you want to see them, I'll g~ive them to you. MEMBER VILLA: Would you have any objection to possibly having some Rhododendrons on the Northern side, South, which are smaller now, but they do grow immense, and they are evergreen. They stay evergreen all the time. Year round Rhododendrons as far as i know, ~-'~ Page 83 - June 26, 1996 Public Hearings Southold ToWn Board of Appeals and it will take a little while but they do get big, because I've been trying to keep my pruned. VIRGINIA CROPPER: But you know, my neighbor has no irrigation and her Rhododendrons are dying. But yet, there is an enormous pine trees in the woods as you approach our house, it's very beautiful, and it lives with very little rain. It's a white pine. The tree has grown t0 feet in 5 years.. MEMBER TORTORA: Bob, just leave it to evergreens, and leave that VIRGINIA CROPPER: Pine trees do very well in ( ) setting. MEMBER VILLA: So do Rhodes. MEMBER TO~TORA: This is getting into overkill. CHAIRMAN: OK. So hearing no further comment, we will close the hearinE and reserve decision until later. All in favor, Aye. End of hearings, Prepared by Noreen Frey