Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/14/1996 HEARINGAPPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen James Dirdzio, Jr. Robert A, Villa Lydia A. Tortora BO~-RD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 TP~ANSCRIPT OF HEARING HELD NOVEMBER 14, 1996 PREPARED FOR BOARD OF APPEALS by Noreen Frey 8:20 p.m. Appl. #4401 - DAVID DEFRIEST, Tenant. (and Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Gnozzo, as Owners.) The Board, on its own motion, re-opens the subject hearing closed July 24, 1996 for further factual information from applicant, et cetera. The applicant is requesting a Variance based upon the June 3, 1996 Buildin~ Inspector's Notice of Disapproval under Article Vlll, Section 100-8lA- for a Use Variance based upon tenant's application to the Buildin~ Inspector for a car rental business. The Variance shall also address the proposed outdoor yard area for showing of vehicles for rent in an area to be designated under this use variance, if allowed. The grounds for which the June 3, 1996 Building Inspector's action was issued are: Automobile rental use is not a permitted use in this Limited Business (LB) Zone District. Location of Property: 73625 Main Road, Greenport, NY; County Parcel No. 1000~45-3~2. Size 5+ acres. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I apologize, I thought you wanted to ask me more question on the other one, that's why. CHAIRMAN: No, we haven't gotten done with that one yet. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK, no that's fine. I'd like to incorporate for the record the prior hearing, everything I said from the prior hearings, my memorandum of Law. I don't want to rehash all the facts all over again. That's why I just incorporated. We're at a point of the use variance application, and the use variance criteria in the law are pretty clearly identified. I have with me Andy Stype, who is a Licensed Certified Buildin~ Appraiser. He has prepared an appraisal the I will submit to the board. We're going to discuss it first (for the record), which is goin~ to address (present to you) dollars and cents, to prove that this use is appropriate. That this use variance should be granted. I'm just going to start off by putting Mr. Stype on the record, and start his testimony because really, he's going to be doing most of the talking about the conditions of the site, and the Page 2- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals financial data that is necessary. So, the first criteria of a use variance is the financial analyst. Mr. Stype, could you please just briefly put your credentials on the record. MR. ANDREW STYPE: Andrew Stype licensed Real Estate Appraiser. I'm also a licensed Real Estate Broker too. I had appraised the property back in November 11. The instructions were to indicate the current fair market value, and the highest and best use. Was the consideration for the current uses which is, with the car rental business. Also, without the car rental business. So, it's on a before and after basis. What I did basically was, that I had to look at three approaches to value. You have your cost approach, which is adding up the improvements in your site value. You have the market date approach, which is to compare it to other sales in the area. And then you have the income approach, that as the income. Then you divide it by the capitalization rate, and that indicates value. What I'd like to get into first, on the actual improvements. The property consists of three improvements. Building #1 is a masonry building. It is constructed on cement blocks and has a metal roof and cement floor, oil hot air heat. The building is approximately 35 to 45 years old. It's hard to tell, and it's in fair condition. It's currently used for repair of automobiles. It currently pays rent of $500.00 a month, and the tenant pays for heat and light. It also has a car lift inside, and as I had mentioned, it is being used for car repair. Building #2 is a frame building. It is one story. It is occupied as a office, and was built approximately 45 years ago, and is in fair condition. It has a square foot area of about 1,000 square feet. It has asbestos shingles siding, as a full shingles roof. It has aluminum gutters and windows. The inside is heated with oil hot water. There's an office room, and two full bathrooms, and a living room with kitchen. There's a half a basement. Building #3 is a small shed in the back, which is 9 by 21 feet. The shed also is in fair condition, such as all the other buildings are too. The siting, it's on approximately five acres of property, but however there's around four and a half acres of Wetlands in the back. It's also in a flood zone. It's in a A4 zone. I have an extra flood map here, if you would like to see it. However, where they have the actual buildings it's in a C zone, but it's only a small area. It's only about a half acre. If I had to guess I would have to say, it's about a half acre of upland. Public utilities include electric, telephone and also Town water, and it has private cesspools. It's located in a commercial area. There are some homes nearby. The other zoning in the area basically, it's a limited business. You have light industrial, and also B business. Some of the uses basically is you have awning manufacturing, and also repair. You have a gas station. The bus company, lumber yard, and restaurant. It is heavy commercial use. You could also, stop me Pat. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: No, I have my list and so far you'll hit them all. Page 3- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southo]d Town Board of Appeals MR. ANDREW STYPE: OK. What I did too, with the highest and best use. What we did basically as an appraiser is, we have a look to see what is the highest and best use of the property for its highest income potential. This is a site with certain building that has a very limited income potential. It's obvious that it's being used for car repair. The office area which is used for car rental business, is a small building. It really doesn't have alot of uses for any other type of business, such as office or else a retail store, because it's so small. Actually part of the 1,000 square feet to the office is an enclosed porch area, and that's basically unusable. Just only for storage basically. The car rental business at this time is currently paying rent of $1000.00. a month. If you add that to the car repair business, monthly rents come to $1,500.00. We also had a look at other income from other uses on the property. I'd like to read those off to you. Now these are all permitted uses, which is your current zoning. The uses are for residential, for retail as antique stores, and custom workshop, for retail accessory of garden material, for libraries, professional and office use, for restaurants, for funeral homes, personal service stores, repair shops for household appliances, wholesaling and warehousing, and also retail uses. We had a look at each of the incomes from each of these uses. How we had arrived at that basically, is that I had spoken to the local brokers and also investors in the area. They had explained that basically these uses were possible, would generate rent of possibly of anywhere from eight to ten dollars a square foot. What I'm talking about basically is in your office area. The office area currently, if you would look at your car rental business, he is paying a $1000.00. a month. Now that would come to $12.00 a square foot, which is obviously higher than the actual permitted uses on the property, which is eight to ten dollars a square foot. So what we did is, we looked at the income approach. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I'm not sure you're going to get that. It seems to me you may want to discuss these particular uses, bow's the desirability in these buildings. I think you mentioned to me that, in many of these uses requires certain floor area or certain specifics. MR. ANDREW STYPE: With each of these uses such as library. It's something where you'd have to make alot of changes, to have a library there. So it's not a matter of just to have the owner get a certain amount of rent, but whoever occupies the place is going to have to spend alot of money to have to get it to that point. It's also zoned for restaurants. Now it's impossible to operate a restaurant in its current condition. You obviously have to spend alot of money to have to get it to that point, so it's not a matter of just looking at your square foot cost, but at the actual expense of your tenant. So, what I'm really trying to say, is that the investor who owns a restaurant, is going to be looking elsewhere, and he's not going to look at a place such as this, that he has to spend alot of money, to have to get his business up and running. Page 4- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals You know, the other uses are all the same. You have your retail uses. It's obvious if you have a building that's only 1,000 square feet, it is going to be very, very difficult to have to make the expenses, to have to get it up to the point, that he can have a retail store. The other problem there too, is there's extremely limited parking. The only parking basically is on your Main Road, and it's awfully difficult to operate a business that isn't going to have alot of parking. Car rental business on the other hand, cars are kind of scattered in front. As I drove up, it was actually kind of hard to have to park my car. There are some spots in back, but it's really extremely limited. On the income approach, what I did, I had taken the gross rent. Now, these are the rents we valued with the car rental business. The car repair is $500.00 a month, and the car rental is $1,000.00 a month. If you multiply that, times annual, which is 12, that is $18,000.00. We always have to take out a certain amount for the vacancy and also the collection loss, which is all a part of our method of doing business. We estimate that at 5%, so we subtract the $900.00 from $18,000.00 and that comes to $17,200, which is a total adjusted income. Now we also looking at this from the point of the owner, ok. The owner is the one that has to pay certain expenses on the place. The owner pays for insurance, because he would have expenses of $1600.00 a year. That's the average. He would have to pay real estate taxes, and that comes to $4,367.00. He would also have some miscellaneous expenses such as, heating system and things like that, and we estimate that of $1000.00. The total expenses comes to $6,967.00. That's in that income, which would come to $10,233.00. We have a capitalization rate, that we have to divide that by, to equal value. The capitalization rate of this area is about 8 1/2%. So if you apply that to the net income, that equals $120,388.00., and we have it rounded off to $120,000.00. Now that's your market value which is based on this income, and on the expenses. This is as, the way I fee], a current use, as a car repair and also car rental. The other way to look at it is, to value it without the car rental business. We estimate that the highest income is going to be $10.00 a square foot, and this is based on area rents. We obvious have to consider location. It's highly possible that you could get a higher figure, if you're in the Village of Greenport, which has alot of stores and shopping nearby. So we estimate that the frame building if it was a use, which is a permitted use, would have a monthly rent of $833.00., and that you're car repair is going to be all the same, and that's at $500.00. a month. So you multiply that times 12 and that equals $16,000.00., and you have a vacancy rate of 5% and you subtract the $800.00. and that comes to $15,200.00. The expenses are all the same. There are no differences if you have a car repair business there, or if you don't. You have your insurance payment. You have the real estate taxes, and you have your miscellaneous. But the net income is lower here, and that's $8,233.00., and then you use your cap rate which is 8 1/2% again, Page 5- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals and that comes to $96,659.00. I round that off to $100,000.00. so what I'm saying, if you look at your market value with the car rental business it's at $120,000.00. Without the car rental business, if you look at permitted uses, it's at $100,000.00. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Use variances are alot of fun because it's all financial. CHAIRMAN: It's our fault because we put you last. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: That's all right. Some of these calculations obviously have alot of assumption, and the assumption are always that, you're going to find someone with one of the permitted uses, that are going to be interested in renting the property. That is not necessarily the case here, because the property is so unique. We talked about on the record, you know,that the uniqueness of the buildings, when they were built, how they were build. The fact you have a car lift inside one of the buildings, and you have what used to be an old house with the office in the front. That makes, and even more so, you got five acre track. Mr. Style has said that really, about maybe 1/2 acre of it, half an acre or an acre is useable. MR. ANDREW STYPE: Just about 1/2 acre is useable. PATRIC1A MOORE ESQ: Just about 1/2 acre is useable. So the situation is, it cannot be applied to other properties in the area. It' s a hodgepodge of buildings, in a hodgepodge area of zoning with this particular LB zoning, smacked out planted in the middle of residential on either size, and then industrial 500 feet away. This again is so unique that, it's amazing to me that Mr. Willsey, this property is suited to his use, and it leads itself to be, to have a use variance approved for this particular property, without the fear of having her rental business pop up everywhere, in limited business for other places. Are there any other business in Town that ( ). MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: No. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: No, at this point there are no other rental car dealerships. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: There is a dealership that rents. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Michael's he rents those or leases? MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: He used to. He used to rent. I don't know if he does anymore. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK, that's a car dealership that. I don't know what they do at this point, but mostly retailing. The other e]ementof use variance we just talked about is, that the hardship is unique. I've discussed the fact that this property is so unique. The third criteria is that the use variance will not alter any Page 6- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals essential character of the neighborhood. The uses over time of this piece of property have been car related businesses. From the fact that it started out as a gas station here, and sales of automobiles back in the 60's, and throughout, there have been different uses including the Mattituck Auto Glass, which I don't think of them to buy glass for a wall. I think if my window windshield is broken, I would call them and have it repaired. I'm sure they would be very upset to hear that, because they do, do alot of other things. But that is what they were doing there for many years. You have an affidavit in the file, of the period of time they were on that property. Mr. Gnozzois in Florida. He has not had much help from him because really, he has rented to different people over time, and Mr. DeFriest has really been the one in most recent History, who has been renting the building, and different users have been renting different parts of this building. There are different parts of this property. The hardship is not self created and other criteria. Mr. Willsey's says that he first came to the Town, went to the Building Department and was told unfortunately, that everything was OK, and started up there. Then later, he was made aware that a use variance application was needed. So really, the CO that was on the property, talks about service station and car repairs and so on. So that on first flush, you look at the CO and say," Oh sure no problem" this is car related uses on this property. We had told you before that we are amendable to certain reasonable conditions. About the only change that has taken place since the last hearing is the fact, Mr. Willsey would like, at one point in time, he said, that there was some discussion about buying the whole property, if he gets the use variance. He would like to establish the business there and buy the property, so that we have it all under one owner. At this present time, he doesn't do anything on the property, with regard to his car. They all get put on a lift, or one a truck, and they get shipped to Melville. Mr. Joseph Willsey: Middle Island PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Middle Island. If he buys the property realistically, that the other, the cement block building that has a lift, he can do minor changes, nothing major, because his staff and workers are all in Middle Island. So, oil change and a change of tire, is within the possibility of this property. So any condition that you would oppose, could be. All repair shall be conducted inside the building, because that's what the building is there for. It has a lift and it can be done. So minor repairs, it certainly would not be major repairs. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have at this point. Andy here, and he's here to answer your questions. I have the original. I have a copy for me, and alot of information there. C~L~IPJ~3~N: Ok, we'll start with Mr. Doyen any questions. MEMBER DOYEN: No Page 7- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I would like to state that I missed the first meeting, but I read the verbatim and looked at the record, and I feel confident that I can make a decision. I'm assuming that when you say that you want to purchase the land, and upgrade it to rent-a wreck type franchise. That's the tack you want to take. Would you be incorporating the other building in that or is it still (unfinished sentence). MR. WILLSEY: All the buildings would be incorporated. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well it looks like you have another business there now, repairing cars. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: The man repairs stock ears for himself and builds hot rods. He does it at night. MEMBER DIN1ZIO: So basically, say you purchase this property, it would be a rent-a-rent business. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: Correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: In fact, it give some stability to this property because throughout History, you've had different tenants, with different uses in here on this property. At least with Mr. Willsey as the primary owner here presently, not out of state, or whatever, there will be some improvement to the property. I mean, certainly with Rent-A-Wreck, you wouldn't have the Taz-Mahal, because people would probably not believe that you renting more inexpensive cars. Certainly it needs more improvement. There has been a reluctance on their part. I know the main improvements to the property that, one you don't own, and particular when you don't know how long you're going to be there. I give him credit for his fortitude, with this whole process. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: In your reports, it's a financial report. Are there other areas that are covered, that Mr. Stype didn't cover? I'll just shoot out some questions and you say yes or no. What was the original price, the purchase price of the entire parcel. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Joe Gnozzo, from what I can tell from the deed. In 1983 he purchased the property for $42,000.00. This is what I get from the assessor's card. I presume that to be correct. The mortgage, there were two mortgages was in the amount of $35,000.00, almost $36,000.00. MEMBER TORTORA: Is there a lien on that now? Any liens, the mortgage is paid? Page 8- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: That would be Mr. Gnozzo who's down in Florida, and when I spoke to him I had trouble getting information. He was telling me that certain tenants were in there, and when I called his Attorney I couldn't get it. MEMBER TORTORA: Taxes. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Taxes are 40 something, $4,000.00. MR. ANDREW STYPE: I have them right here. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes, taxes are in here, $4367.00. MR. ANDREW STYPE: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, the five that is, you say it's wetlands. It's a Flood Planning Zone. I don't know who I should address here, whose an wetland expert. Is it wet? MR. ANDREW STYPE: It is wet, yes. It has alot of cattails. It's an extremely low line area, that whole back area there is extremely wet. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. One of the things that you had said. It's kind of visual obvious to me, is that the parking problem. Now, if it's about a half acre of buildable land in the front, is there anything behind the building, that could be used in terms of parking, and if so~ please describe that area to me and the board? MR. ANDREW STYPE: There is a little bit of an area, like behind the building. Like I measured from the edge of the shed, over to the wetlands, and that's approximately 60 feet of upland grassy area. But as you get to the wetland, it really starts to drop off a little bit. So not that whole 60 feet is going to be useable. MEMBER TORTORA: So, what would we have. An area, parking area of approximately what, 60 by. MR. ANDREW STYPE: Road front is 147, but it starts to narrow. It's like your widest point is at your road front, and then it narrows off, until like a diamond shape, triangle shape and it's a (unfinished sentence). MR. JOSEPH STYPE: It's just the opposite, isn't it Andy? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: It widens at the back. MR. ANDREW STYPE: It widens at the back, I'm sorry. I'd have to say it's probably 60 feet by 150. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, the other thing I wanted to ask is very similar to Avis. Avis deals with new cars, and you guys deal with classy used cars. Page 9- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Classy not classic. MEMBER TORTORA: When you drive by the Avis or Hertz or other places, the cars are not necessarily on display. Everybody knows what it is, in they go, they get their car and off they go. Is there any real need for the cars to be displayed in front, as opposed to in the back and why? MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: The reason for that is to show them that they are not wrecks. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm sorry, we have to put this on the record. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: The reason for that is, to show them that they are not wrecks. When you come in and saw a sign rent a wreck, and you don't see anything. I'd be afraid to look at them. MEMBER TORTORA: Isn't it an old franchise. I mean, its not (unfinished sentence). MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: It's a world wide franchise. MEMBER TORTORA: It's not an unknown franchise. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: You people out here never heard of it before. I'm very, very surprised. MEMBER TORTORA: So you're saying, you want to use the display area to advertise. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: I want the people to see it to see the automobile, and see what they are getting, which has made a big difference in the business. If I just had a sign up, they don't know what it is most people. MEMBER TORTORA: But there is very limited space by your, that's not even contested, that there is very limited space in the front. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: I'm not putting all the cars out there. I can keep five or six out front, there's plenty of room to drive right through. It's a circular driveway. If SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: So that's really advertising. You're advertising the car by putting it out front. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Your saying that the franchise is requiring him to do so. That's what he's saying. SECRETARY LINDA KOWLASKI: But what he's saying, he's advertising also. Page 10- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: Just reading from the minutes of the previous hearing, I was questioning Mr. Willsey about the same thing. I had asked about Mr. Willsey's display. I display six cars all the time, not ail the time if I drop the cars in, and then I came in and said. Do you feel you need six cars for display, and your reply was no. I don't need six. I asked, because you have a big piece of property. I was just wondering, if you could just minimize the impact in the front. Your reply, I don't not lease the whole property. I only lease part of it. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: Correct. MEMBER VILLA: So therefore, you were saying the first time, that you didn't need six cars on display. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: I don't. MEMBER VILLA: That you had to have them in the front because you couldn't put them in the back. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: You asked me if I could put them down the side, and I said I could put them there if it was necessary. MEMBER VILLA: But you said, I do not lease the whole property. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: I do not lease, part of the driveway. MEMBER VILLA: All right. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: But that the only, as I pointed out from the beginning. That would be the change that has been discussed since then, if the use variance is granted. He's prepared to buy the property, and take the whole property. I think you told me that you were selling it. In fact, you have an option to buy from Gnozzo. DAVID DEFRIEST: Right, I'm presently leasing it from Gzozzo, and I'm the one who made the application. CHAIRMAN: Your very soon going to sell it. MR. DAVID DEFRIEST: I'm going to sell my interest in it. MEMBER TORTORA: What is your name? MR. DAVID DEFRIEST: David Defriest. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I know that. I'm trying to get that on the record. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: David DeFriest. MEMBER VILLA: On following this through, my upsetting part of this thing is, I've been by half a dozen times since the first meeting, and there are 11 or 12 cars parked in the front, every time Page 11- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals I go by. And you were saying six, no more than six. even have a permit and you're doubling that number. make sense to me. You don't It doesn't MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: Alot of times cars are probably going in and going out. MEMBER VILLA: This is 10 O'clock at night, after I've come back from a restaurant, or going home. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: On the weekends people bring their cars back. Often they put them in the ( ) in the driveway. MEMBER VILLA: No, this is right in the front. Two lines, you have like four or five cars on each line. A couple here and a couple there. There are like ]1 or 12 cars. MR. ANDREW STYPE: Can I answer part of that. As you get to the back of the building there is a fence, and it actually blocks you off from going to the back area, so you really have to park in the front. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: But that fence doesn't have to stay there. MEMBER VILLA: But the Gentlemen said, he wouldn't have more than six cars, and there was double that. CHAIRMAN: What I think Mr. Villa is saying. Any consideration on this piece of property would clearly, clearly restrict the amount of cars that were actually displayed. MEMBER TORTORA: That would mostly be for the site plan process. Subject to site plan approval. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How many cars could be parked there, not displayed but? CHAIRMAN: We're going with the original six, that's it. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: That's it, yes. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, I'm not saying displayed, I mean parking, customer parking. MEMBER TORTORA: Well that's too. I think what you said, display. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: And parking. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Is that shown on the map Jerry? MEMBER TORTORA: If you wanted to make that distinction. Page 12- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Although they are separate. CHAIRMAN: Yes they are. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Keep in mind that parking is very limited, because most people are being dropped off to pick up a car, or are coming to sign some papers and then leaving. So, it's not an extended, you know. Probably no more than our office, the kind of activity that you get from parked vehicles. Really, I think that I told them, you have to for display, has to be neatly displayed. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How would you get access? MEMBER VILLA: The times I'm talking about, the business is definitely closed, and those cars were sitting there, and nobody was stopping them. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: Your right. On weekends, Friday night and Saturday night, nights like that. The people have the cars all week and they are going back to the City and they bring the car in and leave it. I tell them, leave it in the circular driveway or in the corner in the front. CHAIRMAN: In the front. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: They leave the key where they are supposed to leave the keys, and the next morning they're usually moved. CHAIRMAN: OK PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: That could be addressed I would think through site plan. MEMBER TORTORA: Here's what I would say. If the board is, after reviewing the record and looking over the financial data, which you know, I'd like to opt to look at. If the board is inclined to approve this and it feels that it meets the criteria for use variance, then site plan approval will address parking and location, and all of those things and if there is any other areas that will have to come back here, we can move this up just like we have done in the past, come back here for final approval. CHAIRMAN: OK MEMBER TORTORA: OK CHAIRMAN: That's all right with me. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: What are we getting? For use variance, but there not subject. The clarification for me is, when he goes for site plan, coming back and close out the hearing? Page 13- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: No, oh no. The hearing (unfinished sentence) CHAIRMAN: She wants to be able to digest this. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Oh yes, absolutely. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Recess it. MEMBER TORTORA: Our hearing as far as I know must be. Is there any reason why you'd be hearing our hearing over. CHAIRMAN: Yes, if you're going to digest it and ask some question. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Leave it open. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Then I think you better leave it open. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, so then you, any further than that, but if it has to go from here to site planning, then we'll do it the same way. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, that's the other part. The Planning Board is going to have sit plan jurisdiction, and they're not going to want display in the front or advertising. It would interfere, they would say with the cars, egress, everything in there. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well then, I'm not sure how much display, certain display you permitted particularly for this kind of use. I think we could address the drop-off site, if in fact, he is able to get access to the entire property. Plus, it's much more flexible, and certain fences that are in the back, those picket fences can be relocated. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's alot of ifs. Let him come back to us with another plan. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: I can have an access driveway open in the center to the other man, and I could ,designate my cars parking over there when they're coming back, the returns. Right now, it's a little like a circular driveway. They're parked underneath the canopy of the overhang in the front. This way, they're right in the front. I tried but people don't always do the right thing. I mean ( ). SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: See usually in a business, we coordinate it to the Planning Board, and we also ask you to go over and have a preliminary conference with them and give them a plan, showing them where you're going to have display, storage, parking and everything, and you haven't done that. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: We were originally in the Planning Board and they said, we can't accept that. Page 14- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: That use is not acceptable. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: sentence). Not accepted, go to the (unfinished PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: You need a use variance. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, but if you asked the board and send the board a letter, you can ask for a conference with the Planning Board. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I have no problem, I certainly (unfinished sentence). CHAIRMAN: Why don't you try and do that? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Maybe it's their fault meeting with you, but the board would have to meet with you. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you try and do that, so we know where we're going here. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: While I was renting the place, I went in there, and I talked to a Lady in there, and she was on the telephone I should say, and she said. Ail you have to do if go for a site plan and review. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes. But you have to put it in a letter, Chairman of the Board, and ask for an appointment with the board though. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I know how to do it. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: OK, I'll sit down. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You didn't have Pat, back then. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm a little unclear on this. Maybe you can clear this up, because I thought I read the whole record. I didn't see any place in there, in a Building Inspector's denial or disapproval that site plan approval was required. MEMBER DINIZIO: They have original jurisdiction, the Planning Board does on site plans. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, but that's not a part of our application. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: No, no it's not part of your application. The Building Department, they would have issued a Notice of Violation for the use. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I interject here a second. I personally have no reason to, not close the hearing tonight. Page 15- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: OK MEMBER TORTORA: I can read the documentation here. I've heard the testimony. I really, that's my personal feelings, and do you have any particular reason for extending this hearing. CHAIRMAN: My only question is to Mr. Willsey and that is. If you rented an entire piece of property, can you do a better job in reference to the placement of automobiles? MEMBER DINIZIO: This is why I asked that question to begin with because, when I read everything, it sounded to me like this was leased. They were using a small piece of property, and suddenly now, you're coming and saying now, I'm going to purchase this property, and I think we're going to make certain assumptions and certainly we may put some restrletions on. But based on the fact that you have control of all this property. Certainly, parking may be better. MR. JOSEPH WlLLSEY: It will be alot better for me. MEMBER DINIZIO: And even the display of the cars would probably be better. I'm just a little skeptical about now saying to them now, that they should go to the Planning Board SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I'm not saying that, I'm just asking Pat. This is something that we were discussing up here. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well certainly we know that if they want, they can do that. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's something we always eoordinate with the Planning Board, every business lot. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: We tried to get some input. I know, you've tried to get some input from the Planning Board and their only response has been (unfinished sentence). SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: We have no comment, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, well I think (unfinished sentence). SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I know, I've been trying. It's right in here. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, but that's understandable, because they don't know if the use is permitted or not. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Right MEMBER D1NIZIO: We have to make that decision on that first. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I mean, is there anything that we can convince then to wave site plan, if we show them what we want to Page 16- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals do. Where everything is going to be parked. Where we'll going to identify things with signs. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know, but they would have to have, just like we would have to have, a reasonable sketch. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: That designated those areas, and right now when we get into talking about parking and display and everything else, we don't have that. MEMBER DINIZIO: We have no control over that. MEMBER TORTORA: We don't have that ( ( ). ) and usually SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: We do have that control over that. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well, you have some of that in the original application, where he identified where his display is, and where his parking is. MEMBER TORTORA: It didn't show in the setbacks or anything. It's rough to work with. MEMBER VILLA: Things are changes too. Originally, he was not going to do any repairs there. Now you're talking repairs. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: No, but we're not changing what's been going on there. MEMBER VILLA: Right. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: If he buys the property, he takes over the entire site. Then the repairs are going to be solely his. So the conditions, I told you originally, Sonny Brown condition all seem very reasonable and appropriate. But I don't recall that there were no repairs, where repairs were going to take place. Just to let you know, right off the bat, that if they get access to the entire site, the oil changes will be done, most likely. We may still decided to put them on the truck, and ship them back. But, small stuff like a change of tire or change of oil. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: Detail. PATRIC1A MOORE ESQ: You have a little detail. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: In nice weather. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Who does those repairs? MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: My shop. Page 17- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: His repairs. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: His shop in Greenport, because at the last hearing there were no repairs. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: There aren't. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: There's only storage. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Nobody does it. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: He stores, he repairs cars himself. He has stock cars, hot rods. If you pass by. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, he does his own cars. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Standish. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, OK. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Standish has been using that space for years, and has been using it for himself. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I think he has unlimited access to anyone else. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, is there anyone living in the wood frame building? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: The shed? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, the wood building, the house. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: I stay there when I come out. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Do you pay rent? MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: I rent the whole office. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You rent the whole building. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: Right. SECRETARY L[NDA KOWALSKI: So that's where your business office is, and you live there. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: Well I don't ( unfinished sentence). SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: And you pay how much for your rent on that? Page 18- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. JOSEPH WlLLSEY: About $1,000.00. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: And that's with the use car rental business. Everything in the whole packet. I just want to clarify it~ that's all. Thank you. MR. JOSEPH WILLSEY: In other words, the East side. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I know which building, the wood building. Yes. CHAIRMAN: OK, any further comments from anyone. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: The only one thing I had was, Pat referred to dates on the affidavit. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: The last affidavit, the dates were not really clear. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes, I know from, yes they're real clear. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You said from time to time. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: They're real clear. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You said from time to time. CHAIRMAN: You can't object. This is not a court of Law. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I object anyway. Oh, 1985 to 1990. In the affidavit it says. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: But the second paragraph, the third paragraph, from time to time. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Oh from time to time I sold cars, because he said, he couldn't give me exact dates because (unfinished sentence). SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What's from time to time though? From 1985 to 1990. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Oh yes, all the time he was in there. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: The only other thing is the Planning Board. Is there not conclusive. There's no chance that we could coordinate. Do you want to try to coordinate? Page 19- November 14, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: What do you mean coordinate. We haven't even made a decision. MEMBER DINIZIO: We have to make a decision. I don't think that our decision impacts on them in any way. If they can't meet the Planning Board requirements, what they require, then they can't do it. It's as simply as that. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: One of the problems is the display out front because that's advertising, and you have vehicles out there for advertising interfere with the Planning Board site plan. So, you're also giving a variance for( unfinished sentence). MEMBER TORTORA: No, no. MEMBER DINIZIO: But that's our decision. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You don't think so, ok. MEMBER TORTORA: No I don't. It's an accessory. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: They can interpret it that way, but they could be wrong but. MEMBER TORTORA: Why isn't it an accessory? Come on. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I mean, you have to put cars somewhere, if you're going to rent them, so. CHAIRMAN: OK, let's wait until she goes back so that (unfinished sentence). MEMBER TORTORA: Do you want to just for the (unfinished sentence). CHAIRMAN: I want you to clear, no. I want you to clearly state to me, as I sit here in front of you, that you can disseminate all this information. You don't need this man's expertise. You don't need this Attorney's information. MEMBER TORTORA: Are you swearing off. CHAIRMAN: No, this man who the contract is going to be. I'm sorry, whose the Lessee, don't need information from all three and the second contract, that you don't need it. If you don't need any information from them, I will close the hearing. If you need information from them, it does not make sense to close this hearing. So the ball if on you Mrs. Tortora. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I just, I was waiting. MEMBER TORTORA: Why do you put it on me, all of a sudden. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I don't have any~ more questions. Page 20- November 14, ]996 Transcript of Public Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: All right. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Lydia says, she thinks she should leave it open. MEMBER TORTORA: And also, if there is a possibility of coordination. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I will go talk to the Departments. MEMBER TORTORA: Let's do it. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I will be in Town Hall tomorrow morning at 9:30 am. I will stop in the Planning Board's office, and say listen. We're here at the Zoning Board, could we coordinate a little bit? Maybe. MEMBER TORTORA: From that respective, it is better to leave it open? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I was wondering if there was just one other area, on the use variance, if you could maybe touch on it? What Mr. Gnozzo paid for the property and what the mortgages is. MEMBER TORTORA: I got all that. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You have all that. It must have been when I was out coughing, right. CHAIRMAN: You are out. We are very rarely this informal Andy, it's just the hour. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, we're tired. MEMBER TORTORA: We're tired. CHAIRMAN: All right, hearing no further comment I'm make a motion recessing the hearing next regular scheduled meeting. All in favor, aye. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD NOVEMBER 14, 1996 PREPARED FOR BOARD OF APPEALS by Noreen Frey 7:30 P.M. Appl. No. 4425SE - GISELA MORCHEL, Owner. (Carryover hearing for a proposed Accessory Bed and Breakfast Use at Main Road and Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue.) CHAIRMAN: Does the board have any other questions, other than the original parking plan, that Mrs. Morchel came up with? When I say original I mean, an original change that she came up with. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'm assuming that this is it. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, that's it. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's it. MEMBER DINIZIO: All right, I don't understand it. Maybe you could explain it. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to explain it? Ask Mrs. Morchel what you don't understand, and get it worked out. MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a letter that says that, I guess you can have two access points. MRS. G1SELA MORCHEL: As you come up the driveway, you can go, one parking space on the left. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MRS. GISELA MORCHEL: There's plenty of room for a large truck, that size. On the right side of the driveway, there's confortable parking for two large cars. MEMBER DINIZlO: Right MRS. GISELA MORCHEL: This is the requirement of three vacant spaces there. Privately, large trucks in all spaces, and there is no problem to maneuver, and you'd have enough space to go around. MEMBER DINIZIO: To turn around and go out forward. CHAIRMAN: The turn around, is really the driveway, which you intend to leave vacant. MRS. GISELA MORCHEL: Oh yes, yes. Page 2 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Without a car in it, right. MEMBER TORTORA: So the only access point, would be found MRS. GISELA MORCHEL: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Because it said here, one at Main Road and one at Crown Land Lane. MRS. GISELA MORCHEL: Oh no, Main Road is written down, so you have a better sense of direction. CHAIRMAN: That's the driveway Jim, in the center. this map Mrs. Marchel? CHAIRMAN: She has it written in. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Where? CHAIRMAN: Right here. MEMBER TORTORA: It's got to be here. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's cut off on yours, on this side. The copy machine cut it off. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any questions Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: Basically, nothing has changed. It's the same way as it was presented to us, at the site inspection. I think, the question was. Since you're going in on an angle, the logical thing when you're coming out, is you back out and back into the road. That's what we objected to. CHAIRMAN: Well now, you're backing into the driveway, because she's saying, she's not leaving any cars in the driveway. MEMBER VILLA: Well, I don't think there was any question, that they were leaving cars in the driveway, the last time. The way it's on an angle, any person naturally, instead of turning around, would just back it out onto the road. What was it, the time of the last meeting Jim, they got parking perpendicular to the driveway. Then you have more inclination to back up towards the garage, and come out head first. CHAIRMAN: You mean, the North parking space. Page 3 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MRS. GISELA MORCHEL: Perhaps my drawing isn't quite as exact, as a professional could have come up with, but there's alot of space. There really is. MEMBER VILLA: Oh, I know that and if you propose to put it in perpendicular, I don't think we have a problem with it. If you leave it on an angle. MR. GISELA MORCHEL: the drawing that way. It can easily be done, it's just that I drew CHAIRMAN: OK, Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio, your question has been answered. MEMBER DINIZIO: Only that I want the record to reflect, that we considered backing out of this driveway, to be dangeous. MRS. GISELA MORCHEL: You don't have to, absolutley not. MEMBER DINIZIO: You had brought that question up yourself, and if this is how you feel most comfortable with it, fine, but I would like to (unfinished sentence). MRS. GISELA MORCHEL: At that time I came up with the idea, because there are always two vehicles parked in the road, immediately across the exit of my driveway. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MRS. GISELA MORCHEL: And that's what makes it a precarious situation. MEMBER DINIZIO: We can't control that, as we stated so. You had stated that it is a dangerous situation. MR. GISELKA MORCHEL: But at that point, we hadn't tried out with different vehicles, if there is enough space. This time we did. I had gotten everybody I know, with the largest vehicles they have, and it does work out. MEMVER DINIZIO: OK. CHAIRMAN: OK, that's great. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak for or against this hearing. This Page 4 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals is for a Bed and Breakfast. All right, hearing no comment we'll make a motion, closing the hearing, and reserving decision until later. I don't know if we'll get to it tonight. We're definitely going to have a special meeting next week. So it's entirely up to you, you're welcome to stay. MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there any reason why, we couldn't vote on it CHAIRMAN: Well, I just had a request from one of the members, not to vote on any, but of course, this is a holdover from the last meeting, so we could vote on this MEMBER TORTORA: I have no objection. CHAIRMAN: You have no objection on making a decision on this. MEMBER DINIZIO: 1~, do you have any objection? SECR~T~7~NDA ~SI(I: I have no problem. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll make a motion, that we grant it as applied. MEMBER DOYEN: Second. MEMBER DINIZIO: And just let the record reflect, our concerns about backing out of that driveway. ~KCI~TA~F~D~e~fO~A~t'- The spaces must be perpendicular. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. CHAIRMAN: To the existing driveway. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the motion again? MEMBER DINIZIO: That we grant it as applied. MEMBER TORTORA: And the condition. MEMBER DINIZIO: Only that we have concerns, I have particular concerns about them backing out of that driveway, and I don't know how you can really solve that, and make them do; whatever.. CHAIRMAN: Well, why don't you make a condition, and mention the fact that you need three parking spaces, other than the driveway. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, she applied for that. Page 5 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I am going to go by this parking plan. MEMBER TORTORA: Jim, just to make that a condition. space on the West side of the property. Is that right? Parking MEMBER DINIZIO: Probably North. North side. MEMBER DOYEN: This is North, this is South. MEMBER TORTORA: North side of the property be perpendicular to the driveway. Will you accept that? CHAIRMAN: And that they'll be three parking spaces provided, other than the driveway. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, right. CHAIRMAN: OK, do you want to incorporate that in the motion. CHAIRMAN: OK, and do you want to incorporate that in your second, Serge. MEMBER DOYEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye. It's done. Thank you very much. Best of luck. 7:34 p.m.- 7:53 p.m. Appl. No. 4435 RUTH W. BOEHLING and R. WRIGHT. This is an application for a Variance based upon the October 16, 1996 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Section 100-25A. Applicants are requiring a Waiver which has been provided by Article 11, Section 100-26 for undersized lots held in common ownership. Location of Vacant Land: 180 Custer Avenue, Southold, NY, 1000-70-8-30, which adjoins applicant's house at 290 Custer Avenue, 1000-70-8-31. Also shown on the Map of Fairview Park, Section One situate on Pine Neck, approved by the Southold Town Planning Board on 8/1/1961. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I have a copy of the original subdivision map of Custer Avenue, of this subdivision, indicating lots 8 and 9. I have a copy of the tax map indicating this, which I just indicated. I just stated. Mr. Olsen. GARY OLSEN ESQ: Good evening. My name is Gary Olsen, I'm the Attorney for the applicants, Ruth W. Boehling and Ralph B. Wright Jr. On June 5, 1992 a deed was conveyed by the applicants father, Page 6 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals Ralph B. Wright, to the applicants for lots # 8 and 9, on map of Section 1, Fairview Park South, Map #338. The deed to the applicants was recorded in Liber 11532, page 343. The applicants parents purchased both lots, by a deed dated October 8, 1969, and recorded in Liber 6641, page ]30. They constructed a house on lot #9, pursuant to building permit #9008Z, and the Town issued a certificate of occupancy #Z7791 on July 26, 1977. It was always the intension of the applicants parents, to keep lot #8, as a separate building lot, either for investment or to deed to their children, in the event their children wish to live next door. The board has in it's file, a survey of lot #9 showing the house, which survey was prepared by Roderick Van Tuyl dated June 21, 1977. A review of the Van Tuyl survey, showing the house constructed on lot #9, makes it clear that #8, was being preserved as a separate building parcel. I was contacted by the applicants, to determine if vacant lot #8 was a valid building lot, and I made application to the Building Department for a determination, as to whether or not said lot merged with the house parcel. The Building Department on October 16, 1996, issued a notice of disapproval, on the basis that the lots have merged. The notice of disapproval, noted that the lots in question, are on a filed subdivision map, approved by the Southold Town Planning Board. Under Article 2, Section 100-26, of the Southold Town Building Code, the Zoning Board of Appeals may wave the merger, and certain criteria are set forth, in guiding the Zoning Board in making it's decision. The first criteria is that the waiver of merger will not result, in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood. In preparing for the application, for my clients, and in preparing for tonight's hearing, I reviewed the tax records for other parcels in the area, and have submitted to this board an exhibit, called exhibit 1, which lists 35 tax parcels surrounding the subject's premises. It would appear that only the applicants are faced with the problem of having two lots in common ownership, resulting therein at a merger. Of the other 33 tax parcels, all but four tax parcels, have been improved with homes. Of the four vacant parcels, all of the said vacant parcels, appear to be in single and separate ownership. Therefore, it is respectifully submitted to this board, that the granting of the waiver of merger, will not result in an increase of the density of the neighborhood, with the exception of course, of permitting the applicants to build on their vacant lot. The second criteria is whether the vacant lot, owned by the applicants is consistent with the size of other lots in the neighborhood. On exhibit#1 which is before the board, I have set Page 7 - Transcript of Hearings November ]4, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals forth the size of 35 parcels surrounding the subject parcels. The applicant's vacant lot is consistant in size, with all the other lots in the area. If the board were not to grant this application, the result would be, that the applicants would have a parcel twice the size of any other parcels in the neighborhood. This neighborhood has been long established with homes, and there are houses on every parcel in the community, with only a handful of vacant parcels still remaining. Which as I pointed out before, are in single and separate ownership. The third criteria the board must consider, is whether the granting of a waiver, will avoid economic hardship to the applicants. I have submitted to this board, with the application, a real estate appraisel of lot #8, prepared by Peter Kren, a licensed land surveyor. This appraisel indictes that the present value of Lot #8, as a separate building lot, is $58,000.00. He also indicates that there would be, no significant increase to the value of lot #9, if lot #9 had to be sold with lot #8, if a waiver of merger is not granted. Accordingly, if the board fails the grant the waiver of merger, the applicants would suffer an economic loss of approximately $58,000.00. The forth criteria which the board must consider, in determining whether or not, a waiver of merger should be granted, is whether or not the natural details and contours and slopes of the vacant lot, will be significantly changed or altered in any manner. Whether or not there will be a substancial filling of land, effecting nearby environmental or flood area. I assume that the members of your board, personally inspected the vacant lot, prior to this meeting, and have noted that this lot is basically flat, with a few trees, covered with lawn, which is well maintained. This parcel is not in a flood area, nor in an economically sensitive area, or environmentally sensitive area, and accordingly the construction of a single family residents, on lot #8, would in no way, alter the contours of the lot or effect any nearby environmental or flood areas. In conclusion, it is submitted to this board, that all the above criteria, which the board should consider in granting this waiver of merger, have been met. It is exactly, for this kind of situation, that the Southold Town Zoning Code, authorizes the board to grant the waiver of merger. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: You made only one mistake. You said Peter Cren was a licensed land surveyor. He's a licensed real estate broker. Page 8 - Transcript of Hearings November ]4, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals GARY OLSEN ESQ: I meant to say, licensed real estate appraiser. He's a licensed real estate appraiser. CHAIRMAN: Appraiser, pardon me. Is there anything else you wanted to add. Your not giving us anything? Your not giving us a map. GARY OLSEN ESQ: I have everything in my application. So, you have all the exhibits. CHAIRMAN: OK, all right. We'll start with Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. The lot sizes are about 20,000 square feet. In Exhibit i which I submitted, you'll see. .46 acres. Yes, ok. It is consistent with all the other lots in the Ye8. MEMBER TORTORA: GARY OLSEN ESQ: MEMBER TORTORA: GARY OLSEN ESQ: area. MEMBER TORTORA: CHAIRMAN: OK. GARY OLSON ESQ: It's actually surprising, is the only situation in all those lots, ownership by one owner of two parcels that's CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? that it appears that this where there's common contiguous. MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience, that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion, we close the hearing and recess the decision until later. All in favor, aye. MEMBER VILLA: The survey shows lot 20,289 square feet. Page 9 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You mean reserve decision. CHAIRMAN: Reserve decision. The hearing is closed. 7:58 Appl. No. 4431SE NORMAN WHITEHEAD, Owner. This is an application under Article 1]1, Section 100-31B (15) for a proposed Accessory Bed and Breakfast Use in conjuction with his residence at 14909 Main Road, East Marion, NY. This Bed and Breakfast use must be accessory and incidental to the owner's residence at this property~ and is limited to the rental of three bedrooms within the existing residence and serving of breakfast to not more than six casual and transient B & B roomers. Property ID 1000-23-2-2.3. Also referred to as Lot #1 on Minor Subdivision approved by the Planning Board on or about 11/24/80. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a sketch of both floors. Mr. Whitehead was gracious enough to allow us to see it on Saturday. A stately and very beautiful house in latter East Marion, Orient. We have a copy of that sketch indicating the three areas of the house, he intends to utilize, and basically it's two. Ones together with the other, and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and the minor subdivision, as indicated. Mr. Whitehead, is there something that you would like to add to this? MR. WHITEHEAD: No. CHAIRMAN: No, that's it. We'll start with Mr. Doyen. Do you have any questions of Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio: MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd just like to indicate that, it is three. guess you would say, bedrooms, slash, sitting room. CHAIRMAN: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: And there are three in the house. The house is very large. The lot is very large. Plenty of room as I see, for parking, and things such as that. That's all I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN: OK. Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: I noticed in the deed, the designated parking area. It has three spaces. MR. NORMAN WHITEHEAD: Plenty of room. Page 10 - Transcript of Hearings November 114, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: The only question that I had was, the fact that the address is in Rhode Island. Are you now going to be moving to this site, and your going to be in residence, at this building? MR.. NORMAN WHITEHEAD: That's my intention, based on the outcome of this hearing. MEMBER VILLA: So, you would not be an absentee landlord, kind of a thing at all. MR. NORMAN WHITEHEAD: No, no. MEMBER VILLA: OK. MR. NORMAN WHITEHEAD: That's part of my ( ). To come here. CHAIRMAN: We of course had seen the road, at the worst possible situation, and that was last Saturday. There is a possibility, that in making this decision, we will make it contingent upon the continual updating of that road, ok. We realize that, that road services other people, not just your property. But actually, when I went up there the first time, as I admitted to you. I was up prior to my being there last Saturday, just to make sure I knew where I was going. The road appeared to be fine. Of course, it was laden with water, at the time that I was up there. But honestly, the condition of the road is not bad, at all. But we will make it contingent upon the road being, continually maintained. MR. NORMAN WHITEHEAD: Right, I had people from sand and gravel there, to look at the road, and tell me what I need. CHAIRMAN: We'll go to the audience. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes. Just state your name for the record, if you don't mind? MR. SEYMOUR LEVINE: My name is Seymour Levine, I'm a neighbor of Norman. Not contigious property, but the next road over, probably ( ). I have some questions, since we were out of Town, when this appeared in the paper. CHAIRMAN: OK. MR. SEYMOUR LEVINE: As regarding this information. We have no information about, or no knowledge of what B & B's, the impact on the community and so forth. Now, the questions I have include, will Page 11 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals signs be out in front, and if there is a sign out in front, what are the size limitations of the sign? CHAIRMAN: It's in the code book. We'll have to look that up for you. I think it's two square feet. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I think it's two by one. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you'll see most of them in the Town have the person's name and it says, B & B after it. Somewhere in this general range. Something like this, ok. MR. SEYMOUR LEVINE: Another question. change in the zoning of the property? Does this involve a CHAIRMAN: SECRETARY is. CHAIRMAN: MR. SEYMOUR LEVINE: CHAIRMAN: No. MR. SEYMOUR LEVINE: So it's not a commercial type zone. My concern would be, that it would change the zoning of the neighborhood. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it's allowed in residential zones. MR. SEYMOUR LEVINE: Pardon me. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's allowed in residential zones by special permit, which we grant, but any zone. MR. SEYMOUR LEVINE: You plan to live there and be a resident. With those requirements, it's up for renewal every year, correct? No. LINDA KOWALSKI: By the Building Department~ there By the Building Department, not by us. MR. NORMAN WHITEHEAD: That's on the application, and part of that is that, I'm still a resident down here. S-ECRI~'P~RY LINDA l(O~/Ab~Kl: T~.~'.' ' ~r'.. CHAIRMAN: No, it's a special permit which is granted, only to this applicant, all right. If he was to sell the property, the special permit, I'll use the word, dies in effect. Page 12 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. NORMAN WHITEHEAD: I thought I could start out, and after two years, let some one else run it, but that's not allowable, I don't think. SECREq~,RY LIr:2~' )IdA~_LSKI: Th~2~; r~ght. _ CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak for or against this application? Any other comments from the board. MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion, closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye. Page 13 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals 8:00 P.M. Appl. No. 4421 HENRY TRAENDLY. This is an application based upon July 12, 1996 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector, in which applicant is requesting approval of berm with fence "as built" at a total height above the four feet limitation of Article XX111, Section 100-231, for this front yard area. Property known as 13220 Main Road, East Marion. CHAIRMAN: I have an application indicating where the berm has been placed. We have all been out to look at it, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone that would like to be heard, concerning this application. Just state your name for the record. ROBERT HUGHES ESQ: I'm the attorney for Mr. Traendly. I'd like to do a little history, on the location of this berm and fence. Prior to 1990, there was a berm with a fence, and plantings at the location of the berm and fence, that we're now talking about. In 1990, the end of 1990 and into 1991, the State Department of Transportation, temporary easement to imminent domain, for the purposes of repairing the Dam Pond bridge. In the process of doing this, they took a temporary easement across Mr. Traendly property, which had the effect of leveling the trees, the landscaping, the fence, and the berm that was, in the location that we are now speaking about. What Mr. Traendly has now done, is try to restore his property to what it was, before the Department of Transportation, paid their visit. There are certain aspects to the piece of property that, I'm sure you know, it's a unique piece of property. He has a couple of problems, one of which is noise from the traffic. Right where the Traendly house is, is where the speed limit goes from 40 up to 55, and heading East towards the Ferry. It's also where the "no passing zone" ends. So, you have a large amount of people who put the pedal to the metal, at that point. This is very noisy. It's also because of the narrowness of the lot, you need some privacy. There is very little opportunity for creating privacy there, and in alot of respects it's alot similar to some of these narrow lots, that are up on the Sound, between Town beach and Soundview, which had installed berms. As I said, there was the fence and the berm there with vegatation, before the State did the imminent domain. There are only two neighbors who would actually have, two contiguous neighbors, who would have an impact on. I spoke with Mr. Joseph Townsend, who actually would have the most direct impact. He's across the Main Road, and the potential for visually for him, would be the highest, and he had absolutely Page ]4 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals no objection at all, and thought it would be a good idea, and quite sensible to try to maintain, because he knows how loud it is. CHAIRMAN: OK. I just wanted to say, that we have never to my knowledge, that this ordinance has never provided for berms or fences above four feet in height, in the front yard. So, even if he did have this prior to, I can recollect this property, prior to him building it, the old hotel was there. The destruction of the old hotel. The construction of the new house. The construction of the swimming pool, and the construction of the garage. So quite honestly, there may not have been a building permit, or granted to him, with the prior fence and tile prior berm. MR. ROBERT HUGIIES: I think that the, from my understanding from Mr. Traendly was that the berm and the fence were there, when he bought the property. Now, I think. (unfinished sentence). CHAIRMAN: I don't think so. MR. ROBERT HUGHES: My understanding is that property in the late '80s. I guess when the ( ) ( ). When the berm was put in, I'm not sure. he bought the Inn was there, CHAIRMAN: Right. So what we're here basically to do is, what he has now placed there, is what you want legalized at that particular place, so to speak. MR. ROBERT HUGHES: Yes, he does have some hardships on that CHAIRMAN: There is no question about it. I understand. I'm just trying to get the gist of, if there was anything ever applied for or granted, from the Building Inspector, at a prior hearing. MR. ROBERT HUGHES: No, I'm not aware of whether there had been or not. CHAIRMAN: OK, all right. MR. ROBERT HUGHES: He's under the impression that, I mean. As I said, when he bought the house, it was there~ the berm was there. He assured me that the berm was there and the fence. I'm sure he had to get over to see anything he needed to ). CHAIRMAN: OK, I'll start with Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: No I have no questions. It's obvious as to the situation, when you look at it. Page 15 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora MEMBER TORTORA: It's a total of eight feet above grade level? MR. ROBERT HUGHES: Yes, I guess. I'm not as sure exactly how much? MEMBER TORTORA: Four feet to the berm, four feet to the fence. CHAIRMAN: It's very difficult to measure. MR. ROBERT HUGHES: It's hard, it depend where you're taking the grade from. I would say, it's certainly more than six, but I don't know if it's eight. MEMBER TORTORA: OK CHAIRMAN: OK. Mr. DInizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: OK, lets see what developes at the hearing. Thank you Sir. MR. ROBERT HUGHES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? OK, I'll make a motion, unless there are any other questions from board members, closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER VILLA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye. 8:05 - 8:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4434 - ROBERT TURNER. This is an application based upon the October 10, 1996 Actions of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article XXlll, Section 100-239.4B, and under Article ill, Section 100-33C, in which applicant is requesting approval, either as a new permit or as an amendment to Building Permit #15772 based on the sketch submitted for approval by the Building Inspector in March 1987, concerning the deck addition within 75 feet of an existing bulkhead adjacent to a tidal water body, and the front yard accessory shed, as built. Location of Property: 1200 West Lane, Southold, NY; Parcel ID I1000-31-14-12. Page 16 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey amended August 31, 1988, indicating two areas which is the nature of this application. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would someone like to be heard on behalf of this? GARY OLSEN ESQ: I'm the Attorney for Robert Turner, the owner of property located at 1200 West Lane, Southold NY, who is seeking a variance for a deck addition, as built, and for a variance to maintain a storage shed, as built. On February 18, 1965, the applicant was issued a building permit #2748Z, to build a single family residence, which was built and for which a certificate of occupancy was issued #Z2513 by the Southold Town Building Department. At the time the original house was constructed, a deck was also constructed, on the Peconic Bay side of the house. On March 17, 1987 the applicant's builder Russell Goodwin, applied for a building permit to replace the existing deck with a new deck, for which a building permit #15772Z was issued. No certificate of occupancy was ever issued for the deck, since apparently the builder did not make an application for same. Mr. Turner is presently under contract, to se]] the subject property, and in reviewing his documents, it was discovered that there was no certificate of occupancy issued for the new deck. Accordingly, I made application for same, which application was denied on the basis, that the deck was less than 75 feet from the bulkhead, and was instructed by the Southold Town Building Department, that a variance application would have to be made before a certificate of occupancy would be granted. Tile average distance from the deck to the bulkhead is 61 feet, and there's a circular portion of the deck on the Southwest corner, that's approximately 56 feet from the bulkhead. In comparing the application for the original building permit, with the application for the deck addition, I note that the original application reflected that the closest portion of the house from the bulkhead was 30 feet. In fact, it appears that the house was constructed approximately 75 feet from the bulkhead, and the original deck was 12 feet wide, resulting in the original deck being approximately 63 feet from the bulkhead. In reviewing the March 17, 1987 building permit, it was reflected thereon, that the replacement deck was to be 16 feet wide, which in fact, is it's present constructed width. On March 17, 1987 the building permit application was prepared and signed by the applicant's builder, Russell Goodwin, who reflected on the plot diagram that the existing house was 100 feet from the bulkhead, which in fact was not accurate. As I indicted, the existing house is slightly less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. There may have been a Page 17 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Soutbold Town Board of Appeals misunderstanding by the builder, of the scales reflected on the Van Tuyl survey dated July 26, 1965. It is noted that the Van Tuyl survey, reflects two scales. The bottom of the survey there is designated, "location map". The scale of which is 100 feet, equals one inch. However, there is a, "detailed" and a "section" of the survey, where the scale is not 100, equals one inch, but 50 feet, equals one inch. It is possible that the builder misread the survey, in preparing the 1987 building permit application, because there's no way that either the old deck, nor the new deck could be located within 75 feet of the bulkhead, since the house itself is 75 feet to the bulkhead. When I was advised by the Building Department, that the application would have to be made to the Zoning Board, requested Mr. Turner to measure the distances of his neighbors structure from the bulkhead. The neighbor immediately to the Turner property on the West side, is owned by Stancs, Suffolk County Tax Map 1000-88-6.15, and this deck is 64 feet from the bulkhead. I reviewed the Stancs file at the Building Department, and the Building application shows that the deck was closer than 75 feet to the bulkhead. To the West of Stancs is Worth's Suffolk County Tax Map 1000-88.6.15, and his deck is 58 feet from the bulkhead. The Worth's deck is a terraced area in two parts, with stone walls and slate tops, and is not a convential deck. The house to the East of the Turner property is assessed to a John Franco. Suffolk County Tax Map 1000-90.1.25, formally Maloney, and the Franco deck is 34 feet from the bulkhead. I checked the Maloney file in the Building Department, and found in the file an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, approving the construction of the Maloney's deck, with 35 feet of the bulkhead. The decision was rendered December 13, 1990, appeal #3983, and I delivered a copy of that decision to the Zoning Board office this afternoon. The Maloney situation is almost identical to the Turner situation, except that the Turner deck is further away from the bulkhead, ie 56 to 61 feet. Whereas the Maloney deck, was approved at 33 feet from the bulkhead. Mr. Turner's present application, also seeks a variance to maintain a existing shed, in it's present location, even though it does not meet the setbacks requirements of the Town. When the February 18, 1965 building permit was issued, #2748Z, it was noted on the application that an existing framed shed, would be moved to the front yard. It appears from the Van Tuyl's survey of July 26, 1965 as amended August 31, ]988, that the shed is approximately four feet from the Northly property line. The shed Page 18 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals has been in it's present location since 1965, and it's screened by cedar bushes. As a practical matter, to move the shed to it's present location, to meet the present zoning setback requirements, would create an eyesore, and adversely effect the value of the property. I have been advised by Mr. turner, that none of his neighbors have ever complained over the past 30 years, as to the location of the shed. I wish to point out to the board, that this property is in an isolated area, and the access thereto is over a dirt road. The houses are well separated from each other. I note that on the building permit #2748Z, issued on May 14, 1965, there is a notation that the accessory building location would have to be approved by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Turner was not aware of that requirement until we started digging into the Building Department files, in anticipation of this presentation. It would be my assumption that the Zoning Board of Appeals approval, contemplated by the building permit, was to obtain approval to have the shed in the front yard. It goes back on 1965, on a waterfront piece of property as I recall. I had to get a special variance to have the shed in the front yard. That is not the situation today. In any event, the shed has been in it's present location for over 30 years, with no complaints~ and there is no other suitable location on the property for the shed. The benefits to the applicant are obvious. If the variances are granted, the contract of sale with the applicants purchaser will go through. As in all standard real estate contracts, Mr. Turner as a seller, is obligated to provide certificates of occupancy for all structurers and improvement, requiring same. The failure of this board to grant the applicant the variances requested, could result in a loss of the real estate sale. It is respectifully submitted that there is no determent to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community that would occur, if the variances were to be granted. In determining whether the variances should be granted, there are five factors that I wish to address. 1. The requested variance would not produce an undersirable change in the neighborhood, nor a change to nearby properties. 2. The relief sought by the applicant, cannot be achieved by some other method, other than applying for a variance. 3. The relief requested is not substancial. 4. The variance would not have a adverse impact or effect on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood. 5. The difficulties are uniquely related to the property, and are not personal in nature. Page 19 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Sonthold Town Board of Appeals For all the above reasons, it is respectifully requested that this application be granted as applied for. Since the purchaser is waiting for the zoning board determination, before he goes and applies for a mortgage, it is respectifully requested, that if it's at all possible, a prompt decision be made by this board as to this application. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. GARY OLSEN ESQ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to say Mr. Olsen, that what we've been doing in situation like this, and I have no idea if the board will do it tonight, or whenever we make a decision on this is. We've been allowing these sheds to remain, in their present state. Any reconstruction, any re-enhansement, they would have to be moved to a suitable location. I realize that, that would require an additional variance, if the person requires ( ) owners for one or two, placement in another area of the front yard. But, that is an area that I will be dealing with. GARY OLSEN ESQ: I know the seller and certainly the purchaser. I think if they are going to have any problem with making a determination, a favorable determination~ that the shed could stay there, subject to that kind of a condition. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Let's see if we have any questions. Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dlnizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: No. CHAIRMAN: Anybody have any problems with the deck, as it exists? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: was to the bulkhead. I heard Which is it? I wanted to ask, what the setback two figures, 56 feet and 61 feet. Page 20 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals GARY OLSEN ESQ: I believe that the average distance is 61 feet from the bulkhead, but there is that circular corner. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: That's the closest corner. GARY OLSEN ESQ: I believe that's 56 feet. SE~IIETARY LINDA KOWALCII-iZ. ~-li. CHAIRMAN: 56 feet, good. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What about the shed? Are the setbacks in the same position? MEMBER TORTORA: And the house is 75. GARY OLSEN ESQ: Actually, the house is slightly less than 75 feet, because I scaled it out. It's 73. CHAIRMAN: And you're showing four feet, plus a minus on the shed. Did the builder measure that? GARY OLSEN ESQ: I took that distance from Van Tuyl's survey. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What about the other property line? The setback from the other line. GARY OLSEN ESQ: The side yard? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes. I have a ruler here. Jerry could scale it off or something. GARY OLSEN ESQ: There may be a scale on the survey. Let me take a look. CHAIRMAN: 50 feet. GARY OLSEN ESQ: Well it looks like it's certainly more than the front yard. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: More than 40. Is that good? GARY OLSEN ESQ: More than four. ~ ........... NDA L~OW~kLCKI: M~ tha~l fotlr,~J~, CHAIRMAN: Yes, here it's showing seven at it's closest point, on the scale. The other portion of it is showing, about nine. Which is the most Southerly portion of the shed. Page 21 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals GARY OLSEN ESQ: Actually, Mr. Don ( ) is representing the buyer, and he called me today and said, please let me know right away, as soon as a decision has been made. CHAIRMAN: OK, sure. We'll do the best we can. GARY OLSEN ESQ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application. Seeing no hands I'd like to make a motion reserving decision until later. All in favor, aye. 8:20-9:00 p.m. and again at 11:12-11:38 p.m. Appl. No. 4433 FRANCIS & CtIRISTINA DOYEN: This is an application based upon the October 9, 1996 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Section 100-25A. Applicants are requesting a Waiver which has been provided by Article 11, Section 100-26 for undersized lots held in common ownership. Location of Property: ROW off Hedge Street, Fishers Island, NY; Parcels as combined now known as #1000-10-7-26.1 (formally 17 and State-owned land without a County #) Please Note: participate. MEMBER DOYEN left during this hearing and did not CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey from Chandler, Palmer and King, the most recent date is March 31, 1993. The members of the board that did go to Fisher's Island, did see this property, bearing in mind that there would be an application brought before us. We were out there in August and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Ta× Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Good evening Ms. Moore. How are you? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Good evening, thank you. Now, for those of you that did not have the opportunity to go to Fisher's Island, and I think it's probably the two of you, let me describe what this property is like. It's on the water. It's on Hedge Street, which is (I don't know if it's a private Street or not) but it's on Hedge Street, and the main house was built by Warren Mainard, back in 1926. The cottage, which is a significiently sized cottage, was also built by Warren Mainard in 1941. Apparently when Mr. Mainard built this property, it was done on filled land, and the filled land was owned by the State of New York. So then, the Doyen family purchased this property on visual inspection. They see a house, a substancial house, and they see a substancial cottage on the water. Believing at the time, that in 1957 that they had two houses, that could be independently be sold, lived in, and used all this time. Page 22 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals Well, part of that was correct. They have lived in both houses. The family has used both houses, since 1957. Apparently, sometime in the '90, when it was necessary to refinance, (the main house), and get back refinancing, the survey's entitled it for, and all that goes with refinancing a property, they discovered that this cottage in fact, was upstate owned land, and was not their's, legally their's. They did not have the ownership of this. So, from 1992 they did the refinancing. So from 1992 till April 1996, they sought to get this property from the State. The State negotiated with them. They worked with them, and finally a patent E was transferred to the Doyen's, and for some reason, the State refused to deed to, just one of the Doyen's, because recognizing that they owned the adjacent house. The State knew best, they said, "Oh no, we have to convey it, to the two of you". Not realizing, the State obviously not addressing the zoning issues, that might be applicable, conveyed the property to the Doyen's. At that point, they owned two houses, and the property merged, in accordance to the zoning code. That was never the intent. They believed from the State, and the State assured them, that they were getting a separate owned property, that could be conveyed, after they ultimately acquired it. So now, they were in the predicament, that they now had the two houses, and they have to go through this process to essentially, (unfinished sentence). If I was a divorce attorney, I'd say annual what they had done. The merger occurs because of the zoning, pure and simple. It's not because of the title or anything else. It's a creature of statue. The waiver, the merger allows you to say no, that's is not applicable in this case, particularly where you have two houses completely built up, on this property. Unfortunately, Mr. Doyen has been hospitalized for some tests, and he could not be here today. But he did write a letter, and he did ask me to read it to you, and put it on the record, and I hope you will bear with me. Gentlemen and Madam Board Member, With regard to our application for the granting of the variance, I would like to state the following. I have been privileged to recall the time when zoning in our Town began, and also to have served nearly all of the decade of the '70s, as a Town Councilmen, and a Town Justice. During that period of time, I observed the workings of all tile Town's agencies, and in particular the Zoning Boards, and found that fairness prevailed, with the interest of both the Town and the applicants being served. To be as comprehensive as possible, I wish to briefly list the reasons, why we feel our application should be granted. Page 23 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals 1. The considerable expense to purchase the land from New York State. We checked to make sure, the acquisition of the property would result in owning a transferable asset. This was guaranteed by the seller, which is the State of New York. Excuse me, New York State, office of general services. 2. That we are requesting in no way, alters the nature of the neighborhood, and usage would be no different than any other surrounding property. We have checked with the local Fire Department, and have been assured that if anything, our location is better than average for fire fighting purchases, due to the closeness of water, and easy equipment access. Also, the septic water supply utility and street access items, are up to, or better than all code requirements. Also, the County and Town survey maps, show many similiar and small sized lots on Fisher's Island. I have lived on Fisher's Island over 65 years, and like many of the elderly, find that the only asset that I have left, is expensive to own, real property that can be sold, so that my family can possibly become financially solvent. Also, we have a daughter who has Multiple Sclerosis, and while presently in remission, the disease could disable her, and being able to transfer the shore front property, would provide a place for her to live with us, in our present home. I could go on and list many other reasons, why this application should be approved. But I think the board has been provided with sufficient good reasons, to allow acting in a way, that best serves the Town and the applicant. Sincerely, Francis Doyen PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I'll present that to the board all at once. He's a very elequent individual and quite interesting dealing with. We have two certificate of occupancy that was issued in '82, for both structurers. One in '82 and then when the addition, after the refinancing on the cottage was issued, it was in '92, for a dormer addition to the existing cottage. All referring back to the fact, that these two structurers were built prior to zoning. Do you have that already in your files Linda? No. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: ~(~' ~ kn~ e~V~7~ ik_ ~. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I also have a letter from John Thatcher, who is from Fisher's Island Conservatory Inc., and it's a lenghty letter. The bottom line is, he's in support of this application, and hopes that the board grants it, in all respects. Finally, I have Evans Real Estate. He has handled summer rentals for the Doyen family, for many years, and apparently no tenant has ever complained about access problems. This is further comfirmed by the higher percentage of repeat tenants, and by the higher rents commanded by both the cottage, and the main house. Page 24 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: There are no CO's in the file. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK, l'll present that ultimately, ok. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. I know that you received some correspondence, and I would be happy to respond. CHAIRMAN: Are you addressing the right-of-way situation, or the access to tile (unfinished sentence). PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I'd be happy to. Just to start off with, with the waiver of merger. It's recognizing the existence of the two properties, that is not a subdivision. Realistically, regardless of what the situation is, with titles and right-of-ways, and the rest. You have a situation there, that has been there for 40 years, over 40 years and will not change. I understand you received a letter from Mr. Ham representing Mr. Burnham, adjacent property owner. In fact, Mr. Ham and I have been in contact with each other all throughout, because I started off with Mr. Doyen, inquiring as to the title of this right-of-way. Mr. Burnham had initiated a title search with Mr. Doyen, to find out what is the legal status of the right-of-way. You will see it on the survey. It's on the Northerly side of the property. It runs along that lenght of the property line. Apparently again, these are things that are created in the '40's and 50's. Somehow or another, that right-of-way was never deeded over to either Burnham or Doyen, and according to the title report, no one ownes that right-of-way, other than the original developers of this whole area ( ) and their heirs. So realistically, you have a right-of-way there, that would have a very difficult time getting E title, getting insurable title to the ownership of that right-of-way. Practically though, there is a prescriptive easement at minimum, if not an adverse possession, which Mr. Doyen has gained, with respect to that right-of-way, because in looking at the property, the right-of-way has a driveway, that is used by the Doyen family. It runs to the back, and cars are parked there and used, and use that right-of-way, and have used that for the past 40 years. In addition, Burnham or his predecessor in title, have installed a chain length fence between the end of the right-of-way, presumably the Doyen property, and the Burnham property. So if you look at it, you see, here's Doyen to your right and your looking at the house. You see the right-of-way, that looks like it's the driveway of the house. Along the side of that right-of-way, essentially creating a separation between the two properties, is the chained link fense, and then a privet hedge that was built in fact by Page 25 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals Burnham, ten years ago and is now 10 feet tall. So physically, the property looks like it's all one property, and the right-of-way looks as it's part of the Doyen piece. Legally the title, it's going to be a title problem forever, unless there is a partition action that we serve notice to all the heirs involved, the developers and there are three or four of them, of the original track. So that proceeding, I don't imagine that anyone can afford to bring that type of proceeding. There might be other shortcuts, but certainly at a minimum the Doyen's have the easement, the prescriptive easement, and the adverse possession of that right-of-way, for the period of time that they owned. Their sucessors entitled to gain, what the Doyen's achieved. The use of that right-of-way. So, and you see in the second part of the letter from Mr. Ham, which is the opinion of the Title company, which I did get a chance to speak to. To find out, whether or not they could insure to the Doyen's, the ownership interest in that right-of-way. It says that, the original developers are the title owners, the ones wtlo may have an interest in that right-of-way. But in fact, the right-of-way when it was described in one of the deeds, somewhere along the line, it was described as a pedestrian right-of-way. For that group of individuals, who may have the interest in it. So, I'm not concerned about the others use of that right-of-way, because at minimum it's a pedestrian use, not vehicular. That answers the right-of-way question. CHAIRMAN: OK, the dock situation is rented to whom? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK, there is a dock that was built, and I'm not sure I have the original date of the dock, but it looks more like a platform. You can't really see through it. It was built again on State land, and the way the State has granted an easement to the Doyen family, a certain number of years. I have the easement in here, if you need it, and the easement is for the purposes of the use of that dock for lobstering. His two Son's are lobsterman~ living on Fisher's Island, and the State has a policy that to encourage certain lobstering and fishing, and those types of uses, and they have granted to the Doyen's an easement, to continue to use that dock in the condition it's in, or replace it whatever, for as long as someone is lobstering from that location. CHAIRMAN: You're referring to Francis and Christina's Son's. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes. CHAIRMAN: OK. I'm going to do something a little different. In order to continue the hearing, I'm going to recess it until the end of the agenda tonight, beacause there are more questions that we have, when I'm finished. Page 26 - Transcript of Hearings November 114, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK CHAIRMAN: So as not to load the calandar in the beginning here, ok. I know you'll be here for a couple of other things. I may choose to do it before the last hearing, but we'll see what developes. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Whenever your ready. CHAIRMAN: Let's just go with the questions? Mr. Villa, do you have any questions? MEMBER VILLA: Well, knowing the way the State or County grant land, on quick claim deeds or what have you, just the fact that they grant you the right to land, doesn't give you any guarantee it's buildable or anything else. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: No, in this particular case there was a patent deed, which is most of Southold original settler's. The title they got from the King or the State. It was an actual patent deed, it's not a quick claim deed. It's what you and I would get as a bargaining sale deed. It is in fact a deed for the house, the property that, that cottage is on, and that is not subject to the rights of anyone else. That is in fact, exclusive to the Doyen's and they can transfer it. It has clean title and the rest. So this particular situation, reminds me of reading the History tech of Southold, and other Colonies, where they received patents from the State, directed from the King. There were no question, that that title was good, and that they could transfer that title. Except a claim from here and there from Indians. Other than that, there is pretty much assurance, that you have a good claim. CHAIRMAN: OK. Any other questions Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: Well basically, looking at the old survey's, I was just wondering how this property even got filled in to begin with, because it was under water. PATRICIA MOORE ES(~: We're talking 1910, 1920 before anybody had any laws that applied to land use. You pretty much did what you wanted to do, and we're talking prior to Mainard. What did I tell you? The date was in the 19'. I don't remember at this point, so many dates. MEMBER VILLA: No, that's all right. CHAIRMAN: I just want to say that, after looking at it at field inspection. The main house is quite elevated above the water. The cottage is four to five feet Jim? Page 27 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, ]996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I would say more than that, 10 feet. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: We're talking about an area that has been completely bulk headed. It really the comercial area of Fisher's Island. So that you're looking down to the water. Even where the dock is, it's several, maybe four feet maybe, from the water level. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's quite high. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: At least. MEMBER VILLA: Tile only other question that I have. Looking at Mr. Thatcher letter. He brings up the sewage system. I would like to see more details on that, so I know what I'm addressing. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well I can tell you. I have that information. MEMBER VILLA: Where it is? How these things are piped and everything else. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well, that's very specific. Those are Health Department issues. Those are not issues that are addressed in the waiver of merger. Knowing your History, your background. I have that information, nonetheless. There are three pools of 1,000 gallon tanks, describing it properly. There is public water on the site. When this was done 10 years ago, it was originally recommended by the installer, to put two pools in. But Mr. Doyen said, no. Let's go better than what needs to be put in there, and there are three pools. It is located in the front yard of the main house. It is a shared pipe, that goes to the cottage, because the cottage being on filled ]and in the water, you would not want to put a septic system on that property. So they will be sharing a common pipe with an easement. That's not a concern, because at least as an Attorney, that's not a concern, because the easement wi]] be granted on the sale of that property. It will continue to be a shared system, because practically there is no other way of doing it. They have to have a large system that is shared. [ MEMBER VILLA: You say that's it's not a concern, but I think it's a concern, because basically if there is not an easement, executed at the time, and they now become two separate entities, and one has a feud with the other, and cuts him off. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: easement. I can assure you that, there will be an MEMBER VILLA: Well you say that, but I'm asking the question, because I think those might have to be conditions. Page 28 - Transcript of Hearings November ]4, ~996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: (unfinished sentence). We can put it as a condition because Mr. MEMBER VILLA: Well your saying, it's no concern. I'm saying it is. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: No, I mean. CHAIRMAN: Give us the terminology that we want. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK CHAIRMAN: The legal ease that you would place within a contract of sale, for the cottage. Not right at this moment. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well I could try. CHAIRMAN: And we will then modify that or alter it. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Incorporate it. CHAIRMAN: And incorporate it into a decision. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: That's fine. That's already been thought of, and I've already advised Mr. Doyen that, the best way to do this is to show the cottage where the septic system is, and to in fact, provide it subject to an easement, running wherever the line is specifically, and with the shared pools. You do want to encourage the cottage, to continue to use that system, or any better system that comes along in the future, rather than trying to put one in to that small space that's on the property. CHAIRMAN: Please also indicate in that, excuse me Bob for jumping in on this, what the responsibility of each property owner would be. What the cost shared, so on and so forth. MEMBER VILLA: I'm just saying that (unfinished sentence). CHAIRMAN: Is that basically, what you're alluding to. MEMBER VILLA: There's even another question because, my concern is that it possible may not get to the Health Department. If it does get to the Health Department, the Health Department is going to say, they have to have separate systems. That's what they've always said in the past. They generally have to have it on the same lot, or you have to have it on a adjacent lot, with an easement. They generally want separate systems because, many times in the past when you have a joined syste~n, and the system has a problem. One person going to say. I'm not going to pay because he uses it more than I do, and you get into all kinds of problems. So the policy was a long Page 29 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals time ago, that they have a separate system. bringing it up, because it could be a problem. So this is why I'm PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Understandable so, and any sale that this property is going to be, we can do it with a covenant restriction on both properties, as another alternative. Deed it with a restriction in the deed, or as a covenant restriction filed on both properties. Which says that, essentially, paraphrasing what you said, that any improvement, repairs to tile system will be shared equally between the two, so there will never be question, that he's a Summer person or he's a year round person. His stinks and mine doesn't, type of thing. MEMBER VILLA: Well what I'm saying, if you go through the Health Department and you're probably end up with their Board of Review, to get that type of a waiver, because otherwise they will require, separate systems. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes, Im sure we would have to go to the Board of Review, for this type of system, regardless of whether we wanted to put individual systems on one property, which practically you're going to have to do. You're not going to be able to put a septic system on that cottage property. MEMBER VILLA: Right PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: So, I have no problems, or at least Mr. Doyen and I. He and I already talked about it. We have no problem putting in, making representaion or .putting in conditions in your approval. That covernants and restrictions will be filed on the properties, to share the expence and maintenance of the common septic system, or some system that would be approved by the Health Department, if you had to go back to the Health Department, and revise the whole system. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora: MEMBER TORTORA: issued for? I have seen the two CO's and what were they PATR1CIA MOORE ESQ: All right. It says here, requirement for two private one family dwelling, built prior to zoning. A "C of O", prior to April 23, 1957 pursuant to CO number. One family dwelling with addition to cottage, preexisting one family dwelling and three preexisting accessory garage in front yard. There's a garage in the front yard. MEMBER VILLA: That's what I wanted to know. The other thing is, in your original application you had said, that the lots were created Page 30 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals prior to 1957 by Deed. one lot was created prior. PATRICIA MOORE ES(~: MEMBER TORTORA: intrusive one. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: In the Notice of Disapproval, it shows that The other lot was created by State. By State. Right. The question I have is kind of a A what? MEMBER TORTORA: Was there a lot there? Was the cottage lot a lot, owned by the State, prior to the time that it was, the letter patent was given to the Doyen's.? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: But there wasn't a tax bill for it though, right. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well, tile tax bill. Well, the Town went on visual inspection. They only had the tax map that doesn't differentiate, that doesn't see anything. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, right. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: So, they were charging tax for the right-of-way, the house and the cottage. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: As it turned out, the State owned the cottage, so. CHAIRMAN: All the assessment was loaded on the main house. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: All of the assessment. They paid the assessment for all these structurers, even those that they didn't have legally the ownership to. MEMBER VILLA: But, was there a lot? Was there a lot for the cottage, prior to 1992. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Prior to 1992. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, single and separate lot. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: There was build land, that the State considered a separate lot. MEMBER TORTORA: That's what I'm asking. Page 31 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, I understand all the unusual circumstances involved in this. What I'm asking for is. In other words, I'm doing lot creation. If we are to consider this under the merger law, it must in some way comply with lot creation. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: It was as basis as the State created this lot, or at least the State recognized that it was a lot created on their land, built land. MEMBER TORTORA: Prior to (unfinished sentence). PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Prior to zoning. MEMBER TORTORA: Because that's actually the only real serious question I have in this application. Is there something that you could give us, stating this for the record, so that we would have this in the record. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: You have the deed from the State. MEMBER TORTORA: But the deed is dated 1992. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: But the cottage was built in 1919, whatever. I mean, you don't build on something. There has to be some land there. It's an interesting theoretical (unfinished sentence). CHAIRMAN: I see what you're saying, but. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't want that meshing with this, that's all. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I mean, I know what your getting at. If the State had not given the Doyen's that property, in both their names, we would not be here today, and they would be able to sell it tomorrow, because it would bare been a separate parcel, that the State recognizes as a separate parcel. They have been assured, the title, E title insurance can be achieved on that parcel because it a patent. It's not a quick claim, you know. You get what I own, and if I don't own anything, you don't have anything. This is a patent deed that tile State said. Just like they do in underwater land, in other area's. They actually grant the deed to the individual and it's their's. It's keen ownership. MEMBER TORTORA: Isn't it possible that they didn't do that, because they couldn't grant the right, to use that right-of-way. So how would you have access to that property? Page 32 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well they considered. MEMBER VILLA: You can't have access through this land lot. That's probably why they combined it with the front lot, because they could not give access, over that lot. They had no right to do that. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: What are you speaking of, the State or the Town. MEMBER VILLA: The State. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: But the State doesn't get into that detail of questions. They say, there is a piece of property here. You have an easement by necessity. As a matter of law, you do not have. It's against all the laws of real property, to create a land a piece. There has always been an easement by necessity, over that right-of-way, to the back piece. MEMBER VILLA: Well, that's what we've been questioning. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well, I'm a Lawyer. MEMBER VILLA: I realize that, but the State is too. That's why was wondering. They must have had a rational to combine and require it, and I'm just trying to put it into (unfinished sentence). PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: But they didn't combine it. talking about, combining it? What are you MEMBER VILLA: They didn't combine it. They just granted it, in the same name. So that in essence, it was one. Your saying, that if they granted it separately, we wouldn't be here. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Oh, I see what your saying. MEMBER VILLA: I'm saying, they might have had an explicate reason for doing that, and the reason is access. PATRiCIA MOORE ESQ: I think it's because it's a Husband & Wife situation that, they don't intend to grant to one, without giving to both. The sense I got from the Doyen's is. You know~ the two of us were involved in negations. They weren't about to give it to me, and not give it to both of us.. CHAIRMAN: Do you know how the meets and balances description was established in that patent? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: By the State. I think through the survey. Page 33 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Because we don't have that survey. PATR1CIA MOORE ESQ: I think there's a survey, or the deed. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Would you have that survey? There's no deed or survey, that would show where the description came from. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: and balaces that parcel. we ( ). The survey that you have, has the meets That's the only survey, and that's the one SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It doesn't have the date on the copy that we have. Do you have it? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: This is dated May 17, 1995. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, and whose the surveyor on that? '95 you said. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Chandler and Palmer. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK. Thank you Pat. CHAIRMAN: I think tile issue that Mrs. Tortora is raising is. How come the waiver issue, and not a area varianee? How come you choose to go with the waiver aspect, and not an area variance. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Area variance would mean subdivision first. Don't you have the merger law that says, that once you own properties in common name, they merge. MEMBER TORTORA: But the problem is, that if you look under lot ereation. I'm talking about the way the law is written, it says. A lot created by deed or Town approval, shall be recognized, if one of the following standards apply, and if the lot have not merged. Because if the identical lot was created by deed, recorded in Suffolk County Clerk's office before June 30, 1983. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: You have a deed that dated 1996. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that would not apply to this section. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Right, so that exception (unfinished sentence). Page 34 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Number 2. The lot in question is approved by the Southold Town Planning Board. It was not. Number 3. The lot in question shown on a subdivision, approved by the Town Board Planning Board, prior to '83, was not. The lot in question is all approved and recognized by formal action by the ZBA prior to. That's why I asked that question, prior to '83. PATRIA MOORE ESQ: subdivided lot by the (unfinished sentence). That this lot was not recognized, was not a Zoning Board. The Zoning Board used to MEMBER TORTORA: No, I understand that. I'm saying that (unfinished sentence). CHAIRMAN: She's saying, that it doesn't come into the same section. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: She's saying it wasn't created until 1996. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly, and for us to consider a merger, a waiver of merger, a lot must first conform to that of lot creation. We can't get to B to unmerge two lots, if the lot is not created according to this section. That is the understanding of this board from tile ( ). I'm just saying, I'll listen to the arguments against it. CHAIRMAN: What I think she's saying is, what we had prior to this patent deed was an encroachment. She's saying that, by the mere fact that we now have a deed, respectifully to, most of the property that this cottage is on. Not the entire dock area and so on~ that this particular deed happened after. It didn't happen, it's really a deed of necessity. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK. CHAIRMAN: Do you know what I'm saying, because they wanted to control all the bnJldings on tbeir property. So they very simply went to the State and got this deed~ for the purpose of basically encompassing all the buildings that they own. Wbat Lydia is saying, is that she doesn't think it's meets the criteria of the lot merger law. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Tell me, could he sell that lot. With you rational, that lot is not a lot in this Town and therefore, they can do what they want, because zoning doesn't apply. MEMBER TORTORA: No, no, no. Not at all. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK Page 35 - Transcript of Hearings November ]4, 1996 Regular Meeting Seuthold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: In order, as I say, and this is the way it has been applied from the beginning. This is the advise that (unfinished sentence) . PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I understand, but you re~nember. You have a situation here that I don't think has ever, ever been considered. MEMBER TORTORA: That's why we're discussing it. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Nobody thinks that it's going to be a lot, that's going to be created by the State, and granted to the individual. You follow me. I mean, ! looked at those back lists and I said, I wish. If it met any of the exceptions, we wouldn't be here. I didn't see it meeting any of the exceptions. According to the merger section, it seems to merge two separate properties. He has a separate parcel, he has a separate deed. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. CHAIRMAN: All right. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK CHAIRMAN: Let me just go on to Mr. Dinizio. Mr. Dinizio, do you have any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but what I would say though. That Pat, I think I got your point, that the law that Lydia's referring to, you would not be here if you met one of those. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, that's not our standards for this, and your hardship is just a name on a deed, has caused a merger of what was once two separate lots. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: One owned by the State. MEMBER DINIZIO: Whether you knew it or not. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Right MEMBER DINIZIO : It was two separate lots, contained to another neighbor's adjoining lot. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Right. and one lot was Page 36 - Transcript of Hearings November ]4, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: And they happen to be in the same name, and you're asking ns for relief from the merger law, because the way that it was done. Not necessarily that it was ever merged in any way, because it was never owned by the same owner, if you really go back. They were assumed to be owned by the same owner. PATRICIA MOORE ESq,: They were assumed to be. MEMBER DINIZIO: But they were not. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions other than, we did inspect this property and the dock and the house is right on the water. It would seem to me, that there are two separate distinct pieces of property, that are very small. Some of the properties in the general vacinity are that way. It's a beautiful piece of land. A nice piece of New England, I think, and it would be nice to see if they could ( ) lobster, and do the things that they do there. That's all I have Jerry. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: I'm sorry to take so long. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: We need the copies. CHAIRMAN: right. Yes, your going to give us some copies of something, SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Pat, were you going to give us copies? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes, I wanted to do it. You probably will take a break. I'll give it to you during the break. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, I also need the affidavit of posting. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: You want it now? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, that's all right, later. I'm just reminding you. CHAIRMAN: OK, in an attempt to clear the calendar for a little while anyway, we're going to recess this. I have further questions regarding this application. I'll reserve it until the end of the meeting. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Some of the documents. Page 37 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Thank you Pat. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody that would like to speak either for or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion recessing lhe hearing until into the evening. SECRETARY LINDA KOPWALSKI: It will be after the DeFriest hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. MEMBER TORTORA: Recessing or reserving decision Jerry? CHAIRMAN: Recessing. hearing is too involved. We're not closing this hearing. This MEMBER TORTORA: OK. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Who would like to second the motion? MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I need a vote on the motion. CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye. 9:00 - 9:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4428 - VINCENT AND EDNA QUATROCHE: This is an application based upon the September 23, 1996 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Section 100-25A. Applicants are requesting a Waiver which has been provided by Article 11, Section 100-26 for undersized lots held in common ownership. Location of Property: Vacant land lnown as 130 Sunset Lane, Greenport. County Parcel ID #1000-33-4-69 which adjoins applicants house referred to as I160 Sutton Place (1000-33-4-70). CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey indication 160 Sutton Place, which is a lot approximately 75 by 105. I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicatiing this and surrounding property in the area. We shall go on to this Gentlemen. Would you state your name for the record? MR. VINCENT QUATROCHE: My name is Mr. Quatroehe from Greenport. CHAIRMAN: How are you? Page 38 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. VINCENT QUATROCHE: Each member of the board should have a copy of this clients form. Aecording to #1000-26 waiver of merger, I'm in compliance with this ( ).1. Unmerging my lot, will not result in a significient inerease in the density of the neighborhood. 2. The lot will be consistant with the size of the lots in the neighborhood. 3. Unmerging may avoid economic hardship. 4. The natural details and character of the contours, and the slopes of the lots, will not be signifieiently changed or altered in any way. CHAIRMAN: OK. We will start with Mr. Doyen. Mr. Doyen, do you have any questions of this applicant? MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: Other than to say I live in the neighborhood. I've known these lots to be separate for quite some time, and pretty much distinct from each other. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: There are two separate deed descriptions on this. No I don't bare any questions. CttAIRMAN: Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: What's the History of it. When was the lot purchased? MR. VINCENT QUATROCItE: We built the house in 1957, and 10 years later, we bought tile lot that was adjacent to it. In anticipation that in the future, one of our children wanted to build a house there, it's something that they could. Now of course, different circumstances are involved. MEMBER VILLA: When you bought the lot, you put it in the same name though. MR. VINCENT QUATROCI{E: When we bought the lot, yes. At that time we didn't know about this. We were busy raising a family, and both of us were working at the same time, so we had other things to think about. MEMBER VILLA: So you held them in common since 1967. MR. VINCENT QUATROCHE: Yes. MEMBER VILLA: OK, no other questions. Page 39 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting $outhold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I thank you Sir. ls there anybody that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any further questions from anyone Gentlemen or Ladies? OK, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. All in favor, aye. Page 40 - Transcript of Hearings November 14, 1996 Regular Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals 9:05 - 9:08 p.m. Appl. No. 4424 EILEEN MORINI, OWNER. This is an application based upon the June 27, 1996 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article 11, Section 100-25A. Applicant is requesting a Waiver which has been provided by Article 11, Section 100-26 fop undersized lots held in common ownership. Location of Property: Vacant land known as 100 Wood Lane, Greenport. County Tax Map #1000~113-10-2. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Morini was kind enough to show me her swimming pool and raised deck area, which is at it's closest point, 8.6 feet to the property line. 1 have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map, indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight. MS. EILEEN MORINI: Would you like for me to give you a brief recap, of what transpired to date? CHAIRMAN: Just quick. MS. EILEEN MORINI: OK, I had originally applied for a building permit, to enclose the rear yard. Shortly thereafter, we decided to amend that, to include the deck and the above the ground pool, partially sunk into the ground. We met with the Building Inspector, to try to find out the exact requirements of enclosing the pool. At the time, we asked him if attaching the deck to the house, would be appropriate, and he indicated that it would be. When we built it, when we requested a final inspection from the Building Department, a different inspector came out and told us, he could not approve it, if it was attached to the house. If we detached it and had it reinspected, they would approve. Other than obvious problems with detaching the deck from the house, it would also inhibited the use of the rear windows in our house. We would not be able to open them, since we would have to put a fence up, against the back of the house. CHAIRMAN: As you describe to me, when I was there. OK. We'll start with Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: No, I have no questions. MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen.