Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/06/1997 HEARING Transcript of Hearing February 6, 1997 ZBA Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals 6:50 p.m.-Appl. #4458 - North Shore Yacht Sales by Michael Hughes. Legal Notice reads as follows: This is a request for a special exception under Article X, Section t00-101B-12 for new and used boat sales use at 11500 Main Road, Mattituek, NY; Parcel #1000-122-3-6. Zone District B- Business. (Site Owner: Harvey Bagshaw). So on and so forth. I have a copy of a survey which has been marked up with a site plan and actually it's from Harvey Bagshaw and it's produced by Anthony Lewandowski on June 23, 1967 and probably information taken off of that. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Arnoff how are you tonight. HARVEY ARNOFF ESQ.: I'm very Well thank you Mr. Chairman, how are you. CHAIRMAN: Good. H. ARNOFF: I think before I start I think for the record I should give my appearance, my appearance being I'm from Cruser, Hills and Arnoff, Harvey Arnoff, 206 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead New York on behalf of Mr. Hughes. I think at this point I'd like to hand up an affidavit of posting together with I believe the last one of the cards on the certified mail, and that should complete the jurisdictional issue. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. H. ARNOFF: May I proceed. I think without over simplifying this application I think it's really a very simple application. This is a site which, this particular spo~ has remained I believe out of use for a couple of years if my memory serves me correctly. I drive by it just about every day I don't remember the last time this particular building was used. The use in question, the sale of new and used boats is very clearly a special exception as this Board has so delineated it. And I would like for the moment to just gloss over if I can the various subdivisions of the special exception findings which the Board has make and state how I believe this application fits within the perimeters of that. As far as the specifics of the use Mr. Hughes is here and he can certainly answer any questions as to the use itself if the Board has any questions in that regard. The first one is that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of the adjacent properties, the properties in the adjacent use districts. There is nothing, there's a beverage store as you know and there's the Blue Water Cafe and t don't believe there is anything else there. I don't see how the use, and this is a reaily passive use for the property as far as, and I use the wo~d passive not in the legal sense but in a very practical sense, this is not a high volume type of business. There's not a lot of traffic engendered by the sale of boats. There aren't a lot of people who Page 2 - February 6;~ ~1997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals buy boats. It's a very limited customer base that comes and deals in boats. This is not a repair facility, this is not a mariner. There's no water. I don't know how, you couldn't very well use this as a mariner, there's no launching pad from this particular spot. And it's the mere sale of boats at retail from this location. It certainly won't effect any reasonable use of anything else in the district. It will not effect the safety the health the welfare the comfort and the convenience of the order of the town. Now the next factor I think is really, a finding the Board must make that the use has to be in harmony with and promote the general purposes intent in the chapter. Well we're dealing with a town that has been, has tried to foster aquaculture, it has tried to foster the marine environment in the community and the use of boating {~ the community as being one of our main attractions and what better thing than the sale of boats at retail in this particular area, especially since there are others in the immediate area as well. It's not changing anything, it's not really in any way negatively impacting in that area. It's certainly compatible, that flows over to the fact that it's compatible with its' surroundings. I believe directly across the street is another boat, or virt~aily across the street is another place that sells boats, down the street is Village Marine, I believe Dickersons is the other way. You have a situation where people really expect this is going to be a place where they are going to buy boats. So it's a perfect spot for purposes of that. Now, the structure as being accessible to Fire and Police, we're not changing anything. There's no construction going on, it's a large area, it's clearly accessible to Fire and Police. Now s~vinging into 264 and the various subdivisions on that and I know you have a schedule so I'll move as quickly as t can through those elements, but any anticipated change in this area; and I don't see any anticipated change, for probable development, anything that's going to be inconsistent with this, i cannot see in my, what almost twenty years in Southold and thirty some odd years in Suffolk County, see that this area is goihg to change and be anything other than a retail sales type of an area. It's a commercial area, it's zoned that way and this is still consistent with the feeling of our Zoning Code. It certainly wilt if anything improve property values in the area because we have something that's been laying fowl and it's the use of the property and it will actually bring some more life to the area. Now as far as traffic is concerned in the area, and I am familiar with and I thank your very kind office for sending me a copy of the communication from the Planning Board today, again you have a limited traffic base. The setback of the boats I believe is twenty feet, is that right, if my memory serves me correctly. That particular issue will not in any way effect traffic. It will have a few more cars entering on to the main road and leaving the main road but not in any way impact. Especially since this entire area is at least at this point, open; there are no curb cuts and there is plenty of an area for people to enter in and leave the premises. Now the water supply and public sewer; we don't anticipate, there's a bathroom on the premises, but there's not going to be any more use. This is not a wash down Page 3 - February 6,'-'1997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals facility for boats. This is a situation where, yeah, if the boat gets dirty it's going to get washed, but under the circumstances you're not going to see any change, any dramatic change in the use of water in the area which will impact upon any; this is a private well, to boot, but it will not impact upon neighboring properties or the owner. There won,t be any; the use of materials that would give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke and the like is a non issue. The boats are not going to be running, they can't run there. Maybe they'll start them up. But it will be started up and shut right down. I'm not sure whether you can run boats out of water very well. Certainly very long. And I found that out the hard way. But that's another story for another time. Again there's no use that will cause emissions of electrical discharges, dust __ and the like. The next one I think i've dealt with; will the operation and pursuance of the use cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment of the public of parking or recreational facilities. They don't exist in the immediate area. The surface, I believe is predominately paved as it is and I don't think we anticipate any change in the parking lot. Again there can be no hazard to life and limb from the sale of boats that I know. The use of boats is another thing, especially if I'm piloting one. I don't see how it will effect the sale of boats any over crowding or use of the land, we're not changing anything again with structures. And whether the plot is sufficient appropriate and adequate for the use, I submit it is. It's large enough to handle this type of a thing, this activity, deal with the parking which ultimately will be - i anticipate reaching some type of acceptable figure with the planning Board, the numbers have been changing and that would be resolved. It's not really near, unreasonably near any church, school, theater, recreational area or other place of public assembly. As I've stated I think it is particularly suitable for the use because of its specific geographical location, access to the general people, it's not difficult to get to. I don't think there's any, there can't be any, there won't be any further problem ( I'm skipping one intentionally) any disposal, stormwater runoff, sewerage and the like. And there really won't be any disturbance to any natural features of the property. Now the buffer yards and screening, now I wanted go back to that, are not going to be effected. They exist, there's a buffer in the back, that's not going to be effected, there's a natural vegetative buffer in the back. It's interesting, Mr. Hughes told me tonight that he received a call from a neighbor in the back who said, Gee, I don't have any problem but I walk across the property all the time to do my shopping? can I continue to do that; and he said any time you like I'm not putting up any fences or anything like that. So, I think I've sort of hit on all the parts, I've done them quickly and I would ask if the Board, Mr. Chairman or any member of the Board have any questions of me or Mr. Hughes. CHAIRMAN: Well, we had the pleasure of having a work session with the Planning Board on Monday; which Mr. Hughes was 'there. And I think Mr. Hughes has agreed to do a preliminary site plan. Page 4 - February 6','~i997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals H. ARNOFF: Yes that's in the process of being done. He's meeting with the surveyor in fact tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN: If he would furnish us a copy of that it would be greatly appreciated when he gets it. Actually three copies is what we need. And we'll make that a part of the record. So the closing of this hearing tonight, it will be closed predicated on getting that. H. ARNOFF: Fine. CHAIRMAN: I don't have any particular questions at this time. I personally for the record know Mr. Hughes. I've seen him in past businesses that he has operated and for the record I find him to be an upstanding individual. With that in mind I'll go to Mr. Villa. B. VILLA: I have a survey here or a copy of one. It's not very clear. Is that setback from the property line in the front 6.5 feet to the building? CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's correct. B. VILLA: So it's 6.5 feet and you're proposing to put a couple of display boats out? CHAIRMAN: No. They've been eliminated. H. ARNOFF: They're eliminated. B. VILLA: This is why I'd like to have a site plan... Because I had concerns if they were going to put boats out there, because you've a very high activity spot next to it and traffic in that area is bad enough as it is and if you've got a boat out there which would be shielding cars coming out of that place, I'd be concerned. H. ARNOFF: Mr. Hughes apparently had that discussion with some member, I think Mr. Kassner, and agreed that there would not be any boats there. That was the original drawing but that, the two boats out in front of the old movie theater building, that's what you're talking about; they were depicted on it. There not going to be there. B. VILLA: Alright. Then how about the, I see also that there was supposed to be some sort of agreement on parking with the restaurant next door. H. ARNOFF: I don't know if there's supposed to be an agreement with them. B. VILLA: Well they had a lease or something or other. Page 5 - February 6;~ i997 · Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals H. ARNOFF: Well, they have a month to month lease. There's no written lease. B. VILLA: There's no written lease. So there's no commitment of this property toward the restaurant? H. ARNOFF: Not on any long, not beyond tomorrow, beyond the immediate. L TORTORA: Is there any problem? H. ARNOFF: I don't believe there is. I asked Mr. Bagshaw. And he said whatever there is, is terminable I believe on thirty days notice. CHAIRMAN: OK And they operate in the summertime anyway. H. ARNOFF: That's correct. B. VILLA: They have to have some place to park. I was a little concerned. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora, do you have any other questions. L. TORTORA: We did meet with the Planning Board on Monday and your timing of this is very timely because I did say to Mr. Hughes at this time that I would be looking at, right here under the special exception use. And you've addressed some of them. One thing I'd like to know, and I don't think it's unfair of me because, the sketch that Mr. Hughes had submitted to us has been revised and I got the revised one from the Planning Board meeting on Monday. Where is the boundary line? H. ARNOFF: Where's what boundary line? The boundary line between that... L. TORTORA: Is this the same sketch Jerry? CHAIRMAN: No we don't have that one. That's why ... L. TORTORA: Well I have a copy, you can have one. This is what came from the Planning Board, and i'm trying to figure out where the zoning boundary line is on the property. CHAIRMAN: They have it written in Lydia. It's approximately twenty-five feet. I guess that's really southeast of the jog. OK You see that little jog ever there, this jog here. Yeah, it's approximately at 200 feet. B. VILLA: Back from the road. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Page 6 - February 6,~' i997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals L TORTORA: Will there be some kind of a designation on the new site plan. H. ARNOFF: Yes there will. That's one of the requests by the Planning Board. That there be, as a matter of fact, I think that's in their letter, if my memory serves me correctly, that they want a ... Parking space kept, front yard landscape and I think they did want the zoning line on there, that is my recollection. And that will be on. CHAIRMAN: ANY thing else? L. TORTORA: No just at that time I suppose then we'll zero into exactly how many boats he's going to propose and we'll kind of wait till that time and once we have the site plan, then we'll ten boats fifteen boats and how many parking spaces. Is that... CHAIRMAN: It's up to you. You have to make the decision if you want to close the hearing or if you want to leave it open. In this particular case based upon our meeting with the Planning Board on Monday, or two members of the Planning Board, that we certainly want to have the same plan that they are agreeing to because we want to address that plan in the decision, however we are certainly not going to get into the Planning Board aspects of their site plan in the special exception application, alright. Mr. Dinizio? J. DINIZIO: No I have no questions. S. Doyen: No. CHAIRMAN: Would Mr. Hughes like to Say anything for the record. MR. HUGHES: I just basically want to say I want to elean the building up I want to make it look presentable. I am in an area where there are other boat dealers. I think to have a building sitting there that's empty and it's an eye soar I'm going to come in there and clean ii up and make it look like something. I'm going to have nice clean boats there, there's not going to be any junk. It's going to be all top of the line stuff. We're going to have new boats, used boats and I think~ everybody is going to do better. I think the community is going to do better. The think the other dealers on the strip are going to do better, because there is going to be more variety to look at when somebody comes out to look at a boat and basically that's all I have to say about it. CHAIRMAN: How many years have you been in this business? MR. HUGHES: I've been around boats since I've been ten years old and I've been doing this for seventeen years. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ARNOFF: And he's only twenty-seven. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application. This is great. What would you like to do about the site plan? L. TORTORA: i would like to recess the hearing until we get the site plan and give you the first available date on the calendar. CHAIRMAN: OK We can do that. L. TORTORA: Really make an effort to give you the first available date. CHAIRMAN: Good. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion recessing the hearing. L. TORTORA: We'll receive the preliminary site plan and then we will schedule., o CHAIRMAN: Then we'll calendar it and then we'll wrap it up at that point, yeah. OK. Thank you very much. MR HUGHES: Thank you. J. DINIZIO: Second. , CHAIRMAN: All in favor. ~,~,;; z v.~.~.~ 2'~2 SC)~7,.i~.LD TC, Wi,i CLEPX BOARD: Ayes. ~ Town ¢" ~" ~ of So'athold SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEi~LS 7:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4454 - SALVATORE AND IRENE ARIOSTO. Based upon the 10/09/96 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article III, Section 100-33, applicant is requesting approval of storage building (as located) in the front yard area. Location of Property: 110 Selah Lane, Mattituck, NY; Parcel #1000-106-09-4.8. CHAIRMAN: The applicant has built constructed a shed. The applicant has two front yards and We'll deal with that aspect in a minute. The shed probably is located just to the rear of his house but what is construed to be in the front yard area. I have a copy of a sketch of a survey indicating the placement of the shed. I have personally measured the shed myself - not the site of the shed but its direction and proximity to both Westmill Road and Selah Lane and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating the surrounding properties in the area. We do appreciate your coming dQwn tonight, Mr. Ariosto. What would you like to tell us for the record? MR. ARIOSTO: I've given you all the information that I could possibly give you. The only thing that is missing is... CHAIRMAN: O.K. We'll send somebody down to get it for you. The placement of the shed is critical to you for what reason, sir? MR. ARIOSTO: If I placed it anywhere else on what you consider my side yard, I would not be able to get to it with my wheelchair. I have the shed placed in a position where, with my wheelchair I can get to within maybe seven to eight feet of it and then have access to the shed to get my gardening equipment. I have a small tractor that I use and I have an electric cart that I can get around with on the property. If any of you want to try to use this wheelchair in my side yard, you're welcome to go try it. It won't be more than five feet, I know that. I had the driveway made deliberately so I could go from my side door to my shed. The fact that you assigned me two front yards was a surprise to me. What you consider the front yard where I placed the shed is almost invisible from West Mill Lane because it's on the east side of my property and there's a row of pine trees with the exception of about ten feet. The shed is not visible from West Mill Lane. CHAIRMAN: I measured it from the black pines which I estimated to be your property line approximately. MR. ARIOSTO: It's supposed to go into the road. CHAIRMAN: It does go to the road? Page 2 - Transcript ~Jl'Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ARIOSTO: Yes. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Because I measured it fifty-seven feet from the black pines. I took that as an arc and I said that was approximately the estimate there. Then I measured from approximately four to five feet inside the property line and approximately where the trees are planted and I measured eighty-eight feet from there. O.K.? MR. ARIOSTO: To where? CHAIRMAN: To the shed itself. I measured fifty-seven feet on West Mill Road give or take a few - and eighty-eight feet from just outside the new trees that you planted. That's where I estimated the shed to be. I think it's a clearer estimation than what we received before. MR. ARIOSTO: I know that when I had it placed I made sure that it was within my property - not in the fifty foot scenic buffer. So, it cleared that - I know that. CHAIRMAN: Right. Does the shed have any utilities - electricity? MR. ARIOSTO: No. CHAIRMAN: And you don't plan on having any? MR. ARIOSTO: No, I don't plan on it. CHAIRMAN: Because you don't use it at night anyway? MR. ARIOSTO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN: O.K., thank you. We'll start with Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: I just had a couple of questions in my mind when I was there. It looks tike your existing garage on the house is an over-sized garage already. MR. ARIOSTO: No, sir. It's not. MEMBER VILLA: It's not an over-sized garage? It has a big door on it. MR. ARIOSTO: It's a two-car garage. MEMBER VILLA: And you have two cars in it? MR. ARIOSTO: It's a standard two-car garage. MEMBER VILLA: O.K. Alright. I just wondered why you put the shed off the corner of the driveway. You moved it closer to the house. In the back you'd still have the access off... (simultaneous discussion) Page 3 - Transcript ~/Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ARIOSTO: When we get snow, there's no place else to put the snow. When they plow the driveway, they can plow it straight to the back - there's room in back of the driveway to push all the snow there. CHAIRMAN: O.K., Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: While you're there we'll see if anybody in the audience would like to speak. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of ibis application? (No one asked to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who would like to speak against this application? (No one asked to speak.) CHAIRMAN: O.K. Because of the timeliness of the hearings tonight, we are not making any decisions. We will make the decision on February 25th. We appreciate your coming in, sincerely. MEMBER TORTORA: Do you want to ask him about the condition that has been requested by Mr. Cuddy? CHAIRMAN: Sure, go ahead. MEMBER TORTORA: We did receive a letter dated February 3rd. I'll read it for the record: "I am the attorney for Raymond A. Cuddy, my father, who is direetly across the street from the...You know something - I'm not on the right one. It's somebody else. MR. ARIOSTO: The name didn't sound familiar. MEMBER TORTORA: You don't have to worry. CHAIRMAN: We thank you for coming in, sir and safe home. MEMBER TORTORA: Didn't mean to scare you. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comment, I'll~make___a ' ' hearing, reserving a decision until later. ~ ~-~;'Y'~ ?Y) ~D ~7y w~v~ MEMBER VILLA: Second ..... -~ ~ ~ ...... ~;~¢-~ i~vN CL~R~ CHAIRMAN: All in favor? p=~~ -P/~/F~ HOUR//J~ (all ayes) ~' ~--~~ ~ ..... TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING HELD FEBRUARY 6, 1997 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 7:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4457 - JAMES AND DIANA MINOQUE. Based upon the 01/03/97 Action of Disapprovai by the Building Inspector under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, applicant is requesting to construct an addition to dwelling which will exceed the required 20% lot coverage at this premises. Location of Property: 5650 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, NY; Parcel #1000-115-10-6. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey indicating the house in its present position, existing deck, two retaining walls actually one bulkhead and one retaining wall. The sketched in area, which is basicaily crosshatched, indicates the proposed addition which wilt exceed the lot coverage at approximately 24%. Mr. Feiler, how are you tonight, sir? It's such a pleasure to see you again. MR. FEILER (Architect): I'm Don Feller - I'm an architect from Mattituek. I'm here with Mr. And Mrs. Minoque to talk about their proposed addition. It's a plan for an existing house. They're hoping to square off an irregular L shape and add a new second floor. The set back existing on the east side is about 25 feet and the new addition would bring our set back to 22 feet - 15 in the side yard. We're not getting any closer to New Suffolk Avenue. The existing house is 1,070 square feet and that's 21% lot coverage or in addition 200 square feet to the first floor. That would be 24% lot coverage. The existing house, one-story with two bedrooms in the front of the house, one of the bedrooms we're going to convert to a garage and that's going to allow us to get parking a little bit further away from New Suffolk Avenue. We're also going to be able to get the front door on the front of the house facing New Suffolk Avenue, set back from the middle of the house on the side. We're also adding a second floor which will be the same size as the first floor. It's actually a little bit bigger than the first floor, overhanging the front porch. It's a covered entry area. CHAIRMAN: Very good. MR. FEILER (Architect): It's not a substantial addition. It doesn't seem to have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. The Town Trustees have already approved the proposed project. It's a small addition. It's a small house. Unfortunately, it's a small lot. That's why we're here. CHAIRMAN: Having been a resident of Mattituck since about 1948, I am perfectly aware that this house has been around for many, many, many years. These people have done a bang-up job in fixing it up. It really looks very nice. I don't have any particular objection to this application. We'll now go to Mr. Villa. Page 2 - Transcript L~ Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: There's going to be an over-hang on the front of it? MR. FEILER (Architect): The plot plan shows what is, in effect, the second floor and the first floor would be smaller than that so at the front the entry- door will be set back about 4 feet. MEMBER VILLA: 13 feet is showing the over-hang that you are proposing? MR. FEILER (Architect): 13 feet is on the western part of the corner so it's a little bit further than that probably 15 feet or so. It's not closer than the 13 feet. There's no projection from the house. The second floor will be straight across as the straight line shows on the front of the house. MEMBER VILLA: Right. MR. FEILER (Architect): The entry is recessed from that straight line. MEMBER VILLA: Thirteen feet is going to be the Hne? MR. FEILER (Architect): That's existing. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, that's existing. It's not going to be infringed on? MR. FEILER (Arehiteet): No. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to review this for a second? MEMBER VILLA: Yes. (Mr. Feiler pointed out the second floor on the plot plan. ) CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, that's what I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN: That was the question? O.K, MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I-have no questions. CHAIRMAN: You're really on target here tonight Mr. Doyen, Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DOYEN: Everything is crystal clear to me. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Is there anybody else who would Hke to speak in favor of this application? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Would anybody Hke to speak against the application? (No one wished to speak.) Page ~ - TranscvilOt ~6," Hearings Regular Meeting of February- 6, ]997 $outhold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: We would l~e to thank gou very much fa~ co~ng in. I'm sorr.y I brutalized you~ name. I since~]y do. ~e'll have a decision fo~ you on February 25th. HeaPing no further questions, I will make a motion to close the hearing, reserving a decision until laler. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN: Alt in favor? (All ayes) (See formal Resolution in Minu~es prepared under separate cover.) DATE FEB 6199T :,: FEBRUARY 6, 1997 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 7:25 p.m. Appl. No. 4460 - LOIS T. ANDERSON. Based upon the 12/I6/96 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, applicant is requesting to construct a deck addition to dwelling which will be less than the required 75 ' from the existing bulkhead. Location of Property: 25J5 Calves Neck Road, Southold; Parcel #1000-70-4-45.5. CHAIRMAN: A copy of the survey which indicates the nature of this application - is a proposed addition and a proposed deck toward the water side. We will be questioning the applicant on some of these figures that we're having a little difficulty in reading. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Anderson, how are you tonight, sir? MR. ANDERSON: Great - and yourself? CHAIRMAN: Good, thank you. MR. ANDERSON: My name is Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consultant, on behalf of Lois T. Anderson. Before I start, I'd like to hand out for the record the Notice of Posting, duly signed and notarized. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: The application is brought forward to you based on a Notice of Disapproval as just mentioned. You should have in your file that notice - the Building Permit Application, the Variance Application, the Notice to Adjoining Property Owners~ the Environmental Assessment Form, the ZBA questionnaire and survey, C.O. Deed, Trustees Wetland l~ermit, architectural plans, and finally, the requisite fee. What is proposed here is a rather small 16 ft. 6 inch addition by 10 ft. addition, a deck that measures 14.2 ft. by 12 ft. - a total square area of 335 square feet. The deck is set back 56.5 ft. from the bulkhead and the addition is set back 60.60 from the bulkhead. Therefore, the variance requested is 18.5 ft. to the deck and 9.4 ft. for the addition. CHAIRMAN: Did you say 60.5 feet for the proposed addition? MR. ANDERSON: 60.6 feet. CHAIRMAN: 60.6 feet. Thank you. Page 2 - Transcript 0~Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MR. ANDERSON: For reference, the existing house fs 61.4 ft. from the bulkhead at its nearest location. I want to address the five basic problems regarding the variance. The first is minor - how substantial the variance is in relation to the requirement and I think, given the size of this addition that is proposed, what we're talking about is a very modest addition to what is a house that is not atypical for the area nor would it be atypical if this variance were approved. The second problem of the test is whether or not the variance will have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood or district in whieh it lies. Our conclusion is no, based on three pieces of information actually four. First is we're talking about putting this addition over an area that is landscaped and has been for twenty or thirty years. The addition is placed in an area that enfolds land vcith a 10 ft. contour and land with a bulkhead that was constructed prior to August 17, 1977 and, being that the case, it's not even subject to the title "Wetlands- Jurisdictions of the D.E.C." as most structures would be given their proximity to a bulkhead or wetlands or high water. Secondly, we have been in front of the Trustees - a public hearing was conducted. There were no objections raised at the public hearing. There were no conditions placed on the permit and the approval of this permit was unanimously adopted by the Trustees. The conclusion being that it will have no impact upon the physical or environmental condition of the site. And finally, as you all know, what we're talking about here is a Type II Action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act which, by statute, means that it cannot possibly have a significant impact on the environment. The third problem of the test is whether the variance will cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby property; and our conclusion is also no, based on several factors: 1) The architectural plans developed for this are such that the architectural integrity of this building will be maintained. After the addition is constructed, the exterior look of this building will be the same as is the building that exists today. 2) It's not going to be visible from anyone in the neighborhood except possibly from the neighbor adjacent to and west of the property. We sent out our Notice of Application to all adjacent properties as required by statute. I did have a chance to have a talk with the neighbor adjacent to the west of the property - a fellow by the name of Harry Bats and Mr. Bats expressed his support and, obviously, that he had no objection to the addition as proposed. In fact, it's questionable as to whether you'll even be able to see it because of the location of the addition relative to where his house is. So, he is in full support and I do not believe you have anywhere in your file any letters of objections from anyone. Whether or not the reIease ought to be achieved by some other means - our conchision is no for the following reasons: 1) If you look at the floor plan, you will see what is a house with a very small kitchen and the only way to practically expand that kitchen is really towards the west and to the south slightly. So that expansion of that kitchen and its adjacent kitchen-dining area has to take place exactly where it is proposed. We!re talking about a large family with six kids - a dozen or more grandchildren so - the space with the kitchen and the associated eating area for that kitchen is badly needed. And finally, the final test is whether or not the alleged difficulty was self-created and our conclusion to that is also no. If you look~ first of all~ at your Page 3 - Transcript '~"Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals statute you will find that this particular portion of the code appears to have been adopted in ]989. This house that we're talking about was built probably in the order of 40 years ago. Therefore, at a time when this condition did not - or this statute - did not exist. You will note that, by looking at the survey, that the house is essentially cocked to the southeast and, because of its orientation relative to the bulkhead and the property lines, that is what has created this nonconformity, if you will, this very technical nonconformity. I'll also point out that the house, in of itself, is nonconforming in that its closest point is something in the order of 61 feet from the bulkhead. In other words, the deck and the addition will be no closer to the bulkhead than is the existing house. It's merely the orientation of that house and it's merely the technical noncompliance with Section 100-239 of the Town Code. So, the reasons I have given you - we are very hopeful that you will grant the requested variance. We believe we've met all the conditions and what is requested is quite reasonable. We're prepared to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN: In looking at the house which is extremely stately, I do concur with you on the last statement that you just made - it's the actual placement of the way the house is cocked is what is causing you the problem and, in that vein, I don't have any specific questions so I'll yield to my board members. Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: Just one clarification - you said the deck was 56 feet? CHAIRMAN: 56.5. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MEMBER VILLA: O.K. So, in your last statement saying that it's no closer than the actual... MR. ANDERSON: You're right - I was speaking to the addition. MEMBER VILLA: O.K. - so, it's actually about 5 feet shorter? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MEMBER VILLA: No problem. CHAIRMAN; Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: O.K., so it's 60 feet from the addition, 56.5 for the deck. CHAIRMAN: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: The house to the nearest edge is 61 and then ii graduates over to 75 and even further... (tape change) MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. Page 4 - Transcript 0~ ~Heamngs Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen - no? MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: While you're standing there, Bruee, we'll see if there is anybody in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this application? (No one wanted to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to speak against the application? (No one wanted to speak.) (simultaneous discussion) (Owner, Mr. Anderson, made a comment in favor of the application.) CHAIRMAN: I have a feeling that you are Mr. Anderson - I met you the day that 1 was over there. MR. ANDERSON (Owner): The kitchen is very small. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. ANDERSON (Owner): There needs to be more room. CHAIRMAN: Right. The day I was there it was 18 degrees and you had your bulkhead - your piling thing on - I thought there was some harbor craft landing in the inlet. That was quite an experience. Beautiful house~ sir. MR. ANDERSON (Owner): Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing, reserving the decision until later. Closing the hearing, pardon me, and recessing the...O.K. I have a motion and a second (by Member Tortora). All in favor? (all ayes) ~ 7 ~'~'~,~'~ /l~ ~ Town Ci~i; TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING HELD FEBRUARY 6, 1997 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4456 - FRANK AND PATRICIA REILLY. Based upon the 01/06/97 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article IIIA~ Section ]00-30A.3, applicant is requesting to construct an addition to dwelling which will exceed the required 35' front yard for this residential premises. Locatiozl of Property: 25 East Side Avenue, Mattituck, NY; Parcel t]000-99-3-18. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey indicating a proposed new addition, which is approximately 27 feet from Lagoon Lane which I think is a pay per street. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonigh!, sir? Could you state your name for the reoord? BOB GRIGONIS (Builder): Yes, I'm Bob Grigonis. I'll he the builder. CHAIRMAN: O.K. g/hat would you like to tell us? MI{. GRIGONIS: The existing problem with Lagoon Lane is that it causes two front yards on the property and that's why the Building Department didn't o.k. the permits so, hopefully, we've submitted enough information. If you have any questions... CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea what that road is going to service, if anything? MR. GRIGONIS: Mr. Reilly told me that it is owned by the D.E.C. and it is an actual public right-of-way down to that little channel that comes in there. I don't think anyone is aware that it is a public right-of-way. It is owned by the D.E.C. CHAIRMAN: O.K., and the addition is how large? MR. GRIGONIS: It's 8 ft. by 37 ft. CHAIRMAN: And what is that going to do to the internal integrity... MR. GR1GONIS: It's going to enlarge the kitchen and bathroom area and make a more formal entrance into the house - up-grade the windows, the appliances and the Bathroom situation in the house. CHAIRMAN: Great. Thank you. Mr. Villa, do you have any questions? MEMBER VILLA: Not really, except I just have a question as to what the situation on the cabin on the left is. It just doesn't - is that a second use on the property or... MR. GRIGONIS: I don't know - I guess it was always there. I don't know what it's used for. Actually there's only two bedrooms in the house - maybe they use it as a guest cottage for the family. Page 9 - Transcript ~o,~JHearing Regular Meeting of February 6, I997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: I have no other questions. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just wondered, Jerry, where the 35 ft. requirement came from. CHAIRMAN: It's written on the survey. MEMBER VILLA: The 35 ft. on the survey shows the set-back to the CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm questioning where you're getting the 35 ft., you know~ the Notice of Disapproval says "insufficient front yard set-back". I'm trying to figure out where the 35 ft. is coming from. MR. GRIGONIS: I believe that was measured from the right-of-way with a normal angle. MEMBER TORTORA: I tried to establish what we are looking at in terms of the code requirement and the lot... CHAIRMAN: How big is the lot? MEMBER TORTORA: How big is the lot? CHAIRMAN: I'll tell you in one second. MEMBER TORTORA: It's about 3/4s of an acre, correct? CHAIRMAN: Yes, .75. So what does the book call for? I left mine back in the office. MEMBER TORTORA: What's the number? CHAIRMAN: R-40, I believe. Most of this stuff is under R-40. MEMBER TORTORA: Is this R-40 Zoning on the property? CHAIRMAN: Inlet East Estates is R-40 right adjacent to it. I'd say it's a good bet that it's R-40. What would you like me to address? 3,079.9 - the front yard is at 60 ft. O.K.? So, if we go underneath that and we go 20 to 39.9, the front yard is at 40 ft. O.K. So, it should probably be 40 ft. Now, let's read the Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER TORTORA: It didn't have that in there. CHAIRMAN: We probably read it off of the survey which the house was 35 ft. at the time. MEMBER VILLA: 35 ft. it says. Page 3 - Transcript ~'Hearing Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: That's on the survey - it's not on the Notice of Disapproval. It just says "Construction will have insufficient front yard set-back". CHAIRMAN: Well, we were hoping that they would put that in there. MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe that they did. MEMBER TORTORA: Did you find it, Jimmy? MEMBER DINIZIO: There was a list - I don't know where the list is - but there was a list of questions that I asked... CHAIRMAN: Yes, they did write down - they wrote set-back, front yard, 35 ft., pre-existing. MEMBER TORTORA: Who wrote it? CHAIRMAN: Well, that's my handwriting - that's what emanated from the Building Inspector who came down from the Building Department to address the questions that we had. MEMBER TORTORA: There's nothing in the Code that says that. CHAIRIVIAN: I know - it should be 40 ft. O.K.? MEMBER TORTORA: I think we've got to took up the Code and the Notice of Disapproval because there's nothing - Jimmy: take a look in the file. There's nothing... MEMBER DINIZIO: My understanding is he's entitled to have 35 ft. because it's pre-existing set-back. CHAIRMAN: Well, the house is more than 35 ft., you know. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know. It's not in the Code - that's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: On that list, didn't it say that the house is within 300 ft. or ]00 fi .... CHAIRMAN: Well, let'S take a look. This house was built - it appears the construction of the deck and the open porch were built in 1992. It appears that the house - the house addition was done in 1987. Maybe the house was built in 1979. MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe that's what that note said - it established that set-back from the neighboring lots - these houses - I didn't look - but these house are 35 ft. CHAIRMAN: That's what I thought when he came down. Page 4 - Transcript oz~ Hearing Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southo]d Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: So, what you're saying is this is not off the Cede - this is the... CHAIRMAN: Established set-back. MEMBER TORTORA: In the area. CHAIRMAN: Right. MEMBER VILLA: Not necessarily in the area but in the lot itself - it's 35 ft. from the house. That's what exists already so they're saying that's what he's working from. CHAIRMAN: And they hayen't changed that house location so that's why he's saying it's pre-existing at 35 ft. MEMBER TORTORA: Just as long as we know what section of the Code we're going off of. CHAIRMAN: Right. MEMBER VILLA: We're going off of pre-existing... CHAIRMAN: Nonconforming scl-backs. O.K. Mr. Dinizie ? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: While you're standing there, we'll see if anything develops through the audience. Is there anybody else who would Hke to speak in favor of this? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who would like to speak against it? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: O.K. Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (All ayes) TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 6, 1997 HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4410 - GARY SACKS AND ALAN SCHLESINGER. Based upon the July 16, 1996 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, applicants request a Variance under Article XXIiI, Section 100-239.4B for a proposed deck addition within 75 feet of bulkhead, at 125 Mesrobian Drive, Laurel; Parcel #1000-145-4-7. CHAIRMAN: The next hearing is on behalf of Gary Sacks and Others and we are asked to postpone that. If there is anybody here to discuss this tonight, please raise your hand and we will deal with it. If there are no hands, then I'll ask for a resolution to recess this without a date. We have already calendared this two or three times with postponements and we will then put it on the backburner until we want to get back on this. (No one asked to speak.) Can I have a second for that, Ladies and Gentlemen? MEMBER VILLA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (All ayes. ) / TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING HELD FEBRUARY 6, 1997 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4448 - MARIA ANDRIOPOULOS. Based upon the 11/21/96 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article }[XIII, Section 100-239.4B, applicant is requesting a variance for the location of a portion of a proposed deck addition within 75 feet of an existing bulkhead at 1805 Westview Drive, Mattituck; County Parcel #1000-107-7-9. (Also see attorney's letter for neighbor received 2/6/97 regarding outdoor storage limitations under Sec. 100-236). CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the attorney's letter which we have read and is presently part of the file. A copy of a survey indicating the original house and deck... MEMBER TORTORA: I have an up-dated survey. CHAIRMAN: Right, I'm getting there - unless you want to give me one that you have. O.K., great. Thank you very much. I have a new sketch of a survey indicating the deck closed in as it pertains. I think we're still at 51 ft. to the bulkhead? Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Can we recess to make copies of that for the Board, Jerry? CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER TORTORA: Just a short second, please. MARIA ANDRIOPOULOS (Owner): I'm about 53 ft. from the bulkhead. CHAIRMAN: 53? O.K. We're just going to make a couple copies of this so give us one minute, alright? MS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It's kind of small. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you'll want to blow it up too. I also have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and the surrounding properties in the area. The letter that was to be read into the record is from Charles R. Cuddy: "I am the attorney for Raymond A. Cuddy, my father, who lives directly across the street from the applicant. Unfortunately- I am engaged in another matter in the Town of Riverhead on the same date and time for which this appeal has been scheduled. Therefore, I ask that this letter be made a part of the record in this appeal. My father is 87 years old. He has been attempting to sell his home. According to local brokers, he has been confronted by an unsightly situation which occurred after the applicant purchased the home last year. The applicant's front yard has been used to store construction materials. This has been ongoing for the past eight months and P&ge 2 - Transcript or Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals prospective purchasers have no interest in residing opposite a construction storage area. If the Board grants the application, I respectfully request that it include as a condition that there be no storage of building materials or supplies in the front yard. See Section 100-236 of the Southold Town Zoning Code." I think we're ready. Could you state your name for the record? MS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Yes, Maria Andriopoulos. CHAIRMAN: How are you? MS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Fine. CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us? MS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Well, there was an existing deck to the house. There was also another deck which must have been taken down because when I purchased the house, there was a patio door from the bedroom outdoors but there was nothing there. So, what we wanted to do was bring the deck to the other side of the home length-wise and extend it towards the water also by another 12 feet. This is because I'm pregnant I have another child and, instead of putting up - erecting fences around my yard so the child won't go near the bulkhead - near the water, I figured I would enclose this area for the children to play in. CHAIRMAN: O.K. The day that I was at your house, it was extremely cold and I was having trouble with my tape measure. I would appreciate it if you could just take - give us both corners to the inside edge of the bulkhead. When I'm talking about both corners, I mean that they really exist to a certain degree. O.K.? Even though you haven't completed the deck, alright ? And just call in with those two measurements - it would be greatly appreciated, O.K.~ So, give us the north one and the south one. LOUIS ANDRIOPOULOS (Owner): I'm confused - what is now the same distance as the other? CHAIRMAN: Right. Well, we're not sure if the bulkhead is straight. So, if you could just put a line with a level and just extend it out. The Building Inspector says it's 51 - your wife says it's 53. O.K. Just give us a line and this way we'll have it. We'll have it for the decision and everything will be taken care of at that particular point. It is my understanding that this deck is going to remain open to the sky - it's not going to be enclosed. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Open to the sky. I just want to close it in. CHAIRMAN: Right. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: You know, so the children can play and not come off the deck. P~tge 3 - Transcript dr Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Right. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: So, it will be open. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Great. Are there any major changes other than what we see as the construction progresses? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: That's it. CHAIRMAN: Is there a problem with moving all the decking material to the rear yard as Mr. Cuddy... MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Not a problem. Most of it was removed already. There is some - I need another truck load to take it out but once they told me to stop work, we just stopped. CHAIRMAN: I understand. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: And we never just came back up. CHAIRMAN: Right. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Most of it - one truck load already last week and probably another truck load this weekend. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Are you presently living in this house? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: No. CHAIRMAN: No, o.k. Alright - Mr. Villa? Questions? MEMBER VILLA: I was just concerned when I went down there that this thing is so big and it actually - you know we look at the adjacent houses - this is going to be closer to the water than... MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It's not. There's two houses down that bulkhead is closer to the home than ours because it got - it eroded away as time went on and his deck is probably farther out than our deck is going to be. It's two houses down and his bulkhead is closer to his deck than ours would be by at least 10 or 15 feet. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: It would double the size of our deck. CHAIRMAN: Right. I kind of need you to stand by your wife because we've got to take this down. We're taking it down. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: This is two homes down from me which was a newly constructed home. Do you know which one I'm talking about? It's a two-story home. CHAIRMAN: Are you talking about two houses to the north? MR. ANDRIOPOULO$: Yes. To the north. P~ge 4 - Transcript ~i~o~Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: The properties on the east and west side of you? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: There's water on one side - across the street they don't even see what we have in our - this is our hack yard. I guess you can consider this our back yard facing the water. The home across the street doesn't even see the front. Next door they have a deck but it probably will be a little shorter than our deck - the one right next door. The one right next door to that has no deck or an enclosed part of the house. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: We're making this lower than the existing deck. MRS. ANDRIOpOULOS: It gees down - there's steps going down. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Could I just have your husband's first name? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Louis. CHAIRMAN: Louis. O.K. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: There was an existing deck in front of the home which ran the length of the home but it was removed - I don't know when but the neighbors told me it was removed years ago. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Mr. Dinizio? MR. DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. We do need those MR. ANDRiOPOULOS: Where do you need those measurements exactly? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: They want us to put a post for where the bulkhead is so they can measure from the bulkhead to the home, right? CHAIRMAN: No, I'd like you to measure for us and then we'll come back and measure it too. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: We'll measure it today. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: We'll measure it today. MEMBER TORTORA: If you could mark it and also mark it on a copy of a survey for us. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: I'm waiting to get the original at home and when I get the original I'm sure it will be bigger lettering than that and I probably could see the numbers more clearly than that survey that I just gave you. I'm sure he has the numbers included in that survey. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: Do you know what the difference is on the 4 x 4 beams - to put the rafters? We measure from the beam. Maybe if we go from the rafters, it is difference of the 1 ft. In other words, we put the 4 x 4 to the beams and then we'll put the rafters on top. PAge 5 - Transcript ~Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, ][997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: O.K. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: We'll get it from the beam. CHAIRMAN: O.K. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: I don't know which way you want us to measure. CHAIRMAN: Give us both. MR. & MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. CHAIRMAN: Then we'll know the difference. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Probably the rafters are not even - not evenly cut. They will be evenly cut. They're not evenly cut at this point. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but you have enough there that you can measure from. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN: What is the total over-all width of the deck - meaning depth coming out, do you know? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: The depth going towards the water? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It was an existing 12 ft. deck right there and another 12 ft. CHAIRMAN: And another 12 ft. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Including the steps going down. CHAIRMAN: Right. Steps are included in the whole process? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Now what do we have in total length of the house - 54 ft.? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: That's a good question. CHAIRMAN: That's what you're showing here on the over-all plan. So, you can measure that for us to. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN: So we know. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It doesn't go the whole, length of the house because we just couldn't make it the whole length of the house. We P&ge 6 - Transcript or Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals wanted to make it past the door - the patio door going - our bedroom patio door. CHAIRMAN: O.K. So, give us what the total length is across to the max - for the whole house and then to the max of what the deck is going to. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. MEMBER VILLA: You're showing two dimensions on the deck - you're showing two different things here. You're showing one with the house on it, showing it's 44 ft. and then one showing on the deck that's 54 ft. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: You know what happened - we have a retaining wall and sometimes I don't know if the measurement was from the retaining wall or not. When I went today with the tape measure and measured myself from the deck to the bulkhead - not the retaining wall, it's 53 ft. MEMBER VILLA: You're saying on your same sketch back here, you're showing from the water bulkhead to the deck, which has a railing -itts 48 ft. So, there's a tot of confusion here. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's where the problem Hes. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Somebody from the Board came and measured also. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: Can I see this? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It's probably the old one. Try this one. MEMBER VILLA: It's submitted. MR. ANDRtOPOULOS: Do we have the same one? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Yes. We handed it in. CHAIRMAN: We're not making a decision tonight anyway. That's why we want to get all of this down pat. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Someone from the Board was there to measure also. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we usually go down. Sometimes we go with measurements, sometimes we don't. It depends upon if we can see any inaccuracies in the measurements then we'll do it ourselves. O.K. I have the house at 58' 5" in total length. Alright - right? MEMBER TORTORA: Let's clear up the measurements. CHAIRMAN: Yes, let's clear up the measurements so we know where we're going here, O.k. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: Do we have to have the measurements of the existing deck? P~ge 7 - Transcript dz~ Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Beard of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I have the measurements - I can take the measurements of the existing deck but it only shows the deck to the southerly side of the house; That's the only one I have. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: 12 ft. from the house to the water and the same thing goes to the other side. CHAIRMAN: Just let me say this - the original deck does not include the bulkhead - the original survey, which was a 1970 survey - does not include the bulkhead. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Now, I can truthfully tell you that bulkheads are not straight. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: No, it's not straight. On both sides it is a little different. CHAIRMAN: Yes, a little different. So, that's where the problem lies. What we try to do is include this into the decision - I don't want to write a sloppy decision. We want the decision to be accurate as accurate as possible. O.K.? I want you to measure from the corner of one side of the deck, which is on the north side to the bulkhead and the corner that's on the opposite side of the bulkhead which is the southerly side. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It came out pretty even - I mean it may have been a foot off. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but again the Building Inspector is telling us it's 51; you're telling us 53. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. That's fine. We did it right before we came here but, you know... CHAIRMAN: Oh, welt - what have you got? Tell us. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: I have 53 ft. CHAIRMAN: You have 53 ft.? MRS. ANDRIOP©ULOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN: On both sides? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: The one side may be one-half foot off because we measured up to the retaining wall and from the retaining wall to the bulkhead because it was easier for me to do it that way. CHAIRMAN: I understand. P~ge 8 - Transcript $i IHearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeais MRS. ANDRtOPOULOS: The retaining wail is not a straight retaining wall because all we did was re-enforce the existing retaining wail and that's off a few feet too. CHAIRMAN: I don't care about the retaining wail. The big thing is the bulkhead. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It's about one-haLf foot off on both sides and I have 53 ft. CHAIRMAN: Is the 53 ft. on the north side or the south side? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It's oniy about a half foot difference. CHAIRMAN: O.K., but which side do you have? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. - the longest side was - which side is this? MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: That's the south. CHAIRMAN: O.K. - so, you're showing 53 ft. on the south side? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: I think it's the south. I'm kind of mixed up. CHAIRMAN: Do me a favor? I'm not here to upset expectant moms, I assure you, o.k.? Would you please let your husband do it please don't get down there and do it yourseLf, airight? But measure it for us - as I said, we're not going to address tiffs for another week or so anyway. O.K.? This way you have plenty of time - the weather's been pretty good. Do it before it snows. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Do we have to come back next week? CHAIRMAN: No. Just call it in or Fax it in or send it in or whatever way you want to do it. Alright? So north and south - you do not have to come back. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: From where - how do you want me to measure it? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Both he said. CHAIRMAN: Both. MEMBER TORTORA: On both corners. · CHAIRMAN: On both corners. MEMBER TORTORA: On both corners to the edge of the inside of the bulkhead. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. Page 9 - Transcript oI Hearings - Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: Inside? CHAIRMAN: Inside. Inside edge of the bulkhead. MEMBER TORTORA: Measure from the inside edge of the bulkhead to the rafters on one side, one corner and then on the other corner. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: That's fine. Because we're measuring from the outside of the bulkhead and maybe the Building Inspector measured from the inside. CHAIRMAN: Now~ were the 4 x 4s encased into the rafters themselves? MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: What do you mean encased? CHAIRMAN: Do the 4 x 4s stick up and the rafters go around both sides of it. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: Correct. CHAIRMAN: O.K. So, you go from the rafter - not from the 4 x 4 or whatever the upright is that's holding the deck up. O.K.? - great. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who would like to speak against? Yes, ma!am? Could I just ask you to state your name for the record? GLORIA HURLEY: I'm Gloria Hurley - the neighbor to the south. CHAIRMAN: How are you, Mrs. Hurley? I haven't seen you in a long time. How have you been? MRS. HURLEY: I just have a question. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MRS. HURLEY: The deck is there now. Now they're down to another level of the deck - are we going another level of deck for the steps or are the steps included? CHAIRMAN: It appears to us, and we'll have them clear that up, that the steps are included into the deck itself. They are recessed into the deck area to the best of my knowledge. O.K.? Thank you very much. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: They are included. CHAIRMAN: Included, right. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? (No one wished to speak.) Pa~e ~0 - Transcript ~o~ Hearings (Andriopoulos) Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Souihold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Hearing no comments, I will make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor? (All ayes. ) Transcript of Hearing February 6, 1997 ZBA Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 4452 - Christina Rivera. Based upon the 1/14/97 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, appilcant is requesting a variance for permission to locate a portion of a proposed addition to dwelling for which a portion will be located au less than the required 40 ft. front yard setback from Inlet Drive, and a small portion of steps less than the required 40 ft. front yard from Sound Beach Drive. Property Location: 250 Sound Beach Drive and Inlet Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Parcel #1000-99-1-16. Zone 1t-40 [{esidentiai. This parcel consists of approx. 40,000 s.f. in total area. CHAIRMAN: I am reading from Castellano Assoc., Lmt. dated 2/29/96 drawing, issue date 3/2/96, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. And you are Mrs. Rivera. How are you? What would you like to tell us. CHRISTINA RIVERA: Good evening my name is Christina Rivera and I have lived at 250 Sound Beach Drive in Mattituek for nearly forty years now. My husband and I are planning to make this our permanent residence in the future and therefore we are seeking a building permit which requires an area variance. Since our property is located on a corner lot I'm an considered to have two front yards which require 40' setbacks. The setbacks which we are seeking are quite minimal. On Sound Beach Drive the setback will be 37' in order re accomodate the front entrance steps which are proposed as opposed to the required 40'. On Inlet Drive the setback will be 28.5'. The house has been specifically designed with the majority of the extension to be built on the easterly portion of the property. Since Inlet Drive is a dead end street which is virtually a parking lot now requiring a parking permit in order to park the Mattituck resident's cars in the area. I would like to stress that directly east of Inlet Drive there are no neighbors since this property now belongs to the Mattituek Park District. The addition which is being proposed as a single story structure which is conducive to 90% of the homes which are on both sides of Sound Beach Driv~e now. Again the extension which is proposed was designed specifically to be sensitive to the water view of our only neighbor to the west, directly to the west of us but also sensitive to the environment northward toward the Sound. In order to achieve the additon without a variance would require bnlding not only a two story structure but would also require to build on the westerly side by our neighbor and further north towards the Sound. As the house is plannned now the house would be set back approximately 185' from the mean high water mark. As the exte~.sion is now proposed we are seeking minimal setback allowances with virtually no impact upon the environment nor change in the character of the neighborhood. In light of my application we have both written and verbed support from our neighbors and I would like to thank the Board for their time and consideration in this matter. CHAIRMAN: Could just give me that, I also have the survey which I should have read into the record, could you just give me that figure from Sound Beach Road? RIVERA: Sound Beach Drive? It will be 37' setback as opposed to 40' which are required and that's to accomodate the entrance steps on Sound Beach. CHAIRMAN: Which are more than 30 sq. ft. or whatever the required amount is. I spent a long time on this plan. The scale got me for awhile but I think I've gotten that down. My question is Why are you leaving the existing house in place? Because you are going to be required to raise this to what level for FEMA? RIVERA: The flood level is a VH Zone which is t3' now, so it has to be above the 13' level, the new space. CHAIRMAN: And the house is built at existing grade now? RIVERA: 10.5' CHAIRMAN: And you said, what 13'? RIVERA: Yes the flood zone is 13'. CHAIRMAN: So you are going to have to raise the new structure, additon approximately 3 plus feet. OK R. VILLA: The floor elevation will be more than that because that's the bottom of the rafters. CHAIRMAN: So we will assume 2'x10' RIVERA: 2vX12' but whatever. It's going to be 14' plus. CHAIRMAN: So what are you talking, 4' or 4.5'. R. VILLA: 4'1". CHAIRMAN: Alright so it's 49". You have an established setback. It's 6.8' on the westerly side, OK. The only thing that I do not agree with with the Building Inspector is I assume that's a gazebo or a hot tub. RIVERA: No, it's going to be an outdoor shower. Which has to be attached, it is our understanding from the building department, (attached) to the building structure. And it will be attached to the house. There is an existing outdoor shower now. CHAIRMAN: I have that pffesently at 10' from my scaling from the property line. RIVERA: The new proposed shower. We have agreed to move the proposed shower as far back as we feasibly can, toward the garage. CHAIRMAN: Because the code reads 15', OK. RIVERA: It is our understanding that we can build since it is a pre-existing garage and the setback is pre existing. CHAIRMAN: That is true. Even though you are adding on to that, the only thing that is pre-existing in my opinion, is the original house. So the 6.8' is staying beeause the house is there. It's really the garage but it's attached to the house so it's part of the house, OK. The problem that I have is that you're going to have to hold to that 15'. RIVERA: Could I show you where that would be? We just stuck it there originally but we have agreed to move it as far back as feasible and attach it to the house. This was just put here as a walkway or breeze way to attach it to the house. CHAIRMAN: Is it going to be in the corner though? RIVERA: Yes we are going to move it as far back as possible. CHAIRMAN: Then without that little area, that, I don't know what that is, this area here, what is that? RIVERA: This is how we have to attach it to the house and it may be shorter or whatever it is but it will be as far back, as I told Ms. Moore, as far back as possible. CHAIRMAN: And will it be approximately 15' then? RIVERA: We will make it as close as possible. I have a picture of it. Ms. Moore has a picture of it. CHAIRMAN: Is that going to be on pilings Ms. Rivera? RIVERA: No, that's going to be at ground level. It's basically something like that (photo handed up). CHAIRMAN: OK So we're now talking 28.5' on Inlet Drive, 37' on Sound Beach Drive. L. TORTORA: What do you have on the Sound-37'? CHAIRMAN: 37' RIVERA: 37' to the steps. CHAIRMAN: To the steps. ItIVEItA: The house is going to be further back, the steps will extend down. CHAIRMAN: We didn't deny it for the ... Yeah we did push on the steps, the required 4'. OK that's good. There was one other question. How is this new addition going to be heated or air conditioned? ItIVERA: We have air conditioning in the house now. But it will be central air. CHAIItMAN: And where are the compressors going to be. ItIVEItA: We're moving the compressors over to Inlet Drive. CHAIRMAN: So let me just recap this. You have no problem with moving the shower area into that little alcove area and having it approximately 15', I don't care what it's attached to. I don't care if it's attached to the existing house ore the new deck. OK You have no specific problem with placing the compressors from the neigbors? RIVEItA: No we have agreed to that. CHAIRMAN: OK Great, we'll go on to Mr. Villa. R. VILLA: You said this i$ going to be one story. I was just wondering why, well just looking at your elevations it looks like youVre going to have cathedral ceilings or 10~ high ceilings? ItlVEItA: The great room the living room is going to have approximately 12' ceiling. The dirking area and the master bedroom will have a peak internally. I don't know what's considered cathedral but it's going to be higher than eight feet. R. VILLA: When you said it was going to be just one story you kind of caught me because if the first floor is 14'6" and they're saying the main roof measures 34'10".That's 20', high for a one story house. RIVERA: Well, because we're elevating on the pilings. It. VILLA: Yeah I know that, but I'm going from the first floor. From first floor elevation to 14'6", to the ridge is 34'10" that's over 20'. RIVERA: To the peak. That's only going to be in certain areas of the house. CHAIRMAN: The original survey I had, I apologize Mrs. Rivera; I had 28', I had a 29' and then it was changed to 28'. L. TORTORA: I have 27' on the original survey I have. CHAIItMAN: Do you have a clean copy of this? RIVERA: We shrunk this out. This was done just recently by Peeonic Surveyors. CHAIRMAN: But if you have the change on there, that's the problem. You have got 28'4". I have 28'. L. TORTORA: I have the same thing. On the original survey it was 27'. RIVERA: And we changed it, we changed the plans and we shrunk the house. L. TORTORA: The original surveyor's mark on there has been altered. RIVERA: And it was re surveyed. L. TORTORA: It's not indicated on the revised survey. RIVERA: I think it says revised- something. L. TORTORA: It does but in other words this survey was revised January 10th, see I'm trying to establish where our lot lines are, yard distances here and yet you said you revised your plans but he didn't revise the surveyor's mark here. RIVERA: Peconic Surveyors did this. L. TORTORA: It doesn't indicate that. This is a handwritten alteration. CHAIRMAN: Will you do this for us Mrs. Rivera. We're not going to make a decision for approximately two weeks. L. TORTORA: That's the question. CHAIRMAN: Would you give us the correct distances from Sound View Dr. and the correct distances on the new clean map, all he has to do is just erase that and put the new ones in. RIVERA: Sure no problem. CHAIRMAN: And show us the approximate location of the shower, where it's going to be located. He can white that out as he did before with the changes that were made. We appreciate that. Excuse me I apologize. L. TORTORA: You had indicated that this was 40,112sq. ft. and the revised survey is now 39,999sq. ft. RiVERA: We had it re surveyed. L. TORTORA: This of course has to do with the setback distances. On the revised survey your deeded line here is 221'on your westerly boundary line. RIVERA: Yes originally 'it was 221' we've accumulated a great deal of beach front over the years. L. TORTORA: Yeah, it's accreted quite a bit. So you're showing the new tie line? RIVERA: Yes. L. TORTORA: Are you going to claim that land? The aocreted land. -RIVERA: The original deed if I'm not mistaken reads to the mean high water mark more or less and they told me I needed to have the originai deeded survey line on the map; which we went back and did. The house as I mentioned before sits ~85' back from the new high water mark and with the old high water mark it is 117' back. L. TORTORA: So are you clai~fing the aoereted lands by this survey? In other words whose lands are these? RIVERA: I assume they're ours. L. TOtLTORA: Well if they're your. lands, then the deeded line would go to the mean high water mark. Correct. RIVERA: Correct,Yes, the new mean high water mark we're saying. I~. TORTORA: Then it would no longer be 39,000 sq. ft. RIVERA: That is the new measurement to the mean high water mark, 39,000 If you take the measurements it came in to be I think 27or 28,000 from the old deeded high water mark. If you take 21' by however they measure it. RECESS FOR SCALE. L. TORTORA: I'm just trying to figure out if the square footage you have here is from the deeded line here or if it's to the tie water, high water mark. The only way I'd be able to do that is to, you know. RIVERA: I believe Peconio Surveyors ~oes to the mean hiEh water mark, for the 39,000 figure. CHAIRMAN: Can I make a suggestion. Either you call Peconic Surveyors or Mrs. Rivera calls Pecouic Sureveyors. Which ever way you want to deal with it we'll deal with it. I'm sure they will calculate it for you at that point. RIVERA: I'm quite sure it does because we figured it out before; it was drastically different to the old deed as opposed to the new deed, the new survey. CHAIRMAN: In some cases when you have accreted land the jurisdiction that holds the title to the accreted land may require you to get a quick claim deed to that accreted land before you actually have title to it. And it's usually done, it's done quick claim because what ever you have is there at that time and it could be gone tomorrow. I'm not expecting that to ever happen. We know what it was Like in 1974 and we never want to see that happen again. I'm a member of the Mattituck Park Commission, an elected official and I assure you the beach in 1974 was quite a bit different. RIVERA: I know people lost their boat pads... CHAIRMAN: OK What else do you have Mrs. Tortora. L. TORTORA: Nothing CHAIRMAN: Mr Dinizio. J. DINIZIO: No I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen? S. DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: I guess we'll start any rebuttal or any other questions that go on and we'll call you back when we need you. Thank you very much. Anybody like to speak in favor, or any body like to speak against or question. PAT MOORE: From Mattituck. Neutral. I represent Dr. Schilder who owns the property the adjacent property directly to the west. His initial concerns, he came to me and reviewed the plan, and his initial concerns were that this is a substantial house being built on this property in an area that really we're talking about a buidable area of about 10,000 sq. ft. really within, south of the coastal erosion hazard line. So we're talking about a very tight area and for those who have gone out to see the property, you haven't all gone out, he is directly impacted by this substantial expansion. We talked about it. I tried to identify exactly what his concerns and problems were so that we would try to be reasonable, we would try to discuss our concerns and see if we couldn't come to certain compromises. Another concern, obviously that the doctor has is that they have a substantial improvement and if his neighbor to his west builds a substantial improvement, he's sandwiched between two significant structures that obviously impact his property; both light, air, and aesthetics and setbacks. His property is directly impacted. Certain things that Mrs. Rivera already pointed out to you that we did have agreement on; one thing was an air compressor which is presently on the west side of her property and within feet of the doctor's setback or property line will be relocated and we thank her for that cooperation because the noise has always been a sore point that with her improvements she's going to be relocating that compressor and then another whatever compressor she's going to need for the addition on the Inlet Drive side. And so we ask that you would please place that as a condition of your approval, so that we are sure that in the long run all promises are kept. Another issue that certainly was a sore point for us was the shower. Mr. Goehringer ponted out that the setback was a concern of the proposed shower. We did agree that if she is going to locate a shower on that side that she would relocate it to the far corner and she describes an octoganal structure which she gave you a picture of that. I would ask that the Board be very specific on the size because I've never gotten a good dimension of whether it's by sq. footage or perameters of what size we're talking about. I think we all believe we know what size. CHAIRMAN: It's usually squared off. Even though the six sides are in that box, it's usually squared off. P. MOORE: We haven't gotten a dimension, so if we could... CHAIRMAN: I took that off the survey today and met with the Town Attorney and I took that off as 8'x8'. P. MOORE: Is it, because that proposed outdoor shower. I'm not sure that at the time that was the structure you had chosen. So if you could be just specific because if it doesn't have to be 8'x8'.. CHAIRMAN: That's the reason why I'm asking her to incorporate the setbacks at the 28'4" and 37' on the clean copy of the survey and the repositioning of that shower area at 15'. C. RIVERA: We have no problem with setting it back. CHAIRMAN: And you'll do that for us. P. MOORE: And we thank you. That was very helpful. CHAIRMAN: And we'll condition the air conditioning compressors and whatever other systems that you put into this new addition. C. RIVERA: With regards to that, the air conditioning compressors ~11 be placed on Inlet Drive. CHAIRM~kN: Well how is the house going to be heated? C. RIVERA: Most likely baseboard. The utility room is going to be inside the new structure, which is required. CHAIRMAN: OK. C. RIVERA: So the furnace and what not will ... CHAIRMAN: At first floor or already at that 3rd feet. P. MOORE: We're not talking about an oil or ... CHAIRMAN: We're not talking about additional compressors other than for air conditioning. C. RIVERA: Right. Most likely base board, hot water heat at this point. P. MOORE: Two points which we could not come to agreement on and we raised and asked the Board about this. One thing was, there is fencing around the property and obviously she's confronted with zoning two front yards, both Inlet Drive and Sound Beach, but practically we're talking about waterfront property and the back end of the property is the equivalent, everybody there, the equivalent of their front yard, that's the view and that's what they want to preserve. When I stood at the back of the property and I looked, really where she, the furthest northerly line for her, which is toward the coastal erosion line of the existing house. When you took both to the cast and to the west you see that there really is no house that has gone closer than that line. It's incredible that with all the additions, well all the structures that have ever been built, when you look down you have really a clear view of, from both sides of the property. And that was something that really upset the doctor and we have tried to accomodate her interest in building the house, but as you pointed out Mr. Villa it is going to be clevated quite high; there is going to be a proposed deck, and we want to make sure that that proposcd deck is not enclosed. If it is-enclosed, she would have to come back to you, because we, at that point would have an opportunity go decide whether or not she has not gone beyond where we can accept a reasonable expansion and the effects on the property. So that was something we could not agree on, she would not consent to and I said well that's fine but I certainly would raise the issue and present it to you. The other issue was a four foot fence that presently is on the property. We asked her if she could please keep it to a four foot fence, she said yes and as far as, I'm alway a typical lawyer, I go- well if someone docsn't have a fence then they put ten fcet shrubs, have we defeated the purpose. So my point was fence and or shrubs and when it came to shrubs we again had a disagreement. We could not come to an agreement. So.those were issues that we asked the Board 'to consider when they're considering the overall expansion of this property which is significantly larger than any of the other properties in this area. It is somewhat out of character but again we have agreed that we would support this application because we do think, that we appreciate the fact that it is pushed away from the westerly property line which does impact the neighbor the most. And she has given certain concessions that again I think as good neighbors our goal is not to fight, not to end up in litigation bu't to try to continue to be good neighbors and accomodate each others needs. So those are the requests we have and the doctor is here if (to the doctor) do you want to add anything? DR. STANLEY SCHILDER: Well I'd like to have some reassurance that, (Neighbor on the westerly side). We want to be good neighbors but it's a shocking experience to see a structure of that size going up in the area. This structure will be at least one 50% or more larger than any other structure; there's nothing that big in the area. And I'd like to, it's a ridiculous statement, I'd like to know if that's the end of the building. Is that going to be it? Are we going to have any more? Don't shake your head, because we never know the future. CHAIRMAN: You have to address the Board. DR. SCHILDER: We'd like to know if this is the end of this construction. P. MOORE: I don't think anybody can anticipate that. I think what we want to do is preserve our rights that if there are future expansions we have a right to come back and oppose it. CHAIRMAN: That's always the case as long as there's disapprovals supporting those expansions. That's where the problem comes in. There may be as of rights situations where we can't deal with that aspect of it. But you know, to the best of our knowledge we'll do the best we can. DR. SCHILDER; Thank you. P. MOORE: For the record I'll just add, I have the letter that I sent to Mrs. Rivera and I highlighted number three which is the point that we couldn't come to complete agreement, in all fairness I said that I would point that out. And then again the gazebo, as soon as we can find out the dimensions, I think we'll sleep better at night. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, C. RIVERA: I just wanted to reassure the Board that the gazebo ~vill be placed as far back as possible and will be set back 15', as much as we possibly can but we'll just redesign the gazebo to accomodate that 15' setback. We don't have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN: And before February 25th you can give us a clean copy of this with the setback. C. RIVERA: Absolutely. I'm sure Peconie (Surveryors) will be happy to drop it off tomorrow for you. B. VILLA: How does the building department look at the outdoor shower. Is that part of the structure, C. RIVERA: Yes as far as I know, they've addressed it as part of the structure, when we submit the plans. It's part of the structure. B. VILLA: Well if that's the ease, then why isn't that up to elevation fourteen? C. RIVERA: They told us all we had to do for an outdoor shower was to attach it somehow to the existing building. They didn't ask that we elevate it at all. They just asked that we attach it. It's not living space. It's just an outdoor showere. It's not going to be living space. B. VILLA: I'd just like to get some clarification on it, that's all. CHAIRMAN: I've discussed it with the Town Attorney today. P. MOORE: It's the page that shows the dimensions of where the outdoor shower; where we hope that it would be placed. It was the same drawing I gave you. So when she says it's going to be pushed thus far back, that's the area that we... CHAIRMAN: Yeah, in the corner area, there. The question I have to the Board, are we going to have any further questions of this applicant, do you want to recess this hearing or do you want to close it? J. DINIZIO: I just want to get something clear on this from Ms. Moore. The doctor is not unhappy with the house as proposed is that clear? la. MOORE: Well, I don't think he can honestly say he's happy with the house that's proposed however he will not oppose the application as long as certain mitigating measures which we just discussed are accepted and placed as conditions on the approval. ;l. DINIZIO: So a deck. You're anticipating, perhaps in the future a deck coming from this 13' elevation out towards the water. That's what you're trying to say. And at that time you certainly you feel you would oppose that. P. MOORE: No I think the proposal is for the deck and there's a recognition that there is a certain smount of rights that she has to build her property. However, certain things that we would hope can try and mitigate the impaot of her house which is going to be elevated and the deck which is to a certain extent going to be elevated. It's the fencing and all the things that I mentioned. Beyond that we have not objected to the structure or the deck. C. RIVERA: We have agreed that there is a four foot fence there now and that whatever we replace it with, whenever we do replace it, that' s not part of the application at this time, that I know that we're allowed probably a six fence but we have agreed for it to be a' four foot fence on that westerly side between Dr. Schilder and ourselves. We had absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. P. MOORE: The point that we were trying to make is not to create an enclosure of the deck. Right now there's the house and then there's an open deck. It's possible that her needs may change and she made to decide to put an awning up and walls or glass enclosure or whatever might be, that should be presented at this time if that's what she wants to do. It's our understanding that that's not ... C. RIVERA: The proposal is for an open deck at this time. CHAIRMAN: Right. What we're saying to you is we don't have any control of what the building department does. We only have what's before us as the control factor. P. MOORE: But I have been before this Board where they've told me open deck. Keep an open deck or deck not to be enclosed. CHAIRMAN: I'm using a new phrase. And the new phrase is open to the sky. P. MOORE: Open to the sky. Well however you'd like to do it. I know I've been caught by it many a time, so now we're using it the other way. C. RIVERA: The proposed deck is opened to the sky. It is going to have a pergola very similar to Pellegrini Vineyards, with pillars and we may drape, not permanent, drape canvas for some shade, but it is open to the sky. CHAIRMAN:Thank you. So we're going to receive that survey from you. We will then give the courtesy of Ms. Moore, if she so chooses to have a copy of the survey, we can forwar that to her when we get it. My question still stands I know the doctor has a question. Do you want to close the hearing? No response. Ms. Moore, question, they're still pondering. P. MOORE: He (doctor) was listening to her talk about the fence. And he just wanted to make sure that it was clear that the fence all the way around which is the back end as well as the side, that is on his side will remain at four feet. Is that correct. CHAIRMAN: It is not a part of this application. I do not know if we can address that. There is a degree of unanimity between neighbors and we do appreciate the unanimity that has existed here because counter production does not end up to be aesthetically positive; It ends up to be negative. You know we've had it, and we've seen it. So we do appreciate that. I'm going to suggest that we recess it and we take the copy (survey) and we forward the copy to Ms. Moore and she will then forward it to the doctor and then we will close the hearing and if there are any questions that eminently come to pass during that period of time we can then do some telephoning or we can do it by the nature of a letter. OK. P. MOORE: What's your date for closing? CHAIRMAN: The special meeting is scheduled for February 25th. Assuming we receive everything at that point I suggest we close it at that point. P. MOORE: That's fine. I'll be out of town for the next week that's, so that's why. C. RIVERA: So it's a technicality of a closing as opposed to recess? CHAIRMAN: If we have any questions about the survey once we receive it we can still... If I say we close it and there's something left on the survey that I'm unclear about then I have trouble interjecting anything else into the record, because the record is sealed, OK. So we can technically close it at the special meeting and then we can make a decision afterwards. L. TORTORA: So you want to recess the hearing until... CHAIRMAN: February 25th. B. VILLA: So basically we're getting a new survey that's going to show us three things. The square footage of the lot. C. RIVERA: You want the square footage of the old deeded? The sq. ft. now is 39 something. CHAIRMAN: The building department worked on 39 something, is that correct ~ 39~996. RIVERA: Correct. L. TORTORA: In the originai disapproval they worked off of 40,112. And on the second disapproval they worked off the 39,000. B. VILLA: What I'm having trouble finding in my mind is the lot has gotten bigger and the square footage has gone down. It doesn't make much sense. RIVERA: The lot has originally gotten much bigger since ~1957. And we originally we were building this, and started to plan this in t994 and '95 and in January '95 was when it was 40;112 or something like that. We had it resurveyed this January and we lost a couple, maybe a foot of beach and it came down to 39,000. But since 1957 we have accumulated a great deal of beach. B. VILLA: Well that's what I didn't have straight in my mind. RIVERA: THe 40,000 and change was over a year ago that it was surveyed because we were originally plant, lng this for quite some time. And the house was originally surveyed back in January 1995. B. VILLA: That makes sense now. It didn't make sense to me before because your lot got bigger and it got smaller at the same time. RIVERA: As long as it doesn't go back to 1957.. CHAIRMAN: OK So that's where we are. I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the special meeting on February 25th. I offer that ladies and gentlemen as a resolution. B. VILLA: Seconded. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. BOARD: Ayes. -~.-~ - Prepared by P. Conklin 2/il/9Y k CEIVED AND FILED BY Temporary clerk-typist THE SOUTHOLD TOWN Ciy,~K Tow__~n Clerk, To~zn of South. old · i, i ' FEB 2 TRANSCRTPT OF HEARZN6 HELD FEBRUARY.6, 1997 8:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4451 - MARIAN JEAN PRAUS. Based upon the 12/06/96 A.ction of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, applicant is requesting a variance for approval of steps and deck construction, as built, near existing bulkhead at 2175 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Parcel #1000-104-13-12. CHAIRMAN: I have copies of the existing deck and platform. I have a copy of the survey, dated November 15, 1996 indicating the placement as such and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Could you state .your name for the record, sir? MARK SCHWARTZ (A.I.A.): Yes, my name is Mark Schwartz. CHAIRMAN: How are you? MR. SCHWARTZ: Good. CHAIRMAN: What can you tell us about this, sir? MR. SCHWARTZ: There is an existing deck and steps in this location since 1961 and a storm about two or three years ago washed away the existing and the existing was re-built similar-to prior and that's what this is all about. CHAIRMAN: O.K. What I need from you is some dimensions of these. You don't have to give them to me tonight but ff you could measure them up for us and give us some dimensions, we'd appreciate it. We would like to make that a part of the permanent record. O.K.? MR. SCHWARTZ: O.K. CHAIRMAN: We'll start with Mr. Doyen. Any questions? MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No - just the dimensions. CHAIRMAN: Yes, dimensions would be greatly appreciated. MR. SCHWARTZ: O.K. CHAIRMAN: As you can see, we are going to make a decision on February 25th, so between now and then, please - before it snows again or something - fortunately, we don't have the year that we had last year. Mrs. Tortora? Page 2 - Transcript ~x~fHearings (Prsus') / Regular Meeting of February 6, ~997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Same question - dimensions. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Mr. Villa? MR. VILLA: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN: O.K. While you're standing there, is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Anybody against? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, pending the receipt of the dimensions. Would somebody please second that? MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? ~ (All ayes.) ~z~.~.~{~/ ~ ~7~ ~?~-~ ~ Transcript of Hearings February 6, 1997 8:45 p.m. App1. No. 4453 EDWARD AND EVELYN HALPERT. Based upon the 11/18/96 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector, applicants are requesting a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-241-A&C, and Section I00-243A, for the proposed alteration and second floor addition (expansion) of a nonconforming building which has contained a nonconforming (pre-existing) living unit, separate and accessory to the main dwelling, at 2125 Town Harbor Lane, Southold, NY; County Parcel #1000~66-1-31. Zone R-40, Residential. Property size: 1.45+- acres. CHAIRMAN: I have in my property the site plan, registered architect, Robert I. Brown, dated December 16, 1996 indicating a one-story addition to an existing two-story frame garage with potting shed which is fairly close to the property line on the easterly side; and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you again, Mr. Brown? ROBERT I. BROWN (Architect): Fine, how are you? CHAIRMAN: Good. What would you like to state for the record other than what we discussed? MR. BROWN: My name is Robert Brown I'm the architect for the Haiperts. Basically - (inaudible because of noise from paperwork). It is my understanding that what we are looking for is permission to make some changes to increase the nonconforming use which is the kitchen and the garage apartment. CHAIRMAN: O.K. My only question is and this is something that occurred after I looked at this on Saturday when we were out on the field inspection with you - has there been any thought about utilization of the ground floor area of the garage which is now a storage area? MR. BROWN: Well, in fact, that was considered a possibility and it would require two things: One is that it was too small for the use that we had hoped for and the other that we would then have to find other storage space for groundkeeping equipment. CHAIRMAN: O.K. MR. BROWN: It did not seem a viable alternative. CHAIRMAN: Ever since I've been there - I mean it's simply a gorgeous, very beautiful piece of property. The problem that I have is the extent of nonconforming use that you are proposing. O,K.? That's where the - problem lies, O;K.? I realize that it may require Mr. Halpert to build another storage building but I just can't see the elongation that you're proposing at this time. If you can come back with some other kind of remedy, I would really appreciate it. Page 2 - Transcript o5 Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MR. BROWN: I'm not sure that I understand. CHAIRMAN: You're, in effect, building another cottage by adding this on in the manner of which you're proposing and that's the concern that I have. It's kind of extensive. MR. BROWN: As 1 expained, the intention of this is to be able to utilize the existing pre-existing nonconforming use for the owner's mother who is 93 years old and obviously has difficulty getting to the second floor. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BROWN: In doing that, we felt we wanted to make it part of the existing structure that had the pre-existing nonconforming use other than create a separate structure entirely. We did it in a way that we hope is least obtrusive to the neighbors and took most advantage of the property that we could. As you know, the view there is quite spectacular. CHAIRMAN: Unprecedented. MR. BROWN: We obviously wanted to take advantage of that as best we could. Hence, the addition in that direction which also, fortunately, has the least impact, I feel, on the neighbors. CHAIRMAN: Right. O.K. We'll see how everybody else feels. I'm not trying to put you on the spot because you're a very nice man. Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: I also have a problem with the size. You're talking about a rather large extension here and, looking at the plan, you've got a master bedroom and another bedroom. MR. BROWN: That's for the helper for Mr. Halpert's mother. MEMBER VILLA: So, you're actually having two bedrooms that's all downstairs. You're actually talking about building something here that's almost in the range of what the Town requires as a minimum lot house size - 850 sq. ft. MR. BROWN: I can tell you what the addition is. The addition is 695 sq. ft. I would also point out, in defense of the size of the project, that in terms of over-all lot coverage; we're going from 17.7% to 18.8%. So, an addition of only 1% in terms of lot coverage on the entire property. MEMBER VILLA: 1 realize that but you're still ending up with two dwelling units on an individual tot. CHAIRMAN: That's where the problem lies. That's the main crux of the whole problem. MEMBER VILLA: This sets a beck of a precedent. We've got many many, I ttffnk, of these so-called "nonconforming apartments" existing in the town. This could open the flood gates for many many of these similar situations. Page 3 - Transcript df Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: You're pre-existing C.O. is for a guest room above the garage. MR. BROWN: In fact, that went back and forth between your Board and the Building Department and we became aware, from our original denial by the Building Department, that the C.O. did not include the kitchen. We were a little concerned because the dates of the inspections by the Building Departments obviously indicated that these have been written after the kitchen was already there. MEMBER TORTORA: How long has the kitchen been there? MR. BROWN: I can't say exactly. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you find out? MR. BROWN: That would be very difficult. The Halperts have only owned the property for, I think, five or six years but they bought it with the understanding that the C.O. was for that apartment and, when I met with the Building Inspector there, he agreed that the kitchen had been there prior to his writing the C.O. which he has since amended to inelude the kitchen. MEMBER TORTORA: He hasn't amended it in front of us. It's been initialed by the secretary that it says there's a kitchen in there. MR. BROWN: That was initialed by the Building Inspector. MEMBER TORTORA: John Boufis? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, the problem here is simple that, in your asking to expand a nonconforming use, in order to be grandfathered, it has to be a lawful nonconforming use which meant that, at some point, it had to either meet the Code or meet the amendment. I don't know maybe 30 years ago a kitchen was allowed done but it isn't in today's Code. MR. BROWN: It is my understanding - and I'm not a legal authority on this - but it is my understanding that it wasn't illegal until the Code said it was illegal. MEMBER TORTORA: At what point was that? MR. BROWN: I believe it was in the '60's or '70's - as I said, I'm not a legal expert on this - that was just my understanding of the situation. MEMBER VILLA: I have to say that, from the advent of zoning, there is only one house allowed per building lot so it would have to be nonconforming back to that point. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know. I wish we knew how long the kitchen was in there. Page 4 - Transcript o~Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Do you want a guesstimate? MEMBER TORTORA: I'm asking that, if any point in time... CHAIRMAN: I would say that that kitchen was built around 1965. MEMBER TORTORA: It's not new - I know that. CHAIRMAN: It's approximately 32 years old. MEMBER DINIZIO: Looking at the tax rate, there is no indication here of any increase. We have apartment written down over the garage - "t~Co-car garage and apartment". I saw the old record which Scott Russell indicated to me - it didn't have a date on it but because of the way the photograph was taken, it was a certain period of time - I believe he said before 1960 or ]960 something. It indicated on there that there was an apartment there so you can assume that if it's an apartment, that some type of cooking must have been going on there for someone to live in that apartment. I asked that question because the original indication we got from the Building Inspector that we have in our office said "kitchen" and had Gary Fish's initial or whatever. MEMBER TORTORA: The C.O. didn't say. MEMBER DINIZIO: When I went down to the Building Department, that wasn't on the record down there. MR. BROWN: Which is why I met with them there and discussed the fact that obviously there had been no recent renovation there and the kitchen was at least as old as the rest of the apartment. MEMBER DINIZIO: The problem was that he amended it here but he didn't amend it in his own original records. MR. BROWN: That I can't account for. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, I went over to the Assessor's and in the ensuing discussion - I can only assume that they assume that the apartment was something that had a kitchen in it. It has to be there for quite some time. If you look at the assessments they did some reassessments never jumped up - before 1960 it was one thing and then suddenly in 1960 it went up almost double. I don't know how you feel about that but, it seems to me, that in some point in time, something must have gone on in March of 1960 to cause this property to jump in value. Maybe that's when the l~itchen was put in. Maybe that's when this garage was built. It seems to me that those floors are 1950 floors - those hardwood floors. MR. BROWN: That was my opinion. MEMBER TORTORA: Your intention is to have this for his 93 year-old mother? MR: BROWN: That is correct. Page 5 - Transcript ~ Hearings Regular Meeting of February 8, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: I'm trying to figure out a way to put this so that if when she ceases to be, that this will not be a single-family unit. It will be an accessory and the apartment phase of it we could phase out. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure if the applicant wants that. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, he just said that... MR. BROWN: I couldn't speak for him. MEMBER TORTORA: It's just for the grandmother, correct? MR. BROWN: That's my understanding, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: So, after she is deceased, there will be no plans to use it for an apartment or a second-family dwelling. That's not what you're asking for, in other words? MR. BROWN: That's not what I'm asking for. In terms of Mr. Halpert's long-term intentions, I couldn't speak for that. I have no idea. CHAIRMAN: Would you like me to offer a remedy for this gentlemen? For this Board or do you want to...My suggestion is this, and the Board can see as they see fit - I suggest that you take the existing one-story of the garage - you go out only as far as the deck area and trade the second story for the first story and the only addition would be for what is underneath the deck area. You transfer the entire use of the second story to the first story and use that seeond story for storage. If this gentleman so desires to come in and either add on to the back of this for a storage area or whatever he has to do to continue his eontinued storage, so be it. That's something we'll entertain when we get to it. That's my suggestion. What you're actually increasing is the distance of what that footprint of the deek area - that second-story deck area is. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. BROWN: Yes, I understand what you're getting at. My concern is obviously for the equipment which is in the first-floor garage which could not be... CHAIRMAN: But, you can still come back - you can modify the plan, O.K. - if the Board is so inclined - that's my suggestion as alternate relief. You modify the plan by elongating the potting shed and putting the equipment in there - into a new modified plan and thereby increasing that. I am talking about a total trade of upstairs for downstairs. Upstairs shall remain open; everything should be cut to the rafters and unheated, unused, unairconditioned - whatever utilities you intend to put in there. There's still a question in my mind in reference to the seasonality of this dwelling. It appears that this is not a dwelling. It is a very simple, seasonal structure with sleeping quarters. That's an area that I wanted to address. We would appreeiate- we don't care if you insulate it - I would appreciate it - I'm not speaking for the Board - if it remains unheated and it be used for seasonal purposes. MEMBER TORTORA: Noncommercial seasonal. Isn't that correct? Page 6 - Transcript dI Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. BROWN: I'm quite sure that he has no commercial intentions for it. CHAIRMAN: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: He doesn't want to rent it or whatever? MR. BROWN: No. MEMBER TORTORA: The thing we're trying to get away from is creating two separate dwelling units on one lot. CHAIRMAN: You see, what that does is that it utilizes the existing structure and it's a trade for upstairs/downstairs. O.K~? I don't care if you put a flat roof on the upstairs - on the area - this is only my suggestion, o.k.? This is not the Board's suggestion. I don't care if you put a flat roof on that so as to still utilize the view from the upstairs area but the upstairs cannot be utilized as a bedroom - you can sit on the deck if you want to, as a flat roof - I don't care. Or you can put a pitch roof on there - it really doesn't make any difference. If you want to utilize the existing glass sliding door for ventilation purposes or whatever the reason you want to do. I also know that it puts you in a perplexing position because Mr. Halpert is out of the country. MEMBER TORTORA: There's also a kind of phase out condition on that. CHAIRMAN: We would take a look at that prior to. That's the easiest way to deal with that. After its constructed, we would just very simply want to come back and view it prior to any C.O., that's all. MEMBER VILLA: There should also be some conditions in it too because .... MEMBER TORTORA: There's also a phase out in the apartment aspect of it. CHAIRMAN: That's going to be cut to the rafters. MEMBER VILLA: I'm just saying, as this gentleman here is saying, that Mr. Halpert only bought it four or five years ago and he bought it assuming thus. In two years Mr. Halpert could sell it to somebody else and they could say "Well, I bought it with the understanding that I could do anything I wanted with this. They could rent it... CHAIRMAN: Of course, that's the restriction though. MEMBER VILLA: That's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN: So we're going to condition the restriction that it's going to be a trade from upstairs to downstairs. That's it. MEMBER TORTORA: What do you mean? Page 7 - Transcript dt Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: With further conditions... CHAIRMAN: With further conditions that upstairs be used only for storage purposes. MEMBER TORTORA: And the downstairs be used for? CHAIRMAN: A seasonal - a pre-existing seasonal cottage - living unit. MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like to check that out. MEMBER VILLA: That opens up a lot of situations. CHAIRMAN: There is an existing - a decision that was rendered in the '70's for the Pugsley cottages over in New Suffolk and it gives you a clear time of when seasonal dwellings - seasonal dwelling units - ought to be utilized - from x,y,z date to x,y,z date. Calendar wise. So, I would suggest something of that nature. MEMBER VILLA: It's on nonconforming situations? CHAIRMAN: On nonconforming, yes. MEMBER VILLA: I'll have to think on that one. CHAIRMAN: These are all things - this is a suggestion. This gentleman is trying to preserve a place for his mother and, at the same time, I don't particularly like second-story seasonal living units and I think it's somewhat of a practical situation. I should point out to the Board tonight - for the public tonight - that we are stopping this at 10:00 so no matter where we are, that's where we're going to be. And I apologize for that but I have a commitment that I have to make and so that's where we are. (Tape change. ) MEMBER TORTORA: We're going to check it out. Essentially we're going to - I know each case is different but there are other instances in the Town of Southold where a garage has been converted to an apartment and they don't have a C.O. for it. So, I'd like to think about how to deal with that. And I'm not sure that Mr. Halpert would want a condition for seasonal use so maybe that's something you could talk to him about. MR. BROWN: Just hypothetically - and this is off the top of my head - in terms of the heating aspect providing the heat to guarantee its seasonality - considering the age of the intended occupant, I would want to put heat in there even for summer use. CHAIRMAN: O.K. That still doesn't make it a year-round dwelling. MR. BROWN: I don't want seasonality to be the... CHAIRMAN: Yes, we're just saying to you that we didn't view any heat in the existing dwelling in the existing living unit, o.k.? So, Page 8 - Transcript ~'Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals therefore, we're not giving you any more than what exists. I have no objection to electric heating units being placed in there as long as it's conditioned for seasonal use. And I believe from the Pugsley decision that it was something like October 31st to April 1st - something of that nature. It would not be utilized. MR. BROWN: I'll have to discuss that with Mr. Halpert. Also, for the sake of my discussion with him so I can understand and clarify your proposai of including the area under the deck... CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BROWN: One of the reasons we didn't just go downstairs with it - obviously, Mr. Haipert's mother has an aide and you saw the size of the apartment upstairs... CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BROWN: To my mind, that would be small for somebody to stay in... CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BROWN: I just want to look for a little leeway in the apartment size assuming that we were to... CHAIRMAN: I think you're going to find that bigger actually than what you're anticipating because my suggestion is that you take the stairwell out going upstairs. MR. BROWN: I would need a stairway for access to the storage. CHAIRMAN: Move that into the other area where you're going to increase that to put in storage area but abutting or adjacent to or contiguous to the...If you increase the potting shed, put it in there. MR. BROWN: The potting shed is only one story. CHAIRMAN: I knew. MEMBER TORTORA: There's no opportunity for Mrs. Halpert to stay in the main structure? Because it's very large. Particularly at her age. MR. BROWN: It is large but it's not easily accessible - there are several steps. MEMBER TORTORA: Wouldn't it be easier to make it handicapped accessible than to... ME. BROWN: Not without doing serious damage to the architecture of the existing house, first of ail. And from my brief meeting with Mr. Halpert's mother, she's a very independer~t-minded individuai. MEMBER TORTORA: And she's iived to 93? God bless her! Page 9 - Transcript o~ Heamngs19(Halpert)97 Regular Meeting of February 6, Southold Town Zoning Board Of Appeals CHAIRMAN: So why don't we recess this at this point and you can come back to us and the Board can investigate this on their own... MEMBER TORTORA: We'll look at some other options and you can look at... CHAIRMAN: Yes, some other options on your part. That's only a suggestion on my part. I have not shared that with anybody until tonight. Mr. BROWN: Fair enough. CHAIRMAN: We thank you, and again, it's an absolute pleasure dealing with you. You're a true gentleman, sir. MR. BROWN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I will recess this without a date. I need a second. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. (All ayes.) ~ -~ ~ Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals 9:10 p.m. Public Hearing - Matter of JOHN and CATHLEEN HARRISON. CHAIRI~LkN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map indicating Lot #37 whieh I believe is the lot numnber that requires the waiver whieh is before us, at some 15,311 sq. ft. or ..352 of an aere. I have a copy of the Suffotk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ. The subdivision - this part of the J. Reynolds Philips subdivision that was created in November 1909. Oh, before I start, Mr. and Mrs. Harrison are here and they are here to help me out if I need answers to any questions. The history of the ownership, I think I gave you a thorough rundown, but I'll briefly point out very briefly that Edward Wirth originally purehased the waterfront parcel in 1960 and then in 1970 when he passed away, it became his wife's property. Mae Wirth then passed away, died in 1989 and I have an affidavit that I'll give to you tater, that when Mae Wirth died in her will, she left the real estate to Mrs. Harrison and she also had several other beneficiaries whieh were ail charities so the impact of that was this Estate took a very long time to get settled. The exeetors of this estate were Rudy Bruer and Chemical Bank, so we paint a picture that you've got an institutional exeeutor as well as an attorney, and they were having to deal with the properties in trying to preserve their zoning. Mr. Bruer, and I remember this vividly because I was working as an associate when I first got out of law school with him and I remember the Mae Wirth Estate and every pulling their hair out because the properties were going to end up all in the same name and we all that was a no-no. But we could not convince Chemical Bank and Rudy obviously as the executor, could not convince Chemicai Bank to checkerboard. Now it didn't have any impact on the two acre properties. The properties consisted, of about - there were three 2-acre properties, and then this piece subject to this application, and the waterfront piece. Anyway there were delays in administering this estate because of the charities involved. And throughout the process again, Mr. Bruer was not able to convince them to transfer it to John and Catherine Harrison in such a way to avoid merger. I have an affidavit and I'll give it to you at the end so I don't walk back and forth and take up time, but the affidavit states, and it's by Rudy (Bruer) that he was the executor of the estate and is making this affidavit for the Zoning Board's consideration and that Mae Wirth's cousin, Catherine Harrison, was a primary beneficiary of the real estate, that the estate took three years to administer and that Chemical Bank refused to convey to Catheri~e and John to preserve the integrity of the two lots. Ultimately the properties were transferred to Mrs. Harrison and as soon as practical they were transferred to John and Catherine Page 4 - February 6,~ "1997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Harrison and again, they were kept as separate pieces. As background Mae Wirth and Ed Wirth had checkerboarded these pieces all throughout their lives. They were buying these properties in separate names and were being very careful to keep the properties in separate names, so all throughout they were very good about keeping the separate properties, as you've seen in other applications, death unfortunately sometimes - things happen. The property was originally appraised fox' $75,000 and the estate taxes were paid for that amount. However, the property is presently under contraot for $40,000 so there has been a substantial reduction in the value just through market forces and primarily market forces. This property also has for those that have seen the property, and from the survey you can see there is a driveway that runs along the left side, northerly side of the property, and this right-of-way was apparently created in 1934. It gives aceess to this property to the piece to the north, to the left side~ and access to the back side to the waterfront parcel. The waterfront parcel is presently owned by Marguerite and Ude Farrell. They purchased the property just in 1996, the building department issued a CO for that property and it did not really come to bear that the properties had merged until a single and separate search was done when the lot was being conveyed -- CHAIRMAN: You're talking about lot 36. MRS. MOORE: I~ot 36 is the waterfront parcel -- CHAIRMAN: That has just been conveyed in 1996. MRS. MOORE: That's right. That was in ]996, it was conveyed to the Ude Farrell, so what's left is Lot 37. And for all intensive purposes, everybody thought that it was a .single and separate property until a single and separate search was done and we found out through the estate - that the estate proeeedings~ that the property has all ended up in Mrs. Harrison's name. And I have an affidavit of posting to give to you, also at one time. CHAIRMAN: Not to rush you, but if we run out of time, we run out of time and we'll just have you back another time. So please don't be concerned. This is my problem. Not somebody e]se's. MRS. MOORE: No you have alt this information on your record, so again I don't want to belabor because you do have this all as per my application. But go ahead. CHAIRMAN: But that's all I had to say. Page 5 - February Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Oh, all right. AS far as the standards that we have to meet with respect to a waiver, this application will not affect the density of the neighborhood, the properties have been shown as separate tax map lots, and still show on the assessors records and the Suffolk County Tax Maps as separate parcels. They were, the parcel to the north - the waterfront parcel as I said was sold, and it was reviewed by the Building Dept. It's a half-acre in size, and issued a CO for the structure that's there. I think that's pretty much it. I' have the affidavit and those are'all the facts with regard to this piece of property. This will again - and, I'm sorry, the conditions - it will avoid economic hardship. I pointed out to you that it is under contract right now for $40,000, and the property was originally appraised for $75,000. There are no .- the natural details, character and details of the lot and contours won't change or be altered by this application. There won't be in any filling in of environmentally sensitive lands or flood areas. In conclusion under the circumstances that we have presented to you, we hope that you will support the waiver application. I have the :affidavits for you, of posting and also Mr. Bruer's affidavit. (Handed up to the Chairman.) Do you have any questions for us? CHAIRMAN: No, I don't have any questions at this time. The only question I do have, I apologize, is you said the death occurred when~ that precipitated this entire thing? MRS. MOORE: Two deaths. Edward died first in 1970. CHAIRMAN: Was Ed Wirth on the deed at the time. MRS. MOORE: Ed Wirth - you have it in your records. I'm sorry I don't have it here in front of me. It was checkerboarded at one point. CHAIRMAN: Well do me a favor, just MEMBER TORTORA: I have it. CHAIRMAN: So tell me. MRS. MOORE: Yes, tell us. MEMBER TORTORA: Ok. Well it's right here in the title search. I think I have it. I had it before. MRS. MOORE: I had it on the map. I'll pull it out, it's easier. MEMBER TORTORA: Parcel 36, Wirth died in 1970 leaving Mae Wirth his wife as the sole owner, and she died in 1989. Page 6 - February 6,-~997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: But the deeds didn't transfer. Keep in mind that. There was no transfers. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN: So they were held by Chemical Bank at that time? MRS. MOORE: No, no. Ed Wirth remained on the deed. As a matter of law, she was the beneficiary but there was no change in the deeds to preserve that checkerboarding. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MEMBER TORTORA: And on 37 - let's see. Mae Wirth died in I989. And it was in her name by herself, correct? She died in ]989. MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Prior to that, it was in her name. It was in her name from 1964 to 1989. MRS. MOORE: Yes. As they bought it, they were checkerboarding the parcels. MEMBER TORTORA: From 64 to 89 it was in her name alone. MRS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRMAN: So the merger occurred prior to 1989, I mean post-J989. MRS. MOORE: Post 1989. Yes, when she died. And it all got because of Chemical Bank as the executor, they all went into -- MEMBER TORTORA: It wasn't put out - MRS. MOORE: Right. The deeds had to be transferred to Catherine Harrison who was the beneficiary under the will. MEMBER TORTORA: And that didn't occur until 1996. MRS. MOORE: No. MEMBER TORTORA: 1994. MRS. MOORE: 1994. 1990. Page 7 - February 6'?Z997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: 1990. CHAIRMAN: Yes, 1990. MEMBER TORTORA, Oh. Ok. CHAIRMAN: We have it now. Thank you. Hearing no further comments does anyone have comments? Seeing none~ I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MRS. MOORE: Sorry, sorry. I just wanted clarification. In 1990 the deed went to Catherine Harrison by way of the will but in 1994 that's when it was checkerboarded as soon as the estate was resolved. MEMBER TORTORA: Right. CHAIRMAN: It was cheekerboarded because the house was put in whose name? MRS. MOORE: Well at that point again it got checkerboarded between Catherine and John, so-- CHAIRMAN: John got the house? MRS. MOORE: Yes. John got the house and Catherine and John got the vacant lot. CHAIRMAN: Now, we have it. MRS. MOORE: Now you have it. MEMBER VILLA: How can you do that is my question? If it was merged basically by the bank, you could just hilly-willy write other deeds? MRS. MOORE: Yes. You can deed out, the question is not '- in fact for many years here you could, the Building Dept. would have issued a CO because they recognized - based on the records. ' It's only since the merger law was written that those kind of issues actually became clearer, at least as attorneys, Bill and I always do a single and separate search and that's how we -- Bill represented Inland Homes who was going to buy this lot, and that's it when it became apparent that the properties became merged. Otherwise it would probably never have been noticed if a single and separate search had not been done. CHAIRMAN; And that driveway is access to' the rear yard. Page 8 - February 6~,J'~997 (Harrison) Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Yes. To the rear house. CHAIRMAN: To the rear house. Right. And how wide is that? MRS. MOORE: Ten feet. MR. HARRISON: Say 10 to 12 feet, in that area. MRS. MOORE: The dirt driveway. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, again, I'll offer that as a resolution closing the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll second it. Motion carried and resolution adopted. LAST HEARING: TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING HELD FEBRUARY 6, 1997 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ' · 9:25 p.m. Appl. No. 4401 DAVID DEFRIEST (as Tenant). (Owners: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Gnozzo). Request for Variance based upon the June 3, 1996 Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval under Article Vlll, Section 10O~81A, issued on the following grounds: Automobile rental use is not a permitted use in this limited Business (LB) Zone District. Location of Property: 73265 Main Road, NY; County Parcel #1000-45-3-2. Size: 5+- acres. Patricia J. Moore, as Attorney. CHAIRMAN: O.K., we're back to the DeFriest Hearing. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: DeFriest? CHAIRMAN: Yes. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Did you open the hearing? CHAIRMAN: Yes. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: While we're at the end, we just want to thank you - extend our thanks for your cooperation and patience. It's been a long process. At this point, I think you have the latest draft from East End Drafting and Design which shows the lay-out of the proposed property and I was a recipient of a letter that went from Mr. Orlowski to the Zoning Board today which, I have to thank your office for sending it to me because otherwise I wouldn't have known that that had been issued. I was somewhat disturbed by that letter because I was at the Planning Board Work Session when this came up and we discussed it for all of two seconds and the reaction I got from the Planning Board was that "Until we know there's a use,. you know come back when you're ready". As far as the lay-out of the property, there were typical differences of opinion just as if I were to poll this board, that board was sitting down and saying well, some of them said - Well, one of them - and I won't point out who, said "Can't you demolish the building". He said "No, we can't do thai" and others said "Well, you know we can aeeomodate - we'll work it out." So there was riot a "go away - don't even come back to us with this". It was more of a "Well, when you know you've got the use, come back. Then we'll discuss the site plan". The way they've written this letter and I called Bob Kassner and I spoke to Mr. Ward today to confirm, you know, that I'm understanding it correctly. They're saying that the only way they'll give us a Waiver of Site Plan is if we agree to these conditions or if we accept their comments as true. We don't accept their comments - we don't believe that they're accurate and, in fact~ since the site plan that we submitted was designed, Mr. Wilisey has layed out the property in the way that the site plan is shown and it's been working really well. For the past two months, there has been a very good flow of the property. I've parked there myself when I go to post the property and talk to him. I park in those diagonal spaces and I back out inside the property lines and I pull out and it's a clear entrance and a clear exit and there's no problem at all. So, I think Page 2 - Transcrlp~of Hearings ' Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Beard of Appeals we're going to have a nice discussion ~th the Planning Board but, at a later date and I would ask that the Zoning Board consider the use at this point because we're obviously going to be discussing the lay-out of the property and what works and what doesn't. I think I'm going to put a member of the board in my car and show them how it works because when I was there ~ and I'm no Mario Andretti - it seemed to work for me. CHAIRMAN: You're sure you want to do that, right? You want us to make a decision? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Well, I need to get you guys to make a decision as far as the use, o.k.? As far as the lay-out of the property, the site plan they're going to tell us where things should go and where things belong and then we'll leave it to them. MEMBER TORTORA: That's where we were at the last hearing. CHAIRMAN: Let's digress here for a minute, o.k,? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Sure. CHAIRMAN: The existing house is an office. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Right. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone living in the house? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: He's living... MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): I stay there a couple nights a week. CHAIRMAN: Right, I remember that. O.K. Now, originally- in the first hearing we discussed the issue of your renting space to a gentleman who is presently renting there for the cars. That has changed. You are now going to utilize the entire building? MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): Yes. CHAIRMAN: Right, o.k. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Well, if he gets the use he wants to buy the whole property... CHAIRMAN: You want to buy the whole property from - PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Right, the property that consists of all those buildings. CHAIRMAN: Presenting leasing as a sublease from Dave DeFriesi? PATRICIA Moore Esq.: Right, we'll eliminate all those subleases and ease in there. Page 3 - Transcript,it6f Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: O.K. The planning aspect is up to Planning. The fourth issue is that of the over-ail picture of the expert testimony that you had provided for us. Is that correct? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Stype Real Estate? CHAIRMAN: Yes. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: And the pamphlet that he produced. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: And so on and so forth. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: O.K. The last thing I have is the actual line of wetlands - where does it exist, how can we flag it? This is an area that Mrs. Tortora - and I'm taking this from her and I apologize for that but it's an area that became a concern of mine when I was out there last week, o.k. - where do we know when you start, when you stop, when it gets wet, when it doesn't get wet at certain seasonal times of the year? O.K.? We've gone through a full season here and I'm not trying to - I have to get this in my mind to know how much property that you actually have usable because the rental car area that you show ten single spaces appears to project into that area, o.k. And that's where my concern is, alright? MEMBER TORTORA: There was testimony given at one of the hearings - I'm quite sure of this - of how much they estimated as usable land. CHAIRMAN: Yes, they said a half acre. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: And Stype actually ... (Simultaneous discussion) CHAIRMAN: But that doesn't tell me how far you can go in the back. That's where we are. I don't know where the wetlands actually stop. (Simultaneous discussion) CHAIRMAN: Which is the area that you were discussing? MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): About 300 feet. CHAIRMAN: 300 feet from the road? Page 4 - Transorlp~'~bf Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): From the road. CHAIRMAN: O.K., I will measure that before the 25th. MEMBER TORTORA: You're saying it starts about 300 feet from the road? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: You're saying it starts 300 feet from the road? MR~ WILLSEY (Tenant): I'm talking about you can go baok 300 feet and park. CHAIRMAN: O.K. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Giving these guys credit - when they went out to the property, I did point out - I said listen, you know, use the area that's usable and he was pretty clear that no, you could give him the width of the cars and so on. That's about it. Ten, well five in a row back is about it. And that's the area that he would reoommend using. CHAIRMAN: O.K. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: After that, you start dealing with slopes that you could fill but I wouldn't recommend that. MR. : Excuse me, Pat - does he have a distance at ali? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: No. It's to scale - I could probably try to figure it out. CHAIRMAN: We keep on playing tag with secretaries here. Could Mr. Wooley please spelt his name again? MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): Joseph Willsey. CHAIRMAN: We can get it out of the last hearing. MR. WILLSEY: It's easier tbJs way. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: ]Pat's new so she doesn't have the spelling yet. CHAIRMAN: O.K., alright - this is what I plan on doing and this is not a prolonged issue because we're inot making a decision. I plan on closing the hearing at our Special Meeting on February 25th. I will, between now and then, go out there and measure it. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: O.K. MEMBER TORTORA: Can't we close it tonight? Page 5 - Transcrlp~"~of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: We can't close it tonight but I want to be able to put that 300 feet in. If there's a change on that when I see you out there, please let me know. O.K.? MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): O.K. CHAIRMAN: And I'm going to place that in the original plan to see where... PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I was going to say, if you can mark it on the plan... CHAIRMAN: I'll try. I'm not a surveyor but I'll do the best I can. I don't mean that sarcastically. I'll start with what I construe to be the property line and I'll roll with the wheel $00 feet out. I think I have an almost unobstructed - it doesn't make any difference - I roll to a fixture and go out. O.K.? And I'll make that determination. MEMBER TORTORA: You're going to put it on the map, Jerry? CHAIRMAN: I'm going to put it on the map where 300 feet lies out there and I'll put a stake out there if I have one with me. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: That's his estimate - 300 feet. When you're out there - the two of you... CHAIRMAN: If you change on that, let me know because I'm not going out there until the Saturday before the 25th. MEMBER TORTORA: That's his estimate so... PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Yes, why don't you if you could coordinate it because if you could figure out based on what's here - on the drawing - it would make some sense. It would make it easier. (Simultaneous discussion) CHAIRMAN: Maybe the Trustees would go out and do a field inspection for us. Would you ask them? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I can ask them. CHAIRMAN: Our understanding is 300 feet out and that's based upon the applicant. MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): What I'll do is I'll measure it tomorrow. I'll walk it off to get a closer idea and call Pat and she can call you? CHAIRMAN: Yes, I'm not going to be here for a week but... PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I won't either. CHAIRMAN: Yes, o.k., but we're two weeks away here. O.K., so then if I can take a line from that particular point across - from Page 6 - Transcrl~t~bf Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board Of Appeals that point - because it may be closer - then we can say that "Yes, we have x,y,z amount of usable area". At this point it's still hypothetical. It's a hypothesis - we don't know. MEMBER TORTORA: The only thinK is '- t personally would feel better if the Trustees would flag it... CHAIRMAN: She's going to ask them. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I'm going to ask them. I can't force them to do it. CHAIRMAN: I'm still measuring. I don't care if they do it or they don't. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I would also - something that's obvious but if you recall the original proposal that Mr. DaFfiest put in versus what we've designed, we've scaled back tremendously what is being requested. He's really designed to work for his business but without really over-using the property so keep that in mind. Thanks. This letter I wish I could take credit for it because it's really very well done but I can't - I didn't write it. There are - how many? MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): There was a hundred but some of them got lost. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: O.K. There are about one hundred letters in support of this applieation. All of them based on one letter really, it's the first client that he had that wrote this letter without any prompting for support. MR. WILLSE¥ (Tenant): A copy was sent to the Board. CHAIRMAN: Right. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: And one of these on the top has some extra hand-written comments so I just want to show the Board that this is a very valuable business to the area. CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask Mr. Willsey an off-the-cuff question - I happened to tour not physically tour but I happened to drive i~xto your site in Corem and you've got a lot of cars. How many cars do you have on site at that one? MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): About 300. CHAIRMAN: I estimated 400 so I was 100 off. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: That's not ever going to be done here. I ean assure you that. MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): It would be impossible to do. I've got a lot of room there. Page 7 - Transcript''of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: My relatives are from the Port Jefferson/Mt. Sinai area so I just happened to zip by there one day and said "That looks familiar". MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): Same type of sign. CHAIRMAN: O.K~, thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to wrap up with Mrs. Moore? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: No, I have an Affidavit of Posting. I think I've posted five times now. Again, we'd just like to thank you for your patience with us. It's been a .long applieation and we've given you a lot of information and I just hope that, after ail this, we can proeeed with the next step which is going to be discussing the site plan with the Planning Board. That's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are you going to give us that affidavit? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Yes, I'm going to give it to you right now. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the Special Meeting at which time... MEMBER TORTORA: Are you going to recess it or close it, Jerry? CHAIRMAN: I'm going to recess it until February 25th at which time I will put into the record and, hopefully, by that time the Trustees will at least look at those areas. My suggestion, Mr. Willsey - post that 300 ft. mark on both sides of that building - the big building - so you can tell them that that's the area that you estimate that you want to utilize and they will tell you if there's anything... MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): That property goes back at a funny angle - it gets wider as it goes back. CHAIRMAN: Whatever two places you can do to show some sort of parallel line going across. I don't care where it is. Just make sure that you put it in with a stake that's strong enough to withstand a little s~5ow or whatever - like one of the stakes that they use on the highway - the five quarter stakes made out of something solid so it stays there. Now is the time to do it. O.K. I know it's winter time. MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): The ground is soft. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I assume that you have no more questions of Mr. Stype? CHAIRMAN: He's not here. If something ehanges between now and the 25th, we'll let you know. Alright? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: O.K. (Chairman was then asked if there was a second to the motion.) Page 8 - Transcrip%~/of Hearings Regular Meeling of February 6, 1997 Southeld Town Board of AppealS CHAIRMAN: I think they're still pondering it. Again I offer the resolutien to recess it for the purpose of closure on February 25th. (The motion was seconded by Member Dinizio.) CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor? (Ail ayes) CHAIRMAN: Thank you. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Thank you. RECEIVED AiqD FILED BY THE SOUTi~OLD TOV'fN CLE?2I To'~m Cler!~, Tcv~n o~ icu~2~::~ Transcript o[' llearing February 6, 1997 ZBA Meeting Southotd Town Board of Appeals 8:00 p.m. Appl, No. 4452 - Christina Rivers. Based upon the :[/14/97 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article IIIA, Section t00-30A.3, applicant is requesting a variance for permission to locate a portion of a proposed addition to dwelling for which a portion wilt be located at less than tile required 40 ft. front yard setback from Inlet Drive, and a small portion of steps less than the required 40 ft. front yard from Sound Beach Drive. Property Location: 250 Sound Beach ])rive and Inlet Drive, Mattituck, NY; County parcel #1,.000-99-1-16. Zone R-40 Residential. This parcel consists of approx. 40,000 s.f. in total area. CHAIRMAN: I am reading from Castellano Assoc., Lint. dated 2/29/96 drawing, issue date 3/2/96, and I bare a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. And you are Mrs. Rivers. }Iow are you? What would you like to tell us. CHRISTINA RIVERA: Good evening my name is Christina Rivera and I have lived at 250 Sound Beach Drive in Mattituck for nearly forty years now. My husband and. I are planning to make this our permanent residence in the future and therefore we are seeking a building permit which requires an area variance. Since our property is located on a corner let I'm an considered to bare two front yards which require 40' setbacks. The setbacks which we are seeking are quite minimal. On Sound Beach Drive the setback will be 37' in order to accomodate the front entrance steps which are proposed as opposed to the required 40'. On Inlet Drive the setback will be 28.5'. The house has been specifically designed with the majority of tbs extension to be built on the easterly portion of the property. Since Inlet Drive is a dead end street which is virtually a parking lot now requiring a parking permit in order to park the Mattituck resident's cars in tile area. I would like to stress that directly east of Inlet Drive there are no neighbors since this property now belongs to the Mattituck Park District. The addition which is being proposed as a single story structure which is conducive to 90% of the homes which are on both sides of Sound Beach Drive now. Again the extension which is proposed was designed specifically to be sensitive to the water view of our only neighbor to the west, directly to the west of us but also sensitive to tile environment northward toward the Sound. In order to achieve the additon without a variance would require bulding not only a two story structure but would also require to buit.d on the westerly side by our neighbor and further north towards the Sound. As the house is plannned now the house would be set back approximately 185' from the mean high water mark. As the extension is now proposed' we are seeking minimal setback allowances with virtually no impact upon the environment nor change in the character of the neighborhood. In light of my application we have both written and verbal support from our neighbors and I would tike to thank the Board for their time and consideration in this matter. CHAIRMAN: Could just give me that, I also have the survey which I should have read into the record, could you just give me that figure from Sound Beach Road? RIVERA: Sound Beach Drive? It will be 37' setback as opposed to 40' which are required and that's to accomodate the entrance steps on Sound Beach. CIIAiRMAN: Which are more than 30 sq. ft. or whatever the required amount is. I spent a long time on this plan. The scale got me for awhile but i think I've gotten that down. My question is Why are you leaving lhe existing house ill place? Because you are going to be required to raise this to what level for FEMA? R. IVERA: The flood level is a VH Zone which is 13' now; so it has to be above the 13' level, the new space. CHAIRMAN: And tile house is built at existing grade now? RIVERA: 10.5' CHAIRMAN: And you said, what 13'? RIVERA: Yes the flood zone is 13'. CHAIRMAN: So you are going to have to raise the new structure, additon approximately 3 plus feet. OK R. VILLA: The floor elevation will be more than that because that's the bottom of the rafters. CHAIRMAN: So we will assume 2'x10' RIVERA: 2'X12' but whatever. It's going to be 14' plus. CHAIRMAN: So what are you talking, 4' or 4.5'. R. VILLA: 4'1". CHAIRMAN: Alright SO it's 49". You have an established setback. It's 6.8' on the westerly side, OK. The only thing that I do not agree with with the Building Inspector is I assume that's a gazebo or a hot tub. RIVERA: No, it's going to be an outdoor shower. Which has to be attached, it is our understanding from .the building department, (attached) to the building structure. And it will be attached to the house. There is an existing outdoor shower now. CHAIRMAN: I have that presently at 10' from my scaling from the property line. RIVERA; The new proposed shower. We have agreed to move the proposed shower as far back as we feasibly can, toward the garage. CIIAIRMAN: Because the code reads 15', OK. RIVERA: It is our understanding that we can build since it is a pre-existing garage and the setback is pre existing. CHAIRMAN: That is true. Even though you are adding on to that, the only thi~lg that is pre-existing in my opinion, is the original house. So the 6.8' is staying because the house is there. It's really the garage but it's a~ached to the house so it's part of the house, OK. The problem that I have is that you're going to have to hold to that 15'. RIVERA: Could I show you where that would be? We just stuek it there originally but we have agreed to move it as far back as feasible and attach it to the house. This was just put here as a walkway er breeze way to attach it to the house. CHAIRMAN: Is it going to be in the corner though? R1VERA: Yes we are going to move it as far back as possible. CHAIRMAN: Then without that little area, that, I don't know what that is, this area here, what is that? RIVERA: Tl~is is how we have to attach it to tile house and it may be shorter or whatever it is but it will be as far back, as I told Ms. Moore, as far back as possible. CIIAIRMAN: And will it be approximately 15' then? RIVERA: We will make it as close as possible. I have a picture of it. Ms. Moore has a picture of it. CHAIRMAN: ts that going to be on pilings Ms. Rivera? RIVERA: No, that's going to be at ground level. It's basically something like that (photo handed up). CHAIRMAN: OK So we're now talking 28.5' on Inlet Drive, 37' on Sound Beach Drive. L. TORTORA: What do you bave on the Sound-37'? CHAIRMAN: 37' RIVERA: 37' to the steps. CHAIRMAN: To the steps. RIVERA: The house is going to be further back, the steps will extend down. CHAIRMAN: We didn't deny it for the ... Yeah we did push on the steps, the required 4'. OK that's good. There was one other question. How is this new addition going to be heated or air conditioned? RIVERA: We have air conditioning in the house now. But it will be central air. CHAIRMAN: And where are the compressors going to be. RIVERA: We're moving the compressors over to Inlet Drive. CHAIRMAN: So let me just recap this. You have no problem with moving the shower area into that little alcove area and having it approximately 15', I don't care what it's attached to. I don't care if it's attached to the existing house ore the new deck. OK You have no specific problem with placing the compressors froal the neigbors? RIVERA: No we have agreed to that. CHAIRMAN: OK Great, we'll go on to Mr. Villa. R. VILLA: You said this is going to be one story. I was just wondering why, well just looking at your elevations it looks like you're going to have cathedral ceilings or 10' high ceilings? RIVERA: The great room the living room is going to have approximately 12' ceiling. The dining area and the master bedroom will have a peak internally. I don't know what's considered cathedral but it's going to be hig'her than eight feet. R. VILLA: When you said it was going to be just one story you kind of caught me because if the first floor is 14'6" and they're saying the main roof measures 34'10".That's 20', tkigh for a one story house. RIVERA: Well, because we're elevating.on the pilings. R. VILLA: Yeah I know that, but I'm going from the first floor. From first floor elevation to 14'6", to the ridge is 34'10" that's over 20'. RIVERA: To the peak. That's only going to be in certain areas of the house. CHAIRMAN: The original survey I had, I apologize Mrs. Rivera; I had 28', I had a 29' and then it was changed to 28'. L. TORTORA: I have 27' on the original survey I have. CHAIRMAN: Do you .have a clean copy of this? RIVERA: We shrunk this out. This was done just recently by Peconie Surveyors. CttAIRMAN: But if you have the change on there, that's the problem. You have got 28'4". I ]lave 28'. L. TORTORA: I have the same thing. On the original survey it was 27'. RIVERA: And we changed it, we changed the plans and we shrunk the house. L. TORTORA: The original surveyor's mark on there has been altered. RIVERA: And it was re surveyed. L. TORTORA: It's nor indicated on tile revised survey. R1VERA: I think it says revised- something. L. TORTORA: It does but in other words this survey was revised January 10th, see I'm trying to establish where our lot lines are, yard distances here and yet you said you revised your plans but he didn't revise the surveyor's mark here RiVI,]RA; Peconic Surveyors did this. L. TORTORA: It doesn't indicate that. This is a handwritten alteration. CHAIRMAN: Will you do this for us Mrs. Rivera. We're not going to make a decision for approximately two weeks. L. TORTORA: That's the question. CHAIRMAN: Would you give us the eorrect distances from Sound View Dr. and the correct distances on the new clean map, all he has to do is just erase that and put the new ones in. RIVERA: Sure no problem. CHAIRMAN: And show us the approximate location of the shower, where it's going to be located. He can white that oul as he did before with the changes that were made. We appreeiate that. Exeuse me I apologize. L, TORTORA; You had indicated that this was 40,112sq. ft. and the revised survey is now 39,999sq. ft. RIVERA: We bad it re surveyed. L. TORTORA: This of course has To do with the setback distances. On the revised survey your deeded line here is 221'on your westerly boundary line. RIVERA: Yes originally it was 221' we've accumulated a great deal of beach front over tile years. L, TORTORA: Yeah, it's accreted quite a bit. So you're showing the new tie line? R1VERA: Yes. L. TORTORA: Are you going to claim that land? The accreted land. RiVERA' The original deed if I'm not mistaken reads to the moan high water mark more or less and they told me I needed to have the original deeded survey line on the map; which we went back and did. The house as I mentioned before sits 185' back from the new high water mark and with the old high water mark it is 117' back. L. TORTORA: So are you claiming the accreted lands by this survey? In other words whose lands are these? RIVERA: I assume they're ours. L. TORTORA: Well if they're your lands, then the deeded line would go to the mean high water mark. Correct. RIVERA: Correct,Yes, the new mean high water mark we're saying. L. TORTORA: Then it would no longer be 39,000 sq. ft;' RIVERA: That is the new measurement to the mean high water mark, 39,000 Ii' you take the measurements it came in to be I think 27or 28,000 from the old deeded high water mark. If you take 21' by however they measure it. RECESS FOR SCALE. L. TORTORA: I'm just trying to figure out if the square footage you have t~ere is from the deeded line here or if it's to the tie water, high water mark. The only way I'd be able to do that is to, you know. RIVERA: I believe Peconie Surveyors gees to the mean high water mark, for the 39,000 figure. CHAIRMAN: Can I make a suggestion. Either you call Peoonic Surveyors or Mrs. Rivera calls Peconic Su~,eveyors. Which ever way you want to deal with it we'll deal with it. I'm sure they will calculate it for you at that point. RIVERA: I'm quite sure it does because we figured it out before; it was drastically different to the old deed as opposed to the new deed, the new survey. CHAIRMAN: In some eases when you have aecreted land the jurisdiction that holds the title to the accreted land may require you to get a quick claim deed to that aecreted land before you actually have title to it. And it's usually done, it's done quick claim because what ever you have is there at that time and it could be gone tomorrow. I'm not expecting that to ever happen. We know what it was like in 1974 and we never want to see that happen again. I'm a member, of the Mattituck Park Commission, an elected official and I assure you the beach in 1974 was quite a bit different. RIVERA: I know people lost their boat pads,.. CHAIRMAN: OK What else do you have Mrs. Tortora. L. TORTORA: Nothing CHAIRMAN: Mr Dinizio. J. DINIZIO: No I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen? S. DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: I guess we'll start any rebuttal or any other questions that go on and we'll call you back when we need you. Thank you very much. Anybody like to speak in £avor, or ally body like to speak against or question. PAT MOORE: From Mattituek. Neutral. I represent Dr. Schilder who owns tile property the adjacent property directly to the west. His initial concerns, lie came to me and reviewed the plan, and his initial concerns were that this is a substantial house being built on this property in an area that really we're talking about a buidable area of about 10,000 sq. ft. really within, south of the coastal erosion hazard line. So we're talking about a very tight area and for those who have gone out to see the property, you haven't ali gone out, lie is directly impacted by this substantial expansion. We talked about it. I tried to identify exactly wllat his concerns and problems were so that we would try to be reasonable~ we would try to discuss our concerns and see if we couldn't come to certain compromises. Another. concern, obviously that the doctor has is that they have a substantial improvement and if his neighbor to his west builds a substantial improvement, he's sandwiched between two significant structures that obviously impact his property; both light, ail', and aesthetics and setbacks. His property is directly impacted. Certain things that Mrs. Rivera already pointed out to you that we did have agreement on; one thing was an air compressor which is presently on the west side of her property and within feet of the doctor's setback or property line will be relocated and we thank her for that cooperation because the noise has always been a sore point that with her improvements she's going to be relocating that compressor and then another whatever compressor she's going to need for the addition on the Inlet Drive side. And so we ask that you would please place that as a condition of your approval, so that we are sure that in the long run all promises are kept. Another issue that certainly was a sore point for us was the shower. Mr. Goehringer ponted out that the setback was a concern of the proposed shower. We did agree that if she is going to locate a shower, on that side that she would relocate it to the far corner and she describes an octoganal structure which she gave you a picture of that. I would ask that the Board be very specific on the size because I've never gotten a good dimension of whether it's by sq. footage or perameters of what s~ze we're talking about. I think we all believe we know what size. CHAIRMAN: It's usually squared off. Even though the six sides are in that box, it's usually squared off. P. MOORE: We haven't gotten a dimension, so if we could... CHAIRMAN: I took that off' the survey today and met with the Town Attorney and I took that off as 8'x8'. P. MOORE: Is it, because that proposed outdoor shower. I'm not sure that at the time that was the structure you had chosen. So if you could be just specific because if it doesn't have to be 8'x8'.. CHAIRMAN: That's the reason why I'm asking her to incorporate the setbacks at the 28'4" and 37' on the clean copy of the survey and the repositiordng of that shower area at 15'. C. RIVERA: We have no problem with setting it back. CHAIRMAN: And you'll do that for us. P. MOORE: And we thank you. That was very helpful. CHAIRMAN: And we'll condition the air conditioning compressors and whatever other systems that you put into this new addition. C. RIVERA: With regards to that, the air conditioning compressors will be placed on Inlet Drive. CHAIRMAN: Well how is the house going to be heated? C. RIVERA: Most likely baseboard. The utility room is going to be inside the new structure, which is reqnired. CHAIRMAN: OK. C. RIVERA: So the furnace and what not will ... CHAIRMAN: At first floor or already at that 3rd feet. P. MOORE: We're not talking about an oil or ... CHAIRMAN: We're not talking about additional compressors other than flor air conditioning. C. RIVERA: Right. Most likely base board~ hot water heat at this point. P. MOORE; Two points which we could not come to agreement on and we raised and asked the Board about this. One thing was, there is fencing around the property and obviously she's confronted with zoning two front yards, both Inlet Drive and Sound Beach, but practically we're talking about waterfront property and the back end of the property is the equivalent, everybody there, the equivalent of their front yard, that's the wew and that's what they want to preserve. When I stood at the back of the property and I looked, really where she, the furthest northerly line for her, which is toward the coasta1 erosion line of the existing house. When you look both to the east and to the west you see that there really is no house that has gone closer than that line. It's incredible that with all the additions, well all tile structures that have ever been built, when you look down you have really a clear view of, from both sides of the property. And that was something that really upset the doctor and we have tried to accomodate her interest in building the house, but as you pointed out Mr. Villa it is going to be elevated quite high, there is going to be a proposed deck, and we want to make sure that that proposed deck is not enclosed. If it is .enclosed, she would have to come back to you, because we, at that point would have an opportunity to decide whether or not she has not gone beyond where we can accept a reasonable expansion and the effects on the property. So that was something we could not agree on, she would not consent to and I said well that's fine but I certainly would raise the issue and present it to you. The other issue was a four foot fence that presently is on the properly. We asked her if she could please keep it to a four foot fence, she said yes and as far as, I'm alway a typical lawyer, I go- well if someone doesn't have a fence then they put ten feet shrubs, have we defeated the purpose. So my point was fence and or shrubs and when it came to shrubs we again had a disagreelnent. We could not come to an agreement. So those were issues that we asked the Board 'to consider when they're considering the overall expansion of this property which is significantly larger tlmn ally of the other properties in this area. It is somewhat out of character but again we have ag~eed that we would support this application because we do think, that we appreciate the fact that it is pushed away from the westerly property line which does impact the neighbor the most. And she has given certain concessions that again I think as good neighbors our goal is not to fight, not to end up in litigation bu~ to try to continue to be good neighbors and accomodate each others needs. So those are the requests we have and the doctor is here if (to the doctor) do you want to add anything? DR. STANLEY SCHILDER: Well I'd like to have some reassurance thal,(Neighbor on the westerly side). We want to be good neighbors but it's a shocking experience to see a structure of that size going up in the area. This structure will be at least one 50% or more larger than any other structure; there's nothing that big in the area. And I'd like to, it's a ridiculous statement, I'd like to know if that's the end of the building. Is that going to be it? Are We going to have any more? Don't shake your head, because we never know the future. CHAIRMAN: You have to address tile Board. DR. SCHILDER: We'd like to know if this is the end of this construction. P. MOORE: I don't think anybody can anticipate that. I think what we want re do is preserve our rights that if there ere future expansions we have a right to come back and oppose it. CHAIRMAN: That's always the case as long as there's disapprovals supporting those expansions. That's where the problem comes in. There may be as of rights situations where we can't deal with that aspect of it. But you know, to the best of our knowledge we'll do the best we can. DR. SCHILDER: Thank you. P. MOORE: For the record I'll just add, I have the letter that I sent to Mrs. Rivers and I highlighted number three which is the point that we couldn't come to complete agreement, in all fairness I said that I would point that out. And then again the gazebo, as soon as we can find out the dimensions, I think we'll sleep better at night. CIIAIRMAN: Thank you. C. RIVERA: I just wanted to reassure the Boa~.d that the gazebo will be placed as far back as possible and will be set back 15', as much as we possibly can but we'll just redesign the gazebo to aceomodate that 15' setback. We don't have a problem with that. CtlAIRMAN: And before February 25th you can give us a clean copy of this with the setback. C. RIVERA: Absolutely. l'In sure Peconie (Surveryors) will be happy to drop it off tomorrow for you. B. VILLA: ttow does the building department look at the outdoor shower. Is that part of the structure. C. RIVERA: Yes as far as I know, they've addressed it as part of the structure, when we sub,nit the plans. It's part of the structure. B. VILLA: Well if that's the case, then why isn't that up to elevation fourteen? C. RIVERA: They told us all we had to do for an outdoor shower was to attach ii somehow to the existing building. They didn't ask that we elevate it at all. They just asked that we attach it. It's not living space. It's just an outdoor showere. It's not going to be living space. B. VILLA: I'd just like to get some clarification on it, that's all. CitAIRMAN: I've discussed it with the Town Attorney today. P. MOORE: It's the page that shows the dimensions of where the outdoor shower; where we hope that it would be placed. It was the same drawing I gave you. So when she says it's going to be pushed thus far back, that's the area that we... CHAIRMAN: Yeah, in the corner area, there. The question I have to the Board, are we going to have any further questions of this applicant, do you want to recess this hearing or do you want to close it? J. DINIZIO: I just want to get something clear on this from Ms. Moore. The doctor is not unhappy with the house as proposed is that clear? P. MOORE: Well, I don't think he can honestly say he's happy with the house that's proposed however he will not oppose the application as long as certain mitigating measures which we just discussed are accepted and placed as conditions on the approval. J. DINIZIO: So a deck. You're anticipating, perhaps in the future a deck coming from this 13' elevation out towards the water. That's what you're trying To say. And at tt~at time you certainty you feel you would oppose that. P. MOORE: No [ think the proposal is for the deck and there's a cecognition that there ~s a certain amount of rights .that she has to build her property. However, certain things that we would hope can try and mitigate the impact of her house which is going to be elevated and the deck which is to a certain extent going to be elevated. It's the fencing and all the things that I mentioned. Beyond that we have not objected to the structure or the deck. C. RIVERA: We have agreed that there is a four foot fence there now and that whatever we replace it with, whenever we do replace it, that' s not part of the application at this time, that I know that we're allowed probably a six fence but we have agreed for it to be a'four foot fence on that westerly side between Dr. Sehilder and ourselves. We had absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. P. MOORE: The point that we were trying to make is not to create an enclosure of the deok. Right now there's the house and then there's an open deck. It's possible that her needs may change and she made to decide ~o put an awning up and walls or glass enclosure or whatever might be, that should be presented at this time if that's what she wants ~o do. it's our understanding that that's not ... C. RIVERA: The proposal is for an open deck at this time. CHAIRMAN: Right. What we're saying to you is we don't have any control of what the building department does. We only have what's before us as the control factor. P. MOORE: But 1 have been before this Board where they've told me open deck. Keep an open deck or deck not to be enclosed. CHAIRMAN: I'm using a new phrase. And the new phrase is open to the sky. P. MOORE: Open to the sky. Well however you'd like to do it. I know I've been caught by it many a time, so now we're using it the other way. C. RIVERA: The proposed deck is opened [o the sky. It is going to have a pergola very similar to Pellegrini Vineyards, with pillars and we may drape, not permanent, drape canvas for some shade, but it is open to the sky. CHAIRMAN:Thank you. So we're going To receive that survey from you. We will then give the courtesy of Ms. Moore, if sh~ so chooses to have a copy of the survey, we can forwar that to her when we get it. My question still stands I know the doctor has a question. Do you want to close the hearing? No response. Ms. Moore, question, they're still pondering. P. MOORE: He (doctor) was listening to her talk about the fence. And he just wanted to make sure that it was clear that the fence all the way around which is the back end as well as the side, that is on his side will remain at four feet. Is that correct. ClfAIRMAN: It is no[ a part of this application. I do not know if we can address that. There is a degree of unanimity between neighbors and we do appreciate the unanimity that has existed here because counter production does not end up to be aesthetically positive. It ends up to be negative. You know we've had it, and we've seen it. So we do appreciate that. I'm going to suggest that we recess it and we take the copy (survey) and we forward the copy to Ms. Moore and she"will then forward it to the doctor and then we will close the hearing and if there are any questions that eminently come to pass during that period of time we can then do some telephoning or we can do it by the nature of a letter. OK. P. MOORE: What's your date for closing? CHAIRMAN: The special meeting is scheduled for February 25th. Assuming we receive everything at that point I suggest we close it at that point. P. MOORE: That's fine. I'l! be out of town for the next week that's, so that's why. C. RIVERA: So it's a technicality of a closing as opposed to recess? CHAIRMAN: If we have any questions about the survey once we receive it we can still... If I say we close it and there's something left on the survey that I'm unclear about then I have trouble interjecting anything else into the record, because the record is sealed~ OK. So we can technically close it at the special meeting and then we can make a decision afterwards. L. TORTORA: So you want to recess the hearing until... CHAIRMAN: February 25th. B. VILLA: So basically we're getting a new survey that's going to show us three things. The square footage of the lot. C. RIVERA: You want the square footage of the old deeded? The sq. ft. now js 39 something. CHAIRMAN: The building department worked on 39 something, is that correct, 39,996. RIVERA: Correct. L. TORTORA: In the original disapproval they worked off of 40,112. And on the second disapproval they worked off the 39,000. B. VILLA: What I'm having trouble finding in my mind is the lot has gotten bigger and the square footage has gone down. It doesn't make much se~e. RIVERA: The lot has originally gotten much bigger since 1957. And we ori~inally we were buildiug this, and started to plan this in 1994 and '95 and in January '95 was when it was 40;112 or something like that. We had it resurveyed this January and we lost a couple, maybe a foot of beach and it came down to 39,000. But since 1957 we have accumulated a great deal of beach. B. VILLA: Well that's what I didn't have straight in my mind. I{IVERA: THe 40,000 and change was over a-year ago that it was surveyed because we were ori~oiually planning this for quite some time. And the house was originally surveyed back in January 1995. B. VILLA: That makes sense now. It didn't make sense to me before because your lot got bigger and ii got smaller au the same time. RIVERA: As long as it doesn't go back so 1957.. CHAIRMAN: OK So that's where we are. Ull make a motion recessing the hearing until the special meeting on February 25th. I offer that ladies and gentlemen as a resolution. B. VILLA: Seconded. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. BOARD: Ayes. ECEiVED AND FILED Preosred by P. Conklin 2/li/97 Temporary clerk-typist TF~E SOU~HOLD TOWN CLERK FEBRUARY 6, 1997 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHCLD TONN BOARD OF APPEALS 7:25 p.m. Appt. No. 4460 - LOIS T. ANDERSON. Based upon the 12/16/96 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, applicant is requesting ~o construct a deck addition to dwelling which will be less than the required 75' from the existing bulkhead. Location of Property: 2515 Calves Neck Road, Southold; Parcel #1000-70-4-45.5. CHAIRMAN: A copy of the survey which indicates the nature of this application is a proposed addition and a proposed deck toward the water side. We will be questioning the applicant on some of these figures that we're having a little difficulty in reading. I have a copy of the SuffoLk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Anderson, how are you tonight, sir? MR. ANDERSON: Great- and yourself? CHAIRMAN: Good, thank you. MR. ANDERSON: My name is Bruce Andez~on, Suffolk Environmental Consultant, on behalf of Lois T. Anderson. Before I start, I'd like to hand ou~ for the record the Notice of Posting, duly signed and notarized. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: The application is brought forward to you based on a Notice of Disapproval as just mentioned. You should have in your file that notice the Building Permit Application, the Variance Application, the Notice so Adjoining Property Owners, the Environmental Assessment Form, the ZBA questionnaire and survey, C.O. Deed, Tl~ustees Wetland Permit, architectural plans~ and finally~ the requisite fee. What is proposed here ~s a rather small 16 ft. ~ inch addition by 10 ft. ac~dition~ a deck that measures t4.2 ft. by 12 ft. - a total square are of 335 square feet. The deck is se~ back 56.5 ft. from the bullmhead e the addition is se~ back 60.60 from the bulkhead. Therefore, variance requested is 18.5 ft. ~o the deck and 9.4 ft. for the addir' CHAIRMAN: Did you say 80.5 feet for the proposed addition? MR. ANDERSON: 80.8 ~eet. CHAIRtViAN: 60.6 feet. Thank you. Page 2 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MR. ANDERSON: For reference, the existing house is 61.4 ft. from the bulkhead at its nearest location. I want to address the five basic problems regarding the variance. The first is minor - how substantial the variance is in relation to the requirement and I think, given the size of this addition that is proposed, what we're talking about is a very modest addition to what is a house that is not atypical for the area nor would it be atypical if this variance were approved. The second problem of the test is whether or not the variance will have afro adverse effect on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood or district in which it lies. Our conclusion is no, based on three pieces of information actually four. First is we're talking about putting this addition over an area that is landscaped and has been for twenty or thirty years. The addition is placed in an area that enfolds land with a t0 ft. contour and land with a bulkhead that was constructed prior to August l?, 1977 and, being that the case, it's not even subject to the title "Wetlands- Jurisdictions of the D.E.C." as ~nost structures would be given their proximity to a bulkhead or wetlands or high water. Secondly, we have been in front of the Trustees - a publie hearing was conducted. There were no objections raised at the public hearing. There were no conditions placed on the permit and the approval of this permit was unanimously adopted by the Trustees. The conclusion being that it will have no impact upon the physical or environmental condition of the site. And finally, as you all know, what we're talking about here is a Type II Action pursuant to the State. Environmental Quality Review Act which, by statute, means that it cannot possibly have a significant impact on the environment. The third problem of the test is whether the variance will cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby property; and our conclusion is also - no, based on several factors: 1) The architectural plans developed for this are such that the architectural integrity of this building will be maintained. After the addition is constructed, the exterior took of this building will be the same as is the building that exists today. 2) It's not going to be visible from anyone in the neighborhood except possibly from the neighbor adjacent to and west of the property. We sent out our Notice of Application to ali adjacent properties as required by statute. I did have a chance to have a talk with the neighbor adjacent to the west of the property - a fellow by the name of Harry Bats and Mr. Bats exp_ressed his support and, obviously, that he had no objection to the addition as proposed. In fact, it's questionable as to whether you'll even be able to see it because of the location of the addition relative to where his house is. So, he is in full support and I do not believe you have anywhere in your file any letters of objections from anyone. Whether or not the release ought to be achieved by some other means - our conclusion is no for the following reasons: 1) If you look at the floor plan, you will see what is a house with a very small kitchen and the only way to practicaily expand that kitchen is really towards the west and to the south slightly. So that expansion of that kitchen and its adjacent kitchen-dining area has to take place exactly where it is proposed. We're talking about a large family with six kids a dozen or more grandchildren so - tile space with the kitchen and the associated eating area for that kitchen is badly needed. And finally, the final test is whether or not the alleged difficulty was self-created and our conclusion to that is also no. If you took, first of alt, at your Page 3 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals statute you will find that this particular portion of the code appears to have been adopted in 1989. This house that we're talking about was built probably in the order of 40 years ago. Therefore, au a time when this condition did not - or this statute - did not exist. You will note that, by looking au the survey, that the house is essentially cocked To the southeast and, because of its orientation relative to the bulkhead and the property lines, that is what has erected this nonconformity, if you will, this very technical nonconformity. I'll also point out that the house, in of itself, is nonconforming in that its closest point is something in the order of 8t feet from the bulkhead. In other words, the deck and the addition will be no closer to the bulkhead than is the existing house. It's merely the orientation of that house and it's merely the technical noncompliance ~rith Section 100-239 of the Town Code. So, the reasons I have given you - we are very hopeful that you will g~-an~ the requested variance. We believe we've met all the conclltions and what is requested is quite reasonable. We're prepared To answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN: In looking at the house which is extremely stately, I do concur with you on the last statement that you ]usu made it's the actual placement of the way the house is cocked is what is causing you the problem and, in that vein, I don't have any spe~ic questions so I'll yield To my board members. Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: Just one clarification - you said the deck was 56 feet? CHAIRMAN: 56.5. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MEMBER VILLA: O.K. So, in your last statement saying that it's no closer than the actual... MR. ANDERSON: You're right - I was speaking To the addition. MEMBER VILLA: O.K. - so, it's actually about 5 feet shorter? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MEMBER VILLA: No problem. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: O.K., so it's 60 feet from the addition, 56.5 for the deck. -CHAIt{IVIAN: t{ight. MEMBER TORTORA: The house to the neares~ edge is 61 and then it graduates over To 75 and even further... (tape change) MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. Page 4 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zohing Board of Appeals MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen- no? MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: While you're standing there, Bruce, we'H see if there is anybody in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this application? (No one wanted to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to speak against the application? (No one wanted to speak.) (simultaneous diseussion) (Owner, Mr. Anderson, made a comment in favor of the application.) CHAIRMAN: I have a feeling that you are Mr. Anderson - I met you the day that I was over there. MR. ANDERSON (Owner): The kitchen is very small. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. ANDERSON (Owner): There needs to be more room. CHAIRMAN: Right. The day I was there it was 18 degrees and you had your bulkhead - your piling thing on - I thought there was some harbor craft landing in the inlet. That was quite an experience. Beautiful house, sir. MR. ANDERSON (Owner): Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing, reserving the decision until later. Closing the hearing, pardon me, and recessing the...O.K. I have a motion and a second (by Member Tortora). All in favor? (all ayes) .i / ND F LED BIz TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ~:O,D o...~,.~. HELD FEBRUARY 6, lg97 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4456 - FRANK AND PATRICIA REILL¥. Based upon the 01/06/97 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, applicant is requesting to construct an addition to dwelling which will exceed the required 35' front yard for this residential premises. Location of Property: 25 East Side Avenue, Mattftuck, NY; Parcel #1000-99-3-18. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey indicating a proposed new addition, which is approximately 27 feet from Lagoon Lane - which I think is a pay per street. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight, sir? Could you state your name for the record? BOB GRIGONIS (Builder): Yes, I'm BobGrigonis, I'll be the builder. CHAIRMAN: O.K. What would you like to tell us? MR. GRIGONIS: The existing problem with Lagoon Lane is that it causes two front yards on the property and that's why the Building Department didn't o.k. the pern~its so~ hopefully, we've submitted enough information. If you have any questions... CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea what that road is going to service, if anything? MR. Gi%IGONIS: 5Ir. Rellly told me that it is owned by the D.E.C. and it is an actual public right-of-way down to that little channel that comes in there. I don't think anyone is aware that it is a public right-of-way. It is owned by the D.E.C. CHAIRMAN: O.K., and the addition is how large? MR. GRIGONIS: It's 8 ft. by 37 ft. CHAIRMAN: And what is that going to do to the internal integrity... MR. GRIGONIS: It's going to enlarge the kitchen and bathroom area and make a more formal entrance into the house up-grade the windows, the appliances and the bathroom sitnation in the house. CHAIRMAN: Great. Thank you. Mr. Villa, do you have any questions? MEMBER VILLA: Not really, except I just have a question as to what the situation on the cabin on the left is. It just doesn't - is that a second use on the property or... MR. GRIGONIS: I don't know - I guess it was always there. I don't know what it's used for. Actually there's only two bedrooms in the house - maybe they use it as a gltest cottage for the family. Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: I have no other questions. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just wondered, Jerry, where the 35 requirement came from. CHAIRMAN: it's written on the survey. MEMBER VILLA: The 35 ft. on the survey shows the set-back to the corner. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm questioning where you're getting the 35 ft., you know, the Notice of Disapproval says "insufficient front yard set-back". I'm try-ing to figure out where the 35 ft. is coming from. MR. GRIGONIS: I believe that was measured from the right-of-way with a normal angle. MEMBER TORTORA: I tried To establish what we are looking at in Terms of the code requirement and the lot... CHAIRMAN: How big is the lot? MEMBER TORTORA: How big is the lot? CHAIRMAN: I'll tel1 you in one second. MEMBER TORTORA: It's about 3/4s of an acre, correct? CHAIRMAN: Yes, .75. So what does the book call for? I [eft m~ne back in the office. MEMBER TORTORA: What's the number? CHAIRMAN: R-40, I believe. Most of this stuff is under MEMBER TORTORA: Is this R-40 Zoning on the property? CHAIRMAN: Inlet East Estates is R-40 right adjacent to it. I'd say it's a good bet that it's R-40. What would you like me to address? 3,079.9 - the front yard is at 60 ft. O.K.? So, if we go underneath that and we go 20 to 39.9, the front yard is at 40 ft. O.K. So, it should probably be 40 ft. Now, let's read the Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER TORTORA: It didn't have that in there. CHAIRMAN: We probably read it off of the survey which the house was 35 ft. at the time. MEMBER VILLA: 35 ft. it says. Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: That's on the survey it's not on the Notice of Disapproval. It just says "Construction will have insufficient front yard set-back". CHAIRMAN: Well, we were hoping that they would put that in there. MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe that they did. MEMBER TORTORA: Did you find it, Jimmy? MEMBER DtNIZIO: There was a list - I don't knew where the Hst is - but there was a.list of questions that I asked... CHAIRMAN: Yes, they did write down they wrote set-back, front yard, 35 ft., pre-existing. MEMBER TORTORA: Who wrote it? CHAIRMAN: Well, that's my handwriting - that's what emanated from the Building Inspector who came down from the Building Department to address the questions that we had. MEMBER TORTORA: There's nothing in the Code that says that. CHAIRM_AN: I know - it should be 40 ft. O.K.? MEMBER TORTORA: I thirkk we've got to look up the Code and the Notice of Disapproval because there's nothing - Jimmy: take a look in the file. There's nothing... MEMBER DINIZIO: My understanding is he's entitled to have 35 ft. because it's p~e-existing set-back. CHAIRMAN: Well, the house is more than 35 ft., you know. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know. It's not in the Code - that's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: On that list, .didn't it say that the house is within 300 ft. or 100 ft .... CHAIRMAN: Well, let's take a look. This house was built - it appears the construction of the deck and the open porch were built in 1992. appea~s that the house - the house addition was done in ~987. Maybe the house was built in 1979. MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe that's what that note said - it established that set-back from the neighboring lots - these houses - I didn't look - but these house are 35 ft. CHAIRMAN: That's what I thought when he came down. Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: So, what you're saying is this is not off the Code - this is the... CHAIRMAN: Established set-back. MEMBER TORTORA: In the area. CHAIRMAN: Right. MEMBER VILLA: Not necessarily in the area but in the lot itself it's 35 ft. from the house. That's what exists already so they're saying that's what he's working from. CHAIRMAN: And they haven't changed that house location so that's why he's sa~Sng it's pre-e.,dsti~xg at 35 ft. MEMBER TORTORA: Just as long as we know what section of the Code we're going off of. CHAIRMAN: Right. MEMBER VILLA: We're going off of pre-existing... CHAIRMAN: Nonconforming set-backs. O.K. Mr. Dinizio ? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: While you're standing there, we'll see if anything develops through the audience. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this? (No one ~Sshed to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who would like to speak against it? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: O.K. Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN: AH in favor? ~.~%...~z::~.~ .~:~ Z~7"~-~ ff_~.~.~r)~ (An TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 6, 1997 HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4410 - GARY SACKS AND ALAN SCHLESINGER. Based upon the July 16, 1996 Notice of Disapproval f~om the Building Inspector, applicants request a Variance under Article XXItI, Section 100-239.4B for a proposed deck addition within 75 feet of bulkhead, at 125 Mes~obian Drive, Laurel; Parcel #1000-145-4-7. CHAIRMAN: The next hearing is on behalf of Gary Sacks and Others and we are asked to postpone that. If there is anybody here to discuss this tonight, please raise your hand and we w-iH deal with it. If there are no hands, then I'll ask for a resolution to recess this without a date. We have already calendared this two or three times with postponements and we will then put it on the backburner until we want To get back on this. (No one asked to speak.) Can ! have a second for that, Ladies and Gentlemen? MEMBER VILLA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (All ayes. ) 3/2 / ....... FEB 2 8 TRANSCRTPT OF HEARTNB HELD FEBRUARY B, 1997 .... 8:40 p.m. Appt. No. 4451 MARIAN JEAN PRAUS. Based upon the 12/06/96 A.etion of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, applican~ is requesting a variance for approval of steps and deck construction, as built, near exisiing bulkhead at 2175 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Parcel #1000-104-13-12. CHAIRMAN: I have copies of the existing deck and platform. I have a copy of the survey, dated November 15, 1996 indicatin~ the placement as such and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Could you state your name for the record, sir? MARK SCHWARTZ (A.I.A.): Yes, my name is Mark Schwartz. CHAIRMAN: How are you? MR. SCHWARTZ: Good. CHAIRMAN: What can you tell us about tilts, sir? MR. SCHWARTZ: There is an e~xisting deck and steps in this location since 1961 and a storm about two or three years ago washed away the existing and the existing was re-built similar-to prior and that's what this is all about. CHAIRMAN: O.K. What I need from you is some dimensions of these. You don't have to give them ~o me tonight but if you could measure them up for us and give us some dimensions, we'd appreciate it. We would like To make that a par~ of the permanent record. O.K.? MR. SCHWARTZ: O.K. CHAIRMAN: We'll start with Mr. Doyen. Any questions? MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MESfBER DINIZIO: No - just the dimensions. CHAIRMAN: Yes, dimensions would be greatly appreciated. MR. SCHWARTZ: O.K. CHAIRMAN: As you can see, we are going to make a decision on February 25th, so between now and then, please - before it snows a~ain or something - fortunately we don't have the year that we had last year. Mrs. Tortora? Page 2 - Transcript of Hearings (Praus') Regular Meeting of Febz. uaz'y 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals M~BE~ TOETO~A: Sa~e question - d~ensions. CHAIE~N: O.K. M~. V~la? MR. VILLA: I have no questions. CHAIR~N: O.K. While you're standing there, is there ~ybody else who would like to speak in favor? (No one ~shed ~o speak.) CHAIE~N: Anybody against? (No one ~hed ~o spe~.) CHAIR~N: Hearing no further questions, I'H make a motion clos~g the hearing, pending the reeeip~ of the ~mensions. Would somebody please second that? ME~ER DINIZIO: Second. CHAtR~N: All ~ favor? TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4448 - MARIA ANDRIOPOULOS. Based upon the 11/21/96 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article XXtII, Section 100-239.4B, applicant is requesting a variance for the location of a portion of a proposed deck addition within 75 feet of an existing bulkhead au 1605 Westview Drive, Mattituck; County Parcel .~1000-t07-7-9. (Also see a~torney's letter for neighbor received 2/6/97 regardir~g outdoor storage limitations under Sec. 100-236). CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the attorney's letter which we have read and is presently part of the file. A copy of a survey indicating the original house and deck... MEMBER TORTORA: I have an up-dated survey. CHAIRMAN: Right, I'm getting there - unless you want to give me one that you have. O.K., great. Thank you very much. I have a new sketch of a survey indicating the deck closed in as it pertains. I think we're still at 51 ft. to the bulkhead? Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Can we recess To make copies of that for the Board, Jerry? CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER TORTORA: Just a short second, please. MARIA ANDRIOPOULOS (Owner): I'm about 53 ft. from the bulkhead. CHAIRMAN: 53? O.K. We're just going to make a oouple copies of this so give us one minute, airight? MS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It's kind of small. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you'll want to blow it up too. I also have a copy of the Suffolk County Ta~ Map indicating this and the surrounding properties in the area. The letter that was to be read into the record is from Charles R. Cuddy: "I am the attorney for Raymond A. Cuddy, my father, who lives directly across the street from the applicant. Unfortunately I am engaged in another matter in the Town of Riverhead on the same date and time for which this appeal has been scheduled. Therefore, I ask that this letter be made a part of the record in this appeal. My father is 87' years old. He has been attempting to sell his home. According to local brokers, he has been confronted by an unsightly situation which occurred after the applicant purchased the home last year. The applicant's front yard has been used to store construction materials. This has been ongoing for the past eight months and Page 2 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, t997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals prospective purchasers have no interest in residing opposite a construction storage area. If the Board grants the application, I respectfully request thai it include as a condition that there be no storage of building materials or supplies in the front yard. See Section 100-236 of the Southold Town Zoning Code." I think we're ready. Could you state your name for the record? MS. ANDRiOPOULOS: Yes, Maria Andriopoules. CHAIR~vLiN: How are you? MS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Fine. CHAIRMAN: Whal would you like to tell us? MS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Well, there was an existing deck to the house. There was also another ~leck which must have been taken down because when I purchased the house, there was a patio door from the bedroom outdoors but there was nothing there. So, what we wanted to do was bring the deck to the other side of the home length-wise and extend it towards the water also by another 12 feet. This is because I'm pregnant I have another child and, instead of putting up erecting fences around my yard so the child won't go near the bulkhead near the water, I figured I would enclose this area for the children to play in. CHAIRMAN: O.K. The day that I was at your house, it -was extremely cold and I was having trouble with my tape measure. I would appreciate it if you could just take - give us both corners to the inside edge of the bulkhead. When I'm talking about both corners, I mean that they really exist to a certain degree. O.K.? Even though you haven't completed the deck, alright? And just call in with those two measurements - it would be greatly appreciated, O.K.? So, give us the north one and the south one. LOUIS ANDRIOPOULOS (Owner): I'm confused - -what is now the same distance as the other? CHAIRMAN: Bight. Well, we're not sure ff the bulkhead is straight. So, if you could just put a line with a level and just extend it ou~. The Building Inspector says it's 51 - your wife says it's 53. O.K. Just give us a Hne and this way we'll have it. We'll have it for the decision and everything will be taken care of at that particular point. It is my understanding that this deck is going to remain open to the sky - it's not going to be enclosed. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Open to the sky. I just want to close it in. CHAIRMAN: Right. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: You know, so the children can play and not come ~--~ off the deck. Page 3 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zolming Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Right. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: So, it will be open. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Great. Are there any major changes other than what we see as the construction progresses? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: That's it. CHAIRMAN: Is there a problem with moving all the decking material to the rear yard as Mr. Cuddy... MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Not a problem. Most of it was removed already. There is some - I need another truck load to take it out but once they told me To stop work, we just stopped. CHAIRMAN: I understand. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: And we never just came back up. CHAIRMAN: Right. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Most of it - one truck toad already last week and probably another ~ruck load this weekend. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Are you presently Living in this house? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: No. CHAIRMAN: No, o.k. Alright - Mr. Villa? Questions? MEMBEt~ VILLA: I was just concerned when I went down there that this thing is so big and it actually you know we look at the adjacent houses - this is going to be closer to the water than... MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It's not. There's two houses down that bulk-head is closer to the home than ours because it got - it eroded away as time went on and his deck is probably farther out lhan our deck is going to be. It's two houses down and his bulkhead is closer to his deck thsk~ ours would be by at least 10 or 15 feet. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: It would double the size of our deck. CHAIRMAN: Right. I kind of need you to stand by your ~Adfe because we've got to take this down. We're taking it down. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: This is two homes down from me which was a newly constructed home. Do you know which one I'm talking about? It's a two-story home. CHAIRMAN: Are you talking about two houses to the north? MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: Yes. To the north. Page 4 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 $outhold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: The properties on the east and west side of you? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: There's water on one side - across the street they don't even see what we have in our - this is our back yard. guess you can consider this our back yard facing the water. The home across the street doesn't even see the front. Next door they have a deck but it probably will be a little shorter than our deck - the one right next door. The one right next door to that has no deck or an enclosed part of the house. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: We're making this lower than the existing deck. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It goes down - there's steps going down. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Could I just have your husband's first name? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Louis. CHAIRMAN: Louis. O.K. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: There was an existing deck in front of the home which ran the len~h of the home but it was removed I don't know when but the neighbors told me it was removed years ago. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Mr. Dinizio? MR. DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. We do need those MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: Where do you need those measurements exactly? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: They want us to put a post for where the bulkhead is so they can measure from the bulkhead to the home, right? CHAIRMAN: No, I'd like you to measure for us and then we'll come back and measure it too. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: We'll measure it today. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: We'll measure it today. MEMBER TORTORA: tf you could' mark it and also mark it on a copy of a survey for us. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: I'm waiting to get the original at home and when I get the original I'm sure it will be bigger lettering than that and I probably could see the numbers more clearly than that survey that I just gave you. I'm sure he has the numbers included in that survey. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: Do you know what the difference is on the 4 x 4 beams - to put the rafters? We measure from the beam. Maybe if we go from the rafters, it is difference of the 1 ft. In other words, we put ~'- the 4 x 4 to the beams and then we'll put the rafters on top. Page 5 - Transcript of Hearings Regnlar Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: O.K. MI{. ANDI{IOPOULOS: We'll get it from the beam. CHAIRMAN: O.K. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: I don't know which way you want us To measure. CHAIRMAN: Give as both. MR. & MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. CHAIRMAN: Then we'll know the difference. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Probably the rafters are not even not evenly cu~. They will be evenly eu~. They're not evenly cut at this point. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but you have enough there that you can measure from. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN: What is the total over-aH width of the deck - meaning depth coming out, do you know? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: The depth going towards the water? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It was an existing 12 ft. deck right there and another 12 ft. CHAIRMAN: And another 12 ft. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Including the steps going down. CHAIRMAN: Right. Steps are included in the whole process? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Now what do we have in total length of the house - 54 ft.? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: That's a good question. CHAIRMAN: That's what you're showing here on the over-all plan. So, you can measure that for us to. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN: So we know. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It doesn't go the whole length of the house because we just couldn't make it the whole length of the house. We Page 6 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals wanted to make it past the door - the patio door going - our bedroom patio door. CHAIRMAN: O.K. So, ~ive us what the total length is across to the max - for the whole house and then to the max of what the deck is going to. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. MEMBER VILLA: You're showing two dimensions on the deck you're showing two different things here, You're showing one with the house on it, showing it's 44 ft. and then one sho,~ng on the dock that's 54 ft. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: You know what happened - we have a retaining walt and sometimes I don't know if the measurement was from the retaining wail or not. When I went today with the tape measure and measured myself - from the deck to the bulkhead - not the retaining walt, it's 53 ft. MEMBER VILLA: You're saying on your same sketch back here, you're showing from the water, bulkhead to the deck, which has a railing - it's 48 ft. So, there's a lot of confusion here. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's where the problem lies. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Somebody from the Board came and measured also. MR. AND~!OPOULOS: Can I see this? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It's probably- the old one. Try this one. MEMBER VILLA: It's submitted. MR. ANDRiOPOULOS: Do we have the same one? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Yes. We handed it in. CHAIRMAN: We're not making a decision tonight anyway. That's why we want to get all of this down pat. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Someone from The Board was there to measure also. CHAII{MAN: Yes, we usually go down. Sometimes we go with measurements, sometimes we don't. It depends upon if we can see any inaccuracies in the measurements then we'll do it ourselves. O.K. I have the house at 58' 5" in total length. Alright - right? MEMBER TOI{TORA: Let's clear up the measurements. CHAIRMAN: Yes; let's clear up the measurements so we know where we're gohlg here~ O.k. MR. ANDI{IOPOULOS: Do we have to have the measurements of the existing dock? Page 7 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I have the measurements I can take the measurements of the existing deck but it only shows the dock To the southerly side of the house. That's the only one I have. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: 12 ~t. from the house to the water and the same th~ ~oes ro the other side. CHAIR~N: Just let me say t~s - the ori~nal deck does nor ~elude ~e bul~ead the ori~nal survey, w~ch was a 1970 survey - does nor include the bulkhead. M~S. ANDRIOPOULOS: Yes. CHAIR~N: Now, I c~ trut~uHy tell you t~t b~heads are not straight. MRS, ANDRIOPOULOS: No, it's not str~ht. On both sides it ~ a Ht~le d~ferent. CHAIR~N: Yes, a Httte ~ffe~ent. So, that's where the problem ~es. What we ~y to do is include t~s ~to the decision I don'~ want to w~ite a sloppy decision. We want the decision to be accu~te as accurate as possible. O.K.? I want you to measure f~om the corner of one side of the deck, which is on the no~th side to ~e bu~head and the corner that's on the opposite side of the bul~lead w~ch is the souZhe~ly side. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: I~ came out p~etty even I me~ ii may have been a foo~ off. CHAIR~N: Yes, bui a~ain the Building Inspecto~ is telHng us it's 51; you're icing us 53. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. That's fine. We ~d it ~ight before we came here but, you know... CHAtR~N: Oh, well - what have you got? Tell us. ~S. ANDRIOPOULOS: I have 53 ft. CHAIRMAN: You have 53 ft.? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Yes. CHAIR~N: On both sides? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: The one side may be one-ha~ foot off because we measured up to the retaking wall ~d from the retching w~l to the bul~ead because it was easier for me ~o do it that way. CHAIR~N: I understand. Page 8 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: The retaining wail is not a straight retaining wall because all we did was re-enforce the existing retaining wall and that's off a few feet too. CHAIRMAN: I don't care about the retaining wall. The big thing is the bulkhead. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It's about one-half foot off on both sides and I have 53 ft. CHAIRMAN: Is the 53 ft. on the north side or the south side? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: It's only about a half foot diffemence. CHAIRMAN: O.K,, but which side do you have? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. - the longest side was - which side is this? MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: That's the south. CHAIRMAN: O.K. - so, you're showing 53 fi. on the south side? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: I think it's the south. I'm kind of mixed up. CHAIRMAN: Do me a favor? I'm not here to upset expectant moms, I assure you, o.k.? Would you please let your husband do it please don't get down there and do it yourself, alright? But measure it for ns as I said, we're not going Io address this for another week or so anyway. O.K.? This way you have plenty of time - the weather's been pretiy good. Do it before it snows. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Do we have to come back next week? CHAIRMAN: No. Just call it in or Fax it in or send it in or whatever way you want to do it. Alright? So north and south - yon do not have to come back. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: From where - how do you want me To measure it? MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: Both he said. CHAIRMAN: Both. MEMBER TORTORA: On both corners. CHAIRMAN: On both corners. MEMBER TORTORA: On both corners zo the edge of the inside of the bulkhead. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: O.K. Page 9 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: Inside? CHAIRMAN: Inside. Inside edge of the bulkhead. MEMBER TORTORA: Measure from the inside edge of the bulkhead ro the rafters on one side, one corner and then on the other corner. MRS. ANDRIOPOULOS: That's fine. Because we're measuring from the outside of the bulkhead and maybe the Building Inspector measured from the inside. CHAIRMAN: Now, were the 4 x 4s encased into the rafters themselves? MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: What do you mean encased? CHAIRMAN: Do the 4 x 4s stick up and the rafters go around both sides of it. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: Correct. CHAIRi~iAN: O.K. So, you go from the rafter - not from the 4 x 4 or whatever the upright is that's holding the deck up. O.K.? great. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who would like to speak 'against? Yes, ma'am? Could I just ask you to state your name for the record? GLORIA HURLEY: I'm Gloria Hurley - the neighbor to the south. CHAIRMAN: How are you, Mrs. Hurley? I haven't seen you in a long time. How have you been? MRS. HURLEY: I just have a question. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MRS. HURLEY: The deck is there now. Now they're down to another level of the deck - are we going another level of deck for the steps or are the steps included? CHAIRMAN: It appears to us, and we'll have them clear that up, that the steps are included into the deck itself. They are recessed into the deck area to the best of my knowledge. O.K.? Thank you very much. MR. ANDRIOPOULOS: The)- are included. CHAIRMAN: Included, right. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? (No one wished to speak.) Page 10 - Transcript of Hearings (Andriepsulos) Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Hearing no comments, I will make a motion closing the ~-' hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor? (Alt ayes. ) Page t0 - Transcrip~ of Hearings (Andrioooulos) Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Hearing no comments, I will make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (All ayes. ) Transcript of Hea=ings February 8, 1997 .................... 8:45 p.m. App!. No. 4453 - EDWARD AND EVELYN HALPERT. Based upon the 11/18/96 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector, applicants are requesting a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-241-A&C, and Section 100-243A, for the proposed alteration and second floor addition (expansion) of a nonconforming building which has contained a nonconforming (pre-exisiing) living unit, separaie and accessory to the main dwelling, at 2125 Towel Harbor Lane, Southold, NY; County Parcel #1000-66-1-31. Zone R-40, Residential. Property size: 1.45+- acres. CHAIRMAN: I have in my property 'the site plan, registered architect, Robert I, Brown, dated December 16, 1996 - indicating a one-story addition to an existing two-story frame garage with potting shed which is fairly close to the property line on the easterly side; and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you again, Mr. Brown? ROBERT I. BROWN (Architect): Fine, how are you? CHAIRMAN: Good. What would you like to state for the record other than what we discussed? MR. BROWN: My name is Robert Brown I'm the architect for the Halperts. Basically - (inaudible because of noise from paperwork). It is my understanding that what we are looking for is permission to make some changes to increase the nonconforming use which is the kitchen and the garage apartment. CHAIRMAN: O.ti. My 0nly question is and this is something that occurred after I looked at this on Saturday when we were out on the field inspection with you - has there been any thought about utilization of the ground floor area of the garage which is now a storage area? MR. BROWN: Well, in fact, that was considered a possibility and it would require two things: One is that it was too small for the use that we had hoped for and the other that we would then have to find other storage space for groundkeeping equipment. CHAIRMAN: O.K. MR. BROWN: It did not seem a viable alternative. CHAIRMAN: Ever since I've been there - I mean it's simply a gorgeous, very beautiful piece of property. The problem that I have is the extent of nonconforming use that you are proposing. O.K.? That's where the problem lies, O.K.? I realize that it may require Mr. Halpert to build another storage building but I just can't see the elongation that you're proposing at this time. If you can come back with some other kind of remedy, I would really appreciate it. Page 2 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 SouthoId Town Zoning Board of Appeals MR. BROWN: I'm not sure that I understand. CHAIRMAN: You're, in effect, building another cottage by adding this on in the manner of which you're proposing and that's the concern that I have. It's kind of extensive. MR. BROWN: As I expained, the intention of this is to be able tO utilize the existing pre-existing nonconforming use for the o~aer's mother who is 93 years old and obviously has difficulty getting to the second floor. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BROWN: In doing that, we felt we wanted to make it part of the existing structure that had the pre-existing nonconforming use other than create a separate structure entirely. We did it in a way that we hope is least obtrusive to the neighbors and took most advantage of the property that we could. As you know, the view there is quite spectacular. CHAIRMAN: Unprecedented. MR. BROWN: We obviously wanted to take advantage of that as best we could. Hence, the addition in that direction which also~ fortunately, has the least impact, I feel, on the neighbors. CHAIRMAN: Right. O.K. We'll see ho~v everybody else feels. I'm not trying to put you on the spot because you're a very nice man. Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: I also have a problem with the size. You're talking about a rather large extension here and, looking at the plan, you've got a master bedroom and another bedroom. MR. BROWN: That's for the helper for Mr. Ha!pert's mother. MEMBER VILLA: So, you're actually having two bedrooms that's all downstairs. You're actually talking about building something here that's almost in the range of what the Town requires as a minimum lot house size - 850 sq. ft. MR. BROWN: I can tell you what the addition is. The addition is 895 sq. ft. I would also point out, in defense of the size of the project, thai in terms of over-all lot coverage, we're going from !7.7% to 18.8%. So.. an addition of only 1% in terms of lot coverage on the entire property. MEMBER VILLA: I realize that but you're still ending up with two dwelling units on an individual lot. CHAIRMAN: That's where the problem lies. That's the main crux of the whole problem. MEMBER VILLA: This sets a heck of a precedent. We've got many many, I think, of these so-called "nonconforming apartments" existing in the town. This could open the flood gates for many many of these similar situations. Page 3 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: You're pre-existing C.O. is for a guest room above the garage. MR. BROWN: in fact, that wen~ back and forth between your Board and the Building Department and we became aware, from our original denial by the Building Department, that the C.O. did not include the kitchen. We were a Little concerned because the dates of the inspections by the B~dlding Departments obviously indicated that these have been ~ritten after the kitchen was already there. MEMBER TORTORA: How long has the kitchen been there? MR. BROWN: I can't say exactly. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you find out? MR. BROWN: That would be very difficult. The Halperzs have only owned the proper~y for, I think, five or six years but they bought it with the understanding thai the C.O. was for ttlat apartment and, when I met with the Btdlding Inspector there, he agreed that the kitchen had been there prior ~o his writing the C.O. which he has since amended to include the kitchen, MEMBER TORTORA: He hasn't amended it in front of us. It's been initialed by the secretary that it says there's a kitchen in there. MR. BROWN: That was initialed by the Building Inspector. MEMBER TORTORA: John Boufis? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, the problem here is simple that, in your asking to expand a nonconforming use, in order to he ~randfathered, it has to be a lawful nonconforming use which meant that, aU some point, it had to either meet the Code or meet the amendment. I don't know maybe 30 years ago a kitchen was allowed done but it isn't in today's Code. MR. BROWN: It is my understanding - and I'm not a legal authority on this - but it is my understanding that it wasn't illegal until the Code said it was illegal. MEMBER TORTORA: At what point was that? MR. BROWN: I believe it was in the '60's or '70's - as I said, I'm not a legal expert on this - that was just my understanding of the situation. MEMBER VILLA: I have to say that, from the advent of zoning, there is only one house allowed per building lot so it would have to be nonconforming hack to that point. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know. I wish we knew how long the kitehen was in there. Page 4 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Do you want a guesstimate? MEMBER TORTORA: I'm asking that, if any point in time... CHAIRMAN: I would say that that kitchen was built around 1965. MEMBER TORTORA: It's not new - I know that. CHAIRMAN: It's approximately 32 years old. MEMBER DINIZIO: Looking at the tax rate, there is no indication here of any increase. We have apartment written down over the garage - "two-car garage and apartment". I saw the old record which Scott Russell indicated to me - it didn't have a date on it but because of the way the photograph was taken, it was a certain period of time - believe he said before 1960 or 1960 something. It indicated on there that there was an apartment there so you can assume that if it's an apartment~ that some type of cooking must have been going on there for someone to live in that apartment. ! asked that question because the original indication we got from the Building Inspector that we have in our office said "kitchen" and had Gary Fish's initial or whatever. MEMBER TORTORA: The C.O. didn't say. MEMBER DINIZIO: When I wen¢ down to the Building Department, that wasn't on the record down there. MR. BROWN: Which is why I met with them there and discussed the fact thai obviously there had been no recent renovation there and the kitchen was at least as old as the rest of the apartment. MEMBER DINIZIO: The problem was that he amended it here but he didn't amend it in his own original records. MR. BROWN: That I can't account for. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, I went over to the Assessor's and in the ensuing discussion - I can only assume that they assume that the apartmeni was something that had a kitchen in it. it has to be there for quite some time. If you look at the assessments - they did some reassessments - never jumped up - before 1960 ii was one thing and then sud~lenly in 1960 it went up almost double. I don't know how you feel about that but, it seems to me, that in some point in time, something must have gone on in March of 1960 to cause this property to jump in value. Maybe that's when the kitchen was put in. Maybe that's when this garage was built. It seems to me that those floors are 1950 floors - those hardwood floors. MR. BROWN: That was my opinion. MEMBER TORTORA: Your intention is to have this for his 93 year-old mother? MR. BROWN: That is correct. Page 5 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: I'm trying to fig~re out a way to put this so that if - when she ceases to be, that this will not be a single-family unit. It will be an accessory and the apartment phase of it we could phase out. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure if the applicant wants that. MEMBER TORTORA: Welt, he just said that... MR. BROWN: [ couldn't speak for him. MEMBER TORTORA: Itts just for the grandmother, correct? MR. BROWN: That's my understanding, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: $o, after she is deceased, there ~ be no plans to use it for an apartment or a second-family dwelling. That's not what you're asking for, in other words? MR. BROWN: That's not what I'm asking ~or. In terms of Mr. Haipert's long-term intentions, I couldn't speak for that. i have no idea. CHAIRI~LAN: Would you like me to offer a remedy for this gentlemen? For this Board or do you want to...My suggestion is this, and the Board can see as they see fit I sugges~ that you take the existing one-s~ol~y of the garage - you go out only as far as the deck area and trade the second story for the first story and the only addition would be for what ]s underneath the deck area, You transfer the entire use of the second story to the first story and use that second story for storage. If this gentleman so desires to come in and either add on to the back of hhis for a s~orage area or whatever he has to do to continue his continued storage~ so be it. That's something we'll enzertain when we get to it. That's my suggestion. What you're actually increasing is the distance of what that footprint of the deck area - that second-story deck area is. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. BROWN: Yes, i understand what you're getting at. My concern is obviously for the eqtdpment which is in the first-floor garage which could not be... CHAIRMAN: But, you can still come back - you can modify the plan, O.K. - if the Board is so inclined - that's my suggestion as alternate relief. You modify the plan by elongating the potting shed and putting the equipment in there - into a new modified plan and thereby increasing that. I am talking about a total trade of upstairs for downstairs. Upstairs shall remain open; everything should be cut to the rafters and unheated, unused, unairconditioned whatever utilities you intend to put in there. There's still a question in my mind in reference to the seasonality of this dwelling, it appeaz, s that this is not a dwelling. It is a very simple, seasonal structure with sleeping quarters. That's an area that I wanted to address. We would appreciate - we don't care if you insulate it - I would appreciate it - I'm not speaking for the Boa~d - if it remains unheated and it be used for seasonal purposes. Mt~VlBER TORTORA: Noncommercial seasonal. Isn't that correct? Page 6 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, ]997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRi~LAN: Yes. -- MR. BROWN: i'm quite sure that he has no commercial intentions for ii. CHAIRMAN: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: He doesn't want to rent it or whatever? MR. BROWN: No. MEMBER TORTORA: The thing we're trying to get away from is creating two separate dwelling units on one lot. CHAIRMAN: You see, what that does is that it utilizes the e~wJsting structure and it's a trade for upstairs/downstairs. O.K.? I don't care if you put a flat roof on the upstairs - on the area - this is only my suggestion, o.k.? This is not the Board's suggestion. I don't care if you put a flat roof on that so as to still utilize the view from the upstairs area but the upst~rs cannot be utilized as a bedroom - you can sit on the deck if you want to, as a flat roof - I don't care. Or you can put a pitch roof on there - ii really doesn't make any difference. If you want to utilize the existing glass sliding door for ventilation purposes or whatever the reason you want to do, I also know that ~t puts you in a perplexing position because Mr. Halpert is out of the country. MEMBER TORTORA: There's also a kind of phase out condition on that. CHAIRMAN: We would take a look at that prior to. That's the easiest way to deal with that. After its constructed, we would just very simply want to come back and view it prior to any C.O., that's alt. MEMBER VILLA: There should also be some conditions in it too because .... MEMBER TORTORA: There's also a phase out in the apartment aspect of CHAIRMAN: That's going to be cut to the rafters. MEMBER VILLA: I'm just saying, as this gentleman here is saying, that Mr. Hal]pert only bought it four ar five years ago and he bought ii assuming thus. In two years Mr. Haipert could sell it to somebody else and they could say "Well, I bought it with the understanding that I could do anything I wanted with this. They could rent it... CHAIRMAN: Of course~ that's the restriction though. MEMBER VILLA: That's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN: So we're going to condition the restriction that it's going ~o be a trade from upstairs to downstairs. That's it. MEMBER TORTORA: What do you mean? Page 7 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of Febrnary 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: With further conditions... CHAIRMAN: With further conditions that upstairs be used only for s~orage purposes. MEMBER TORTORA: And the downstairs be used for? CHAIRMAN: A seasonal - a pre-existing seasonal cottage - living unit. MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like to check thai out. MEMBER VILLA: That opens up a lot of situations. CHAIRMAN: There is an existing - a decision that was rendered in the '70's for the Pugsley cottages over in New Suffolk and it gives you a clear time of when seasonal dweLLings seasonal dwelling units - ought to be utilized from x,y,z date to x,y,z date. Calendar wise. So, I would suggest something of that nature. MEMBER VILLA: It's on nonconforming situations? CHAIRMAN: On nonconforming, yes. MEMBER VILLA: I'll have ~o think on that one. CHAIR~LAN: These are all firings - this is a suggestion. This gentleman is zrying ~o preserve a place for his mother and, at the same time, I don't particniarly like second-story seasonal living units and t think it's somewhat of a pr~actical situation. [ should point out ~o the Board tonight for the public tonight - that we are stopping this at 10:00 so no matzer where we are, that's where we're going ~o be. And [ apologize for that but I have a commitment that i have to make and so that's where we are. (Tape change. ) MEMBER TORTORA: We're going to cheek it ouz. Essentially we're going to - I know each case is different but there are other instances in the Town of Southold where a garage has been converted ~o an apar~men~ and they don't have a C.O. for it. So., I'd like ~o think about how zo deal ~th that. And I'm not sure that Mr. Halpert would want a condition for seasonal use so maybe that's something you could talk zo him about. MR. BROWN: Just hypothetically - and this is off the top of my head in ~erms of the heating aspect providing the heat ~o guarantee its seasonality - considering the age of the intended occupant, t would wan~ ~o put heat in there even for summer use. CHAIRMAN: O.K. That still doesn't make it a year-round dwelling. MR. BROWN: I don't want seasonality zo he the... CHAIRMAN: Yes, we're just saying to you that we didn't view any heat in the existing dwelling in the existing living unit, o.k.? So, Page 8 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals therefore, we're not giving you any more than what exists, t have no objection to electric heating units being placed in there as long as it's conditioned for seasonal use. And I believe from the Pugsley decision that it was something like October 31st to April 1st - something of that nature. It would not be utilized. MR. BROWN: I'll have to discuss that with Mr. Haipert. Also, for the sake of my discussion with him so I can understand and clarify your proposal of including the area under the deck... CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BROWN: One of the reasons we didn't just go downstairs with it - obviously, Mr. Haipert's mother has an aide and you saw- the size of the apartment upstairs... CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BROWN: To my mind, that would be small for somebody to stay in... CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BROWi~4: I just want to look for a little leeway in the apartment size assuming that we were to... CHAIRMAN: t think you're going to find that bigger actually than what you're anticipating because my suggestion is that you take the stairwell out going upstairs. MR. BROWN: I would need a stairway for access to the storage. CHAIRi%CAN: Move that into the other area where you're going to increase that to put in storage area but abutting or adjacent to or contiguous to the...If you increase the potting shed, put it in there. MR. BROWN: The potting shed is only one story. CHAIRMAN: I know. MEMBER TORTORA: There's no opportunity for Mrs. Haipert to stay in the main structure? Because it's very large. Particularly at her age. MR. BROWN: It is large but it's not easily accessible - there are several steps. MEMBER TORTORA: Wouldn't it be easier to make it handicapped accessible than to... ME. BROWN: Not without doing serious damage to the arckitecture of the existing house, first of all. And from my brief meeting with Mr. Halpert's mother, she's a very independent-minded individual. MEMBER TORTORA: And she's lived to 93? God bless her! page 9 - Transcrip~ of Hearingsa~H lpert) Regular Meetin~ of February 6, 19~,a Southold Town Zoning Bc~ard of Appeals cHAIRMAN: So why don't we receSS this at this point and you can come back ~o us and the Beard ca~ investigate this ca their own... MEMBER ToRTORA: We'll look at some other options a~d you ca~ look CHAIR~N: Yes, some other options on your par~. That~s only a suggestion on my part. I have no~ shared that ~th anybody until tol~ght. Mr. BROWN: FMr enough. CHAIRMAN: We thank you, and a~, it's an absolute pleasure dea~n~ ~th you. You're a true gentleman, sir. MR. BROWN: Thank you very much, CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Is there anybody else who ~vould Hke [o speak? (No one w~shed ~o speak.) CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questionS, I will receSS t~ withouZ a da~e. I need a second. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. (All ayes. ) ~/~' Page 3 - February 6, 1997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals 9:10 p.m. ~ Public Hearing - Matter of JOHN and CATHLEEN HARRISON. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map indicating Lot #37 which I believe is the lot numnber that requires the waiver which is before us, at some 15,311 sq. ft. or ..352 of an acre. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ. The subdivision - this part of the J. Reynolds Philips subdivision that was created in November 1909. Oh, before I start, Mr. and Mrs. Harrison are here and they are here to help me out if I need answers to any questions. The history of the ownership, I think I gave you a thorough rundown, but I'll briefly point out very briefly that Edward Wirth originally purchased the waterfront parcel in 1960 and then in 1970 when he passed away, it became his wife's property. Mae Wirth then passed away, died in 1989 and I have an affidavit that I'll give to you later, that when Mae Wirth died in her will, she left the real estate to Mrs. Harrison and she also had several other beneficiaries which were ali charities so the impact of that was this Estate took a very long time to get settled. The exectors of this estate were Rudy Bruer and Chemical Bank, so we paint a picture that you've got an institutional executor as well as an attorney, and they were having to deal with the properties in trying to preserve their zoning. Mr. Bruer, and I remember this vividly because I was work~Dg as an associate when I first got out of law school with him and I remember the Mae Wirth Estate and every pulling their hair out because the properties were going to end up all in the same name and we all that was a no-no. But we could not convince Chemical Bank and Rudy obviously as the executor, could not convince Chemical Bank to checkerboard. Now it didn't have any impact on the two acre properties. The properties consisted, of about - there were three 2-acre properties, and then this piece subject to this application, and the waterfront piece. Anyway there were delays in administering this estate because of the charities involved. And throughout the process again, Mr. Bruer was not able to convince them to transfer it to John and Catherine Harrison in such a way to avoid merger. I have an affidavit and I'H give it to you at the end so I don't walk back and forth and take up time, but the affidavit states, and it's by Rudy (Bruer) that he was the executor of the estate and is making this affidavit for the Zoning Board's consideration and that Mae Wirth's cousin, Catherine Harrison, was a primary beneficiary of the real estate, that the estate took three years to administer and that Chemical Bank refused to convey to Catherine and John to preserve the integrity of the two lots. Ultimately the properties were transferred to Mrs. Harrison and as soon as practical they were transferred to John and Catherine Page 4 - Febrnary 6, 1997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southotd Town Board of Appeals Harrison and a~aln, they were kept as separate pieces. As background Mae Wirth and Ed Wirth had checkerboarded these pieces all throughout their lives. They were buying these properties in separate names and were being very careful to keep the properties in separate names, so all throughout they were very good about keeping the separate properties, as you've seen in other applications, death unfortunately sometimes things happen. The property was originally appraised for $75,000 and the estate taxes were paid for that amount. However, the property is presently under contract for $40,000 so there has been a substantial reduction in the value just through market forces and primarily market forces. This property also has for those that have seen the property, and from the survey you can see there is a driveway that runs along the left side, northerly side of the property, and this right-of-way was apparently created in 1934. It gives access to this property zo the piece to the north, to the [eft side, and access to the back side to the waterfront parcel. The waterfront parcel is presently owned by Marguerite and Ude Farrell. They purchased the property just in 1996, the building department issued a CO for that property and it did not really come to bear that the properties had merged until a single and separate search was done when the lot was being conveyed -- CHAIRMAN: You're talking about lot 36. MRS. MOORE: Lot 36 is the waterfront parcel -- CHAIRMAN: That has just been conveyed in 1996. MRS. MOORE: That's right. That was in 1996, it was conveyed to the Ude Farrell, so what's left is Lot 37. And for all intensive purposes, everybody thought that it was a single and separate property until a single and separate search was done and we found out through the estate - thai the estate proceedings, that the property has all ended up in Mrs. Harrison's name. And I have an affidavit of posting so give to you, also at one time. CHAIRMAN: Not to rush you, but ~ we run out of time, we run out of time and we'll just have you back another time. So please don't be concerned. This is my problem. Not somebody else's. MRS. MOORE: No you have all this information on your record, so a~o~ain I don't want to belabor because you do have this ali as per my application. But go ahead. CHAIRMAN: But that's all I had to say. Page 5 - February 6, 1997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southotd Town Board of Appeais MRS. MOORE: Oh, all right. As far as the standards that we have to meet with respect to a waiver, this application will not affect the density of the neighborhood, the properties have been shown as separa[e tax map lots, and stfii show on the assessors records and the Suffolk County Tax Maps as separate parcels. They were, the parcel to the north - the waterfront parcel as I said was sold, and it was reviewed by the Building Dept. It's a half-acre in size, and issued a CO for the structure that's there. I think that's pretty ranch it. I have the affidavit and those are ali the facts with regard to this piece of property. This will again - and, I'm sorry, the conditions - it ~dll avoid economic hardship. ! pointed out to you that it is under contract right now for $40,000, and the property was originally appraised for $75,000. There are no .- the natural details, character and details of the lot and contours won't change or be altered by t~his application. There won't be in any filling in of environmentally sensitive lands or flood areas. In conclusion under the circumstances that we have presented to you, we hope that you will support the waiver application, t have the affidavits for you, of posting and also Mr. Bruer's affidavit. (Handed up to the Chairman.) Do you have any questions for us? CHAIRMAN: No, ! don't have any questions at this time. The only question I do have, i apologize, is you said the death occurred when, that precipitated this entire thing? MRS. MOORE: Two deaths. Edward died first in 1970. CHAIRMAN: Was Ed Wirth on the deed at the time. MRS. MOORE: Ed Wirth - you have it in your records. I'm sorry I don't have it here in front of me. It was checkerboarded at one point. CHAIRMAN: Well do me a favor~ just MEMBER TORTORA: I have it. CHAIRMAN: So tell me. MRS. MOORE: Yes, tell us. MEMBER TORTORA: Ok. Well it's right here in the title search. I think t have it. I had it before. MRS. MOORE: I had it on the map. I'H pull it out, it's easier. MEMBER TORTORA: Parcel 36, Wirth died in 1970 leaving Mae Wirth bis wife as the sole o~uaer, and she died in 1989. Page 6 - February 6, 1997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: But the deeds didn't transfer. Keep in mind that. There was no transfers. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN: So they were held by Chemical Bank at that time? MRS. MOORE: No, no. Ed Wirth remained on the deed. As a ma~er of law, she was the beneficiary but there was no change in the deeds to preserve that checkerboarding. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MEMBER TORTORA: And on 37 - let's see. Mae Wirth died in 1989. And it was in her name by herself, correct? She died in 1989. MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Prior To that, it was in her name. ~t was in her name from 1964 to 1989. MRS. MOORE: Yes. As they bought it, they were checkerboarding the parcels. MEMBER TORTORA: From 64 to 89 it was in her name alone. MRS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRMAN: So the merger occurred prior to 1989, I mean post-1989. MRS. MOORE: Post 1989. Yes, when she died. And it ali got because of Chemical Bank as the executor, they all went into -- MEMBER TORTORA: It wasn't put out - MRS. MOORE: Right. The deeds had to be transferred to Catherine Harrison who was the beneficiary under the will. MEMBER TORTORA: And that didn't occur until 1996. MRS. MOORE: No. MEMBER TORTORA: 1994. MRS. MOORE: 1994. 1990. Page 7 - February 6~ 1997 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: 1990. CHAIRMAN: Yes, 1990. MEMBER TORTORA, Oh. Ok. CHAIRMAN: We have it now. Thank you. Hearing ne further comments does anyone have comments? Seeing none, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MRS. MOORE: Sorry~ sorry. I just wanted clarification. In 1990 the deed went to Catherine Harrison by way of the will but in 1994 that's when ii was eheckerboarded as soon as the estate was resolved. MEMBER TORTORA: Right. CHAIR?,LkN: Ii was checkerboarded because the house was in whose name? MRS. MOORE: Well at that point again it got checkerboarded between Catherine and John, so-- CHAIRMAN: John got the house? MRS, MOORE: Yes. John ~ot the house and Catherine and John got the vacant lot. CHAIRMAN: Now, we have it. MRS. MOORE: Now you have ii. MEMBER VILLA: How can you do that is my ques*don? If was merged basically by the bank, you could just nilly-vrJlly write other deeds? MRS. MOORE: Yes. You can deed out, the question is not '- in fact for many years here you could, the Buildfing Dept. would have issued a CO because they recognized - based on the records.' It's only since the merger law was written that those kind of issues actually became clearer, at least as attorneys, Bill and I always do a single and separate search and that's how we -- Bill represented Inland Homes who was going to buy this lot, and that's it when it became apparent that the properties became merged. Otherwise it would probably never have been noticed if a single and separate search had not been done. CHAIRMAN: And that driveway is access to the rear yard. Page 8 - February 6, 1997 (Harrison) Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Yes. To the rear house, CHAIRMAN: To the rear house. RighT. And how wide is that? MRS. MOORE: Ten feet. MR. HARRISON: Say 10 to 12 feet, in that area. MRS. MOORE: The dirt driveway. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, again, I'll offer that as a resolution closing the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll second it. Motion carried and resolution adopted. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ....... HELD FEBRUARY 6, 1997 ~- SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 9:25 p.m. Appl. No. 4401 DAVID DEFRtEST (as Tenant). (Owners: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Gnozzo). Request for Variance based upon the June 3, 1996 Building Inspector's Notice of Disapprovsd under Article Vtll, Section 100~81A, issued on the following grounds: Automobile rental use is not a pernmitted use in this limited Business (LB) Zone District. Location of Property: 73265 Main Road, NY; County Parcel #1000-45-3-2. Size: 5+- acres. Patricia J. Moore, as Attorney. CHAIRMAN: O.K., we're back to the DeFriest Hearing. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: DeFriest? CHAIRMAN: Yes. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Did you open the hearing? CHAIRMAN: Yes. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: While we're at the end, we just want to thank you - extend our thanks for your cooperation and patience. It's been a long process. At this point, I think you have the latest draft from East End Drafting and Design which shows the lay-out of the proposed property and I was a recipient of a letter that went from Mr. Orlowski to the Zoning Board today which, I have to th~nk your office for sending it to me because otherwise I wouldu't have known that that had been issued. I was somewhat disturbed by that letter because I was at the Planning Board Work Session when this came up and we discussed it for all of two seconds and the reaction I got from the Planrf~ug Board was that "Until we know there's a use, you know come back when you're ready". As far as the lay-out of the property, there were typical differences of opinion just as if t were to poll this board, that board was sitting down and saying well, some of them said - Well, one of them - and I won't point out who, said "Can't you demolish the building". He said "No, we can't do that" and others said "Well, you know we can accomodate - we'll work it out." So there was not a "go away - don.'t even come back to us with this". It was more of a "Well, when you know you've got the use, come back. Then we'll discuss the site plan". The way they've written this letter and I called Bob Kassner and I spoke to Mr. Ward today to confirm, you know, that I'm understanding it correctly. They're sa~iu~ that the only way they'll ~ive us a Waiver of Site Plan is if we agree to these conditions or if we accept their comments as true. We don't accept their comments - we don~t believe that they're accurate and, in fact, since the sits plan that we submitted was designed, Mr. Willsey has layed out the property in the way that the site plan is shown and it's been working really well. For the past two months, there has been a very good flow of the property. I've parked there myself when I go to post the property and talk to him. I park in those diagonal spaces and I back out inside the property lines and I pull out and it's a clear entrance and a clear exit and there's no problem at all. So, I think Page 2 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6~ 1997 Southotd Town Board of Appeals we're going to have a nice discussion with the Planning Board but, at a later date and I would ask that the Zoning Board consider the use at this point because we're obviously going to be discussing the lay-out of the property and what works and what doesn't. I think I'm going to put a member of the board in my car and show them how it works because when I was there - and I?m no Mario Andretti - it seemed to work for me. CHAIRMAN: You're sure you want to do that, right? You want us to make a decision? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Well, I need to get you guys to make a decision as far as the use, o.k.? As far as the lay-out of the property, the site plan they're going to tel! us where things should go and where things belong and then we'll leave it to them. MEMBER TORTORA: That's where we were at the last hearing. CHAIRMAN: Let's digress here for a minute, o.k.? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Sure. CHAIRMAN: The existing house is an office. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Right. CHAIRi%IAN: Is there anyone living in the house? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: He's Hying... MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): I stay there a couple nights a week. CHAIRMAN: Right, I remember that. O.K. Now, originally in the first hearing we discussed the issue of your renting space to a gentleman who is presently renting there for the cars. That has changed. You are now going to utilize the entire building? MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): Yes. CHAIRMAN: Right, o.k. PATRtCIA MOORE ESQ.: Well, if he gets the use he wants to buy the whole property... CHAIRMAN: You want to buy the whole property from - PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Right~ the property that consists of all those buildings. CHAIRMAN: Presenting leasing as a sublease from Dave DeFriest? PATRICIA Moore Esq.: Right, we'll ellmLuate aL those subleases and ease in there. Page 3 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: O.K. The planning aspect is up to Planning. The fourth issue is that of the ever-ail picture of the expert testimony that you had provided for us. Is that correct? PATI{ICIA MOORE ESQ.: Stype Real Estate? CHAIRi%IAN: Yes. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ,: Yes. CHAIRMAN: And the pamphlet that he produced. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: And 'so on and so forth. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: O.K. The last thing. I have is the actnal 1Lue of wetlands - where does it exist, how can we flag it? This is an area that Mrs. Tortora - and I'm taking this from her and I apologize for that but it's an area that became a concern of mine when I was out there last week, o.k. - where do we know when you start, when you stop, when it gets wet~ when it doesn't get wet at certain seasonal times of the year? O.K.? We've gone through afull season here and I'm not trying to - I have to get this in my mind to know how much property that you actually have usable because the rental car area that you show ten single spaces appears to project into that area, o.k. And that's where my concern is, airight? MEMBER TOETORA: There was testimony given at one of the hearings - I'm quite sure of this - of how much they estimated as usable land o CHAIRMAN: Yes, they said a half acre. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: And Stype actually ... (Simultaneous discussion) CHAIRMAN: But that doesn't tell me how far you can go in the back. That's where we are. I don't know where the wetlands actually stop. (Simultaneous discussion) CHAIRMAN: Which is the area that you were discussing? MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): About 300 feet. CHAIRMAN: 300 feet from the road? Page 4 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): From the road. CHAIRMAN: O.K., I will measure that before the 25th. MEMBER TORTORA: You're saying it starts about 300 feet from the road? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: You're saying it starts 300 feet from the road? MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): I'm talking about you can go back 300 feet and park. CHAIRMAN: O.K. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Giving these guys credit - when they wont out to the property, t did point out - I said listen, you know, use the area that's usable and he was pretty clear that no, you could give him the width of the cars and so on. That's about it. Ten, well five in a row back is about it. And that's the area that he would recommend using. CHAIRMAN: O.K. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: After that, you start dealing with Slopes that you could fill but i wouldn't recommend that. MR. : Excuse me, Pat - does he have a distance at ail? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: No. It's to scale - I could probably try to figure it out. CHAIRMAN: We keep on playing tag with secretaries here. Could Mr. Wooley please spell Ms name again? MR. WtLLSEY (Tenant): Joseph Willsey. CHAIRMAN: We can get it out of the last hearing. MR. WILLSEY: It's easier this way. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Pat's new so she doesn't have the spelling yet. CHAIRMAN: O.K., alright - this is what I plan on doing and this is not a prolonged issue because we're .not making a decision. I plan on closing the hearing at our Special Meeting on February 25th. I wiil~ between .now and then, go out there and measure it. PATRtCIA MOORE ESQ.: O.K. MEMBER TORTORA: Can't we close it tonight? page 5 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals CI-IAIRMAN: We can't close it tonight but I want to he able to put that 300 feet in. If there's a change on that when I see you out there, please let me know. O.K.? MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): O.K. CHAIRMAN: And I'm going to place that in the original plan to see where.,. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I was going to say, if you can mark it on the plan... CHAIi%MAN: I'll try. I'm not a surveyor but I'll do the best I can. I don't mean that sarcastically. I'll start with what I construe to be the property line and I'll roll with the wheel 300 feet out. I lb~k I have an almost unobstructed - it doesn't make any difference - t roll to a fixture and go out. O.K.? And I'll make that determination. MEMBER TORTORA: You're going to put it on the map, Jerry? CHAIRMAN: I'm going to put it on the map where 300 feet ties out there and I'll put a stake out there if I have one with me, PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: That's his estimate - 300 feet. When you're out there - the two of you... CHAIPdVIAN: If you change on that, let me know because I'm not going out there until the Saturday before the 25th. MEMBER TORTORA: That's his estimate so... PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Yes, why don't you - if you could coordinate ii because if you could figure out based on what's here - on the drawing - it would make some sense. It would make it easier. (Simultaneous discussion) CHAIRMAN: Maybe the Trustees would go out and do a field inspection for us. Would you ask them? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I can ask them. CHAIRMAN: Our understanding is 300 fee~ out and that'§ based upon the applieaut. MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): What I'll do is I'H measure it tomorrow. I'll walk ii off to get a closer idea and call Pat and she can call you? CHAIRMAN: Yes, I'm not going to be here for a week but... PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I won't either. CHAIRMAN: Yes, o.k., but we're two weeks away here. O.K., so then if t can take a line from that particular point across - from Page 6 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southoid Town Board o£ Appeals that point - because it may be closer - then we can say that "Yes, we have x,y,z amount of usable area". At this point it's still hypothetical. It's a hypothesis - we don't know. MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing is-- I personally would feel better if the Trustees would flag it... CHAIRMAN: She's going to ask them. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I'm going-to ask them. I can't force them to do it. CHAIRMAN: I'm still measuring. I don't care if they do it or they don't. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I would also - something that's obvious but if you fecal! the orig~nal proposal that Mr. DeFriest put in versus what we've designed, we've scaled back tremendously what is being requested. He's really designed to work for kis business but without really over-using the property so keep that in m/nd. Thanks. This letter I wish I could take credit for it because it's really very well done but I can't - I didn't write it. There are - how many? MR. WILLSE¥ (Tenant): There was a hundred but some of them got lost. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: O.K. There are about one hundred letters in support of this application. All of them based on one letter really, it's the first client that he had that wrote this letter without any prompting for support. MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): A copy was sent to the Board. CHAIRMAN: Right. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: And one ef these on the top has some extra hand-written comments so I just want to show the Board that this is a very valuable business to the area. CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask Mr. Willsey an off-the-cuff question - I happened to tour - not physically tour but I happened to drive into your site in Corem and you've got a tot of cars. How many cars do you have on site at that one? MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): About 300. CHAIRMAN: I estimated 400 so I was 100 off. PATRtCIA MOORE ESQ.: That's not ever going to be done here. I can assure you that. MR. WILLSEY (Tenant): It would be impossible to do. I've got a lot of room there. Page 7 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: My relatives are from the Port Jefferson/Mt. Sinai area so I just happened to zip by there one day and said "That looks familiar". MR. WILLSE¥ (Tenant): Same type of sign. CHAIRMAN: O.K~, thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to wrap up with Mrs. Moore? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: No, I have an Affidavit of Posting. I thfnk I've posted five times now. Again, we'd just like to tb~nt~ you for your patience with us. It's been a .long application and we've given you a lot of information and I just hope that, after all this, we can proceed with the next step which is goiu~ to be discussing the site plan with the Planning Board. That's ali. Th~nk you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are you go~nE to give us that affidavit? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Yes, I'm going to give it to you right now. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the Special Meeting at which time... MEMBER TORTORA: Are you going to recess it or close it, Jerry? CHAIRMAN: I'm going to recess it until February 25th at which time I will put into the record and, hopefully, by that time the Trustees will at least look at those areas. My suggestion, Mr. Wiltsey - post that 300 ft. mark on both sides of that building - the big building - so you can tell them that that's the area that you estimate that you want to utilize and they will tell you if there's anything... MR. ~VILLSE¥ (Tenant): That property goes back at a furmy angle - it gets wider as it goes back. CHAIRMAN: Whatever two places you can do to show some sort of parallel line going across. I don't care where it is. Just make sure that you put it in with a stake that's strong enough to withstand a little show or whatever - like one of the stakes that they use on the highway - the five quarter stakes made out of something solid so it stays there. Now is the time to do it. O.K. I know it's winter time. MR. WtLLSEY (Tenant): The ground is soft. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: I assume that you have no more questions of Mr. Stype? CHAIRMAN: He's not here. If something changes between now and the 25th, we'll let you know. Alright? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: O.K. (Chairman was then asked if there was a second to the motion. ) Page 8 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6~ 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: t think they're still pondering it. Again I offer the resolution to recess it for the purpose of closure on February 25th. (The motion was seconded by Member Dinizio. ) CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (All ayes) CHAIRMAN: Thank you. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Thank you. page 8 - Transcript of Hearings ~ ;2~ Re~t~lar Meeting of February 6, 1997 Soathold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I think they're still pondering it. Again [ offer the resOlUtion ~o recess it for the purpose of closure on Feb,'mary 25th. (The motion was seconded by Member Dinizio.) CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (All ayes) CHAIRMAN: Thank you. pATRICIA MOORE ESQ.: Thank you. HELD FEBRUARY 6, 1997 · SOUTHOLD TOWN BOA~ OF APPE~S ~:10 p.m. Appt. No. 4454 SALVATORE AND IRENE ARIOSTO. Based upon the 10/09/96 Ac~on of Disapprov~ by the B~ld~g Inspector ~der Ar~cle III, Section 100-33, appHc~t is reques~g app~val of storage b~ding (as located) ~ the front yard area. Lo~on of Property: 110 Set~ ~e, Mat~tuek, NY; Parcel ~1000-106-09-4.8. CHAIR~N: The applicant ~s bu~t eonst~eted - a shed. The applier has two front yards and We'H deal ~th that aspect ~ a m~ute. The shed p~bably is located just to the r~r of ~ house but what is construed to ~ in the front yard aiwa. I have a copy of a sketch of a suNey in,caring the placement of the shed. I have person~ly measured Ihe shed myse~ - not the site of ~e shed but its ~rec~on ~d pro~ to both West~ Road ~d Selah Lane ~d I have a copy of the S~fo~ County T~ Map in~ea~E the sur~un~g properties ~ the area. We do appreciate your co~n~ do~ fought, ~r. Ariosto.~ ~at would you Hke to tell us for the record? ~R. ARIOSTO: I've ~ven you ~1 the i~orma~on that I could possibly ~ve you. The o~y ~E that is ~ss~n~ ~... CHAI~N: O.K. We'H send somebody down to ~et it for you. The p~cement of the shed ~ cri~cat to you for what r~son, s~? ~R. ARIOSTO: If I placed it ~here else on what you consider my side yard, I would not be able to ~et to ~t ~th my wheelch~r. I have the shed placed in a posi~on where ~th my whee~ch~r within maybe seven to eight feet of it ~d then have access to the shed to ~et my ~rde~n~ eq~pment, t have a sm~ tractor that I use and I have ~ etect~c cart that I can ~et arced ~th on ~e property. If any of you w~t to try to use t~s wheelch~r ~ my side yard, you'~ welcome to ~o try it. It won't be more than five feet, I know that. I had the driveway made deHbe~tely so I could Eo from my side door to my shed. The fact that you assigned me ~o front yards was a surprise to me. ~at you consider the f~nt yard where I placed the shed ~s ~ost ~sible from West ~ L~e because ~t's on the east side of my p~perty and there's a row of pine trees ~th the exception of about, ten feet. The shed Lane. CHAIRMAN: I measured it from the black pines w~ch I est~ated to be your property Hne appro~matety. ~R. ARIOSTO: It's supposed to ~o ~to ~he road. CHAIR~N: It does ~o to the road? Page 2 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ARIOSTO: Yes. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Because I measured it fifty-seven feet from the black pines. I took that as an are and I said that was approximately the estimate there. Then I measured from approximately four to five feet inside the property line and approximately where the trees are planted and I measured eighty-eight feet from there. O.K.? MR. ARIOSTO: To where? CHAIRMAN: To the shed itself, t measured fifty-seven feet on West Mill Road give .or take a few and eighty-eight feet from just outside the new trees that you planted. That's where I estimated the shed to be. I think~ it's a clearer estimation than what we received before. MR. ARIOSTO: I know that when I had it placed I made sure that it was within my property - not in the fifty foot scenic buffer. So, it cleared that - t know that. CHAIRMAN: Right. Does the shed have any utilities - electricity? MR. ARIOSTO: No. CHAIRMAN: And you don't plan on having any? MR. ARIOSTO: No, I don't plan on it. CHAIRMAN: Because you don't use it at night anyway? MR. ARIOSTO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN: O.K., thank you. We'll start with Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILI,A: I just had a couple of questions in my rn~nd when I was there. It looks like your existing garage on the house is an over-sized garage already. MR. ARIOSTO: No, sir. It's not. MEMBER VILLA: It's not an over-sized garage? It has a big door on it. MR. ARIOSTO: It's a two-ear garage. MEMBER VILLA: And you have two cars in it? MR. ARIOSTO: It's a standard two-car garage. MEMBER VILLA: O.K. Alright. I just wondered why you put the shed off the corner of the driveway. You moved it closer to the house. In the back you'd still have the access off... (simultaneous discussion) Page 3 - Transcript of HearLugs Re~lar Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ARIOSTO: When we get snows there's no place else to put the snow. When they plow the driveway, they can plow it straight to the back there's room in back of the driveway to push all the snow there. CHAIRMAN: O.K., Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: While yoU're there we'll see ff anybody in the audience would like to speak~ Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (No one asked to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who would like to speak against this application? (No one asked to speak.) CHAIRMAN: O.K. Because of the timeliness of the hearings tonight, we are not making any decisions. We will make the decision on February 25th. We appreciate your coming in, sincerely. MEMBER TORTORA: Do you want to ask him about the condition that has been requested by Mr. Cuddy? CHAIRMAN: Sure, go ahead. MEMBER TORTORA: We did receive a letter dated February 3rd. I'll read it for the record: "I am the attorney for Raymond A. Cuddy, my father, who is directly across the street from the...You know something - I'm not on the right one. It's somebody else. MR. ARIOSTO: The name didn't sound familiar. MEMBER TORTORA: You don't have to worry. CHAIRMAN: We thank you for coming in, sir and safe home. MEMBER TORTORA: Didn't mean to scare you. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no fnrther comment, I'll make a motion closLug the hearing, reserving a decision until later. MEMBER VILLA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (ali ayes) Page 3 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, ].997 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ARIOSTO: When we get snow, there's no place else to put the snow. When they plow .the driveway, they can plow it straight to the back - there's room in back of the driveway to push all the snow there. CHAIRMAN: O.K., Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: While you're there we'H see if anybody in the audience would like to speak. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor o{ this application? (No one asked to speak.) CHAIR_~L~N: ts there anybody who would like to speak against this application? (No one asked to speak.) CHAIRMAN: O.K. Because of the timeliness of the hearings tonight, we are not making any decisions. We will make the decision on February 25th. We appreciate your coming in, sincerely. MEMBER TORTORA: Do you want to ask him about the condition that has been requested by Mr. Cuddy? CHAIR~LAN: Sure, go ahead. MEMBER TORTORA: We did receive a letter dated February 3rd. I'll read it for the record: "I am the attorney for Raymond A. Cuddy, my father, who is directly across the street from the...You know something - I'm not on the right one. It's somebody else. MR. ARIOSTO: The name didn't sound familiar. MEMBER TORTORA: You don't have to worry. CHAIRMAN: We thank you for coming in, sir and safe home. MEMBER TORTORA: Didn't mean to scare you. CHAIR~iAN: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a moti.o~n closing~ hearing, reserving a decision until later. ~%~,~ ................ MEMBER VILLA: Second. :-::~v CHAIRMAN: All in favor? L~% (ail ayes) TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING t{k~,r) FEBRUARY 6, 1997 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS 7:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4457 - JAMES AND DIANA MINOQUE. Based upon the 01/03/97 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, applicant is requesting to construct an addition to dwelling which will exceed the required 20% [et coverage at this premises.' Location of Property: 5650 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, NY; Parcel #1000-115-10-6. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey indicating the house in its present position, existing deck, two retaining walls actually one bulkhead and one retaining wall. The sketched in area, which is basically crosshatched, indicates the proposed addition which will exceed ' the lot coverage at approximately 24%. Mr. Feller, how are you tonight, sir? It's such a pleasure to see you again. Mt{. FEILEI{ (Architect): I'm Don Feller I'm an architect from Mattituck. I'm here with Mr. And Mrs. Minoque to talk about their proposed addition. It's a plan for an existing house. They're hoping to square off an irregular L shape and add a new second floor. The set back existing on the east side is about 25 feet and the new addition would bring our set back to 22 feet 15 in the side yard. We're not getting any closer to New Suffolk Avenue. The existing house is 1,070 square feet and that's 21% lot coverage or in addition 200 square feet to the first floor. That would be 24% lot coverage. The existing house, one-story with two bedrooms in the front of the house, one of the bedrooms we're going to convert to a garage and that's going to allow us to get parking a little bit further away from New Suffolk Avenue. We're also going to be able to get the front door on the front of the house facing New Suffolk Avenue, set back from the middle of the house on the side. We're also adding a second floor which will be the same size as the first floor. It's actually a littie bit bigger than the first floor, overhanging the front porch. It's a covered entry area. CHAIRMAN: Very good. Mt{. FEILER (Architect): It's not a substantial addition. It doesn't seem to have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. The Town Trustees have already approved the proposed project. It's a small addition. It's a small house. Unfortunately, it's a small lot. That's why we're here. CHAIRMAN: Having been a resident of Mattituck since about 1948, I am perfectly aware that this house has been around for many, many, many years. These people have done a bang-up job in fixing it up. It really looks very nice. I don't have any particular objection to this application. We'll now go to Mr. Villa. Page 2 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: There's going to be an over-hang on the front of it? MR. FELLER (Architect): The plot plan shows what is, in effect, the second floor and the first floor would be smaller than that so at the front the entry door will be set back about 4 feet. MEMBER VILLA: t3 feet is showing the over-hang that you are proposing? MR. FELLER (Architect): 13 feet is on the western part of the corner so it's a little bit further than that - probably t5 feet or so. It's not closer than the 13 feet. There's no projection from the house. The second floor will be straight across as 'the straight line shows on the front of the house. : MEMBER VILLA: Right. MR. FEILER (Architect): The entry is recessed from that straight tine. MEMBER VILLA: Thirteen feet is going to be the line? MR. FEILER (Architect): That's existing. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, that's existing. It's not going to be infringed on? MR. FEILER (Architect): No. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to review this for a second? MEMBER VILLA: Yes. (Mr. Feiler pointed out the second floor on the plot plan. ) CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, that's what I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN: That was the question? O.K. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I-have no questions. CHAIRMAN: You're really on target here tonight Mr. Doyen, Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DOYEN: Everything is crystal clear to me. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor ef this application? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to speak against the application? (No one wished to speak.) Page 3 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, t997 Southotd Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: We would like to thank you very much for coming in. I'm sorry I brutalized your name. I sincerely do. We'll have a decision for you on February 25th. Hearing no further questions, I will make a motion to close the hearing, reserving a decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (All ayes) (See formal Resolut~on in Minutes prepared under separate cover. ) Page 3 - Transcript of Hearings ~ff~ Reg~ular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Souttmtd Town Board of Appeals CHAII~MAN: We would like to thank you very much for coming in. I'm sorry I brutalized your name. I sincerely do. We'll have a decision for you on February 25th. Hearing no further questions, I will make a motion to close the hearing, reserving a decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (All ayes) (See formal Resolution in Minutes prepared under separate cover. ) Page t - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of' Appeals 7:18 p.m. Appl. No. 4438 GUISEPPE & LAURIE COMO: This is an application for a Variance based upon tile November 1996 Action of Disapproival by tl~e Bnilding Inspector under Article 111, Section 100-33C, in which applicant applied for a building permit to locate accessory building, and that yard area has been designated a second front yard. Location of Property: 265 Youngs Avenue, Southold, NY: Parcel ID #i000-61-,1-38.2 CHAIRMAN: W~ have a copy of a survey dated August 16, 1995, indicating a penned in area, or penciled in area, in what I would construe the rear yard, but because of a right of way, that runs along the rear of the pruperty. Tile nature of the application is that we have two front yards. The applicants requesting a 24 by 28 foot garage, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map, indicating this and surrotmding properties in tile area. I trove received two letters, that are presently in the file, that the board has reviewed. Mr. Como, how are you tonight? ~ MR. GIUSEPPE COMO: Good, how are you? CHAIRMAN: Good thank you. What would you like to add for your application? MR. GIUSEPPE COMO: I wonld like to say that I was surprised to find out, that I had two ['font yards. When I purchased the property a year ago, nothing was discussed of a rear yard being a front yard. When I applied for a CO for the shed, they called it a rear yard. They told me there would be no problem putting a garage in the back. When we applied for a permit, they said we had two front yards. I was just as surprised as anybody. Basically, the garage is going to face the East. The entrance is going to be from Youngs Avenue. As far as Mrs. Evans, asking me to to move the garage three feet East. I would love to do that, but i have a tree on each side, and one on the South side of the garage, and one on tile East coruer side, that if I move the garage in any direction, I would have to remove those trees, and I'm trying to save the trees. CHAIRMAN: OK, and at no time did you ever attempt to use any other access but Youngs Avenue. Is that correct? MR. GIUSEPPE COMO: No. CHAIRMAN: How large did you say that garage was in height, approximately? Page ~2- Transcript of Hearings Reg~flar Meeth~g of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MR. GIUSEPPE COME: The height is going to be a standard height, 15 or 16 feet, whatever. CHAIRMAN: OK. MR. GIUSEPPE COMO: Whatever height the garage (unfinished sentence). CHAIRMAN: There's no second story on it. MR. GIUSEPPE COMO: No. CHAIRMAN: OI,i, all right, great. Let's start with Mr[ Villa. MEMBER VILLA: t was wondering if it's cleared, if you're coming off Young's Avenue? Mt~. GIUSEPPE COMO: Yes, that's where the entrance is going to be, right on ¥oung's Avenue. I used the driveway next to tile house now-. That's where I park the ears now, so that's where the entrance is going to be. CHAIRMAN: Is there any contention Bob, about the placement of the garage? MEMBER VILLA: ( inaudible ) CHAIRMAN: I'm not trying to put you on tile spot. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: You have the, what's the size of the property line? MR. GiUSEPPE COMO: It's going to be 9 feet from the side, and 37 feet from the rear property lille. MEMBER TORTORA: Would you have any objection to a condition saying, that you would not use Mect~anics Street for access?' MR. GUISEPPE COMO: Not at all. I wouldn't have any way of using Mechanics Street. MEMBER TORTORA: But that seems to be a concern. MR. GIUSEPPE COMO: That would be fine with me. CHAIRMAN: MR. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No. Page 3 - Transcript of liearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: OK, is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone like 'to speak against the application? Yes Sir. State your name for the record? MR. ROBERT HUGHES: My name is Robert Hughes. I've been obtained by Ms. Evans to represent some of her opinions. Ms. Evans owns the property at 140 Mechanic Street, which is contiguous to the Como*s, and is probably the piece of property most effected, by the Como's application. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. ROBERT ttUGItES: On Ms. Evans rear property line, forms the Western most part of the Como's North boundry. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. ROBERT HUGtiES: Judging from the way I could read the application, it appears ti~at the garage will be about three feet from Ms. Evans property line, and almost as tall as her house. If constructed as proposed, it would have a dramatic impact on her property. Now please understand, that Ms. Evans is not opposed to the idea of the Como"s building a garage. However, she does feel a need for some modification, and compromise. As proposed, the garage, she feels is out of character with the neighborhood. It's substanciaily larger and taller, than any other garage or accessory building in the area, and would also have a major impact on the amount of light and circulation of air in that building. In the spirit of compromise, and with the hopes of maintaining a good retationstzip with her neighbors, Ms. Evans has a couple of suggestions. It's her feeling that, it would not impose a necessary hardship on the Como's~ if the size of the garage was slightly reduced, and we're suggesting perhaps to the size of the footprint, and the height of the garage of the Como's and Ms. Evans neighbors, the Sheehy's. The Shcehy's own the property, that's on the Northwest corner of Mechanic and Young's Avenue. Their garage is as large as any garage is, in the neighborhood, ok. So, the Sheehey's garage according to it's building permit is 22 feet wide, and 22 feet deep. Now, if the Como!s build a garage for this size footprint, and oriented it such that, the Southeast corner of this garage will still be, where the Southeast corner of where they proposed, their 24 by 28 foot garage. The effect would be quite large for Ms. Evans, in that it would move the North side of the garage an additional two feet away from her rear property line, and it would move the West side of the garage, four feet to the East. This would move the garage more out of the site line, from Ms. Evans backyard. This would make quite a difference to Ms. Evans. Now, Mr. Como has already assured Ms. Evans, that his garage, at least my understanding, it would bre no taller than the Sheehy's garage. Now, I looked at the plans, that were Page .4 - Transcript of Itearings Regular Meeting of February 6, 1997 Southold To~vn Zoning Board of Appeals submitted by Mr. Como, and my trying to figure out the scale, it appears that the