Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/13/1997 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF MARCtl 13, 1997 HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 6:48 p.m. Appl. #4459- ANTONE & LUCY STRAUSSNER. A Waiver is requested for two undersized lots, which waiver is based on the Nov. 15, 1996 Action of Disapproval by Building Inspector due to lot merger after 1983. Tim lots show creation by deed and conformity in size when first created (ref. Building Inspector's notations). Location of Lands: 335 Main St. and i045 Wihnarth Avenue, Greenport. R-40 Zone. 1000-34-1-16 as one lot, and 1000-41-1-10 & 11 as the other lot. CHAIRMAN GOEtlRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Anthony Lewandowski, dated Jannsry 27, 1997, and I have a copy of tile Suffolk Couaty Tax Map indicating this and surrotlnding properties in the area. I believe, Ms, Wickham, yoo are representing these fine people? Itow are you tonight? ABIGAIL WICKIIAM, ESQ.: Fine, thank you. Onr application tonight is basically two-fold. The first applicatioa is to vary the decision of the Building inspector, based on our coatention that the lots very clearly have not merged that there is a distinct legal title between tile two lots. Itl the event that the Board does not accept that argument, we then ask that the Board (coughing) Waiver of Merger Statute that a waiver is appropriate based on the relative size of tile lots. These would be the other lots in the neighborhood and other considerations I will go into. On the first argument: I presented information to tile Bailding Iaspector and to your office including a thing on Seperate Search and copies of the deed indicating that tile lot containing the house is in the name of Mrs. Lucy StraussneP as lifoti~ne and Antonc Stpuassner ns remainder life. Mrs. Straussner has a legal li~e interes[ that was created by deed - herself and her hnsband quite a number of years ago. The ether parcel, which is actually [we sepera[e tax plots bnt we are asking that it be approved as just one building lot, is in the name of Antone Straussner, alone. It's fairly basic Real Estate Law that a legal life tenancy is an interesting property which differentiates it from the fee interest that Mr. Straussner holds oa the vacant lot. I'd like to give the Board - and it's important that the con~ention some statutes and case ]aw and other information. The definition of a life estate or other types of matters in which real property can be bought is Page 2 - Transcript %~ Hearings · Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals contained in the Estates Powers of Trust Law, Section 6-1.1 which states: "Estates in property as the duration are classified as follows:" and then there are a number of categories, the first of which is "Fee Simple Absolute". That is how Mr. Straussner owns the vacant lot. There are several others, the fourth of which is "Estates for Life" and that is how Mrs. Straussner owns her interest in the residence and Mr. Straussner owns the remainder of the interest. Mr. Straussner, by the way, is her son. CHAIRMAN: What was the second part that you just said? You said "Fee Simple Absolute" on the house and you said life estate was... MS. WICKHAM: Estates For Life. I also have to submit to you excerpts from Warren's Weed on Real Property which is a well recognized treatise in the legal profession on Real Property Law indicating and assigning authority, which I also incorporate, that a life tenant may utilize and enjoy real property in the same manner as any other owner. Life tenants have the right to mortgage property. They have the right to sell their life estate. They have the right to lease their life estate. They have the obligation to pay the taxes. They have an ownership interest in that property for the term of their life. So, very clearly under the Town Code - the way it is written the property on which the house is located is held by two people: the life tenant and the remainder man. This distinguishes it from the ownership of the vacant lot which is held by the individual, Mr. Straussner. I also have quite a bit of case law going back many, many years on this which I will try to submit for the record as well. I'll hand that out at the conclusion. In summary, I feel that the Building Inspector was in error in stating that there has been a legal merger of two lots. They are totally seperate in title. I might add that Mrs. Straussner is alive. If she died, that would terminate her life interest. CHAIRMAN: It's also my understanding again that when you started this tonight, that Lots 10 & 11 are to stand as they are. Is that what you're telling me? MS. WICKHAM: Tax-wise. CHAIRMAN: Tax-wise. MS. WICKHAM: 10 and 11 were formed one lo~ and Tax Lot 16 would be the other lot. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MS. WICKHAM: The second part of my presentation is - should the Board, for some reason, feel that that's not correct - that there's a differentiation in title, I would assume that we certainly do qualify for a Waiver of Merger. These lots were created by deed, which I've submitted to the record many years ago. The proposed two lots are vastly larger than the other lots in the neighborhood. In fact, the vacant lot, which is Tax Map 10 & 11, not only contains two tax lots but four lots on file now. It contains, based on information from the Page 3 - Transcript b~JHearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals surveyor, 29,533 sq. ft. You have on record the tax maps showing the sizes of the surrounding lots. The only difference, I would have to point out, would be the very, very large lot to the rear which is mostly wetlands so that is not a buildable lot. I don't think it will be developed to consider this to be a precedent for that any subdivision on that property. CHAIRMAN: You're referring to the 40,000 sq. ft. lot that the house is on? MS. WICKHAM: I'm referring to the 8 acre lot behind it. MEMBER TORTORA: 10 and 11 were slightly larger than 16 and I thought 16 was conforming laws - is it in excess of 45 sq. ft.? MS. WICKHAM: I believe it is. MEMBER TORTORA: According to all the documents you submitted, I believe it is. MS. WICKHAM: I believe it is. I would have to check my notes on that. Yes, it is. I was talking about the precedent that might be established. You were concerned about the size of the 8 acre parcel behind it that is not a developable lot. MEMBER TORTORA: I did go down to the Assessor's Office yesterday and looked at some of the surrounding lots in the area and on Wilmarth Avenue and, according to his record, on both sides of the street I think the largest parcel (simultaneous discussion) is .43 acres and the smallest is .13. So, 10 and 11 would be combined in one lot and, according to his estimate, it would be the largest lot in the area. MS. WICKHAM: Would be the what? MEMBER TORTORA: Largest lot. MS. TORTORA: Could you also describe some of the property adjacent to Main Street to the east and the surrounding neighborhood - the gas station. MS. WICKHAM: There is a considerable amount of commercisl usage over there. There is a gas station; to the south there is a monument business that has been there for some time. There's a full range of commercial usage across the street to the east. CHAIRMAN: I have a question - did you have something else that you wanted to say? MS. WICKHAM: No. I have something else that I want to submit. CHAIRMAN: Right now? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. Page 4 - Transcript ~iIHearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: O.K. You were going to give me that documentation. O.K. We'll start with Mr. Villa. Any questions? MEMBER VILLA: I don't really have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you this question as a lawyer - we'll get free advice here. If 1 lived with a son and I wanted to sell the lot #16 and I went to a real estate agent to sell this lot could I sell it? Just that lot? MS. WICKHAM: You can sell anything. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I mean I'm talking about with a life tenant in it. MS. WICKHAM: Mr. Straussner, yes - he could sell that property and anybody else could buy it. You could buy it but it would be subject to Mrs. Straussner's life interest. She has the absolute right to access that property for her entire life. CHAIRMAN: To possess the improvement on the property or the entire piece of property? MS. WICKHAM: The entire piece of property. CHAIRMAN: O.K. MS. WICKHAM: She has a life estate to the fullest on that property. CHAIRMAN: In reality, have you ever seen anybody legitimately segmented into a portion of the property in reference to a life estate - can it clearly state the improvement only? MS. WICKHAM: A life estate can be granted as to any portion of a piece of property. This was not the case. This deed clearly states (coughing)... CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No questions, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora- anything else? MEMBER TORTORA: There are also wetlands indicated but that's on lot 16. CHAIRMAN: You raise an interesting issue in reference to the first part of your presentation. We would have to go back to our Town Attorney and have her review the documents and then we would have to meet with her - which I have no problems with. Would you like us to do that and to deal with that aspect or... Page 5 - Transcript ~-~ Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, ]997 Southo]d Town Zoning Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: It is my understanding that the Building Inspector did consult with the Town Attorney prior to the issuance of Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRMAN: I see. MS. WiCKHAM: He was given advice which I disagree with and that's why I'm submitting this documentation to you. CHAIRMAN: I see. MS. WICKHAM: 1 certainly have no objection if you want to show her this and get her opinion on it. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBEl{ TORTORA: There are two methods for relief - for determination that they're not merged because of the legal life estate and also for a waiver. I'm sure you would have no objection to us acting on the granter for a Waiver of Request. CHAIRMAN: Well, that basically is the question. MS. WICKHAM: It is important that your Board construe the Code in the first instance. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's basically my question, So, I mean my point is that I think what we'll do is we'll hold this in abeyance and submit the documentation to the Town Attorney and then meet with the Town Attorney and then deal with that aspect of it. MS. WICKHAM: I'm looking for determination that the lots are not merged. MEMBER TORTORA: Would you like the hearing to be held open until the next meeting? MS. WICKHAM: No, I've submitted everything. MEMBER TORTORA: O.K. CHAIRMAN: O.K., good. MS. WICKHAM: I look forward to a determination as soon as possible. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? Anybody like to say something back there? Page 6 - Transcript ~, 'Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, ]997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MAN'S VOICE FROM BACK OF ROOM: No, I think we're all set. CHAIRMAN: You're all set. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Ail in favor? (All ayes. ) '~=~<aC:.~IV~D'= ~v AND FILED BY Tr~E SOUTH©LD TO~YN DATE ~/~/~7 Town Cie~k~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ''( '" Southold Town Hall Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Ma~n Road Serge Doyen P.O. Box 1179 James Dir~zio, Sr. Southold, New York 11971 i~_ur~ ,--~rr~r~-arm~ ~ ~4't~cc Fax (516) 765-1823 ' Lydia A. Tortora Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TRANSCRIPTION OF MARCH 13, 1997 HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APpEALs 7:02 p.m. Appl. #4462 - VIVIEN AND PETER SOO. A variance is requested for a reduced front yard setback for proposed new dwelling, based on the January 15, 1997 Action 'of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector. Location of property: 265 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. Required front yard: to be determined based on those established within 300 feet, same block, same side of street, or bulk schedule minimum of 35 ft. front, 35 ft. rear, 10 ft. and 15 ft. sides, pertaining to this lot size of 15,575+- square feet. County Parcel No. 1000-90-3-9. (Note: Setbacks from the water are determined by Town Trustees and NYS DEC when no bulkhead or wall exists.) CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey produced by R. VanTuyl, dated June 15, 1984 amended September 5~ 1986 and the most recent amendment is November 7, 1996 - indicating a proposed house with attached deck and attached garage requesting at 16 ft. from Cedar Point Drive and that is the property line, that is not the road. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and other surrounding properties in the area. And I have a letter from the Cedar Beach Park Association. I believe, Mr. Fitzgerald, you are representing these nice people. MR. JAMES FITZGERALD (PROPER-T SERVICES): Yes. CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight, sir? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm fine thank you. How are you? CHAIRMAN: Good. What would you like to do? MR. FITZGERALD: All of the information has been submitted. To briefly review, we have the approval of the Town Trustees because of the nearness to the line of the wetlands is concerned. We have a variance from the D.E.C. which I think is a significant factor in the variance that we requested from the D.E.C. was done in such a way that it was hoped that the Zoning Board and the D.E.C. would each, in its own way, provide some sort of relief which would permit building the house on this property. The house is small and it is situated in the best Page 2 - Transcript ~Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of APpeals possible location to fit the minimal size not fit within but fit around the minimal size building on the land. The variance approved by the Health Department with certain conditions all of which have been or will be met very shortly. The details are in the file and I would be happy to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN: Are you alluding to the fact that the placement of this house has basically been done by all of these agencies except for the Zoning Board of Appeals? MR. FITZGERALD; That is correct. CHAIRMAN: Is there any other location for the house? MR. FITZGERALD: No, this is the best possible location from all standpoints. CHAIRMAN: If the Zoning Board did not agree with this location and granted alternate relief, what would you have to do? MR. FITZGERALD: Find some place else to live. CHAIRMAN: The reason why I asked you that question is - we have not discussed this within the Board. 16 ft. is close to the road. Close to the front property. I mean there's no doubt about it. O.K.? And that's the only concern that I have. It doesn't mean that I~m against it or anything of that nature. It's an extremely pristine piece of property - there's no question about it. In fact, when I was there early one morning there were three or four deer on the property. It's absolutely gorgeous. MR. FITZGERALD: Another point that should be noted is that on the eastern part of the property line there is a monument marking the property line along the road and is at least 20 ft. from the traveled road surface. CHAIRMAN: Right. I looked at the width of the road prior to going down there and I noticed it is a 50 ft. road. MR. FITZGERALD: On paper, yes. CHAIRMAN: On paper, right. I've traveled that road for years and I'd' say the road is probably between 28 and 30 ft. wide. MR. FITZGERALD: 12 ft. wide. CHAIRMAN: 12 ft. wide? MR. FITZGERALD: It's going from grass on one side to grass on the other side. CHAIRMAN: Maybe I was thinking of the road going into Cedar Beach. They certainly didn't measure this road but I thought it was wider than that. Page 3 - Transcript '%,/Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Thank you. We'll start with Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions but it appears to me that you are right, the property would be - that house would really appear to be about 30 ft. off the road as it stands now. If you go by the way that you propose. Is that correct? I mean, there's a development down there - there's a road - probably never going to be improved beyond what it is right now. MR. FITZGERALD: I would think that was so, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Just one other question did you do any analysis on the property owners on that side of the street in reference to set-back? MR. FITZGERALD: On either side? CHAIRMAN: Well, I know we know that across the street they're set back much farther because they're on the water. Hundreds of feet in some cases. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. It appears that the property to the east is a 35 ft. set-back requirement. On the other side, the property is inaccessible from the standpoint that it is fenced in that corner and I was not comfortable going in there to measure it. However, it appears that it is at least 25 ft. from - and I'm talking about now - from the monument and not from the traveled road surface. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. It appears that both the D.E.C. and the Trustees wanted you to be as far back from the wetlands line as you are now and that kind of puts you to the road. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the D.E.C. is the main concern there. As a matter of fact, we achieved sort of a landmark in getting them to grant that much variance. MEMBER TORTORA: One thing you said in your application is that the garage as proposed is 22 x 20. You said you could reduce that to 20 x 20 - I don't know what that would actually mean in terms of picking up anything on the set-back. MR. FITZGERALD: We would not want that to be a deal breaker. I'm sure that... MEMBER TORTORA: No. What do you mean in terms of it doesn't appear to be much. Page 4 ' Transcript ~- Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MR. FITZGERALD: No, I wouldn't think so. The reason is that because of the angle - the angle between the front property line and the front of the garage is such that if the side dimensions of the garage were reduced by 2 ft., the set-back would probably be increased by something slightly more than a foot. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: I~m just following up on that - you had submitted some house plans and you had the west side of the garage eireled in pink ink there and it sticks out like 2 ft. Can you just square that off in the front instead of having it jut out - you'd pick up 2 ft. MR. FITZGERALD: It probably could be done but it's just not a matter of doing that because the second floor extends out so eliminating that corner, you would eliminate what is holding up the corner of the second floor. So, it means that there would have to be changes in the design work on the house. MEMBER VILLA: Are you saying that there are rooms over the garage? It's hard to tell from the front elevation. MR, FITZGERALD: There's attic space over the garage and the roof extends out to that level. The second floor room in thai area is towards the back of the house but the area under the front slope of the roof is attic space - storage space. MEMBER VILLA: On your survey, it shows several wells. Which is the well that's going to supply the house? The one that's by the private· right-of-way across the street? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER VILLA: This one over here? MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct. MEMBER VILLA: You definitely have permission from the Association? MR. FITZGERALD: We have a new letter. It is not physically in the traveled road surface. MEMBER VILLA: I realize that. It's in the right-of-way. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. We have a new letter which the Health Department required, which I've provided today, in which the Association says it's O.K. as long as the owners don't put a swimming pool in and they fix the road if it is damaged during construction and if they be nice to their neighbors. CHAIRMAN: They look like very nice people to me. Page 5 - Transcript '~J Hearings ~ Regular Meeting of March 13, I997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: There's nothing binding that the Association gives you. MR. FITZGERALD: There's no easemen~ or right-of-way or any legai document other than the agreement which is set forth in the letter. MEMBER VILLA: And the Health Department is going along with this? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. There existed one in 1967 and the Health Department said that's fine but we'd like to have a new one which we have now. CHAIRMAN: These are private roads - isn't that correct? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Owned by the Association. CHAIRMAN: Right. O.K., Mr. Fitzgerald, thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who would like to speak against this application? Sir - state your name for the record, please. MR. ALEXANDER WILLIAMS: Chairman, my name is Alexander Williams. I live at 425 Cedar Point Drive East. I'm here with my wife, Monica and we're here to speak in opposition to this request. This is a marginal piece of property on which to build any house. It was referred today about a blizzard of variances from the D.E.C. and the Health Department and others. All of these variances taken collectively but specifically the one here that question here is in place for a reason. This is a narrow road that has aiready been established; a garage 16 ft. from the edge of thai road and the road is going to be encroached on by, as I understand it, the placement of a well across the street - that this is a heavily traveled road especiaily during the summer months and especially during the weekends and a very dangerous condition, in our opinion, exists from ears coming from both around that corner as well as coming from the east. This creates still another blind driveway ff .we read the plans correctly. We would ask that this variance not be granted, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against this application? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Any other comments from anyone? (No comments. ) CHAIRMAN: O:K., hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAM: All ~h favor? (All ayes.) APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 ~,~ ur ~ ~;-, ~zt ar mo4rtn~?. ~';z ~ n Fax (516) 765-1823 Lydia A. Toxtora Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TRANSCRIPT OF MA]ICH 13, 1997 HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:25 p.m. Continued hearing from Appl. No. 4452 - CHRISTINA RIVERA. (New map submitted 3/11/97.) CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight? MS. CHRISTINA RIVE]IA: I'm fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Good. What would you like to tell us? We did meet with you last Saturday - Mr. Dinizio and myself - and went over another plan and you have since submitted another one. MS. RIVERA: After our Special Meeting that we had a couple of weeks ago, after meeting with you and Mr. Dinizio, several members of the Board suggested that if you could possibly take a footprint of the house - the 15 ft. setback line that we are allowed to do - and this way we're asking for' less relief on the inlet side. We have done that. That is the plan that has been submitted to you this evening. I just want to say that we are to the legal setback limit of the side yard. My husband and I are very flexible if you folks feel that you want to move it closer to Inlet Drive side, giving less relief, we are certainly amicable to that. In fact, we would like to see the house moved a little bit closer to Inlet Drive, to be honest with you, to be centered on the property a little bit better than it is now. And basically, that's all we're asking for. We revised it at your suggestion - not just yours but several of the members of the Board - and this is now the setback requirement that we are asking for. So, it's basically only 6 ft. on Inlet Drive but, as I said, we're willing to move the house closer to the Inlet Drive side. We want to give more relief. CHAIRMAN: O.K. The 72'8" - that is the width of the house? And that's x'd in stone now - there's no change in that? That's it? MS. RIVERA: That's it. CHAIRMAN: I don't mean that sarcastically, honestly. I know that there were some questions that you had at the Special Meeting. Page 2 Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MS. RIVERA: Right. CHAIRMAN: The 34'5" is to the stairs? MS. RIVERA: That is correct - to the bottom of the steps. CHAIRMAN: Right. O.K. And the stairs are approximately how long? Or how deep? MS. RIVERA: I think there are approximately 7 steps. The reason that we had to go 34 1/2 as opposed to 37 is because the Building Department had asked us to demolish the house or elevate it because the remainder of the house had to be elevated over the VS, Flood Zone #13. To do that, we had to raise the house and then add two more steps in order to get into the house. Originally it was 37 but now that we had to raise that portion of the house, it's now 34 1/2. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Good. O~K. Let's start with Mr. Villa. MEMBER VILLA: I was just curious as to why the new house now - or the house that is proposed now - has a finished floor elevation of 16 and the original one had an elevation of 14. MS. RIVERA: We're putting a garage underneath the house. We took the garage off the original plans, remember? We're now putting the garage underneath the house and we need that elevation to put it underneath. MEMBER VILLA: You're putting a garage or just a parking area? MS. RIVERA: Well, we know we have to have break away walls and, whatever we are allowed to do, we are going to be able to park two cars underneath the house. MEMBER VILLA: So, you've got the extra elevation figured on the top. I was just curious because that gives you a couple more steps to get up there. MS. RIVERA: Yes. MEMBER VILLA: O.K. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: You said you'd be willing to move closer to Inlet Drive? MS. RIVERA: Absolutely. MEMBER TORTORA: If you move closer to Inlet Drive, would you also be willing or want to move the house farther back from the 15 ft. setback? In other words, if you want to move it toward Inlet Drive, you're going to move it 5 ft. - the whole house 5 ft. toward Inlet Drive? Page 3 Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, ]997 Sonthold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MS. RIVERA: And give me a 20 ft. Setback. There's no problem with that at all. Actually, that's our preference, to be honest with you, because the house would be more centered on the property. MEMBER TORTORA: O.K. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: The air conditioning unit is still going on the other side? MS. RIVERA: The other side or underneath the house, yes. MEMBE~R DINIZIO: O.K. MS. RIVERA: It will be away from the westerly side. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No questions, thanks. CHAIRMAN: O.K. For the record, I kind of concur that possibly a couple of feet toward Inlet Drive would be an asset. That would be something that I would be embodying in a motion eventually. I don't know if it will be right now or later or whatever. MS. RIVERA: I only ask that we could finally get a determination on this after many, many meetings. CHAIRMAN: Right. MS. RIVERA: I would just like to know whether or not we can go ahead with this. If not, then I really have to go back and re-design the house within the required setback and that would really be a totally different house. I think we have tried to comply with everyone concerned, both the Zoning Board, neighbors, etc. so I just ask that you please complete that determination. CHAIRMAN: Sure. O.K., we thank you. MS. RIVERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Moore, how are you tonight? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Fine, how are you this evening? We started out - I guess wl~en we began so many months ago never quite I don't want to say in opposition - but always trying to resolve concerns that her (my client) neighbor had so that we could come to you in a united front. I think we've reached that point and, in fact, I think that when you have an agreement like this, I would hope that the Board keeps that under consideration. What I did is - and I have to joke with Bob because Bob being an architect, he and I are good friends and I always tease architects that play lawyers. Well, I'm going to play Page 4 Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of March ]3, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Beard of Appeals architect here so i apologize to you in advance. 1 took the elevation because of the last meeting we had and the thoughts of moving the house towards 15 ft. setback. I took the elevations that were in the file at the time so I understand that, for the first time tonight, the elevation will be: the house first floor elevation will be approximately 16 but actually my drawing is conservative. It's going to be significantly higher but I took a scale of the elevations and the distances and i showed what Dr. Schilder has in the size of the present house that he has versus the Rivera house and I present that to you tonight to try to convince you that, in fact, what we're talking about today is moving the house and creating a clear setback of 20 ft. on the westerly side makes sense here for many reasons. In Southold we try to make open space an issue and here we have a situation where the owner says he has plenty of open space on the Inlet Drive side. We are trying to create more space on the westerly side between neighbors. I also drew in the line where 15 ft. setback would be for my client so that you can see that, ultimately, when the house maybe not him, but maybe his daughter or some other person - decides to build out the house to the extent that the Code allows, you're going to have two significantly sized houses with a very short distance between them and this is the first major renovation in a line of houses that are on the street. So, this is really setting a precedent of the type of house - which is going to be a lovely house, in my personal opinion - but it's going to set the trend of establishing sizes, elevations, State Code Requirements and it's just going to continue down in a domino effect down the line. So, you're going to end up looking like a row home area if we do stick to the 15 ft. setback. The other point I'd like to raise to convince you to give us a 20 ft. - to agree to the 20 ft. setback - is that the square footage of this property comes in at 39,995 which, when I saw the surveyor and quizzed him a little bit on his calculations, he recognized that I could go out and get another surveyor who might come up with that half a foot difference that could bring it over the 40,000 sq. ft. mark and now the Code would require a 20 ft. setback on the westerly side and a 50 ft. setback off of Inlet Drive. So, when you're talking about the difference of half a foot where all the parties agree that for aesthetics, for conformity with the neighborhood, for setting a precedent - let's create the larger setback and we're here united to ask for that. I also drew for you - I went back and took my art skills and I superimposed the surveys so you could see the kind of footprint that we're talking about compared to the bungalow next door and yes, the bungalow next door in the next twenty years may develop into a house as substantial as what Riveras have proposed. But, for the time being, that is not the character of the neighborhood and it is considered to be a significant change to Sound Beach Road. So, I have that for you as well. I would ask that when you are hopefully approving the variance as it was originally requested with a 20 ft. setback on the westerly side - or 21 - however the numbers add up, that you keep in mind the original request that we had made which we all have agreed to but I would ask that it he part of your conditions of approval so ghat we don't have to deal with this situation two weeks after the approval is given - that there will be no mechanical systems and structures on the westerly side. In other words, it will be an unobstructed 20 ft. setback and the footprint will be as it has been submitted to you. That is what they want and Page 5 Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals certainly that is something that we're concerned with because our support for this approval from Day I has been based on the footprint that they had proposed and the variance that they requested right from the beginning. Had it been different, certainly our position may have been different so those points are very important to us and we would ask that you incorporate it into your decision. Have I covered everything? DR. SCHILDER, NEIGHBOR: I'd like to bring to the Board's attention that on the original plan submitted, we had an area space of 40,112 ft. Now we have a survey of 39,995 ft. so my position is - I hope you can see your way clear - we are so close to a 40,000 sq. ft. lot that I hope to have a 20 ft. setback. Not because it's important but because every day that I eat I wilt have to face a huge waLt. It is not rural Living - for over 30 years to get up and see this huge wall. Every foot they move it back is volume, not linear and I hope that you can see your way clear to make this exception back the 5 ft. The people around - none of them have objected to this. None of them. In fact, some of them are estatic because they're going to open up a space for looking to the water. So, because there was a survey presented by Mrs. Rivera of 40,112, I hope you would allow the 20 ft. setback because it's imperative to the way of life. I would have a life change system economic hardship in that to dispose or to build on that property, that massive house on top of us - 3 times, 4 times the size of my house - the house across the street is the same size as mine and other ones involved are also small structures. We would hope that you could give us an appointment. CHAIRM~N: O.K. Anything else, Pat? MRS. MOORE: No. I'll submit for the record my drawings. I'm not a surveyor nor an engineer. CHAIRMAN: But you're a daughter of an engineer. MRS. MOORE: Architect. CHAIRMAN: Architect. O.K. Did you want to look at these drawings, Mrs. Rivera? MRS. RIVERA: I have a copy. CHAIRMAN: O.K. MRS. RIVE.RA: I have no problem with 20 ft. - if you want to make it 21, I have no problem with 21. I don't want to get on top of Inlet Drive either. I have no problem with 20, 21 ft. at all. CHAIRMAN: Alright. Before the hearing tonight I was back down I noticed that your lamplight was on - MRS. RIVERA: It's a light sensor. Page 6 Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southotd Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: O.K. I was on Dr. Schilder's property - he doesn't know it but I was walking around the entire area. I had a specific lineal footage that I wanted to deal with so I'll deal with it when we get to that point. I do want to tllank both of you and your husband and the doctor for a very constructive process of basically three hearings - this being the culmination of the hearing. If we could all have as constructive dealings with property owners, things would go much smoother. We do appreciate it and I say that in all honesty to both you and your husband and to Mrs. Moore and to the doctor. I will start with Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I wondered why you drew up a new survey with the 34 and 15 when you kind of had reached an agreement for the 20. MRS. RIVERA: It's because the 15 was what I was ]egaliy entitled to. As I said, at the Special Meeting and on Saturday, Mr. Goehringer and Mr. Dinizio asked if I was flexible and I said I absolutely was. To me it's like a Wegie Board. You take my footprint and you might move it over to Inlet Drive I'm perfectly amicable to that. That's the reason why we put it to where we were legally allowed to and then we're amicable to moving it. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd just like to say for the record that I need to have just one thing to deal with instead of changes because it seems like we're just getting changes and changes. I wanted you to settle on your footprint. We all know that the 15 ft. is a good benchmark because you can't go any closer than that. We knew that you didn'i have too much trouble with moving this house a little bit. I just wanted to establish... MRS. RIVERA: You said to bring it to the legal limit and that's what we did. CHAIRMAN: That's why I asked the question of 72'8". It's done. That's it. Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: No other questions. CHAIRMAN: No other questions. O.K. We thank you all. We']] make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision. We certainly will make every attempt to get to most of these decisions tonight and you're welcome to wait around. I don't think we're going to go too late. MRS. RIVERA: Thank you very much. Page 7 · ~ Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (All ayes. ) ~.,.~.O,TV, m AND FetED BY THE SOUTI{OLD TOI~VN CLERK DATE ~-/~/~? ~OUR //:/~ Tcwn Cie~, Town o~ So~_thold APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,47 ' Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen EO. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr, Southold, New York 11971 ~-ol~emrr~'~ g;IJ,e... Fax (516) 765-1823 Lydia A. Tortora Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOU~ITIOLD TRANSCRIPT OF MARCH 13, 1997 HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:43 p.m. Appl. #4453 EDWARD AND EVELYN HALPERT.(eontinued from 2/6/97) Request for variance to alter and/or expand nonconforming building which has contained a nonconforming guest or living unit, separate and accessory to the main dwelling. Location of Property: 2125 Town Harbor Lane, Southold, NY; County Parcel ~1000-66-1-31. Zone: R-40 Residential. Property size: 1.45+-acres. ROBERT BROWN, ARCHITECT: My name is Robert Brown and I'm an architect for the Halperts. CHAIRMAN: Since then we've received a letter from, I assume it's a surrounding property owner, regarding the kitchen. MR. BROWN: The previous owner. CHAIRMAN: Oh, the previous owner. MR. BROWN: The previous owner of the property. CHAIRMAN: Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. You're absolutely correct. O.K. What would you Hke to tell us? MR. BROWN: Well, you probably have before you copies of a revised plan based on our interpretation of comments from our previous hearing. We have endeavored to use - to stay - mostly within the existing footprint of the garage structure including the deck. We have a 3 ft. increase on what is now the potting shed. Basically, what we have tried to do is to provide - (Mr. Brown was asked to speak louder because of difficulty in hearing his presentation. ) MR. BROWN: We have endeavored to provide the pre-existing apartment upstairs into the footprint of the whole garage and deck downstairs. The area where we have extended beyond the existing footprint is a 3 ft. Page 2 - Transcript $~Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals extension on what is now the potting shed which, I believe, is on the west end of the property - of the structure. CHAIRMAN: The only thing that I find extremely large in this house is the foyer. I mean it almost appears to be one quarter of the cottage. I'm not an architect - I've been around some construction and that's an extremely large area for a cottage. MR. BROWN: Well, in a sense, it is. Since we are providing storage upstairs, we wanted someone to be able to move things around at the bottom of the stairs, first of all. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BROWN: And one of the issues dealing with providing a new use in an existing structure is that there intends to be some inefficiency in that. As I said, you need room to move things around or get them up and down the stairs for storage - that is to our large foyer. Certainly, the bathroom could be slightly larger; the kitchen~ the laundry area could be increased and still be reasonable sized rooms to take up the foyer but basically we didn't see any necessity for that. CHAIRMAN: Off of the existing drawing, could you just tell us what the actual upstairs square footage is now? MR. BROWN: I hope I have that with me. CHAIRMAN: If not, you can supply us with that. MR. BROWN: Sorry? CHAIRMAN: It's no problem. You can call us tomorrow with it. It's not a problem. It appears that the assessor's card, Mr. Brown, says it's 480 sq. ft. MR. BROWN: That sounds very familiar. CHAIRMAN: Second floor - 20 x 24, It does not encroach over the top of the potting shed. That's one story, right? MR. BROWN: That is correct. CHAIRMAN: Right. So, it's 480 sq. ft. approximately according to the MEMBER TORTORA: The total square footage of living area? MR. BROWN: I believe the total square footage - CHAIRMAN: As applied for. MR. BROWN: I believe we were adding 210 sq. ft. I don't have that number in front of me. Page 3 - Transcript i-lHearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: You gave me the figures today. It was 378 sq. ft. plus the existing 480 - 858 total. CHAIRMAN: Is that correct? MR. BROWN: Yes, those were the numbers I had. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Alright, while you're standing there I think we'll start with Mr. Doyen. Mr. Doyen, do you have any questions for Mr. Brown? MEMBER DOYEN: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're going from upstairs to downstairs? MR. BROWN: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Underneath the deck - that is where the livingroom is going to be - the existing deck - you're going to build an extension? MR. BROWN: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Will that go - MR. BROWN: They intend to have a cathedral ceiling - MEMBER DINIZIO: So; there won't be a second story on top of that? MR. BROWN: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: O.K. I think that's all I have. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, the only concern I had was with relation to the over-all size of the foyer (simultaneous discussion). MR. BROWN: Unfortunately, when you're dealing with putting a different use in an existing structure, there are some additions. If we do get approval on this, we would have the storage upstairs, and it is seasonal storage. Some of it could be bulky so we want to provide as much room around the stairs as we can. MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks to me Hke that's what 12 - ft.? That foyer is 12 ft. square, maybe. It's not really as large - MR. BROWN: I believe it's between 8 and 10. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it's not that large reaily. The other rooms are' small. MR. BROWN: It seems relatively large compared to, for example, the laundry room. Page 4 - Transcript ~lHearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. CHAIRMAN: Now, this is going to be heated and air-conditioned? MR. BROWN: We would like to provide heat in there and air conditioning, yes. CHAIRMAN: And you don't have any ob3eetion to- a restriction being placed on it, regardless of what size it is, that it not be rented to anyone other than to be used by family members? MR. BROWN: No problem with that. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No more questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: I just wanted to get it clear on the record that you are expanding the footprint of the building relative to the potting shed. CHAIRMAN: Right. And the deck. MR. BROWN: I'm not sure I understand, Mr. Goehringer. CHAIRMAN: The 3 ft. addition that you're putting on the potting shed. MR. BROWN: 3 additional feet on the potting shed. Yes. MEMBER VILLA: So, you're expanding the footprint? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. Alright. We'll see if anybody else has any questions while you're standing there. Would anybody else like to speak in favor? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to speak against? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: O.K. Hearing no further comments - any comments from anyone else? O.K., I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving a decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. ~i~i~ ~_~,_~TT'~r"~ .BY SO O ~ ~LD TO ~ ~ ~ C~Ri CHAIRMAN: All in favor? DATE 3-/~/~ 7 ~IOUR //'' / ~'' (Ail ayes. ) __~~,~~5~,_____ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio. Jr. Southold. New York 11971 · 4q'~m~m~O~[,~.,,,m,, /~ ~5//~ E Fax (5!6) 765-1823 L~vdia A. Tortora ~ Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUq'I-IOLD TRANSCRIPT OF MARCH 13, 1997 HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:43 p .m. Appl. #4453 EDWARD AND EV ELX-N HALPERT.(continued from 2/6/97) Request for variance ro alter and/or expand nonconforming building which has contained a nonconforming guest or living unit, separam and accessory to the main dwelling. Location of Property: 2125 Town Harbor Lane, Southold, NY; County Parcel ~1000-66-1-31. Zone: 1t-40 Residential. Property size: t.45+-acres. ROBERT BROWN, ARCHITECT: My name is Robert Brown and I'm an architect for the Halperrs. CHAIRMAN: Since then we've received a letter from, I assume it's a surrounding property owner, regarding the kitchen. MR. BROWN: The previous owner. CHAIRMAN: Oh, the previous owner. MR. BROWN: The previous owner of the property. CHAIRMAN: Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. You're absolutely correct. O.K. What would you like to tell us? MR. BROWN: Well, you probably have before you copies of a revised plan based on our interpretation of comments from our previous hearing. We have endeavored to use - to stay - mostly within the existing footprint of the garage structure including the deck. We have a 3 ft. increase on what is now the potting shed. Basically, what we have tried to do is to provide - (Mr. Brown was asked to speak louder because of difficulty in hearing his presentation. ) MR. BROWN: We have endeavored to provide the pre-existing apartment upstairs into the footprint of the whole garage and deck downstairs. The area where we have extended beyond the existing footprint is a 3 ft. Page 3 - Transcript of Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals . MEMBER TORTORA: You gave me the figures today, tt was 378 sq. ft. plus the existing 480 - 858 total. CHAIRMAN: Is that correct? MR~ BROWN: Yes, those were the numbers I had. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Alright, while you're standing there t *hink we'll start with Mr. Doyen. Mr. Doyen, do you have any questions for Mr. Brown? MEMBER DOYEN: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're going from upstairs to downstairs? MR. BROWN: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Underneath the deck - that is where the livin~oom is going to be - the existing deck - you're going to build an extension? MR. BROWN: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Will that go - MR. BROWN: They intend To have a cathedral ceiling - MEMBER DINtZtO: So, there won't be a second story on top of that? MR. BROWN: No. MF~MBER DIIvIZIO: O.K. I think that's all I have. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, the only concern I had was with relation ~o the over-ali size of the foyer (simultaneous discussion). MR. BROWN: Unfortunately, when you're dealing with putting a different use in an existing structure, there are some additions. If we do get approval on this, we would have the storage upstairs, and it is seasonal storage. Some of it could be bulky- so we want to provide as much room around the stairs as we can. MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks to me like that's what 12 - ft.? That foyer is 12 ft. square, maybe. It's not really as large - MR. BROWN: I believe it's between 8 and 10. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it's not that large really. The other rooms are small. MR. BROWN: It seems relatively large compared to, for example, the laundry room. Page 4 - Transcript of Regular Meeting of March i3} 19§7 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeais MEMBER DINtZIO: Righi: CHAIRMAN: Now, this is going to be heated and air-conditioned? MR. BROWN: We would like to provide heat in there and air conditioning, yes. CHAIRMAN: And you don't have any objection to, a restriction being placed on it, regardless of what size it is, that it not be rented to anyone other than to be used by family members? 1~. BROWN: No problem with that. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No more questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: I just wanted to get it clear on the record that you are expanding the footprint of the building relative to the potting shed. CHAIR~fLhN: Right. And the deck. MR. BROWN: I'm not sure I understand, Mr. Goehringer. CHAIRMAN: The 3 ft. addition that you're putting on the potting shed. MR. BROWN: 3 additional feet on the potting shed. Yes. MEMBER VILLA: So, you're expanding the footprint? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. Alright. We'll see if anybody else has any questions while you're standing there. Would anybody else Hke to speak in favor? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to speak against? (No one wished to speak.) CHAIRMAN: O.K. Hearing no further comments - any comments from anyone else? O.K., I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving a decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. i ~'~ CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (AH ayes.) TRANSCRIPT OF MARCH 13, 1997 HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:55 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Appl. Nos. 4429SE and 4430, by LILCO as Contract Vendee. Both applications apply to premises referred re as 8550 (vacant land) Main Road, Mattituck (near Laurel), identified as 1000-122-7-6.8, further identified as Lot #2 consisting of 35,798 sr. as shown on the Subdivision of Map of "Frank Murphy Garden Center", approved by the Southold Town Planning Board 4/12/1982. Applicant, as Contract Vendee, is requesting: (a) Appl. No. 4429SE - Special Exception for Use of Vacant Land as shown on plot plan for a compressor station building with fence enclosure in this "B" General Business District. (b) Appl, No. 4430 Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-231-A for permission to construct fence enclosure, which exceeds maximum fence height restriction of 6 feet when located in the front yard, and which exceeds 6-1/2 feet in or along side and rear yards. CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight, sir? Could you state your name for the record? MR. ENG: Yes, Michael Eng, Counselor for Long Island Lighting Company; 175 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York 11801. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the Board. I'm sure that the Board is well familiar with this particular application, so I'll be relatively brief. The application, as one is aware, is basically for a Special Exception ~o enable LILCO to construct a gas compressor station here on the Main Road. It's also for a variance to enable LILCO to erect an 8 ft. fence. The purpose for our work is basically to maintain, and even improve, the gas operating pressure in our gas distribution system which serves our 4,000 gas customers who are residents of this town. In addition, we believe that this work will lift the moratorium that presently exists with respec! to gas work on this (coughing) of the town, The application tonight, Mr. Chairman, as you indicate, was just re-opened specially to address the Fire Chief's copy of the letter of January of this year in which he raised several issues. As I'm sure all of you are aware, we have met with Fire Chief Cox. We have resolved the concerns and his concerns are immoralized in the letter that was submitted to the Board in February of this year and just to put into the record, he cites "I have had the opportunity to sit down with LILCO's representatives and the Holtsville Fire Chief. After debriefing of plant operations and tour of the Holtsville facilities, I was amazed of the safety an~d security built in with numerous back ups." Basically, now having been put first on the list with respect to any notifications, he Page 2 - Transcript dr LILCO Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals has approved our project. The variance is basically, as I said, for the 8 ft. fence the reason being is that it's our standard operating procedure with respect to any facility, all-be-it whether it's a gas operating facility or a substation. It's a matter of safety for us. We just don't want anyone going over the fence and, again, that's cor~formity with our standards. We strongly believe that this work will benefit the health, safety and morales of the people in the Town of Southold and [ ask that the application be granted in all respects. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Just before you sit down, we'll discuss it with the Board and see if there's anything else. I, again, also want to say to you and your staff that we have had tremendous, tremendous basically support from you to the visit that I did of the Hicksville Plant to the nice, affordable situation that James Cox dealt with and, I think, the other two chiefs that were with him that night to the Holtsville Plant. We really do appreciate that and, again, it's extremely constructive. It just makes our job so much easier as far as issues raised concerning evacuation and emergency response. This is a situation that is just absolutely, totally productive and we do appreciate it. MR. ENG: Mr. Chairman, we're happy to hear that and, as always, LILCO is here to serve and we're happy that we were able to alleviate a few things. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: No, just to say that basically the record stands on its own and all the other testimonies as far as what type of fencing is necessary for safety. I have no objections. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe that is a 7 ft. fence thai we're discussing. Am I correct on that? MR. ENG: 7 ft. and 1 ft. for the barbed wire. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. MEMBER TORTORA: 7 ft. and 1 ft. of barbed wire? CHAIRMAN: 1 ft. for the barbed wire. MEMBER TORTORA: That's 8 ft. then. CHAIRMAN: Right. We would ask during the hearing could the barbed wire be turned in a different direction and so on and so forth but [t Page 3 - Transcript ~oI~'LILCO Hearings Regular Meeting of March [[3, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals was brought to our attention that that is basically the way the design specifications are for the barbed wire so as not to allow someone to climb into the facility. MR. ENG: That's absolutely right. As a matter of fact, a story that 1 can relate co that happened at a ZBA application in Roslyn - LILCO was receiving some flack with respect to installing barbed wire on the fenee, similar to what we're installing here. There were couple of town constituents who came and...when I was up there. Someone else also stood up. It was a woman whose son had a little incident with respect ~o him playing soccer with his friends one day. She relayed the story and the story is basically that her son was playing soccer and one of the boys kicked the ball over the fence and she said if it were not for the barbed wire, she was sure that her son would have - CHAIRMAN: Climbed the fence. MI{. ENG: Climbed the fence. Our policy 'is that we don't want anyone climbing the fence but, more than that, we don't want anyone thinking about climbing the fence. Obviously our interest is to serve; the Town's interest is to serve and your interest is to serve. CHAIRMAN: And, of course, the impact analysis on this is that there's going to be a bunker type of situation that will lessen the impact. MR. ENG: That's right. You will probably not see it from street level. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No questions, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Again, Mr. Eng, we appreciate it and I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MR. ENG: We thank you. CHAIRMAN: We'll probably make our decision shortly. MR. ENG: O.K. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? (All ayes. ) (Mr. James Hickey began to speak against the application. Chairman Goehringer interrupted him and made a motion to rescind the motion closing the hearing. Member Tortora seconded the motion. All ayes.) Page 4 - Transcript '~rtLILCO Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hickey, we couldn't make this part of the hearing because we already closed the hearing so now you can speak, sir. MR. JAMES HICKEY, Old Main Rd., Mattituck: O.K. About ? months ago, they were doing a test boring at that site. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MR. HICKEY: I walked over there and I spoke to the LILCO representative. He asked me a question - he asked me if there was ever a gas station on that site. I said "no". I said "Why do you ask?" He said "Wherever we're digging, we're getting a strong odor of gasoline or petroleum". It was never a gas station. Alright? Now, how deep do they bore when they test - the depth of the foundation, correct? MEMBER VILLA: No, the previous test showed the borings down 45 ft. I asked that question. MR. HICKEY: You did, huh? MEMBER VILLA: Yes. MR. HICKEY: It didn't look like 45 ft. to me - about every 3 ft. they were hitting concrete. When I found out that the site was approved, I called for the inspector who approved it and I asked him a simple question, i asked him if that site was physically inspected and he asked "What do I mean?" I said "I can't get any plainer. Did you physically inspect that site" and he replied to me "I don't have to answer that". I got off the phone and I called Jean Cochran and she said he was wrong; she'd have him call me back. I told her "Never mind; I believe he answered my question". I called Congressman Forbes Office and they concurred with me. I then cai]ed the DEC in regards to illegal dumping next to my house. Mr. Chairman, you're familiar with that site, correct? CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. I live in Mattituck. MR. HICKEY: A long time, correct? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. HICKEY: You used to go to my house once in a while, right? When Frank Murphy lived there? CHAIRMAN: Yes, we had Park District Meetings there. MR. HICKEY: O.K. You must remember when he started filling in that hole - the LILCO Site. Page 5 - Transcript ~l-' LILCO Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I recollect that there was some construction debris such as trees and so on and so forth. MR. HICKEY: Stumps. CHAIRMAN: I don't know about any stumps. MR. HICKEY: How about when the Town Supervisor won the contract for the roadwork in Laurel and he dumped all the concrete and other rubble in that hole. And then there used To be several - quite a few drums of waste oil stored behind that old barn. All of a sudden, that oil disappeared the drums. Now, Walter Steamfitter (sp.) and I became very friendly and he used to tell me that he couldn't believe what a certain party dumped in that hole. Now, I'm pretty sure there might be contaminated oil under that site. In January, Supervisor Cochran and Jim McMann came to my house. Through my property is about the only way you can get to the back of that site without breaking your leg. They were appalled at what they saw and stated - they concurred with my opinion of the inspection and if LILCO should never build on that p~operty there are bits of metal, concrete, macadam, plastic flower pots one gallon size, stacks of plastic trays protruding from the ground at that site. There have been 200-300 cubic yards of clean fill left in that site from the McDonald property. It was supposed to be pushed over and covered and somebody messed up and they removed it. If I was LILCO, I'd have the site checked by Tyree (sp.) or Clean Harvest to make sure there's no oil because as Kathy Schego (sp.) said, from the D.EC., they're supposed to check that area for hazardous materials and ground water contamination..If oil shows up in one of my wells - the irrigation well that's adjacent to that property what's going to happen? Are you going to move the LILCO building to get the oil out or what? What's the story? CHAIRMAN: I can't answer that question, sir. MR. HICKEY: Who can? CHAIRMAN: I don't know. MR. HICKEY: Was that site ever physically inspected by anyone from LILCO? CHAIRMAN: I don't know. We'll have to ask LILCO. MR. HICKEY: I'm asking LILCO. CHAIRMAN: No, you're asking us. I have a report here from Andrew Stype who is one of the owners of the property - MR. HICKEY: I'm sure he knew it was there before he bought it. Page 6 - Transcript '~r' LILCO Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board Of Appeals CHAIRMAN: which was dated June 25, 1996, produced by Robert H. Whelan, P.E., which indicates the test borings at 45 ft. I'm glad Mr. Villa mentioned that - I thought it was 40 ft2 I assume what was found, you know, in the area - MR. HICKEY: It's very odd that the LILCO man was getting a strong odor of gasoline and petroleum and they came up with nothing. Perhaps maybe the soil was switched? Something's not kosher. CHAIRMAN: For the record, the only thing that I ever saw placed on that property during the years that I knew and still know Mr. Murphy, was, as I said, some trees, some sand - that's basically it. I have no - MR. HICKEY: Did you see the concrete from Route 25 - the macadam? CHAIRMAN: I saw the concrete stored there. I have no idea what happened to the concrete. O.K.? Se, that's basically it. MR. HICKEY: Wires are protruding right out of the ground. CHAIRMAN: We have questioned LILCO in reference their test borings . during, I believe, the first hearing. They are well aware and I think that's one of the reasons why the underpinning that they're putting in to hold these compressor pads up are to the depth that they were aniicipating. MR. HICKEY: Are you familiar with the compressor station in Riverhead? CHAIRMAN: I'm familiar with the compressor station that I was shown in Hicksville. MR. HICKEY: No, did they show you Riverhead? CHAIRMAN: They did not show me Riverhead. MR. HICKEY: I wonder why. Are you aware that 17 years ago there was a fire on a tank car on the railroad tracks? CHAIRMAN: I was there, sir. I'm a 29 year veteran of the Mattituck Fire Department. MR. HICKEY: Are you aware that on the other side of the river LILCO had ten large propane storage tanks? CHAIRMAN: That's where we pumped the water from. MR. HICKEY: O.K. Are you aware that they told the man that was manning that station to be prepared to evacuate and shut everything down and get out of there? CHAIRMAN: I think that could have been a possibility because it was - Page 7 - Transcript ~)~'~LILCO ilearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MR. HICKEY: I was talking to the man who did it but he won't give his name because he fears for his pension. CHAIRMAN: Just let me ask you - what, Mr. Hickey, are you extremely concerned about? Are you concerned about the site itself or - MR. HICKEY: The site itself and the danger. CHAIRMAN: Danger of what? MR. HICKEY: Natural gas, the most unstable substance, on estate with the earth. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Did they explain to you what the entire support system of this compressor is supposed to be? MR. HICKEY: Nobody explained nothing to me and, as far as I'm concerned, LILCO csn take their gas main and re-route it up to Sound Avenue where they own 500 acres in Jamesport and somewhere there they could stick their own compressor station where the only thing they'd be endangering is a potato field or something - not 30 ft. from my property, plus Brisotti's, plus McDonalds. If the thing ever blew up, you'd have another inlet. I don't see how, in good faith, this Board can approve that site for anything other than a parking lot because if you come over to my house and I'll lead you to it and show you what's there. How anyone can build on that crap is beyond me. CHAIRMAN: I walked the site with Mr. Stype approximately the same time - MR. HICKEY: When did you walk? What month? CHAIRMAN: Approximately the same time that you met with Supervisor Cochran and Jim McMahon. In fact, ii was within days of that~ MR. HICKEY: What did you find? CHAIRMAN: I found some sand MR. HICKEY: To the rear of it where it's way open by about 50-60 ft. - CHAIRMAN: Not on this property but on the proper~y - MR. HICKE¥: On the LILCO property. CHAIRMAN: I found nothing on the LILCO property au the time. MR. HICKEY: [ sugges~ that you mee~ me temorrow and I'll show you. CHAIRMAN: I don't have any problems meeting you, sir, but I don't know what I'm looking for. Page 8 - Transcript o2 LILCO Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MR. HICKEY: I'll show you. I'll show you the same thing that Jean Cochran saw and Jim McMahon saw. I know where you walked. You probably walked as far as Brisotti's Parking lot and looked. CHAIRMAN: No, I did not, sir. When I came out, my feet were filthy. MR. HICKEY: Did you walk the property line? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. HICKEY: You went down in the hole? CHAIRMAN: Yes. In fact, the property line was rolled for me by Mr. Stype. He had a measuring utensil with him - the same one that I use every day. MR. HICKEY: Up in that dump they put a concrete monument that lasted about two days and it was bulldozed so that dump is part of LILCO's property too. That would be pretty good fencing that in. CHAIRMAN: What are you actually - what do you want us to do, sir? MR. HICKEY: Disapprove the site completely. CHAIRMAN: Because of environmental hazards? MR. HICKEY: Yes, that's one thing. CHAIRMAN: And what else? MR. HICKEY: I believe there's contamination there - oil. Plus, it's unsuitable to build there. CHAIRMAN: O.K. MEMBER VILLA: Could you clarify there's more to this piece of property than what LILCO is proposing to build on. I think the piece that's still being filled in the back is not part of this deed. CHAIRMAN: That's exactly what I said. MR. HICKEY: Part of it is LILCO property. I saw them put the monument there. CHAIRMAN: It goes to that wall - you know the wall to the barn where the barn is over there? There's an old road by the wall that goes approximate to that site. That's where we rolled it to. We then went across the sand, which is basically - MR. HIcKEY: I'm familiar with the property. Page 9 - Transcript '~FLILCO Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: - and then all the way around into the hole and all on the opposite side and came back out again. I understand what you're saying. The question that I have is: if this organization is aware of what actually is there - MR. HICKEY: Then I suggest have LILCO come to my residence, afterall I have gas heat and I get that crazing weather. CHAIRMAN: So, that's basically the situation as I know it. We'll take it under advisement and go from there, that's all I can do. MR. HICKEY: Another thing, this evacuation, what are you evacuating? CHAIRMAN: I'm not evacuating anything. MR. HICKEY: When gas goes, this goes. You're a fireman~ you should know that. CHAIRMAN: There isn't anybody that knows when gas goes, it goes, there's no question about it, propane, regular, it doesn't make any difference,, natural gas. This is a support compressor to build up. There's nothing in this compressor. I looked at the compressor that they have presently in Hicksville. MR. HICKEY: Is there going to be a storage tank? CHIARMAN: There is no storage in this one. The one that I looked at in Hicksville was twice the size of the one that their anticipating building here. MR. HICKEY: And there's going to be a deisel engine operating it? CHIARMAN: There's going to be two compressors. Two different types. I'll let them explain it to you in once second. Just let me say this. There's is no storage. The one that I looked at had storage and was twice the size of the ones they were building here, in Mattituck. MEMBER VILLA: I have a question of LILCO. Did you have test drawings that did show us going down to 45 feet, I believe, did you not? BOB HOGG: Yes, checked the soil, all the way down 45 feet. MEMBER VILLA: Do you have another copy of that? CHAIRMAN: 'You can give it to us tomorrow, Mr. Hogg, if you don't have it. Let me just ask a question Mr. Eng. Do you want to discuss this with this gentleman tonight in some way? He raises some interesting issues, issues that I notice LILCO is some privy to. You can meet hime outside. MR. ENG: That's fine. Let me just address some of these concerns on the record. I appreciate your concern Mr. Hickey. Unfortunately, it's very diffucult to address. I think we can all agree by speculative, or Page 10 - Transcrip{~ (if LILCO Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals conjectural, based on second and third hand heresay, I have no ideal who supposedly he met with at the site, a local representative who indicated that there was an odor of gas. I have never heard that. My representatives have never heard that fact, I do know there is a gas station nearby, so maybe it was coming from the gas station a thousand feet away. CHAIRMAN: I thought about that, but there are two, there's a vacant piece between the gas station. Of course, we know there's been a leak in the gas station. It's been all over the paper. There's also a vacant piece in between there. There's a house which is in the Business Zone, there's McDonald's and there's an insurance agent and Mr. Hickey's house. There are basically four places which have shown to my knowledge no intrusion of anything at this time, but I do have to poini out to you that all of the properties south of the main road and I think Mr. Villa, I'm not speaking for him because for 33 years worked for the Health Department or the Department of Health Services that it's extremely sandy soft so there's great water intrusion. Pop water intrusion going down. Again, if you had something, I think something would show up at that point. MR. ENG: I understand. As Mr. Chairman, as you acknowledge, the present owner, Stype, had an independent consultant come and do test boilings. He found that there was clean soil to the depth of ten feet. He specifically found that clear there was noxtious or foul odors anywhere on the piece of property we were looking to install this gas compressor stations. We have also have a DEC Permit, they have approved our work. We're only using about 50% of the property, nos the entire property as you pointed out. Part of the problem is that I know Mr. Hickey has addressed his concerns before I believe, in a letter to the Board. I'm wondering why he didn't retain his own consultant. He certainly had the opportunity, I'm sure there available and I am perplexed that in all the times that he has been opposed to this has not retained someone to acutally retest borings or even contact them. CHAIRMAN: He has called our office in the past but this is the actual first time that he has come to the hearing in the three hearing that we had, so, therefore, there is a concern at this particular point and that's pragmatically why I'm suggesting that maybe there are certain issues that you can resolve with him tonight based upon having the great minds that you have here, particularly your engineer. If we can forward with that, and at least isolate what we need at this point, so as the purpose of concluding this hearing. MR. ENG. We have no problem with that. We can meet with them tonight, tomorrow, whatever. My point is that a lot of it is really conjectural to mine ~nd nothing you face the facts, I'd like Mr. Hickey to give us something factual. For instance his statement that natural gas is the most dangerous substance on the face of the earth. I can tell you that in prior applications before the Zoning Board, natural gas has a higher flash point than the gas station a thousand feet away that is petroleum and therefore is going to be more diffiicult to become Page 11 - Transcript' df LILCO Hearings Regular Meeting of March 13, 1997 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals flammable to natural gas. It's a very safe l~roduct, believe me. We use it at Hicksville in our facilities. Hicksville is where our executive offices are located. If you look in the text books you'll see that this is a safe product. Again, Mr. Hickey says, he believesthere's contamination. From the results we've seen and more particularly from the site report nothing has been found. I think that Mr. Hickey just doesn't want us there, period. I think that the only thing that would appease him is if we move away. MR. HICKEY. Excuse me, tomorrow you come to my house. That will appease. CHAIRMAN: Are you finished Mr. Eng? MR. ENG: As I said, both Cypros and LILCO believe that there's obviously a minimum risk involved otherwise we would be going forward with the project. CHAIRMAN: What would you have to find and this is not s question you have to answer this second, but, this question I'd like To know before the end of the evening. What would you have to find that would actuaily make you feel that you didn't want this piece of property? MR. ENG: That's s very difficult question. CHAIRMAN: I mean, if you found intrusion, some sought of petroleum, some sought of diesel, some sought of gasoline, certainly thai would be an environmental cleanup which would be a very expensive thing. MR. ENG: That's true, but again, looking at the site report, specificaly I shouldn't find anything, our engineers have agreed with that and we said there's very minimal risk involved and that's why we're going forward. We've had no prior incidents at any of our other compressors that are on Long Island, so if history is any indication I think it goes well. MEMBER VILLA: You keep referring to site reports. Site reports basically only a ten-fold went down ten feet. They weren't really looking for anything that might have resulted in a liquid form which would penetrate down. I remember seeing the other test boring I believe and that's why I had more faith in the other test boring. You're hanging a lot on the site report and that was basically ten feet. It doesn't really tell you a heck of a lot. MEMBER DINIZIO:: Number 1, the footings you intend to pour, what is to support the vices that your going to put on these of property? How large would that be? MR. ENG: Let me divert you to Mr. Hogg. Continue on cassette tape 2, sides A and B) age 12 CONTINUED TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING March 13, 1997 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Continued Hearing Prepared by Lucy Farrell) Appl. No. 4429SE and 4430 -LILCO MEMBER DINIZIO - Well, I'm looking to compare to the size of the land, the size of the footing that you intend to pour for the devices thai you intend to put in. In other' words, the two compressors. MR. HOGG: These two compressors that I'm putting in is 10 x 20. MEMBER DINIZIO: 10 x 20, OK, so you're taking up a 20 × 40 sq. ft. patch of this property separated by what? MR. HOGG: It's probably going to be more, 20 by, almost a square when you - MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, they're going to be very close together then, MR. HOGG: Yes. MEMBER DINZIO: How large is the land? MR. HOGG: I think it's almost an acre. MEMBER DINIZIO: Almost an acre and the test points were not done - specifically to find the - , oil, you were never required to do thai. They were more just to find where you could find good footing. MR. HOGG: Exactly. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, and if we approve this, saying you went to start building, and you started digging, and you found out that you cou!dn't ( ) foundation at l0 feet and I'm assumin~ that the building inspector is going to come and inspect those foundations. He's going to make a determination at that time if that particular ground can support the foundation that you want to put in. Am I correct on that. You're an engineer? MR. HOGG: I assume that lhe building inspector would come in and inspect it. Page i3- Hearing Transcripts March 13, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, you're going to be subjected to that in that particular area. MR. HOGG: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so our granting that or not granting that, really has not too much to do with the environment or what's dumped on there, but more with us agreeing that compressors in this particular area are somewhat compatible. I can assume that. We're talking a very small patch of land and from all the testimony, a fairly safe technology. MR. HOGG: Right and there's no storage of anything on it. Gas basically comes into the compressors, gets boostered up, goes back out into the system and operates the system with the same pressure that the gas - just gives it a little boost on the cold days. MEMBER DINIZIO: Alright, I just want to emphasize that the footing in the test points were not done. Even if they were at 45 feet, it really wouldn't make a difference other than the fact that you intend to go down l0 feet or 16, I forget what it was to pour your footing. MR. HOGG: Right, to clear the soil and pour the footing. 45 feet from where - the depth would be - MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes~ not to look for anything other than structural of the land involved. MR. HOGG: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. THat's all I have, thank you. MR. HOGG: I have a copyi of - MEMBER VILLA: Your pilings direct you to go down 50 feet though, right? MR. HOGG: Oh! Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you just run through the, just quickly the first hearing, ijust two seconds, the two different types of compressors, just restate that again for the record so that this gentleman is aware of it. MR. HOGG: Certainly. Basically, two compressors won't take the gas from a say about 30 pounds up to 60 pounds to push it up further -. One compressor will be driven by an electric motor which will be the one that is operated most of the time, there's also one that will be on the gas engine that will be the back-up for those days if we have a power failure and can't get - Page 24- Hearing Transcripts March 13, 1997 - Beard of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Natural gas? MR. HOGG. Natural gas. It's coming off the same system. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGEI{: Thank you, and the pad that. I looked at in Hieksville, was approximately how thiek? It was about 8 to 10 inches? MR.~ HOGG: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't remember if it was 8 or 10, something of that nature. The one that you had laying right on the ground. That this compressor plant was - MR. HOGG: Right, It's about an 8 inch pad - CHAIRMAN GOEHR. INGER: Alright, any other questions? OK. Anything that you can do to discuss this with this gentle~nan, we'll elose the hearing right after that and we'll go from there, if you so choose to tonight; We're going to go on to the last hearing and then we'll come back and just wrap it up. Is that airight Mr. Eng? MR. ENG: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll just make a motion recessing this for about 20 minutes. MEMBER VILLA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor. BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. (Moved by Ms. Tortora and second by Chairman Goehringer to reopen LILCO hearing approximately 8:55 P.M.) MR. ENG: I spoke with colleges, my in-house client, LILCO, met with Mr. Hickey outside for 10-15 minutes a while ago. He has raised some questions, those questions require us to look into them. Obviously, we can't do it tonight to get answers back. I obviously need to meet with my folks, - Department, go back and take a look at any tests that we performed. We did perform some test, we know we got this minimal risk involved but now in view of the questions that Mr. Hickey is raising, specifically, I want to go back and make sure that we can satisfy him as well as well as satisfying yourself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can we then close the hearing on April 10th? Page 15- Hearing Transcripts March 13, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. ENG: t don't see why we couldn't. Also, the hearing issue isn't that we really do, we have to speak to Mr. Stype, who obviously owns the property in -. Since obviously all those issues cannot be addressed we'll resolve tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, again we opened this hearing once for the Fire Department. It doesn't make sense to me, normally we're three weeks away. We'll wrap it up by then and hopefully we'll have everything done and we'll take everybody's consideration. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is that enough time? April~ 10th, is that enough time for you? MR. ENG: I presume it is, but what I'll do is I'll sought of keep in touch with you folks and if we need more time, I'll certainly let you know. MEMBER TORTORA: The purpose of the recess so we can understand what you're actually going to provide us with. MR. ENG: Basically we're going to be looking into the questions that Mr. Hickey raised and that we will hope to try and resolve and that's the purpose of the adjournment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you a question. I'm not going to swear you in for this, OK. Do you have any specific problem with this property at this particular point? MR. ENG: No, we don't. From what my engineers have told me is that we can go forward. There's minimal risk involved and we agree by the site. Now, again, minimal risk, maybe some individuals may see it as less than minimal - minimal. You know, again, it's a matter of degree. Was there risk in - Hicksville to Southold tonight? Sure, but it's minimal. So, it's all relative. I want to go back and make sure of the results before I give you my word that as a representative of the company, in order to also appease and officiate Mr. Hlckey are key concern. MEMBER TORTORA: Wouldn't there be DEC and - Department of Health have any records of any possible - MR. ENG: Mrs. Tortora, that's one question I don't know the answer to and that's why the adjournment will allow us time to investigate. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jim. MR. DINIZIO: Could I ask you just to give us~ you know, say a week before the hearing, some letter stating the concerns that Mr. Hickey raised and how, you know, if you've addressed them, if you feel that there not important to address, so that when it comes Page 16 - Hearing Transcmpts March 13, 1997 - Board of Appeals back, when we come to closing it, it doesn't have to be, it could be two paragraphs, it doesn't have to be - MR. ENG: Sure, hopefully, maybe I can even go one step better. Is there someone I can contact on the Board, we could discuss over the telephone, I could even do that? MEMBER DINIZIO: Know, I would prefer, that it be in writing within the record. MR. ENG: No, obviously, anything that, being a lawyer, anything I say orally, I always follow it in writing anyway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again, I say to you, this is just another example of how you people want to take care of ail the Is and all the tees, we appreciate that, we sincerely do. MR. ENG: We do, obviously we'd like to go forward, get the work doI~e so that we can obviously better serve our customers in this coming-up winter, but obviously questions are raised, we want to' look into them, we don't want to run away from them and that's why I said, lets take an adjournment and we'll look into it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. ENG: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions I'll make a motion recessing to April ]0th. All in favor. BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 8:30 P.M. - Appl. No. 4458 - North Shore Yacht Sales by MICHAEL HUGHES - Continued hearing from 2/6/97 and from 2/25/97. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a Special Exception under Article X; Section 100-10lB-12 for new and used boat sales use at 11500 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel ~1000-122-3-6. Zone District: B-Business. (Site Owner: Harvey Bagshaw). Mr. Arnoff how are you tonight? In the interim Mr. Hughes has graciously come up with site plan and which indicates or encompasses ail of the questions that the, I'm not taking away from your presentation but, I'm just restating (Jokingly Mr. Arnoff made comment) which basically embodies all of the concerns that the Planning Board has, the concerns that deals with parking, the placement of boats, the display of boats, the ingress and egress and so on and so forth, and this was something that we were looking for as a norm basically for our file. I'm not speaking for the Board~ I'm basically talking for myself. Mr. Hughes had gotten this right after our last special meeting and we had it prior to whatever to view it, OK. We've Page iY- Hearing Transcripts March 13, 1997 - Board of Appeals looked at it and we will start with Mr. Villa. Do you have any specific questions? MEMBER VILLA: No, I don't have any questions at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: Now that we did this Special Exception, - last meeting and we have a site plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN? No. MR. ARNOFF: I know that you have received the letter from Mr. Bagshaw in regard to that lease as requested by the Planning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. MR. ARNOFF: This is not the place to deal with, but, I feel estranged to mentioned that the issue of five 4 foot planters in front of this property on a state highway~ I wonder, I just have to wonder out loud whether the Planning Board ever thought of parking in the Department of State, Department of Transportation, because it is my belief, that they've created s.n enormous traffic hazard. It's going to create accidents in this eommm~Jty and sobeit. That's what they've done and then I assume the town is responsible because they've directed it and that's a liability that this town may have to face and I think to place these planters in this, I mean you're all familiar with, I think everyone is familiar with this site that's driven main road more than twice and its just is ridiculous to put these planters there. No more ridiculous than perhaps the large trees they thought we should plant that would overhang the beats and block the view from the boats, so, I mean it is a compromise in one regard, at least there's not big things blocking people's view of what is being But, I really think they're not looking beyond the tip of their noses and a, but at this point, my client wants to open his business, so, I don't want to litigate that issue. I just want to make that statement so the Board can really take another look at this plan. MEMBER VILLA: Question, are they requiring curbs along that area? Page 18- Hearing T~fiscripts March 13, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. ARNOFF: No, they, planters and no curbs. MEMBER VILLA: No curbs. I was going to say, if you've got curbs, planters seem academic, but, if you don't have curbs - MEMBER TORTORA: And the planters that they're recommending is not big bushes. MR. ARNOFF: Oh! no, I understand that. I'm just complaining because you happen to be a convenient form. MEMBER VILLA: From a rationale, I would assume its to limit the access or what have you because you don't have cars going in and out. I mean you don,t have a curb there. That's why I asked you if you have a curb if you have a curb, you'd have a curb cut which would be directive. This is their way of assuming that they're goner try to direct traffic. MR. ARNOFF: Anyway, my client would appreciate as quick a decision as possible from this Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to mention to you, that the decision is specifically dealing with that one story cement block building. MR. ARNOFF: Absolutely, that was how the Planning Board - their approval. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, and the front property, OK, in front of that building, the rear of that building and then of course draping itself over to the back of or dog legging it to the back of the corrugated steel building which includes the metal building which he intends to use for corporation or whatever. MR. ARNOFF: The vacant property to the immediate west of the property is behind Mr. Mulligan. That's our understanding to this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, OK, thank you again. Mr. Ehlers, I understand you have some comments that you want to make. MR. EHLERS: Yes, thank you fox' the opportunity to address the Board. I'm Richard Ehlers, 456 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, N.Y. I represent Mr. Suter and I want to speak in this application first of all, Bay Road, we're certainly happy to go boat use and adjacent to sea food stores seems quite appropriate and tourist economy that the town is fostering both these boats and sea food and fishermen and pick out the type of boats they want to buy. But, we've been now drawn into this application by the Planning Board's direction that Mr. Bagshaw to cancel the lease with Mr. Surer and the plan that we had presented to you which you're voting on hopefully later, this evening a public hearing on for the sideyard variance our site Page i9- Hearing Tra~scr~.pts March 13, 1997 - Board of Appeals plan show parking on Mr. Bagshaw's piece which he has now chosen to terminate and we're in no dispute with him, we're strictly at his mercy and we understand that, but, to the extent that the Planning Board has directed that termination but we say essentially caused Mr. Suter to go out of business because he can't show the adequate parking. These are preexisting structures, I recall the Board going there, and parking with my parents in back of the movie theatre at that time, so the parking traditionally has been in back of the building and I think what Mr. Bressler, certainly he can speak for himself. I don't need to speak for him, but, I think what he and I are going to ask this Board is for some indication that parking will be permitted in the resident section to the rear of the Bagshaw parcel That would support the business use of Mr. Bagshaw's existing old movie theatre on the site as well as Mr. Suter's nocturnal as opposed to daytime use, using your code section which permits the counting of spaces where the uses aren't exclusive, are exclusive of each other and I think that's appropriate in this case, so, I wanted to come before the Board to say, we're going to have to ask you for that. I believe Mr. Bagshaw is going to say the same thing and if you're going to say no to that, then to approve this plan to lock in cement, that those seafood stores next door and Mr. Bagslmw's quantum hut can not ever have parking is just the imprudent thing to do. So, we're ail Jn favor of the boat storage, we'd like to see you approve it tonight, but want you to know, that we're now going to have to come back jointly and ask for parking in a resident section to the rear of the Bagshaw parcel. This support is use and non use. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record, I think Mr. Ehlers you and I are probably around the same age. You may be a little bit younger but I will for the record attest to the fact that I have parked back there. I also will attest to the fact that when Napa Auto Parts operated out of that building prior to Country Time Furniture, that the back of that building was used for parking, the steel corrugated building, the old movies. Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: As far as the Hughes' application tonight, are you suggesting in anyway that we should hold up that -? MR. EHLERS: No, not hold. MEMBER TORTORA: I just wanted to check that. I understand what you're saying. MR. EHLERS: No, we're strictly at Mr. Bagshaw's mercy, we need to have his permission to use the parking on his site. We just don't want such a plan to come about that prohibits him from giving us permission. MEMBER TORTORA: I understand and you will put something in writing to us regarding what you just said. Page i 20- ttearing Trahscrlpts Ma~ch 13, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. EHLERS: I'll do whatever you direct me to do. CHAIt~MAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this to you. Mr. Ehlers you're telling us that the Planning Board requested to relinquish - this parking - Mr. Bagshaw relinquish the parking OBi. What you're telling me and I think is that you're going to rekindle this agreement with Mr. Bagshaw after or during the process of Mr. Hughes' hearing. Mt{. EHLERS: We've got to redraw Mr. Bagshaw's rear of his parcel. What Mr. Bressler - particularly who is going to bear the expenses, t suspect Mr. Surer is. To draw a diagram that shows parking in a resident section and come back for a variance to this Board, such that, he can have parking for his building and parking for Mr. Surer and I understand that's something we'll have to go to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler, how are you tonight Sir? Mt{. BRESSLER: Very well, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which application you spealaing on, Eric? MR. BRESSLER: Hughes. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I represent Harvey Bagshaw, owner of the underlined property. We are in an unusual position with respect to this particular application and this particular property. Chairman, I know you are familiar with the use of the property. I presume the other Board Members are familiar to one degree or another, if not .by personal experience at least by word of mouth with the history of this particular parcel. There have been many uses on the parcel, I'm going many years. The movie theatre, the Map of Art of Hearts and at the same time there have been uses of a different nature to the adjoining building. You have Country Time Cycles in the main building, you have the pool people in the smaller building next door. At the same time this parcel was serving the needs for Mr. Surer, next door and parking wasn't a problem. Parking occurred on the property, it occurred in the front, it occurred in the back, there was always sufficient parking, in the main building, in the smaller building and for Larry Suter over here, and there was never a problem. Now, here we are as owners, we are trying to get a reasonable return out of this property. Low and behold what happens to us when we go down to the Planning Board. All of a sudden we have a site plan that has the infamous moveable planters that Mr. Arnoff who so elegantly deseribed right along the state highway, not one of the more brilliant ideas I've ever seen, is not attributable to this Board, and you have a parking plan that thoroughly provides for basically no parking in the front, all of the parking with one area in the back, thereby requiring additional use of property to get to the parking, and basieally a clamp was put on any use of the larger building. As you ail know, the parking Page 2i- Hearing ~ranscr~pts March ]3, 1997 - Board of Appeals generally took place in the front for thai building and now as a result of a leasing of this property which don't get me wrong, you're in favor of it, and speaking in fayor generally of the application, but, I have to point out to the Board as a result of this, our hands are tied with respect to that larger building. We've got nothing. Not only that, Mr. Ehler's client has even less than that. We have under compulsion canceled his parking on our parking, which to my way of thinking is not entirely rationale, his people park at night, this guy's parking is goner to be during the day. But, nonetheless, under compulsion we did that. So, what we would like to see, ultimately with this property is an ability to use the larger building and an ability to take care of Mr. Surer. Now how are going to accomplish all this? Well, I don't know what other Boards might have to say about this, but as far as this Board is concerned what we're goner ask you for is whatever relief you're empowered to give with respect to the requirements we're going to have to meet, particularly with respect to parking, which traditionally has occurred in the back door where the parcel is split zoned and we will be coming back to you most probably for some sought of relief and whatever type of relief we need there and whatever type of relief we need for Mr. Surer we're going to be asking for and we would ask you to look favorably upon that. We have gone along with everybody's requirements and now find there's some alternate position there we are essentially denied the use of the larger building when in fact two buildings have always been in use there. Willie this is not currently before you, I do want you to be aware so that we are not going to give up the use of that larger building, we need thai to make a reasonable return on the proparty and we don't want to put Larry Surer out of business. There's no reason for it. There's just no reason for it. There's just no reason for it all. So, that having been said, I would summarize by saying, we are in favor of the application, we think its a good use for a portion of the property, and we would ask that you act favorably on it. MEMBER VILLA: Can I ask you a question at this point. We had these two applications before us and I've had severe problems with this parking and what have you in my own mind. Is anyone working on sought of a master plan for these three parcels? BecaUse you know when this one came in, Hughes application came in. Where Mr. Surer use to park is not evidently indicated, there's goner be all boats lined up there. So, you know when you're saying that some people use it at day, and some people use it at night, that doesn't really have a bearing, because there's boats lined up along that road site, nobody's goner park there. MR. BRESSLER: No, that's a very good point. MEMBER VILLA: You're goner to need sought of a master plan for the three parcels. Now~ can't you get together and work something Page 22 - Hearing TI'anscrlpts March 13, 1997 - Board of Appeals out and then come before us because we're doing this piece meal and I don't like to address this piece mail. MR. BRESSLER: Nor do we and that's a very fair point and I would address two issues there. First of all we don't think that as part of an overall plan for the two buildings and Mr. Suter. That the parking plan as currently laid out makes any sense whatsoever. It is not a maximal utilization of the property, it makes no sense whatsoever and we're goner have to address that. MEMBER VILLA: It'd be better to address that with the Planning Board. I mean if they only have the one parcel they handle the one parcel. MR. BRESSLER: No, our- MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but, see that's why we have two separate applications. MR. BRESSLER: However, let me speak to the reason why. There is a reason why and the reason why is this. This parcel is laying empty. We can't afford to have this parcel ]ay empty. We have only one tenant, and these guys, and we want to get them in there. We are not in a position - We need him in there because we have to make a return on our property. There are taxes to be paid~ there is maintenance, you know, we just can't let this thing lay fallow. However, we are going to come back if as intend we get another tenant in there and we know what that use is going to be and we can come back with something that makes sense but we could not hold up this process because we couldn't afford to do it and I think that is a that some people just don't understand. Not this Board but, there are those around town who don't understand that. A perfect world we would make a beautified application but we just couldn't do it. Yes, we'll be back before you with what we hope is a more coherent plan for the entire parcel which would address your concern about where the parking is goner be - the boats. Obviously the parking should be up there for ail three buildings~ not making people drive all the way around in the back and creating a danger situation and also wasting that portion of the property driving all the way back. MEMBER VILLA: Yes, but assuming you get your three people together it's difficult, what you're saying that that doesn't make sense. Yet, you can use - 'hey, I want my boats up there because they're visiting.' There has to be a meeting of the minds here. · MR. BRESSLER: There is a meeting of the minds with Mr. Hughes. That also is a good point. One of the conditions not to get into all of the business details of the transaction but Mr. Hughes and his counsel are well aware of the fact that this is not the end of the day with respect to planning on this parcel and one of the Page 23 Hearing ~l~anser~pts March 13, 1997 - Board of Appeals provisions that we've discussed and agreed to in principle is that the configuration can be altered to address the concern that I'm raising with this Board and should we be successful in putting forth and persuading people to accept a rationale parking and usage plan for this that he is more than amenable to shifting these things around so that we can address those concerns. So that will be addressed in the lease arrangements. MEMBER VILLA: Yes and that's great and I can understand that, but the thing is I think you're putting this Board at a disadvantage because your piece-mealing us. I mean you're coming in with this line and then coming in with Mr. surer and how do we address these when we don't know what the ultimate agreement is going to be. MR. BRESSLER: We have no choice, we apologize for that, we have no choice, the economics of the situation and the plan as promulgated by the Planning Board has put us in a box and literally we have no choice. We don't have the luxury of letting this property lie fallow and not produce income. It cannot be done. We're goner do the best we can. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler, quite honestly, as you know, we don't approve parking. I particularly don't care where the parking is as long as it doesn't violate health, safety and welfare, OK. I don't have any objection to a change on this plan eventually, if down the road when all three businesses are ope,~ating, because we know that Blue Water is not operating at this time. We also know that Mr. Bagshaw does not have a major tenant for the other, building. Notwithstanding that fact, it's great that Mr. Bagshaw has enough parking in the rear of this building - to provide enough parking probably for all three businesses. I know that two of the businesses are on one piece of property he owns. I mean, I think that we will address it to the best of our ability. I'm not speaking for the Board, but, as you know we have always addressed every concern and I do want to say to Mr. Bagshaw that in the past any dealings that we've had with him, had been pragmatic, he's a reasonable business man and I don't see a problem there. MR. BRESSLER: Good, that's all we ask. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGEB: Mr. Arnoff, last statement, Sir. MR. ARNOFF: I just have one comment to make to Mr. Villa. I don't think the Board is at a disadvantage in this application. I'll tell you why, because you're voting on this particular special exception~ nothing else. Now if, and remember, 'if' is a word that may never come to pass. For Mr. Bagshaw's sake, I hope it does come to pass, but it may not. During our lifetime. During our leasehold interest if he finds someone else to rent, all or portions of the other property by the decree of the Planning Board in their Page 24- Hearing ~hscripts March ]3, ]997 - Board of Appeals decision, he's got to go back to them. He may have to come back to you for a variance as Mr. Bressler just said. So, both Boards are then going to be able at that point to address it and yes, we're willing to agree as the tenant that we'll adjust our parking and our boat parking and everything else to make everybody happy in the future. Ail we're looking at is we want to open up the business before the season is over. It's taken them 2-1/2 months to get to - and we'd like to move boats in tomorrow and I know there's some confusion about moving boats and we strslghtened that out but that was purely absolutely a confusion on my client's part. So, its not truly what you would call piece meal. Its the facts of life, its business. You only have one tenant. Lets assume you have a use that requires more parking in one of the buildings than another. You may have a whole different configuration with parking that you can't tell without the tenant here, MEMBER VILLA: Not to cut you off, but I don't have a problem with this one, but I've got a problem with the adjacent one and this is why I was hoping that you could address them together, that's my problem. MR. BRESSLER: I understand that, but, under the circumstances, I mean I have a client, and I'm interested in getting that approved and its really not, I mean those are ifs again that may not happen. MEMBER VILLA: No, it's not an 'if' no more. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, you have addressed the (low voice inaudible) prior to your only special exception you've not to delay the point that you know we can - on this. MR. BRESSLER: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. End of hearing. RECEIVED AND FILED BY e/17/_9Z Town Clezk, To~ of Southold