Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/10/1997 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS APRIL 10, 1997 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrett from tape recordings) 6:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4464 - TOMIS AND KATHY KOURKOUMELIS. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Copy of .a pending plan indicating the proposed pool approximately five feet from the existing house, 34 feet from the bulkhead which is the outside end of it and which leaves another 35 feet to the high water mark. I have a of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and the surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Cardinale, I understand you're representing these nice people. MR. CARDINALE: That right. CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight Sir? MR. CARDINALE: Good, I'd like to initially just send up the affidavits of mailing and posting. [ also like to introduce Mr. & Mrs. Kourkoumelis who are here and also Mr. Wysoczanski of Islandia Pools, the contractor tn case you have any questions. As I indicated in the application there are two ways of addressing this. One is because it's so unique if yon'ye seen the site and so unlike sound front property I looked at the section that the Building Inspector addressed in his Notice of Disapproval and the section where he says and I quote on the first page of the applicatio~l "All buildings located on Lots adjacent to sounds upon which there exists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or beach shall be set back not fewer than 100 feet". Whether there exists a bluff or bank landward of the shore or beach areas itself a question because if you look at the site there's a triple bulkhead in place since 1954 which is only in full height ll feet from the beach to where the location of this pool is going to be. In fact, effectively there is no bluff at this particular location of the sound. However, assuming that you would prefer to making jurisdiction regardless of the height of the bluff on the sound I address the issue of benefit detriment as well on the application and probably the quickest way to get into it and to any questions you might have for myself or the contractor or Mr. Kourkoumelis, just to refer to that application. The lot is a pre-existing non-conforming lot as you can see from the survey and the sketch. Permanent application was made for a 16 x 36 in ground pool overlooking the sound. The 100 foot setback requirement is not possible to meet. By placing the pool by 5 feet from the house and limiting its size to 16 x 36 a 34 foot setback from a bulkhead frontage can be achieved. There's no other practical location available due to the fact that the lot has a unique configuration. Its width as you will Page 2 - April 10, Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals note is 63 feet to 75 feet in width. The greater width being in the front on the road and; (2) the presence of cesspools, well, driveway and large trees and open exposure to the highway south of the house. The applicant therefore has done everything possible to limit the variance requested in this instance so the minimal amount he needs. The lot as I said is pre-existing and unusually narrow. There's a very low bluff line protected by heavy duty bulkhead in place, undisturbed since 1954. He requested a pool of not having an inverse impact upon the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood snd I want to emphasize this and that's why Mr. Kourkoumelis wanted so be here and Mrs. Kourkoumelis and their children as well. This idea of a pool is intimately cdnnected with the fact that at this location, in fact, right on that road in ]992. Mrs. Kourkoumelis had a very serious accident, severely injured her back. She has a herniated disk as evidenced by the material you have from the doctor. As a result of that hydro-therapy, swimming is recommended. That will alleviate the pain and is recommended. However, she has difficulty getting down, not so much getting down the steps as once she's down there the rocky beach, etc., makes the sound not adequate for the purpose of her hydro-therapy. So that is a unique circumstsnces I'd like you to consider. Finally, I want to point out that there will be no undesirable cl~ange produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor any detriment to nearby property owners. Many of the lots are pre-existing and undersized as you know with construction within this 100 foot setback area and some have required similar relief and there's also apparently no objection from neighbors. He's discussed this with his neighbors and they have no objection. This is sll I really wanted to say and if you have questions of me or Mr. Kourkoumelis or John, he's here. CHAIRMAN: We would like to speak to the pool contractor if we could. How are you tonight Sir? Could you just s~a~e your name for the record. MR. WYSOCZANSKI: John Wysoczanski from tslondia Pools. CHAIRMAN: Is there going to be any deck around this pool? MR. WYSOCZANSKi: As far as we know we're just going to basically put grsss around everything and just a coping, that's it. CHAIRMAN: Is this a gunite pool, or ~s it a ? MR. WYSOCZANSKI: No, it's a vinyl pool CHAIRMAN: How many gallons of water would you estimate being used? MR. WYSOCZANSKI: That one probably would be about 20,000, CHAIRMAN: In all situations regardless if we have a higher erosion area or a lesser impacted higher erosion area as we have here, by virtue of what exists and what has existed is Mr. Cardinale said since 1954. Page 3 - April 10, lbo¥ Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals No way can a pool ever be hinged or attached to the house, either thru a decking system. They just have to stand freely in case we ever had a situation where the coastal erosion line moved closer to the house and then for some god forsaking reason the pool was taken by the sound, which we never want to see happen, but just want you to be aware of that. I don't have any specific questions other than that. We'll star with Mr. Oinizio. MEMBER DINIZ[O: How deep is the pool going to be? MR. WYSOCZANSKI: It's going to be 8 foot. MR. DINIZIO: The house is how old? 19547 MR. WYSOCZANSKI: 45 years. MR. DINIZIO: That's all t have. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No, no question. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Are you planning to put a fence around the pool? MR. WYSOCZANSKI: Yes, the pool would be fenced in. Well, the property, you've got to fence the property, the back around the side. MEMBER TORTORA: When I visited the site there's a big rock. Is it a ground pool? MR. WYSOCZANSKI: We discussed that already. The rock is going out the opposite way towards the house. Mr. Kourkoumelis said they had that put there and with the 5 foot away we may get passed that rock. MEMBER TORTORA: The other thing I had to do with the prior appeal on this application. I don't know whether it ever occurred or not in 1993. Are you aware of that Mr. Cardinale? MR. CARDINALE: I was not. MEMBER TORTORA: Was to construct an open deck spa addition. CHAIRMAN: I think that's next door. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, that's a couple of houses down. MEMBER TORTORA: That's open. I just wondered if it changed names or what. The only other thing I wanted to know is the Page 4 - April 10, 1~-~¥ Pablic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals measurements to the bulkl]ead. It's kind of deceptive unless you actually visit the site and look al it. Measurements to the bulkhead is 35 or 34 feet [o the outer edge of the CHAIRMAN: The first bulkhead. MEMBER TORTORA: No, the third. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm referring from the beach, is the first, you can refer to either. MEMBER TORTORA: And the bulkhead width is a total of, is it 12 feet? Is that rigl]t? CHAIRMAN: You're talking about [he width in between the bulkheads? MEMBER TOROTRA: Yes. CHAIRMAN: 5 -1/2 and 6 -1/2. MEMBER TORTORA: it's ]2 feet right? MEMBER DIlhIZIO: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that's what I saw. CHAIRMAN: Anymore questions? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: NO. CHAIRMAN: There isn't any intention of every enclosing this pool, is there? MR. CARDINALE: No. CHAIRMAN: I don't have any further questions. We thank you very much, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. I don't know if we'll get to this tonight or not. We're not going to make a decision on the floor, at the greatest amount it will be made on the 24th if it's not made tonight, April 24th. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak a~ainsi the application? We thank you very much for coming in~ we wish you a safe trip back to your homes. I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until tater. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second Page 5 - April 10, Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: All in favor: MEMBERS: AYE. 6:55 P.M. Appl. No. 4463 L. SUTER d/b/a BLUEWATER SEAFOOD MR. CHAIRMAN: Relief based upon the January 6, 1997 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector. I have a copy of a site plan dated 4/8/97 and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? Would you state your name for the record. MR. EHLERS: Richard A. Ehlers, 456 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, N.Y. for Mr. Surer, Bluewater Seafood. I have my affidavits of posting publication. That's single service. I just want to clear that up. That causes a lot of confusion. Mr. Suter has a permit for 60 seats. Under the Health Departmen~ Guidelines be can't wash the dishes for those seats, so it's one service from each utensil, basically paper or plastic plates and forks snd knives. So, the prime water flows meet with their requirements so they don't overburden the ground water. CHAIRMAN: So, [hat's how you get that phase? Single service? MR. EHLERS: It's single service, that's whal we applied for. In the history of the application Mr. Surer opened in 1981 with his fish market at that location and obtained a site plan approval. I'll make reference several times this evening to April 10th correspondence from the Planning Board to this Board, where their unaware that they previously in 1981 approved his parking along the front of this parcel and the site plan showed thst. He operated the sea food business for sometime as is common with many other sea food businesses in the township, more particularly would be a good example, the cooking of sea food and the preparation of chowders and oyster pies and similarly to a take-out type of business as ancillary or accessory to the primary seafood use and as that use grew Mr. Surer over the years installed some tents. In 1988 ~hose tents were the subject of request by the Building Department or I should say the Fire Marshal who were certifications from the contrsctor who put the tents up, The Mills Company, Jamie Mills in particular and he satisfied the Fire Inspectors and we have a letter from them of August 3, 1988 that the tents are in order and there is no fire violations from your existence. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this retardant material we're referring to? MR. EHLERS: Correct. The tents are not flammable and they had to be a certain certificotion which the tent manufacturer supplied. Mr. Suter has maintained throughout that the tents be removable completely. If you go passed there now you'll see roughly six stations in the area, the side yard variance which is, the first variance that we're seeking which is for 3-1/2 instead of the required 10 feet where Page 6 - April 10, 15~ Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals this tent is during the season. I think the season can be generally stated as June, July, August, September, perhaps October weather, hurricanes, the other vicissitude of life on the North Fork, certainly causing to close earlier than you might want to. So, the first variance for that side yard, this structure is removed annually for the period of time that [ mentioned. We don't not believe it's a structure, however, in conference with the Building Department, and in the interest of some sought of compromise with them, we agreed that we would accept for their definition the1 there's a structure sufficient enough to require a variance for the side yard, even though it is removed. If you look at Mr. Suter's lot it's a narrow, longer lot, the original house was owned by Mr. Newell. Mr. Surer bought the house from Mr. Newell, renovated it to the fish market so the location of the existing house in the natural progression out toward the western boundary of these tents is what causes Mr. Suter to be in that side yard. The second issue for your consideration and perhaps the one that seems to spark a lot of interest among the Planning Board, not your Board, but the Planning Board is the off-site parking. Chapter 100-191 Subdivision I, provides that where a lot is divided by district boundaries which is the case of Mr. Bagshaw's property, that's the old movie theater, and we talked about this the last time, and that was a parking lot. Thai parking lot section in back of the movie theater is in the residence zone and what we propose is to provide for the use of what they call compatible parking, or I shou]d say combined spaces. On the theory that Mr. Suter's restaurant is a nighttime activity and the adjacent boat yard or other retail sales would be daytime activity and so duplicative parking ts not required or necessary and therefore we're asking your Board to utilize Subdivision G, Combined Spaces, as well as the Capital l, which permits your Board, where a Residence District is on the premises split. I should say split up or with the approval of the Board of Appeals, parking can be installed in that area. So, as we add it To the spaces that were previously approved for the boat sales which t believe were 12 in the bsck, one handicap in front. We brought 20 spaces down for an increase in 8 which encroaches into that residence area for which we need your approval. We posted Mr. Suter's property, we sent mailings to all the enjoining property owners at the suggestion of your clerk, quite properly to the enjoined property owner, Mr. Bagshaw as well, since it would be on his property the variance would be granted. The correspondence from the Planning Board, I have pointed out that there is a valid site plan for Mr. Suter's lot, parking spaces that are shown on the front of his parcel. What's particularly troubling is what appears to be a threat to your Board and I hope that it's not interpreted as such by you, but the Planning Board states that if your Board grants this variance they're going to revoke the approvals that you gave to Mr. Bagshaw at your last meeting and for the life of me I can't understand how one board would write to another board and say within your statutory authority to grant relief from the Zoning Board Ordinance and other legal requirements, that if you do that they're going to tske retribution out on someone whose got an approved plan. So, I hope that isn't what Page 7 - April 10, 19a7 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals they're saying and I hope it doesn't cloud your decision, but we're certainly prepared to meet and deal with them as necessary. CHAIRMAN: That may be a factor that we may want to do or deal with before we conclude this portion of the hearing. We'll talk about that though, you continue if you want. MR. EHLERS: At one point in the history of this project there was concern from the Planning Board whether or not Mr. Surer had valid Health Department approval, the Board of Review has given him the 60 seats, he installed the septic system that was required of that and he has now full approval for those 60 seats, so that's no longer an issue. We have supplied you with a letter from lhe attorneys for Mr. Bagshaw indicating that we have his approval to make this application and MI'. Bressler snd Mr. Bagshaw ~re present tonight if you have any questions of them. Mr. Surer is here, his most recent accomplishment was coaching one of the Olympic sailors. He's up from Florida, specifically for this application. I mention thai to indicate to you how important this is to him. He has a tenant for the property to utilize it this summer so he can continue with the sailing instruction and obviously if the tenant feels that parking is not going to be available, the tenant is not going to exercise the right to use the property and it will be another closed business. Mr. Surer told me that over the summer we'll employ approximate 50 part-time people and I said to him "Larry, that sounds like a large number. It doesn't look like such a big store." But, when he, explained to me, that many of these people are college students that work for 12 15 hours to earn pocket money over the summertime you can see how a 7 day week operation would generate a lot of different employees. So there are many people in the community that both enjoy the food that is served there as well as the employees. I think the use is very compatible, both the east end, boats, fish, seafood, eating outside, I thought that was what the area was suppose to be about. Not paving, curbing, drainage, and other structures. I can imagine well thai I will go eat some seafood at Larrys at night, walk around and buy a boat from Red. That's just the natural thing people like to do in the evening. As a boy, we use to walk the docks at Claudio's and drool over the boats they had. We seem to have lost that and we lost some sense of understanding that businesses that are adjacent to each other can be compatible and each one doesn't have to stand on its own like a kingdom on to itself. That they can all be integrated. Will people park under and around and near the boats? Sure, will we have insurance in case a boat, you know in case some accident occurs? Absolutely, accidents are always possible, but that's why you have insurance and it's part of the enjoyment that you get from having the opportunity to eat and view the boats at the same time. I'd be happy to have Mr. Surer answer any qusetions. CHAIRMAN: Well, lets jump right into it on the issue of this letter that we received from the Planning Board and see where we're going to go on this. What is your immediate response? I know your immediate response, but, what action on you going to take based upon this letter? Page 8 - April 10, l§a't P~blie ttearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MR. EHLERS: Well, assuming that you agree with me that a variance under Section I and G is appropriate and that the compatible parking as shown on the plan we submitted meets the parking requirements from Mr. Suter and are adequate for Mr. Bagshaw, because that's the two phases of that and you further agree that under Section I, that the residence parking, that you grant permission to park and encroach in that residence area, I think at that point the Planning Board has no further say about the legitimacy of that parking arrangement and we did not upset Mr. Hughes. We did not upset what has been already approved for Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes has parking shown in the business section, we've just extended it slightly down into the residence section. So, we've not disrupted his plan at all. In fact, if anything, it!s improved because it clearly designates the 24 feet of travel width, necessary for cars to get around to the back which the plan that the Planning Board hoisted which didn't even show how you would get to those parking spaces. So, if anything, it's an improvement so I don't see why he should be penalized. Surer then has adequate parking, so Parking is no longer a reason not to issue the building permit and from our stand point he's entitled to a building permit at that point. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if we exactly see it that way~ but, I did call the Chairman of the Planning Board today and I asked him exactly what caused him to write this letter or his office to write the letter, He said~ that upon physical inspection that he was unhappy with the width of the road going in to the rear yard area which is basically the nature of what we're discussing. I don't think we talked about much else concerning. I personally think it can be easily rectified, in my opinion and we do have an advantage although there is a substantial amount of complexity to the April 24th hearing because it is the wrap-up of the NYNEX Tower in Orient but, if we are not in agreement for wrapping it up tonight, I would hope that we could wrap it up 9n the 24th because I have fielded a substantial amount of calls to my house concerning these applications along with a call from the tenant. I assured him I thought we could work this out and based upon our conversation at the last hearing we discussed with Mr. Bagsbaw with his attorney, we discussed with you and said that certainly we would entertain this Section 19~, at which we're doing right now. However', there is this concern with the Planning Board. I'm asking you in all fairness to try and work it out with them if you can and whatever is going to make that palatable to them. I don't want them to withdraw, or basically deal with a site plan aspect for Michael Hughes at the same time thereby holding that business in abeyance even though we've given him the permit and the same situation having the problem with Mr. Suter's property opening. I think their target date is May 1st according to the tenant. I mean they may not open May ist but they'll be down there working. MR. EHLERS: Getting all your supplies and material. CHAIRMAN: Right. So, that's the best I can do there. Now, on the aspect of the fish market itself, are the total areas within that tent Page 9 - April 10, Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals area? Does that complies the entire 60 seats, or are there seats additional to that, Larry? MR. SUTER: I thought we countered them. I think there's about 8 tables outside the tent area. CHAIRMAN: Does that increase the seating about 60 then, or was does that do? MR. SUTER: No, no, the total is 60. CHAIRMAN: The total is 60. So, what's inside the tent area and what's outside the tent area. So, if it was raining out that would be the only time that the 60 seats, I mean then of course you didn't have full occupancy. MR. SUTER: You probably couldn't get all 60 inside, so you would lose some seats. CHAIRMAN: I have to be honest with you. Of all the years that you have been there you operated and its always been takeout for me I have never sat in the tented area. As you know, we had a minor little fire there last year and the Fire Department was down there. I did visualize the whole thing when it was totally operating, and I did notice the outside area, that's the purpose of my question. Will start with this side. Mr. Doyen, any questions? MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: You talked about seating at night. You're not open during the day? MR. SUTER: There's the fish market that's open all day, during the daytime and there's very minimal lunch. There's really no white collar This is in Mattituck, so there's a minimal lunch business. MEMBER TORTORA: About how many people do you serve for lunch? MR. SUTER: I would say the maximum ever is 20 - 25 lunches and that's over from 12 to 5, over a 5 hour period. Basically the store is open and you're cooking soups and stuff and you're preparing for dinner and someone comes in for lunch take-out or lunch. It's like a fish and chip. Last year I ran, I closed for lunch, because it just really wasn't financially feasible. MEMBER TORTORA: On the plan that you have just submitted~ you're including a total of how many parking spaces? Page 10 - April 10, ~'~J7 P0ablie Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MR.. SUTER: I believe the total is 30 between the two places. I have 8 that was approved in ]981, 22 on the Bagshaw side. MEMBER TORTORA: There were 8 approved on the Blue Water site. MR. SUTER: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: 8 approved on that and how many then are you proposing on, it looks like - CHAIRMAN: I just counted 13, one side, so that's 26. MR. SUTER: 24 and 2 handicapped. MEMBER TORTORA: 24 plus 2 handicapped. MR. EHLERS: That number is designed to meet the requirements of all Mr. Bagshaw's properties. We believe this plan permits the future use of the auto parts/movie theater building, which the previous plan did not show any parking. If you approve this, I don't think there'll be any need for Mr. Bagshaw to come back to address the parking issue when he gets the time for the other building. So, the number that drove that number of spaces is the potential use of the Bagshaw parcel itself, which is more than what Mr. Suter will require, but that's just as welt because - MEMBER TORTORA: Separate them by the Hughes to the Surer to that and restate that please. MR. EHLERS: The number of spaces required by the actual parcel which is the old movie theater and machine shop, we believe is 26, and that's the 26 that is shown on his site. We believe, that Mr. Surer, requires 30 spaces, 8 of which he has on his site, 22 of which he will use on that compatibility. MEMBER TORTORA: So, there's a total of 26 for the Hughes' site. MR. EHLERS: To the Hughes, Bagshaw site. MEMBER TORTORA: A total of 30 for the Surer site. CHAIRMAN: No, no, there's 8 on the Surer site. Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Ehlers. When you refer the word compatibility, you're referring to the word of being used I assume on a concurrent basis? MR. EHLERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN: So, if Mr. Hughes has two patrons and he intends to be open passed 5:00 o'clock, when the tenant of Mr. Surer really cranks up the business, then they will be utilizing two of those spaces and the remaining spaces will be then let out to Mr. Suter's property. Page ]1 - April 10, i~J97 ' P~tblic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: So shared 34. MR. EHLERS: Sbared be the word. CHAIRMAN: Shared, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Question I have here is, correct me if I'm wrong, but, when I saw the Planning Board approved for Mr. Hughes' parking plan, it didn't look like this. MR. EHLERS: It didn't look like this. This one is much prettier. MEMBER TORTORA: It may be prettier, but it's not the same one. MR. EHLERS: I have Mr. Hughes' plan here. ~n what respect do you feel a difference? MEMBER TORTORA: Welt, see if we can get it and look at it. I believe at the time they had said, we have approved it. I just don't want to get into a situation wilere we're infringing on a plan that has been approved by another agency. The plan that they approved according to this, Mr. Ehlers, here, at least this is what we're goner - CHAIRMAN: You're talking about the plan that the Planning Board approved? MEMBER TORTORA: Right. The Huhges' property doesn't show any parking back here. MR. EHLERS: That's what we're asking you to do. Exactly that, is we're asking you to extend under your authority, under Section I, to extend the parking to the Residence Zone, to add sufficient spaces to occupy this building properly, which is Mr. Bagshaw's building as well as Mr. Suter's building. MEMBER TORTORA: Then, wouIdn't it require authority from Mr. Bagshaw to revise this and wouldn't we have to have a revised hearing because in order to undo what the Planning Board has done, which is in essence what you're asking us to do? If we're to consider a new plan that is contrary to what the Planning Board already has approved, then we would have to have some sought of revised application from either from Mr. Bagshaw on behalf of Mr. Hughes and Mr. Surer. CHAIRMAN: That's basically what I asked Mr. Ehlers to do and that is to find out if they're going to approve this particular one or what other modifications they are going to be required to want. MR. EHLERS: You're asking me to meet with the Planning Board? CHAIRMAN: Yes, I'm asking you to do that between now and the 24th. Page 12 - APril 10, Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MR. EHLERS: I can't argue with that at alt. I'd be happy to do that. But, I would like to say, they did not address the residence section because unless you grant us permission to have parking there, there may be no parking there. CHAIRMAN: But you got to understand that this is a real unbelievable situation. We don't designate parking. We can only allow it to happen, you understand? MR. EHLERS: Well then~ we'd be happy to have you allow it. CHAIRMAN: If they say that they're happy with the 26 spaces, the 24 and 2, in the conformity that you have here, or any conformity, as being the total amount of spaces that are required in this configuration, then, we are then able and free and aware of being able to grant it. Without having that availability, we can grant it, but it causes a mix-up between the Boards because we lack the jurisdiction of the total amount of spaces that are clearly needed. You have clearly told us that those are the spaces that you feel are needed bY both. I can deal with the concurrent or the sharing or whatever. I can deal with that aspect of it, but I can't deal with the fact that they're telling us that they're not happy with the site plan. We've got to know what revisions they want oll the site plan before we can grant the parking spaces a residential district under Section 191. MR. EHLERS: To put it on the table the real problem is that the Planning Board has a master plan for this area. Are you aware of? CHAIRMAN: Yes, I saw it. MR. EHLERS: They attempted to beat Mr. Surer into that in 1988, 1991 and while that had happened the beverage store added on, they converted a house to an office, no site improvements, up and down the block everybody does and no site improvements and Mr. Surer is the only person that they keep trying to install this curbing and drainage and cutters in their grand scheme. We will never agree to that as a practical matter. I'm happy to go back to them, but it's just unfortunate. I met with your clerk and with Mr. Kassner before I did this and I called your clerk to day just to confirm that I wasn't hallucinating. Mr. Kassner said, "go to the Zoning Board, ge~ their blessing and bring it to us". I'm sitting fat, dumb and happy on the Expressway, when I get back there's the letter from somebody in the Planning Department who says, "your plans no good and we're all opposed to it." I'm happy to go back. Mr. Surer told me he wants to legitimize this business. He's tired of being picked on. I'll use that term carefully over the years. That's why we're here. CHAIRMAN: I never did ask Larry this question, when he called me in two instances. I'll ask the question tonight. Is this one of the reasons why you never really wanted to put on site parking on your own parcel? Page 13 - April 10, ~'~J~ P,ublic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals Mt{. EHLERS: He's reluctant to put on site in back because he's got a very nice oak tree there which he would like to leave. You know, next door has all this parking. It's just a big vacant area and it makes logical sense. He has cesspools back there, one that the county made us like triple up the cesspools. Lord knows he won't have re pump them in this lifetime. We did everything we could. We put a meter on the toilet to show how many times it was flushed an a day. I can't say we won't go to the Planning Board, I just want you re be aware that if they come back and say pull out the master plans, start talking about curbs and drainage street lights and ~rees and setbacks. I mean they want to take Larry's parking away in front of his store and they Wahl to take Mr. Bagshaw's parking away in front of his store. Those are pre-existing non-conformities. CHAIRMAN: The only thing I don't have is a copy of that 1981 so i'd appreciate that. The site plan approval that you were referring to. Secondly, there's some question about, some backing up buffer in front of Larry's building that was never placed in there, or something. MR. EHLERS: That's the letter from 1981 from the Planning Board. CHAIRMAN: Now, this was only a fish store ar that time? MR. EHLERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN: So that's how they're dealing with the aspect of the expansion of this now, is that correct? MR. EHLERS: This is the plan. The accessory tables, originally they were just outside picnic tables, they've been there a long time. It's when he decided to put the cover on it that they added that to his attention. In 1981, things weren't as precise as they are today? CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. EHLERS: To best of my knowledge this documents that I'm going to hand you is the site plan for 1981, which is essentially the same as what we show you today on Suter property. It shows that they approved the parking in the front with the enmity out and from a legal stand point, it's my position that he's vested in that parking and to now say that parking somehow is inadequate. CHAIRMAN: So, this is the route we're going to be going then so to speak and hopefully we'll be able to deal with the whole aspect of it on the 24th. I just want you to know that on the 24th this entire room is going to be loaded with people. I can't guaranty that a news crew isn't going to be out here from News 12 and and the whole nine yards but it's one of the advantages of having two public meeting in one month and we don't know where you're going to lie on the calendar so you're just going to have to be - Page 14 - April 10, 1~7 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We're going to have to designate a time, probably 7:15, we'll take him First. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. EHLERS: A procedural question and Mr. Bressler, we were asking you in Mr. Suter's application to say that the parking can occur in the residence district and my position is that that's properly before you to decide. Is that a fair statement~ CHAIRMAN: That's correct, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing I want to know, is that true on behalf of those parcels? SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is what true? MEMBER TORTORA: I understand what you're saying is, yes, is it properly before us 191 regarding the residential property. You, represent Suter. My question, is how do we address Mr. Hughes because we don't have an application from him for 100-191. MR. EHLERS: That's what I'm asking. Have I perfected that. It's my position that it says [ can be compatible on an adjacent property and wiIh your permission I can have parking in a resident zone. If we need to crank tip another application I don't want to learn that later on after time has passed so I'm hoping that your Board will accepts my position. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not sure of your question. I understand your question. I have the same question, t don't know personally the answer for that. CHAIRMAN: We still don't have the amended disapproval. MR. EHLERS: I wrote Mr. Fish, I called Mr. Fish. CHAIRMAN: Well, the way to deal with it hopefully is when you're over at the Planning Board, maybe you can step in and see him and tell him you need it. In the interim we'll discuss it with the Town Attorney. When are we meeting with her? SECRETARY KOWALSKI: ] don't know. CHAIRMAN: We'll set another date when we're meeting with her and we'll ask her to review il and see it we have To reopen the parking on the aspect of the tenant, but I don't think we do because [ think the entire piece of property is oue piece of property and who is going to state if it's parked on residential or if it's parked on business. It's reversed, business or residential. Page 15 - April 10, }~d7 P~tblie Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MR. EHLERS: I agree with you. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It was a Special Exception that we did for Mr. Hughes. CHAIRMAN: [ know but it was predicated upon a site plan by the Planning Board. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Planning Board not Zoning Board. CHAIRMAN: Right. You do understand what I'm saying about the parking issue? That as long as it's designated within a block area and there are certain designation of parking spaces approved by those people over there, I'm referring, excase me for pointing in front of you, Mrs. Tortora, then we can approve it. We cannot designate parking, we can approve parking that they say is appropriate for the site. MEMBER TORTORA: We can approve this. In other words we can approve the space but not the number of spots available, That's up to them. CHAIRMAN: So in other words if they wanted to dog leg to the east that's up to them. MR. EHLERS: Just to address that, that 276 footage they raise in their letter. The quote talks about lots within 200 feet within the lot tine, not within 200 leer of the front door and I suggest to you that the A&P parking lot completely does not comply with 274 feet because most of the spaces are beyond 274 feet from in front of the store. So, that an absurd comme~t that they make. CHAIRMAN: It's also one piece of property owned by one owner, this particular piece. This piece is owned by one owner. I'm not talking Surer now, I'm talking Bagshaw. MEMBER TORTORA: Another option on that you know, the combined parking would just be to amend for the next public hca,ring, to amend the variance request to include Mr. Hughes for the ]00-191 on the back parcel since he's going to be using it in a combined manner. MR. EHLERS: Mr. Hughes, we're not upsetting what he has in anyway. We're only giving him more parking, so I don't understand how it could hurt Mr. Hughes' application. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not saying it would hurt it, but if he is going to use that we don't have an application before us. Not in our legal notice, nothing for him to use that, correct? SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's not the application here though, right? Page 16 - April 10, P~ublic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MR. EHLERS: Right, it's the site, the entire site requires that parking. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann, question? MEMBER ©STERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. Let me lust see if I got this clear. This particular map right here, really has no bearing other than you're suggesting to us in order for this use to be used, that you would like to have some parking spaces on this piece of property which our code says, can occur. You're stating to us and you feel that you complied with the code, whether or no[ this site plan particular map has been filed with anybody, because we don't do parking, we just do the concept of the amount of space that it would require for parking and perhaps agree [o the fact that, yes these two business are somewhat compatible in that such as a movie theater would be with the shopping center, parking at night for the movie theater and the shopping center during the day. Am I correct in that? That this is not an application in anyway before the Planning Board right now? What you would like for us to do is to approve this, the concept. Then, you're going to take this map and go ever to the Planning Board and try with our approvals on here [o get this particular site plan approved, am I correct? CHAIRMAN: Can I answer that question? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm asking him the question. CHAIRMAN: No, Jim, there's are two applications. There's also one before the Planning Board. MEMBER DIN[ZIO: But that's not before us. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Not for the Zoning Board. CHAIRMAN: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: I{ight, I'm saying this particular application right here before us with this map is what they would like to take down to the Planning Board for both the use of these two particular parcels that you would like for us to consider. If we ~ind favorable you're going to take this concept, go down to the Planning Board and try to convince them that this is a good concept for the rules that they have to follow. Am I correct? MR. EHLERS: Can't get a Building Permit unless the Planning Board signs off with either a waiver or a site plan. I think they're unaware they have approved a prior site plan because their letter where they say Page 17 - April 10, Ib~7 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals I can't have the parking in front of Mr. Suter's store leads me to believe they didn't look in their own file. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, but that's not for us. We don't have to worry about that. MR. EHLERS: You don't have to worry about that, good. I think they're going to accept that parking if you say that we may have the parking. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'm just concerned that Mr. Hughes is dragged into this particular hearing right now. MR. EHLERS: I'm not trying to dragged Mr. Hughes in this hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't believe that he should be, that's basically what I'm trying so say right now. CHAIRMAN: But the problem is, he is being dragged in by the nature of this memo. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we'll read the memo when we give it the due weight that we consider and then we go on from there. We make a · ' decision, yes or no based on that, but I just see us going and dragging the other Mr. Bagshaw's property into another application at this particular time is not something that is warranted. It's not part of the application that's before us. CHAIRMAN: I understand what you're saying Jim. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to take the wind out of your sales before Mr. Ehlers, you're welcome to reflect on any of this. MR. EHLERS: Maybe, I don~t understand, [~ut if there are 15 seats in here that Mr. Hughes needs, and everybody agrees they're OK for Mr. Hughes and then I bring in another 15 seats in and put them down, I don't understand why anybody is mad at Mr. Hughes because there are more seats for him to use. We're not disrupting. We took their plan where they put the parking, the Planning Department where they put the parking for Mr Hughes and we tax some more on the bottom in the residence zone under Section I, which says you folks can give us permission to do that and we came to you to you to ask. So, I think I agree with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to be clear on that. I saw it going in a way that I didn't consider right now. We should just be considering what you're saying and we can make our own decisions what carries more weight than others and then go from there. I don't want to see this thing go to another application for somebody else at this particular time. CHAIRMAN: So the nature basically is, that if Mr. Hughes had to come back for another application he would come back separately and we'll Page 18 - April 10, Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals deal with it on that basis. The only question I have is that if were to deal with this aspect as it sits before us now, the Planning Board would revoke the waiver of Mr. Hughes and that's what I'm concerned about because that puts us back at square one. Eric would you just state your name for the record. MR. Bressler: Yes, I would like to speak to that if I could. I'm Eric J. Bressler, P.C., for the owner of the property, Harvey Bagshaw Realty. I'm sitting here listening to the discussion and - CHAIRMAN: I have to be honest with you. Sometime we get a little wrapped-up with this stuff. MR. BRESSLER: No, I don't think so, I think that the issues are being employed and I think that having employedall of the issues we got homed back in on where we're going here. I listened to what Mr. Dinizio said, I found myself sitting there nodding my head. There's an application in front of you folks tonight for conceptual approval for Mr. Surer to utilize this off-premises parking on a residential portion of my client's property. I think that he's entitled to that relief and I think that if this Board grants him that conceptual relief it is then his obligation and Mr. Ehlers has indicated that he fulfill that obligation to go down to the Planning Board and talk about where these spaces are going, to be and how many of them there are going to be. I must say speaking for Mr. Bagshaw to say that I'm outraged by the letter of the Planning Board is a gross understatement. How the Planning Board can threaten the applicant, Mr. Bagshaw, Mr. Hughes and this Board with revoking a site plan because this Board grants conceptual relief to someone who is entitled escapes me. Legally, I must tell you, it's my opinion it's totally unsustainable. There is no concept of law that I'm familiar with that says because the Zoning Board grants conceptual relief and nothing has yet occurred with the Planning Board has any right to revoke anybody's approval. I think that's just outrageous. CHAIRMAN: You're forgetting one issue. One major issue. That these two Boards have existed. Separate, but together on certain issues throughout the town. I don't want to bridge what has been built between the Boards over the past year. Conceptually as I said to you~ all you gentlemen, except for Mr. Surer, was not at the last hearing, I would love to approve this tonight. I would love to deal with it tonight, but I don't want them revoking this man's site plan approval. MR; BRESSLER: And by doing so, the only thing you have facilitated is a trip back to their office. We can't, he can't even go back to their office unless you people conceptually approve the notion. They've as much said that, which is why this letter is so puzzling. CHAIRMAN: So, we'll give you a straw vote and then go back to the office, we'll approve it on the 27th and that's it. That there is there philosophy that yes, we would approve it within Section 191 area, Page 19 - April 10, r~397 t~ublic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals but we want them to tell us where they want it put and how many spots they want. MR. BRESSLER: I think that's not an unreasonable suggestion. However, I do have pause given what they told Mr. Igelias. However, we'll see. I think the applicant is entitled to it. Let me address one other issue. Everybody seems to be concerned about what's going to happen to Red here. Well it seems to me that all we're asking for, all he's asking for and all that Mr. Bagshaw has agreed to do is to take that little parcel in the back and add some additional parking. That doesn't impact him one way or another and I find it offensive that another court should say, you know if he doesn't accommodate this guy, we're going to slam dunk him. I don't think he has to make an application. I don't think he has standing in front of this Board to make an application. Nothing is happening to him. However, if this Board and to get back to a point Ms. Tortora made, if this Board feels that Mr. Bagshaw as owner of the property ought to be saying or doing something, either in conjunction with this application or a separate one we would be pleased to do that. It's not him, Red over there, it's us. We're the owner of the property, it's our property in the back that he has no rights to anyway, that is an issue here, so I just want to clarify that. We're the interested party, he's the interested party and he is the unintended beneficiary of the judicial parking but we don't begrudge him that. OK, that's what I think you were getting at and I think you put your finger on the problem, you just got the identity wrong, it's us you want to hear from and I'm here telling you that we will do what we have to do to give you jurisdiction ever this issue so that you just don't say you can park off site, you can say, you know, and you can do it on your property. CHAIRMAN: Would you concurrently discuss that with the Town Attorney as we will? MR. BRESSLER: Of course. CHAIRMAN: Alright, so we will - MR. BRESSLER: I think procedurally that does it if I had my wish list its what Mr. Dinizio said, however, we're willing to try it any way that will get this deal done. I think in a perfect world, yeah, you grant your approval, you send it down and say, OK folks where do you want the spaces, and if they don't say yes, well, you know, but in light of the tactics engaged in, maybe your suggestion is the better way to go. We tried to do that, we met with Kassner. He's suppose to be here, he told me to come here first. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what you need to do is just schedule for their work session and say listen, if you're unhappy with this, tell us the way you want it rewritten and we'll rewrite it, meaning you. Page 20 - April 10, rr~J7 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MR. BRESSLER: I think at this juncture Mr. Chairman, if we can take an interlude from the legal rationality Mr. Bagshaw here, will say something. MR. CHAIRMAN: How are you Mr. Bagshaw? MR. BAGStlAW: Very good. I'd just like to point out one factor here. My admission of tile Planning Board, my previous tenants were more intensely than Mr. Hughes and his boats. We had swimming pools, bicycles sales, I think, approximately six years and we never had a problem parking with Mr. Surer sharing. We never had any arguments amongst ourselves, we never had endanger any pedestrians, we never had a traffic accidenl, we never had any problems in the sir< years of this high intensity use business at Mr. Suter. All we had was ten designated parking spaces in the front of the place and the empty lot in back, no designation. Ten in front, his six or eight, we never had a problem. Now, all of a sudden and I think it's because of the big plant, now all of a sudden, ] need 26 parking spaces for my two buildings. We never needed 26 since the movie theater wenT, now we do. I do not want to see him hurt by any of this Gestapo, John Gotti, intimidating remarks from this Planning Board and I don't wan~ anything reflecting on Mr. Hughes. As a matter of faci, I'm tired of it, I'm sick of it, and I'm nor going to stand for this intimidation another second. I've fought it for five years and I'm done with it. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. OK, so that's where we are and we'll just ask if anybody has any ques[ions and we'll conclude the hearing and recess it until the 24th and hopefully that will be a quick easy situation and we'll wrap ii up then. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Would you make it for 7:t5 P.M.? CHAIRMAN: 7:15 P.M.. OK. MR. BRESSLER: Can I just ask a question? I guess I'm just assuming that your going to go see the Town Attorney or whatever? CHAIRMAN: Erie is, you both will. MR. BRESSLER: You're willing to take your chances on the application as it stands. As the evidence is submitted and you're willing to take a yes or a no from us on the concep~ of this on the basis of this matter and I correct? MEMBER DINIZIO: Correct. MR. BRESSLER: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands, I very rarely do this but I will tell you thai the use of Mr. Bagshaw's property IS a use Page 21 - April 10, I~-~97 P, ublic Hearing Transeripts Board of Appeals that even though it is a use that has changed over the years, meaning the use of the types of buildings so on and so forth that I have no specific problem with entering into the residential portion of that piece of property for the use intended, as I told you gentlemen last meeting. I've known Mr. Suter for 35 years, I've known Mr. Bagshaw for 30 plus years, I've know Red Hughes for 15 years. These are all upstanding gentlemen as I told you. I have no objection. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you wan~ to do a poll? CHAIRMAN: I don't wan~ so force anybody into a poll. If anybody wants to offer their feelings or conceptually I entirely up to them. Does anybody feel that they wans to say anything, ,lira? Do you have any objection so this? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm no~ going so state. CHAIRMAN: Alright, that's the best I can do at this point. There's a question i~ the back there. Yes ma'am. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can we have your name please. MS. MILLER: My name is Luck Miller and I live to the west of Mr. Suter's property. I wanted to know if that has been addressed? CHAIRMAN: We're still addressing it. MS. MILLER: Approved or disapproved. CHAIRMAN: We're still addressing it. MS. MILLER: It hasn't been. CHAIRMAN: It has not been approved or disapproved. MS. MILLER: In this letter that I received it doesn't say how many feet there is. It just says any sufficient side yard of blank, less than the required ten feet. CHAIRMAN: You're talking about on the fish market? MS. MILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Or the restaurant? I have to get the - MS. MILLER: No, its the tent. I had thought that that tent was approved by the town. Its been there now four or five years. I'm just concerned for myself because that's my property. CHAIRMAN: I have 3-1/2 feet. Page 22 - April 10, fa97 t~ublic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MS. MILLER: 3-1/2 feet and I was just concerned for myself that if its not ~he required amount of feet, will it affect me when I want to sell that property? CHAIRMAN: Your piece? MS. MILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: I can't answer that question. I could not answer that question. I think the issue basically before you is, its been for a long period of time and its not something that has been established. MS. MILLER: Yeah, well I had thought that it was approved. I didn't know how many feet it was from this. CHAIRMAN: From the legal notice? MS. MILLER: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: The word affect, it would not affect what you do on your property. If she's asking will it change her side yards, we're not affecting how big or small what you use your property for. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Again, not hearing any further comment, make a motion recessing the hearing to 7:15 P.M. on April 24th. Second? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? MEMBERS: Aye. 7:57 P.M. Appl. No. 4466 PETER WALKER CHAIRMAN: This is a request for a variance based upon the March 11, 1997 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permission to locate a large portion of accessory tennis court structure in an area other than the required rear yard. Article XXIII, Section 100-231A. Location of Property, 375 Pine Tree Court, Cutchogue, NY., Parcel 1000-98-]-7.17, containing a size of 79,135 sq.ft. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. The tenant's court area is on a private road leading to Mr. Walker's house. We have been down there and had seen it. It's a 60 x 120 foot court and we welcome you here tonight Mr. Walker and anything you'd like to state for the record. MR. WALKER: I'd just like to say that I have with the court itself, it's basically the only place I could put it on the property,- on the creek side in the front. The way I had it positioned catercornered you see on the drawing is the north and south exposure, so youcan play tennis Page 23 - April 10, 1'v97 , · Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals without being in the sun. The private road itself although it's 50 deep wide, only 15 or 16 feet of it is used, and as you can see on your diagram I drew that would leave from the corner of the tennis court to my closest neighbor's house 120 feet. The north side of it is 10 feet away from my other neighbor Phillips Marco, Patricia Marco and that's on vacant field, 100 feet to another parcel that is undeveloped. The only people that do come down that road are us. It's a private road of ingress and egress to the property itself so it wouldn't be seen by anybody but ourselves. CHAIRMAN: We address the height of the fence issue which is the height that is permitted within a front yard area which is 4 feet. Went there for the physical inspection and the only question I didn't ask you, are you eutertaining any lighting? MR. WALKER: No. Mr. Chairman: No lighting, great. We'll start with Mr. Doyen. Questions, Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: The only question I had that does appear to be the flattest area that you have and it also appears to be the largest area that you have, open area without disturbing any trees. CHAIRMAN: No, he took trees out. MEMBER TORTORA: Any further trees. MR. WALKER: Just for the record, the trees that I did take out would of came out regardless of this. It's a windbreak because our house faces not only Marco's field but off the Marco's field then you have Briarcliff Sod farm, so when it blows, we get nailed. MEMBER TORTORA: Explain to us on which side would the fencing be? MR. WALKER: The fencing would be on both ends of the court, 4 feet, abutted by trees, landscaped to keep any of the balls I might hit,within the quarters, MEMBER TORTORA: OK. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN: OK. Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: No, alright. Is there anybody while you're standing there Mr. Walker, is there anybody in the audience like to speak in favor? Page 24 - April 10, P, ublic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals Anybody like to speak against? We have a procedure in reference to a dealing with this after the public portion of the hearing. You're welcome to stay or you're welcome to call us tomorrow. We sincerely hope that we will get to this one tonight. MR. WALKER: I'll call tomorrow. CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much for coming in and safe home. Hearing no further question I'll make a motion reserving decision until later. Somebody second that. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. 8:04 P.M. - Appl. No. 4410 - CAROLINE TALBOT CHAIRMAN: This is request for a variance based upon the March 4, 1997 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permission to construct and accessory storage building in a front yard area~ at premises located at Fox Avenue, Fishers Island, NY; Parcel 1000-9-1-27, containing a lot size of 18,500+ sq. ft. The nature of this application is a 10 x 16 foot storage building in the front yard area adjacent to Equesterian Avenue which is approximately ]0 feet from the property line adjacent to Equesterian Avenue. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody here on behalf of this? No, Mr. Doyen, is there something you'd like .to add to the record since you are the most close related person from Fishers Island? MEMBER DOYEN: Other than your new procedure in the whatever you call it, has already been filled out with my remarks on it. If you want me to read those OK. CHAIRMAN: Well, just paraphrase it. What would you like to tell us. MEMBER DOYEN: It's the most logical, practical phrase to put it, it doesn't interfere with anybody, visually or otherwise. CHAIRMAN: OK, I don't see any indication that they intend any utilities in this building. MEMBER DOYEN: No, no utilities. CHAIRMAN: Is there aaybody on the Board that would like to discuss anything on this application with Mr. Doyen? Seeing no hands, is there anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to Page 25 - April 10, Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals speak against? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. MEMBERS: Aye. 8:06 P.M. - GARY SACKS and ALAN SCHLESINGER CHAIRMAN: Based upon the July 16, 1996, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, applicants request a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B for a proposed deck addition within 75 feet of bulkhead, at 125 Mesrobian Drive, Laurel; Parcel 1000-145-4-7. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. We have seen you, have you come to some unanimity with the next door neighbor or agreement or a - MS. BORRELLI: Before we start, I have a question. Do you have sole control over decks? I mean this isn't shared with the Planning Board? No, OK. CHAIRMAN: My question is, you're not bringing up the issue of parking are you? MS. BORRELLI: No, I don't want to go through and find out who has control over the number of spots, no, I don't want to do that. You have the plan in front of you. It is essentially the same, my clients have talked to the next door neighbor. They have shook hands on an accommodation that they have made with one another which actually is a continuing accommodation to the next door neighbor having put up the two car garage and they didn't oppose and back and forth. So, they've come to an accommodation. What the plan is essentially as it has was proposed I believe that the next door neighbor wrote a letter and said that he was withdrawing his opposition which I got a copy of. CHAIRMAN: What's the date of that letter? MS. BORRELLI: It's very recent I think. CHAIRMAN: March 14th. We're either a 12 or a 15 foot deck. MS. BORRELLI: Right. Our deck as proposed was 15 feet. Its 50 feet from the bulkhead. The Board of Trustees has already granted a waiver. It's 10 feet from the lot line. I think it is approximately 20 feet long at the most easterly side because it cuts off at at angle on both sides. I don't know what else I can tell you other than you have the plans. CHAIRMAN: What 1 was unable to calculate and maybe you can get for me between now and the 24th is the height of the deck above grade at the 15 feet from the house. Page 26 - April 10, ~7 P~ublic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MS. BORRELLI: The height of the deck above grade. CHAIRMAN: Because the grade slopes. You see we were talking when Mr. Villa was on the Board of a 7 or a 9, I calculated it under with one step coming off the glass sliding doors, I calculated at 48 inches, but it's going to be greater than that, if the Board is going to entertain a 12 or 15 foot deck. MS. BORRELLI: OK, Mr. Chairman you're have to go slow because I'm not very good with numbers and second of all this kind of architectural stuff just me a little crazy. CHAIRMAN: Here's the house, here's the deck. 1 want to know the height here as she falls away. MS. BORRELLI: Over there, at the furthest point, as the ground fall over there. I can get that for you. I'm looking at the map that he was 'building and that doesn't give you where it is where it falls away, but, I can get that for you. CHAIRMAN: I hate to get into this issue, but it does not appear we have any opposition. Are we still talking a trellis area or we're not talking a trellis area? MS. BORRELLI: What we were talking about was the deck as proposed with the railing going around it with tike columns but you know part of almost a continuation of the railing and then lattice going across the top. That was the original proposal before the Board. Is that what you're addressing? CHAIRMAN: That's what I'm referring to. I don't know if I'm particularly in favor of that. MS. BORRELLI: In favor of the lattice work? CHAIRMAN: Yes, because wi~at happens is that then becomes roofing. Net necessarily with your clients but subsequent owners, it becomes roofing and then it becomes another room and so on and so forth. You understand what I'm saying? MS. BORRELLI: Your talking about setting the ground work for somebody else in the future asking you to add on to it. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I would like to see the deck and then if there was a need in the future for that. That can all be achieved by crank out awnings, it can be achieved by umbrellas so on and so forth. MS. BORRELLI: I talked to my client before about the lattice work for the sun screening across the top and what he is primarily interested in is maintaining the columns at the end. He would be willing to forego Page 27 - April 10, l~ublic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals this provided he could do the outer structure on the perimeter so that it can be used for hanging plants and so forth. Then he has the columns that go up in an outer perimeter like a framework from which you can do hanging plants if you wanted something like that but this he would give up. CHAIRMAN: Now, is this again going through model? If we had this standing at the end of a deck, the columns at the end, are these columns then attached back to the house on both ends? MS. BORRELLI: This is Mr. Schlesinger.. Alan, would you like to do that? Yes, (Mr. Schlesinger) I would like to do that. He would like to do that. That answers that question. CHAIRMAN: For the record this is Mr. Schlesinger. So you want to say something for the record? MR. SCHLEStNGER: You said something about the awning. We did look into that a while ago and there's a problem because of the winds coming off of the bay. They said it would just be ripped to shreds. That's part of the reason we need something to get out of the sun and an awning doesn't do it. MS. BORRELLI: You're talking about the columns going off Alan and those columns being connected and going back to the house? MR. SCHLESINGER: Yes, I just a, blanking, I guess they'll be about so big, they're between each column, designed wise to a - CHAIRMAN: A sun screen. MR. SCHLESINGER: No, just along the perimeter of the columns. CHAIRMAN: The four corners. Three corners. Well two corners actually. Well its four corners when it's attached to the house, it's four corners. MR. SCHLESINGER: More from a designed point of view to tie it all up. CHAIRMAN: I was a little eonfused because I thought the neighbor was upset with the fact that their waterview was going to be blocked and that was the reason why they were concerned and that was one of the reasons why I thought we eliminated everything from the deck area up. You understand what I'm saying? MS. BORRELLI: I have to tell you Mr. Chairman, that it really has become very confusing to me as to exactly what the concerns were because I've had so many conversations and the concer~s have changed. I mean at certain points we actually wound up talking about Page 28 - April 10, 1997 Bublic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals the air conditioner noise and the lights from outside, lights that have existed, for Ten years so, thai is somewhat confusing. CHAIRMAN: Not that we deal with waterviews anyway, but go ahead. MS. BORRELLI: No, but he was worried about ~he waterview. However, I think the way the trees have been planted now and the way they will be groomed in the [uture his waterview is not going to be hindered from his deck which is what he was really interested in was from his back deck. I do not think that his waterview will have a hinderance the way this is working out. . As a matter of fact everybody seems to be enjoying some more privacy as which was one of his concerns. Originally, it was that this was going to be so close to the lot line that they would lose privacy and I think because of the plantings that have been put in they actually have wound up with actually more privacy, both of them on both sides of the plantiilgs than they had before. CHAIRMAN: Alright, so I'll deal with that aspect. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I just want to comment about the trellis worked out. I'm noi in so much in favor of it either, i just think we ever really dealt with that type of thing for a deck. I just don't think that we ever dealt with that type of architecture for a deck. MR. SCHLESINGER: Directly opposite_ a - CHAIRMAN: The Judge's house? MR. SCHLESINGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: You see the problem is, Mr. Schlesinger, again, we go, not necessarily you and your partner or your co-owner, it then creates a room aspecl for some time in the future and not that you would enclose it or whatever the case might be and that's where the problem is. As you know the lots are undersized and so on and so forth. MS. BORRELLI: Wouldn't they have to come before you if they wanted to add a room on to the house? CHAIRMAN: These miraculously happen. MS. BORRELLI: Yes, miraculously happen without a CO means that you can't sell it in the future unless you're going to tear it down again. So, I mean even though you may be creating what somebody might think at some point in the future that they can use to build a room, if they build it, they're building an illegal room for which they do not hsve a CO for which they cannot sell it if they go to sell it. They've got to either then legitimize it by coming to you or they've got to take it down. Page 29 - April 10, 1997 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MR. SCHLESINGER: I'm sought of being punished for maybe that somebody might do in the future. CHAIRMAN: No, absolutely not. Mr. Dinizio is absolutely correct that we are just not use to granting the trellis affect without actually seeing what it's suppose to look like. MR. SCHLESINGER: I mean it's not a trellis. Usually a trellis is a crisscross. This is just straight slates and usually about so wide. CHAIRMAN: And you're talking about filling that in on a you know,.a 16 inch basis or an 18 inch basis going down. MR. SCHLESINGER: Going across. CHAIRMAN: Going across. Yes, basically they're timbers without a roof. MR. SCHLESINGER: Right. Get some shade without closing it off. I don't want it to be a roof. MS. BORRELLI: That's the whole idea, is conceptually is to have the open affect but to just have something from which you can grow things. I mean you can actually have vines if you want, whatever, if that's the point or you have some shading affect from it. CHAIRMAN: They do that on tile south shore on the ocean side. MS. BORRELLI: Is that what they do. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just think of all the people that we've said could not have that. I think a deck is a deck and it's a place for you to go out and get some sun and do those kind of things. You know a lot of people come here and we tell them specifically that it's not to be enclosed, it's not suppose to be open to the sky, you know it's something that is out of the normal, you know you like in the grey area as far as I'm concerned. I wanted just to be fair with you that if you have some other reason as to you could try to convince me that this is something other than you know a roof. MS. BORRELLI: 1 think that the only thing we're trying to convince you of is that my clients find it aesthetically pleasing and that the design that they have suits what they think of as what this decking area should look like. I mean we all want to enjoy the outdoors and we want to enjoy it in the manner in which we would like to enjoy it and other than that I can't do anything else to convince you. I can tell you that they have no intention of enclosing it. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not accusing anybody of that I'm just, I don't look into tile future. We're looking at this particular deck right now~ the design that you want. You've been honest enough to come to Page 30 - April 10, 1997 !~ublic Hearing TranscripTs Board of Appeals us with the design and tell us what yo'u would like and you know I've been listening and considering and I suppose I could of just went inside or made the decision without you having any input. I just wanted to add to that it seems to me we don't normally ordinarily allow that. We think of a deck as having a 4 foot rail and basically that's it. Anything above that to me is over and above what we normally give for a deck. MS. BORRELLI: I mean we're here at your discretion for what you elect to give us in this variance that is our preference and we are willing to cut back the slats that go all the way across and just do the perimeter. I mean would even find that acceptable although that it's less acceptable to us, but of course we will accept what you give us. CHAIRMAN: We do have an advertising problem, Carmela. MS. BORRELLI: An advertising problem. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, the application was for a deck. CHAIRMAN: The application was for the deck, not fop the enclosure of the deck, because that's really a quasi route type of situation. So, what we have to do is we'll ask you to modify the application, we'll readvertise it, but that entire area that's adjacent to the deck that basically goes toward the south or toward the creek, does not appear to have been addressed in reference to an insufficiency to the bulkhead which is landward of the planting area that's in front of it. MS. BORRELLI: These are the steps that come down, right, and I believe that he measured the 50 feet from here. So, we're talking about I think that's an old plan and I think the new plan is three steps, if I'm not mistaken. CHAIRMAN: OK, because the steps can't exceed 30 square feet or less. They've got to be in, that's the maximum, MS. BORRELLI: This is not part of the proposal, this was potentially a future landscaping plan. In fact, I was going to ask you about that. Potentially, what if anything of this would have to be here? But this is what is being proposed right now. Just the steps to it. I mean all of this takes a tremendous amount of money and my clients are not in a position to be evel~ thinking about for a long time. I mean we're talking long range planning here. MEMBER TORTORA: One question, if you can just summarize for us again why it is that you can't get the same benefit from just putting this addition where the existing patio is right now? MS. BORRELLI: We have a couple of reasons for putting it where it is. The existing patio is on the sunny side of the house. As Alan told you before they had actually looked into creating shade there by Page 31 - April 10, 1~397 t~ublic tlearing Transcripts Board of Appeals doing awnings, to get awnings and they were told by the various manufacturers and/or installers that because of the winds coming in off' the bay the awning would last about two years and they would have to start replacing because it would get a rip here, and a rip there and so forth and that's just not economically feasible. One of the other reasons is, is that that portion off the stone patio is the only part of this lot that is fairly level, so thaf if you're going to use it for any back yard kind of activities, if you have company, if you have friends and you're off the deck and off the patio and you want to, I don't know what you do, I mean if you're playing badminton or what have you, or croquette, that's the only area that you can use because the part that where we're proposing with the deck as has been pointed out has a fairly severe slope. I mean, its even difficult walking down that so you so you can't use it .and tben you're taking up with more deck area the only part of usable part of your back yard or side yard. MEMBER TORTORA: What I was actually talking about was using the existing patio. Because, you know, patio, deck, presumably you're going to sit outside and you want to enjoy the water. An existing patio is certainly located within the water. MS. BORRELLI: Yes, and it'a certainly advantageous for looking at the waterview. I think that what they want is additional decking space and this provides them for it. I mean it's just additional space. MEMBER TORTORA: Would you say that for the record please. MR. SCHLESINGER: It's too small here. MEMBER TORTORA: It's too small and it's not practical. Tell me why it's not practical to expand it. MR. SCt{LESINGER: It's just - MEMBER TORTORA: You mentioned, you said an expansion would infringe on the level part of the yard and that awnings were not practical because it was too windy, windy on that side of the house. MS. BORRELLI: Right, and I think that those are sufficient reasons for us to consider doing it the other way. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. MR. SCHLESINGER: On summer day it's scorching that day and there's no place to go for shade, absolutely no place. CHAIRMAN: You mean the cement patio? MR. SCHLESINGER: Yes, so I personally, I wound up going inside. CHAIRMAN: OK, Mr. Doyen, any questions? Page 32 - April I0, f9~97 I~uh]ic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: OK, so in lieu of changing or modifying the application, why don't we just go with what we have right now and then if thera's sometime m the near future that you want to come with something else we'll deal with it. MS. BORELLIT: What you mean - CHAIRMAN: Open deck. MS. BORRELLI: Open deck. This is a suttle way of getting us to agree to not doing anything else. CHAIRMAN: No, this is a suttle way of closing this hearing finally. MR. SCHLESINGER: I don't understand this Carmela. I'm not asking for a poom. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, but she didn't, no, no, MS. BORRELLI: No, the application asked for a deck. The design that came in asked for this additional stuff so that the advertising and the publications did not include that so that they would have to, we would have to start again, we'd have to revise the application, they would have to republish and we would have to come back in front of them. That's the choice. Would the columns be OK? Is that part of a deck, just the columns? CHAIRMAN: Straight columns, up on each earner? MS. BORRELLI: Straight columns up. OK, and that's part of - MR. SCHLESINGER: Without a permit? CHAIRMAN: Without a permit, right. MS. BORRELLI: OK, then we go with that. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and you're going to give me a height figure, sometime, right ? MS. BORRELLI: From the end of the 15 feet to - CHAIRMAN: Elevation, take a straight line with a level going out arid just measure ii to the height. MR. SCHLEStNGER: Do you need to know exactly, because I can tell you that I expect it to be something that I can maybe just get under. CHAIRMAN: }{ow tall are you? Page 33 - April 10, r~97 Dublic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MR. SCHLESINGER: 5-7" CHAIRMAN: OK, that's about right. MR. SCHLESINGER: I'm talking from my head. MS. BORRELLI: Is that good enough? CHAIRMAN: That's good, yes, because I have 48 inches at nine foot. I think that's what Mr. Villa was talking at the time. Seven or nine, I don't remember. MR. SCHLESINGER: This is what I'm expecting. CHAIRMAN: Right, we just wanted to embody thai within the decision. We didn't want some faulted thing. Anybody else like to speak in favor or against. }leaping no further comments I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye 8:26 P.M. - Appl. No. 4468 -MATTHEW AND LAURIE DALY. This is a request for a variance based upon the March 17, 1997 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, for a building permit to construct new reground pool, which disapproval is based "...under Article tit, Section 100-33, accessory buildings, structures and uses shall be located in the required rear yard..." Location of Property: 2505 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. Parcel 1000-115-14-12, containing a lot size of 22,500 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey dated December 30, 1993 from Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C., indicating a two story frame home, indicating a proposed renovated pool in the side yard area and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Please state your name for the record. MR. DALY: Mai Daly. CHAIRMAN: OK, and what would you like to tell us. MR. DALY: In its simplest terms, we have an existing pool that has been there since ] guess around 1976 and what we propose to do is renovate the pool ares because the existing pool has fallen into disrepair. Page 34 - April 10, r597 Public Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: OK, and I assume that the Building Inspector disapproved you because it's in the side yard area and he said it has no more intrinsic worth or something m that nature probably. MR. DALY: Basically, I guess its lived its life. I want to put it out of its misery. But, we want so renovate the existing pool in basically in the same area involving the same envelope. CHAIRMAN: The size of the pool is? MR. DALY: The size of the pool, the current pool or - CHAIRMAN: Or the one that you're intending to build. MR. DALY: 20 x 40. The existing pool is a little bit less. CHAIRMAN: And the total decking area around that will be what? MR. DALY: Around 1,000 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN: And how wide would that be, 5 foot, 4 foot? MR. DALY: On one side the east side of the pool would be 4 foot and the west side would be 4 foot up To 12 foot. It's g?ing to be like a rounded moon shape. CHAIRMAN: Is this like ground level or ~s it going to be a MR. DALY: Ground level. CHAIRMAN: Ground level. Is it going to be wood or will be sun composite? MR. DALY: The actual deck? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. DALY: It's going to be a stone deck. I'm not sure what type. CHAIRMAN: Now, the location of this pool is approximately 5 feet off the property line? That's what's showing here. MR. DALY: The existing pool? CHAIRMAN: Well, actually it shows 5 but it doesn't actually give me what that 5 to. Thai may be To a deck area. MR. DALY: To the best of my knowledge the edge of the pool is 15 feet. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is that from the steps to be rounded? Page 35 - April 10, t~37 - t~ublic tlearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MR. DALY: Oh! with the new- CHAIRMAN: Proposal, why don't you measure it for us and give us a figure. MR. DALY: I think I can probably do that for you. The new pool have steps on the shallow end and we'll try lo mimic that look. You know we're just going ro bow the other end of it which is about 4 feet. CHAIRMAN: So, it's going ro be 4 feet into that t5 feet area. So, we're talking 117 MR. DALY: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Now, is this gunite? MR. DALY: The new pool will be gunite. CHAIRMAN: So, it is a cement pool. So it's going to be 11 finished. The shower end is going to be on the east side? MR. DALY: The shower end will be the same side it is now. I guess that's the west side. CHAIRMAN: So, in effect where it's bowed there's not going to be any decking area around it is what you're telling me? MR. DALY: No. CHAIRMAN: OK. MR. DALY: Actually on that end of the pool facing the east, that's going to be the smallest part of the deck. That's very unusual. We would be happy just putting coping on the pool on that side and leave it at that. CHAIRMAN: We just have to ask these questions because we have to embody it into a decision and that's the reason or else we end up calling you on the phone after and it doesn't make sense to do that. Alright, we'll start with Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I had asked if you could provide distance from the edge of the deck to the end of the deck to the pool to try to determine how much is in the rear yard and how much is in the side yard because it looks like it is split in half where the end of the deck is. Page 36 - April 10, ~%~? F~ublic Hearing Transcripts Board of Appeals MR. DALY. OK, I misinterpreted that question I guess. What you're saying is how much the existing pool? MEMBER TORTORA: If you draw a line straight through because your wife hsd said that the Building Department had determined that from the end of the existing deck. That that was [he rear yard. So, if you look at your survey and looking at it, it looks like half of it is in the rear yard and half of it is in the side yard. CHAIRMAN: Actually 40%. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, doesn't it, so I thought if you could just give us that figure. MR. DALY: I hsd thst discussion with Gary Fish and we measured it off at the time it was 10, a difference of 10 foot. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So, that's 50%. MEMBER TORTORA: So, 50%, OK. MR. DALY: If [ can just say one thing. My feelings were, you know, the current pool has a CO, the deck has a CO, I don't understand. I guess my question that puzzled me earlier was why would we even have to be disapproved if we just wanted to renovate an existing pool? CHAIRMAN: Because it lost its real, its value. Very rarely you'll see this application come before us for houses of the same situation. The town has felt that the house is no longer a residential use. The same situation, here, the pool has fallen zo such disrepair that it has ~1o value. So, we have to rehistitute the value. It just so happens that this value happens to be in the side yard area and that's the reason why you're here. I'm nos speaking for the Building Inspector but [ assume that' what he's referring to. MR. DALY: I think so. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: MR. DINIZIO? MEMBER DINIZIO: And, certainly, if you are enlarging it also, which is another reason. I mean, if you had just pulled what you had to out, left a hole and put new stuff in it might have been a different determination. That's just an explanation. You're certainly entitled to do what you suggest, but, there were reasons why. I know you had a CO, you had a CO for what is it a 16 x 36 pool, now, it's going to be a l~;ublic tlearing Transcripts Board of Appeals 20 x 40, so, there are some differences there. Its deal with the side yard, we have problems with side yards. MR. DALY: I understand, we tried to basically keep the shell of that pool~ the walls have to be puslled out in order to renew the pool. Its not really cost effective for us just start over and do a whole new pool. They're two completely different processes. CHAIRMAN: OK, while you're standing there is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak against? Anybody like to speak for? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Will somebody second. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. RECEIVED AND FILED BY 'fILE $OU~OLD TOWN CLERK Town Clerk, Tow~ of Soutkotd