Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/19/1997 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS JUNE 19, 1997 SOUTItOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell fronl tape recordings) 6:45 P.M. (Carryover) Appl. No. 4475.JD -MARY FISCHETTI Request for a Variance under Article XXIV. Section 100-244B, based upon tile February 21, 1997 Action of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permission to locate an addition to existing dwelling which will have a reduced side yard setback at less than the required 10 feet, and less than the required total of both side yards of 25 feet. Location of Property: 3760 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold; County Parcel ID #1000-87-3-4. This parcel contains a total area of 9,874 si. R-40. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fischetti would you like to say something? MR. F1SCHETTI: Mr. Chairman, Members of tile Board, my name is Joseph Fischetti. I'm representing Mary Fischetti, I'm a professional Engineer and I live on 1725 Hobart Road, in Southold. The applicant wishes to construct all x 20 addition on the south side of her home and we request a side yard variance. This is going to be a primary residence for Mary Fischetti. This was originally a small cottage as most of the houses were in Laughing Waters and summer cottages. The addition is reasonably for a den and a bedroom for her daughter as a guest room. It takes her daughter an hour and a half to drive out so she really needed an · addition for a guest room because the existing size of the house is very small. We looked at tile house. We tried placing it somewhere else. We can't do it in the rear because we have a 75 foot setback right now in the wetlands. We can't do it in the front, we can't go up. The side yard works, we tried to go as minimum as possible 11 feet is really the miuimum size that she can construct the bedroom for the width size. As you can see on tile site plan that we gave you really the front corner is projecting. Most of the major portion of it is sitting back outside the property even though it's 9 foot side yard. We feel that basically many of tile houses built in Laughing Waters are all on undersized lots. Many of them were built before zoning, there ape many properties there with minimum side yards. Actually, surprising I received tile property of the correspondence from the property owners to the I guess to the south and Lenceski and Elizabeth Shalvey wrote the letter about this but, I just noted on their survey that their property on the west side has a 8 foot side yard. So, this is consistent with what is happening there in Laughing Waters. Many houses have minimum Page 2 - Hearing Ti~nscripts June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals side yards so we really don'l think that what we're doing there now will change the character of the neighborhood. Actually tn essence we're upgrading the property. Many of the old cottages there, some are more rundown and peolcle are bringing them up so we really think that we're enhancing the neighborhood, we're adding money to the house and upgrading it so, we think it's a positive benefit to the community and we hope that this Board approves that side yard approval. I'd be glad [o answer any questions from anyone. CHAIRMAN: Starting with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, Joe, what's the side yard on the other side? MR. F1SCHETTI: Minimum, I think it's 3 feet. But, that, that was existing. That's why I said that's the way it was originally constructed from when we came in there. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That had a variance. There was a prior variance. There was a variance on the side yard. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, you're asking for 11 on one side and 3 on the other. Well, 3 on the other exists. MR. FISCHETTI: 3 is there. Correct. CHAIRMAN: The addition is 11 and leaving us a 9 fool proposed side yard. MR. FISCHETTI: That's correct. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: A total of 12. rigi~t? MR. FISCHETTI: Correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all [ have. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mt. Do,zen? MEMBER DOYEN: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN: I don't have any questions at thi~ time. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of the application? Page 3 Hearing Transcripts June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals Anybody like to speak against? Sir, starting with you first please. Could you please state your name for the record. MR. LENCESKI: My name is Edward Lenceski and I'm husband of Ann Lenceski. one of the co-owners of the property. Now, one side of the house is already down to 3 feet and the other side is 9 feet. The front of tile house is parallel to the road end actuallSr it encumbrances p~'actieally the whole property in front of the house. This fellow here, M~'. Fischetti, says he's a professional engineer. What does that mean? CHAIRMAN: We'll have to ask him. It means he's an architect, I assume. MR. FISCHETTI: Mr. Lenceski, I'm an engineer, licensed in New York State to practice engineering. I'm licensed by New York State Education Department. Sir. MR. LENCESKI: You haven't answered my question. MR. FISCHETTI: What's your question? I have a degree in engineering from Philadelphia University, I have a Master's Degree from Adelphi University and I have a License from New Yol~k State to pPactice engineeri~g. You know what a license is? Doctors have licenses. MEMBER DINIZIO: Jerry, I object to this. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lenceski, you have to ask the questions to the Board. Mr. Lenceski, you can't ask him. Does that answer you question. MR. LENCESKI: Yes. What is the minimum for side yards? CHAIRMAN: On a lot this size? MR. LENCESKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Probably 10. MR. LENCESKI: 10. Now, he wants it without the 9 feet on our side of the property and it's down to 3 feet on the other side. What is the total of both sides? CHAIRMAN: 25. MR. LENCESKI: 25? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well it's 12. Twelve is what he's proposing. It's supposed to be 25. , Page 4 -ttearing Transcripts ,June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals MR. LENCESKI: The proposal here is down to 12 feet. That's a long way from 25. CHAIRMAN: 50%. MR. LENCESKI: Now, from our side this would cut our view toward the front of the building at this particular site and count from nine feet he takes up the whole lot with this building. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we understand that. MR. LENCESKI: I think that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? Atright, is there any other question regarding this from any Board Member? Yes, Mr. Fischetti? MR. FISCHETTI: Can I just respond a little bit? CHAIRMAN: Yes, I just want to say for the record, that the total side yards are 10 and 15 (by code). (Sic) (See prior variance .. restriction which is less.) MR. FISCHETTI: Correct, 10 and 15. Again, we took that into consideration. The side yard we're dealing with here now, when we design homes, very important, side yards are designed for privacy. It really is very important. So, I understand people are critical to that. This particular side is their garage side. We really feel that I don't understand, maybe he can answer me on the deal. I don't understand what the deal is on the side yard because it is the garage side that we ask, so that we felt that the 9 foot if it was a 10 foot side yard we're talking about a foot here between what normally would be part of the side yard on a piece of property. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's 15 feet on that side. The requirement is 15, so it's 6 feet difference (there is a prior side yard variance on tile opposite side). MR. FtSCttETTI: Yes, right, it's 15. So, again, we're concerned with the privacy issue and again if this was a living area where views were there we would understand completely but, being a garage I would think that it's not going to affect them. CHAIRMAN: The Board also has a concern Joe, and that is, the ability of getting access to the rear yard for a variety of reasons. You know, waterfront lots are unique because you can't ask permission to ride on somebody else's property to get to your rear yard, so the question I basically have, is, with the size of machinery today, is 9 feet wide enough to get a piece of machinery in? That's the problem. We always allow on waterfront property that if you're going to close up or attempt to close up, I dontt mean you Page 5 - Itearing Tf.~seripts t~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals in particular, this is a generic statement, one side yard, OK, then you must leave tile other side yard open so as to gain access to the rear yard. These pieces of property are somewhat pie shape so that's what makes them a little more difficult because as you mentioned the corners are the ones that are actually sticking out. That's where our concerns are. 5/IR. FISCHETTI: Any access to the rear yard? CHAIRMAN: Yes, sanitary purposes, bulkheading purposes~ any ability to get machinery in because if you don't have that ability then you have to hire a crane and lift it over' the top of the house. Any other questions of the applicant, or the applicant's agent? MEMBER DINIZIO: What about going up, Joe? Can you gain anything from going up? MR. FISCttETTI: Well, that's a, again a cross consideration that would be prohibited just the way the framing of the structure is. To go up just for an extra room is very, very close prohibited. We might be able to go past, squeeze it down to 10 foot and leave a 10 foot side yard. If i0 foot is sufficient we could try to redesign it that way because it's a pie shape; we might be able to move it back slightly to try to get tile 10 foot. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You have a question? MEMBER TORTORA: Along the same lines as a part of other alternatives I just want to get a couple of things for the record. The property is 9~800 sq.ft., so there is limited space apparently available for any type of expansion. Could you explain why you couldn't go to the rear of the property towards the water for this addition? MR, FISCHETTI: Well, as you can see, New York State DEC and the Trustees are required 75 foot setbacks. Actually, right now, pretty much the rear corner of the property is about 78-79 feet. Right now, when we added the addition it just about meets that 75 foot setback. If I put an addition to the rear most likely, I mean, it would not be approved because of the setback requirements by the DEC and the Trustees. MEMBER TORTORA: And if you wanted to expand in the front of the property, could you do that without a variance? MR. FISCHETTI: I don't think physically you can because we have a front door there. I don't think it's physically possible to do it towards the front, Mrs. Tortora. I have a front door, I have another area in there, I think that would be more detrimental to the community by having an addition coming to the front. Physically, esthetiealIy having that come out to the front. · Page 6 ~ Hearing T.~nseripts ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: OK, that's all. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Lenceski. MR. LENCESKI: 1 think that when this gentleman speaks of setbacks doesn't that refer to the front of the building? CHAIRMAN: It's referring to the side yards. MEMBER TORTORA: Side rear front. MR. LENCESKI: Not the rear of the buildings so on and one of the things we're in the process of doing right now is, we already have the Southold Town Permit and working on the the DEC Permit for replacing the bulkhead in the back. CHAIRMAN: On your house? MR. LENCESKI: Yes, rougilly 75 feet of bulkhead. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: So moved. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? MEMBERS: Aye. 7:03 ~ Appl. No. 4483 -ANDREAS VASSILIOU CHAIRMAN: Request for a Variance under Article III-A, Section 100-30A.1 based upon the March 21, 1997 Action of Disapproval issued by the Building Iuspector for permission to locate an accessory gazebo ill a front yard area at premises known as 580 Inlet Drive, Mattituek, NY; Parcel ID #1000-106-2-1. Zone: R-40 Residential. I have a eopy of the survey which we are familiar with because we dealt with the pool and deck application on this property way back in June 7, 1995 and we are noticing that this applicant is proposing approximately 8 feet from we'li refer to it as the westerly property line and a copy of tile Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? Could you state your name for the record. MR. CYPRUS: My name is Nick Cyprus and I represent Mr. Vassiliou. I believe I have eomplied with all due requests that you ,Page 7 - Hearing T~,~iscripts /June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals have given me and if I may add something of my own to this, Mr. Vassiliou, he has two lots a¢tually that he is using one. Where he is putting the gazebo is not in front, it's to the side and as far as footage is concerned I don't know the exact size of this, but it's over an acre. Anything else you want to know, just ask me. CHAIRMAN: I didn't have the luxury of walking on the property. I only had seen it from the road side because I didn't contact you and I apologize for doing so. This is going to be placed at an elevation at approximately the deck lev-el? MR. CYPRUS: Approximately, yes. Not higher than that. Actually, the builder who built this house because this house was torn down and rebuilt and I put the sticks myself because only ~0 feet and he finally went to his next door neighbor wllo has an empty lot and who doesn't object to that I'm sure. chairman; Is there going to be any electricity in the gazebo or anything? MR. CYPRUS: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN: OK, I think we'll start with Mr. Doyen. Questions? MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora: MEMBER. TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: No questions, OK. While yore're standing there is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this? Al~ybody like to speak against it? Hearing no further questions I'll make a motion closing tl~e hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor; MEMBERS: Aye. 7:08 P.M. - Appl. No. 448~ - CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST ,Page 8 - tIearing Transcripts ~.June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Request for a Variance under Article XX, Section 100-205 based upon the Appil 30, 1997 Action of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspeetop fop permission to locate a new gpound sign in excess of the size requipements of the eode. Location of Property: 15625 C.R. 48, Cutehogue. Parcel #1000-101-1-10. Zone District: Agricultural Conservation. I have a rendition of the sign and t have a copy of the placement of the sign on the survey and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Question? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I have to ask for the affidavit of this. CHAIRMAN: You're going to give us an affidavit or something, Sip? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: FoP the sign, the receipts from the post office. MR. STILLEY: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN: Could you just state your name fop the record. MR. STiLLEY: My name is Ernest Stilley. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Mr. Stilley, I need to ask you just to fill this out latep after you finish. You can do it now or tomorrow, whenever you want. I mean aftep the hearing. CHAIRMAN: While we have you standing at the mike, can you tell us why such a large sign? MR. STILLEY: Well, the biggest reason is, it's in a dark area, there's no lights at all on the post or anything and we have guest coming from out west and nine times out of ten they go right by the church and they don't see it. Unfortunately sometimes when they get to the church we're just about finished. So, we thought we would put a larger sign so they could see it fap off and it'll enhance the community also with a light at that particular part of the highway. It's even hard to identify and it's kind of hard to see a small sign. CHAIRMAN: What's the actual size of the sign? MR. STILLEY: 5 feet. 10 feet long 5 feet high. CHAIRMAN: It will be lighted? MR. STILLEY: Yes, Sir. CHAIRMAN: OK, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. .Page 9 - Hearing Tz~nscrip~s ,June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Is this going to be on post? Ia it like a ground sign? MR. STILLEY: Yes it's going to be on two posts with cement foundation. MEMBER DINIZIO: The part of the sign will be 5 feet, or will it he higher than that? MR. STILLEY: The sign itself is 5 or 10. It will be probably 8 no more than 12 ~eet from tile ground. Figure about 8 feet high. CHAIRMAN: You mean the top of the sign will be no higher? MR. STILLEY: Yes. about 8 feet high We're over the 8 feet. No more than 10. It should be 8. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's just that your addition here shows it looks more like. 10 feet. 12 feet? MR. STILLEY: Yes, 6 ~oot - MEMBER DINIZIO: That's wily I asked the question. I wanted to be sure. So, if you're sayi~g 8 feet then, if we write a decision for 8 feet, then ii can't be any higher than that. If it's going ~o be higher - MR. STILLEY: OK, well gives us the height that we can, but, we hope, we don't wsnt it but 8 ~eet and we've decided the 5 feet and we wsnt about 3 feet from the ground. Give us the distance that we can go but we probably go about $ feet. CHAIRMAN: The sign certainly isn't made yet, right? You haven't made the sign yet? MR. STILLEY: Unfortunately. CHAIRMAN: You did make the sign? So the sign is all done? MR. STiLLEY: Yes, Sir. CHAIRMAN: Now. is the sign going to be a two-faced sign? MR. STILLEY: Yes, Sir. CHAIRMAN: OK, so it's going to go this way so you can see it from both sides. OK, Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: What is tile measurement of your present sign? MR. STILLEY: I think 3 or 4. about 4 feet. ,Page 10 - Hearing ~['ranscripts =June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I measured it this morning. It's 43 x 61. I measured it from the peak~ which is really a part of the sign. 43 wide including the two by fours holding it up and they're 3-5/8 each. MEMBER TORTORA: So, it's 3 by 4. CHAIRMAN: Exactly what he said. This must have been a relatively expensive sign to construct? MR. STILLEY: Yes, we got a good price on it. I knew the fellow that makes them and he gave me a very good price on it, otherwise, we really couldn't afford it. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann, do you have any other questions. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No, no other questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: So, just continuing with the story, you made the sign, you had it reconstructed and then the Building Department said, no, no, you can't have a - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The new sign is not up yet? MR. STILLEY: No. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's not constructed, because you said constructed. CHAIRMAN: No, it's not up. No, they have it built, they have it some place stored. MEMBER TORTORA: What was the cost of the sign? MR. STILLEY: About $4,200, but we didn't pay that much for it. CHAIRMAN: Now, I noticed the Church is set back 50 feet, excuse me again for jumping in here, I notice the Church is set back 50 feet from tile property line. Where approximately are you anticipating to put this? MR. STILLEY: Right in front of the sign that is already there. CHAIRMAN: So, you're going to go back from there back to the Church with the sign? MR. STILLEY: No, from that sign towards the street. MEMBER TORTORA: But it would be catercornered, it wouldn't be the same direction? This sign would be both ways, 10 feet lighted. .Page 11 - Hearing Transcripts ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN: While your standing there, is there anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application other than the applicant for the Church? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any fnrther questions, about placement, lighting, anything? MEMBER OSTERMANN: I'd like to ask how far from the road would the sign be placed? MR. STILLEY: From the road? It's probably 20 feet or around. 15- 20 feet at least. MEMBER OSTERMANN: The new sign? MR. STILLEY: Yes, it would be t5- 20 feet. CHAIRMAN: When we say road, we're referring to the front property line. Alright, I think that fully answers the questions. Thank you for coming in and we hope to have a decision for you very shortly. MR. STILLEY: How far should it be from the property line? CHAIRMAN: Well, you can go as much as 35 feet, but of course you wouldn't see the sign at that particular point. It would be right on the front steps of the Church. In reality, we have granted them as close as 7 feet to the property line, but, certainly not something this large and the average is usually about 15. OK. MR. STILLEY: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Heari~lg Ilo further comment, I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. 7:22 P.M. Appl. No. 4488 LAWRENCE AND JOSEPHINE PEARLSTEIN CHAIRMAN: Request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Sections 100~244B for permission to construct addition, a portion of which witl not meet 'the minimum required front setback at premises known as 2225 North Sea Drive~ Southold; County Parcel #1000-54-4-23. ,Page 12 - Hearin,g ~l¢'ahlscripts ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals Zone: R-40 Residential. I have a copy of the site plan produced by Garrett Strang, most recent date is March 12, 1997, indicating the addition and the size of the area that encroaches on the front yard area and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. MR. STRANG: I think the application is relatively self-explanatory. A little history, the Pearlsteins, who own the home, are planning on making this a retirement home for themselves and it's a little small as it is for a full-time residence, so they're looking to expand a little bit and basically we're trying to keep the front and back of the building, you know, alignment with the addition of the alignment with the existing building with a minimum (~8 sq.ft. ). Unfortunately, the building is not perpendicular, parallel 1 should say to the property line so as we expaad off to the easterly direction it eneroaches somewhat on the required yard that's shown on our site plan. Actually, there's only a little triangular section of the southeasterly corner of the addition that encroaches on that front side yard. There was a variance that was granted by this Board in January of 1990 whict~ allowed the construction of the deek on the south side of the house of the roadside of the house permitting the setback to that deck of 33 feet from the property line provided that it was not enclosed, just kept opened. Obviously, this being an addition, it's going to be enclosed and we're looking for a 37 foot front yard oppose to the 40 foot that's required again on that little triangnlar corner. The addition will be build on a piling foundation required by the flood plain requirements. So, it will be elevated above the ground approximately 8 feet and it will be open pilings with the exeeption of a storage area that's permitted for incidental storage. We really had no other options available to us that were practical again for the expansion being to try and stay in the alignment of the existing building makes it much easier to construct than to have a jog. CHAIRMAN: What's the approximate height from grade? Do you have any idea Garrett? MR. STRANG: To the addition? CHAIRMAN: Well, what the addition will have if it's built in its location that you're requesting? MR. STRANG: I believe it was to the ridge because as you said before, you take an average, but to the ridge I think we're looking at about 28 feet. CHAIRMAN: And the pilings will be driven so you'll have how much for incidental on any? MR. STRANG: About 8 feet. .Page 13 - ttearing [[~,anscripts ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: About 8 feet? MR. STRANG: Yes, because we're required to be at an elevation of 16.7 to the finish, floor. I shouldn't say that. We're not required but the existing house is at an elevation of 16.7 which is above the required base flood elevation will be at that same height. Obviously, the practicality of the floor is too high. The existing grade is approximately 7-1/2 to 8 feet. We're looking at about 8 feet of space. You could in reality walk underneath the addition. CHAIRMAN: Interesting. SO, this is going to be similar to what we have at Rabbit Lane then where you have the older cottages and then you have the elevations and the additions and so on and so forth as it goes on. MR. STRANG: Except this particular addition will not be elevated too much. I mean it will be about maybe 4 feet above the height of the existing ridge of the house. CHAIRMAN: OK, I think we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No CItAIRMAN: While you're standing there, is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further questions I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. 7:24 P.M. Appl. No. 4484 PAULETTE SATUR MUELLER AND EBERHARD MUELLER Page 14 - Hearing h.-anscripts ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: This application is based upon the April 28, 1997 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector. Variances are requested under Article Ill, Section 100-33 for approval of the location of a new dwelling to the rear of existing accessory buildings, leaving a ~ron! yard location for the accessory buildings. Location of Property: 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue; 1000-101-2-24.5. A-C Zone. I have a copy of a survey from John Metzger. Its most recent date is February ~7, 1997, indicating the construction of a proposed residence at approximately ~20 feet from Alvah's Lathe, 58 feet, we'll refer to that as the southerly, it's really southeasterly property lithe and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I assame Ms. Wickham yoa are representing. MS. WICKHAM: I'm Abigail Wickham, I'm representing the applicants. As many of the Board may know, this property has been in farming use for many, many years. The existing dwelling and the barns ]have been nh that prime location probably since early on in this century and tile property has been in continuous farming use since that time. The dwelling had originally been used for farm help and more recently has been rented out lo tenants and several months ago my clients acquired this property and the enjoining 16 area parcel. The enjoining parcel ~s property of farmlaud on which the development rights have been sold to the county and this was the parcel reserved out from that sale, so, this is the srea in which the residential portion of property will occur and obviously there appears to be a hardship that was not self-enclosed that is then e:<isting snd they reslly have tho other alternative in terms of lo~ating the residence which automatically creates a hardship for which we're seeking a technical variance. If there's any specifid questions that you'd like alhswered. CHAIRMAN: What is the nature, just for the record, of the existing residence? Wbat will happen to that? MS. WICKHAM: Initially, while the new dwelling is being constructed, my clients would like to I don't know if live is the proper word, this is noi a very dwelling but %hey will be residing in it periodically while they're reconstructing their new dwelling. At the time that the CO was issued and I spoke to the Building Departmeut about this, the residential character of that building will cease and it will become an accessory use. Initially they'll be using it for probably seed propagation. They're going to be using farm and vegetable purposes and then other residential agricultural accessories. CHAIRMAN: So, yoa're not objectiug to a restriction that there be only one residence on the property and tbat as you sa~d that they will cease and desist the residential nature of this upon the completion and a CO for the new structure, new dwelling. · Page 15 - tlearing 2~-anscripts ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: It will be an accessory residential use but the dwelling will be the new dwelling and this building will be limited to accessory residential and agriculture use. CHAIRMAN: Right, meaning not a residence? MS. WICKHAM: Meaning not a dwelling. CHAIRMAN: Right, OK, we'll start with Mr~ Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I got quite a nice tour from Mr. Mueller the other day. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No comments. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Just to be clear. No-one will be living - MS. WlCKHAM: There will not be a dwelling. MEMBER DINiZIO: No bed, no stove. MS. WICKHAM: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: Lawn mowers and garden tools, OK. MS. WICKHAM: Right. CHAIRMAN: While you're standing there, we've done very well with this tonight, we'll continue. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of the application? No-one in the back wants to speak? I guess, they know you Gaff, they know you do a great job. Is there anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. 7:35 P.M. - Appl. No. 4480 - NiCKHART REALTY Page 16 - Hearing ~l~,anscripts ~une 19, 1997 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: This application is based upon the September 18, 1996, updated April 28, 1997 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector which states: "...1) Insufficient lot area and depth in an R-40 Zone. A lot is required to have an area of 40,000 sq. ft... and depth of 175 feet Article III-A~ Section 100-30A.3, 2) Insufficient front yard setback for a non-conforming lot-Article XXIV, Section 100-244B..." 53400 C.R. 48, Southold, N.Y., Parcel 1000-52-2-13. R-40 Zone. Lot width at 150 ft. fo~' each. (Remaining yard areas shall be according to code requirement, and front yard reductions according to ZBA ruling.) What we're very simply doing is opening the hearing. It is not going to be presented tonight. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You're here to speak? You may speak. CHAIRMAN: You may speak if you'd like to. We are very simply opening tile hearing and then we are recessing the hearing. That's alt we're doing because Mr. Sambach, who is an Agent for the applicant is not here. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, but you're going to postpone it. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to postpone it until the next regular meeting. Could you just state your name for the record. MS. PAETZ: My name is Gloria Paetz. I live on the corner of Beverly and North Road. They sent me this survey and I was interested in the 20 feet or 10 feet right on that road. There are water, pipes right on that corner. I don't know if Greenport owns that 20 feet or that 10 feet there, Greenport Water because they have, I don't know what you call it. Faucets are in there for the three houses that are on Ashamonaque and I would hope that they would leave as many trees they can there to kind of deaden the sound of the cars and the trucks going on Route 48 and also there's a little shed there that the previous owner Haas had said to me that I could use. I don't know whose property that is on at this moment. I have my bicycles iu there. It's not locked, it's just a shed. CHAIRMAN: Said shed to be removed. MS. PAETZ: OK, then they probably own all of that section there. CHAIRMAN: Yes, except for the right-of-way. MS. PAETZ: Right up to Beverly Road there? CHAIRMAN: Yes. Inclusive of Beverly Road it looks like. .Page :17 - Hearing ~iranscripts ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals MS. PAETZ: Well, that's OK, I just wanted to know. Who owns that corner where those water things are? My water comes from the Main Road from Gveenport on the Main Road. I don't have a well, but the other three houses do and those have faucets or whatever. If there's a leak they have to go in there all the time, lift up that big - CHAIRMAN: I don't know. It's probably part of the road bed. I think the road is 66 feet wide at that point. It shows a variable width here. However, I think it's 66 feet wide. MS. PAETZ: See, this has a Iittle light line here where I was concerned. Right after it says 70 feet there's a very littte light line and this corner right where that 70 is - CHAIRMAN: You're goiag to have to show me that Mrs. Paetz. I can't see where you're pointing. MS. PAETZ: Lets see, Beverly and this north road, and there's a little light line that goes here and I was wondering if they go - CHAIRMAN: That's the water serviee line. That is the water service line. MS. PAETZ: And Greenport services that? Greenport won't touch it. It's amazing. It's a private road and there was a leak in there alxd they won't touch it because they just stand there. CHAIRMAN: Well, they won't touch it because it's on somebody else's property-, that's the reason why. MS. PAETZ: So~ they own those pipes too. This is what I want to know. CHAIRMAN: Well, there is probably a prescriptive easement over that, over that piece of property. MS. PAETZ: This is only what I was concerned about. If they would just try to keep some trees. Maybe I eoald ask them. When they have a hearing I'll come down and speak because it is nice to see the trees. CHAIRMAN: Alright, so we'll see you back on July a MS. PAETZ: Whenever. Is it definitely set July what, 9th? CHAIRMAN: i0th. MS. PAETZ: Thank you so much. .Page 18 - Ilearing ~Iranscripts June t9, 1997 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Is the~e anybody else would like to speak in behalf of Nickhart Realty before we recess the hearing? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion recessing the hearing to the next regular schedule meeting. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Did you give a date that? CHAIRMAN: Yes, July 10th. I need a second. MEMBER DOYEN: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. 7:58 P.M. - Appl. No. 4487 - DONALD AND PATRICIA FEILER CHAIRMAN: (Owuer: Homan Realty). This is a request for a Special Exception under Article VII for conversion of building from single-family to "business and professional offices" as provided by Section 100-7lB, subsection 2. RO Zone. 11725 Main Road, Mattituck; Parcel ~000-141-4-40. Mr. FEILER: I'm Donald Feiler. Pm asking for a Special Exception. I'll tel1 all about what we are hoping to do when we convert tile house on the Main Road in Mattituck in my own architectural office. I don't claim to add on to the building, no additions and it will remain residential in appearance. In furtherance, I plan to make, to remove the vinyl siding, restore the original board-and~button siding that was on there- it's probably over 100 years old, I'm uot sure the age of the house. Install an accessible lam~eb ramp entry on the back of the building. Pave off street parkiug behind the building and that's been approved by the Planning Board. The back yard is already screened on three sides with stockade fence a~d tile driveway is going to be at the same location as tile existiug location. It'll be little traffic during the day to my business and none after business hours. There's a big black walnut tree that's in the fronl and in full bloom now - you can hardly see the house and it's going to remain, I'm not going to take it down so to improve the visibility let it stay. And I've spoken to all four of my neighbors, new neighbors, Mr. Devito, the Coopers, tile Kruegers, Alan Cardinale who is across the street~ and they're all very supportive, they welcome the change and they consider it a big improvement aud Jim Mooney called me this evening and is suppose to be here but his wife has been in labor for 20 hours. Other basiaesses in tile area just down about four houses, there's a lawyer and the next house is an accountant, and , boat showroom is to the west and Handy Pantry across the street, cargo, video, photo store, mixed use, so I don't think it will be too different. It will be within the character. Hopefully everything · Page 19 - Hearing 'l'r'~nscriptS ~June ]9, 1997 Board of Appeals will work out, and as contract vendee, I'm hoping to close soon and I'm looking for your support. CHAIRMAN: We'll start with Member Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: I have nothing. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, the Planning Board you're going to provide seven parking spaces and the curb cut in the back? That was the thing that I was concerned about wl~en I was down there, just because I was, outward parking so could turn around and come out because it is a Main Road. That was my primary concern. MR. FEILER: Yes, like I said the driveway will be where it is now. It's not going to be iii the place it could be. MEMBER TORTORA: You dida't have a lot of areas moved around in as far as the driveway. CHAIRMAN: Just as a point of reference, when did they put that siding on? It use to be board-and-barton up to a couple of years ago wasn't it? MR. FEILER: Tile principle had bought it in 85. CHAIRMAN: Subsequent to 85. MR. FEILER: I would thing after that. Since then, its been a usual two family residence up to a year ago. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DIN1ZIO: No, ilo questions. CHAIRMAN: While you're standing there Don, is there anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further testimony, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. BOA'RD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Who would like to second that motion? MEMBER DIN1ZIO: Second. ~Page 20 - Hearing Trailscripts ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals cHAIRMAN: Ali ill favor. MEMBERS: Ayes. 8:02 P.M. ~ Appl. No. 4469 - RAYMOND FEDYNAK CHAIRMAN: (Cappyover) l~equests for : (1) approval of Waiver under Section 100-26 for a single non-conforming lot identified as 1000-123-5-15, which is vacant, or (2) alternative relief under Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3 by variance for approval of lot sizes, as opiginally created, which now have insufficient lot area, depth and width in this R-40 Zone. Fay Court, Mattituck. Is there someone here representing? How are you tonight Sir. Would you like to address tile issue here? MR. MONAG}tAN: Yes, I would. I'm Richard F. Monaghan. Raymond is a neighbop of miue iii Mattituck. l'm the attorney representing him in this matter. What he is basically asking the Board to do is reverse the decision of the Building Inspector for the following reasons. I think that when he purchased the property in 1980 there were two parcels he purchased and as I lived across the street from the parcels for 10 years, the parcels have been, the house and the parcels. No-one lived in it for approximately years and it had been overgrown and Raymond and his wife Jac bought the house specifically with the idea there were two parcels involved on the property and his idea was that eventually what he had hoped to do was after he cleared the property which took him approximately two years, the house was infested with leaves and it was overgrown. As I said, it took him approximately two years to clean it. That eventually some day because of his two children he had hoped to at least sometime in the near future, leave those parcels to his children. From an Estate Tax point of view as recently developed, as it makes more sense to do it now than never clear. The Unified Credit and the Annual Exemption the property is worth $60 - $80,000, what he would like to do is deed or make annual distributions with his wife joining it, give that property to his children so they can get benefits of living in Mattituck. Give to the childreu and if they lived here, they're in their late twenties now. He hopes eventually to have them live next to him when he retires and what he would like to do is deed the parcel over to them. I think in tile spirit of 100-26 would be that is lot sizes are not average, that plot size is not average that goes around them. live across the street from it for 15 years, on a 50 x 100 plot. I don't think this is a density issue, I think it makes good sense from an economic point of view as I said because he runs into a problem having some estate tax problems perhaps down the road, with property appreciatiug with his other assets so what we would like to do is ask the Board to waive the merger of what occurred back in 83 and allow him the opportunity to at least proclaim his estate with Page 21 - Hearing ~i~mscripts ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals more efficiency. Last year he had the opportunity to travel, to look at his estate plan and that was one of the things that surfaced and has a poteutial p~'oblem to his Estate Taxes if he doesn't. He could then get the property unmerged and he is alIowed to give it to his children. CHAIRMAN: OK, Mr. Dinizio, questions?. MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions at the moment. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: Nb questions. CHAIRMAN: For the record, I do understand the estate situation. For the life of me though, I, and 1 do understand that you live on a 50 foot piece of property across the street, MR. MONAGBAN: I did. CHAIRMAN: You did, OK, MR. MONAGHAN: I did. I moved back. I use an area that occasionally gets bits by northeasters so it was across the street, I had a problem, so I moved about 700 feet back. CHAIRMAN: I remember the Fire Department down there and we've taken many people off of those properties, partieularly in the November, December 1992 storm. I have to be honest with you Mr. Monaghan, I just dou't see creating or recreating a 50 foot lot in that area but that's just my opinion. MR. MONAGItAN: I figure if you look at the other lots there not this similar. CHAIRMAN: No, you're absolutely correct. There are some smaller lots in the area and there are some larger lots in the area. MR. MONAGHAN: I'll tell you that this particular neighbor on lot 15, by the name of Burne, boaght that lot precisely for the same reason that the Fedynaks bought theb~ lot and that was eventually gifted to his children so that they could buiIda home. So, I mean, there is a spirit in a sense I think in Camp Mineola, there was at Page 22 - tlearing ~.dnscripts ',.June 19, 1997 Board of Al)peals one time as I recollect in 1976 30 some odd children in the area most of whom all love that area. I have 5 children, they still come out to Mattituck, they love Mattituck. I know his 2 children, Fedynak's two children love Mattituck and I think if you take it in that spirit that these kids love this place they eventually some of them want to come back. CHAIRMAN: You know, I'm not here to offer other relief but, mean, there ape other avenues that can be done. On a stretch of an imagination the garage could be pulled over to the house and could be made a part of an accessory apartment, possibly. There are other options that are here. MR'. MONAGtIAN: Knowing the piece of property as I do, it would be a difficult stretch - CHAIRMAN: Yoa know the house is not a terribly large house as we can see. MR. MONAGtiAN: That's another reason why you wouldn't want to deed the property over to his children so they could build their own. As you know one of the things that you don't want to lose frankly, if the children leave you don't want them coming back. That's one of his concerns. But if you look at it from an estate tax point of view as you get np to the $600,000 level, once you have reached that $600,000 level, the estate taxes go for both Federal and State purposes increase dramatically and pay a fair price for having property in that category. From his economic point of view, that's a concern of his. If he could on an annual basis with his wife joining into the gift-making a $20,000 gift over 4 years assuming he the property is worth $80,000. In 4 years he's taken an $80,000 asset out of his estate to the economic benefit of his children or the objects of the county what he has done is has in fact saved himself a fair amount of estate taxes - New York and Federal. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody in the audience would like to speak other than this attorney who is an agent for the applicant in favor of this application? Anybody would like to speak against the application? }leaping no further comment, any further comment of this nice gentleman. Thank you very much Sir we appreciate it. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Wait, he's going - CHAIRMAN: Oil, yes, how do you do Sir? MR. FEDYNAK: I have applied for' this separation as Mr. Monaghan s~id but, I think that if the town doesa't grant it, it also puts me at another disadvantage. The parcel that I have, I think it's parcel 16, is 100 x 150 feet, which is one of the largest parcels in Camp Page 23 - Hearing '~anscripts .June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals Mineola. The rest of the parcels in Camp Mineola average about 50 x 100. If you deny that, that makes my parcel 150 x 150 total and I do have two separate tax bills and I know the area is zoned for 1 acre zoning but, that does put a hardship on me and everybody else who has retained a 50 x 100 piece of parcel iu that area has that right. By not granting it to me you take that right away from me. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN: Any questions of this applicant? MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, sure. Sir,' I have to ask you a few questions. When you purchased this lot, did you purchase two deeds? MR. FEDYNAK: I purchased two parcels. MEMBER DINIZIO: Two parcels. MR. FEDYNAK: And with two separate tax bills. MEMBER DIN1ZIO: You have always been receiving two separate tax bills from the Town of Southold? MR. FEDYNAK: Seventeea years. MEMBER. DINIZIO: Last year you received two separate tax bills? MR. FEDYNAK: Two separate tax bills. In 1980 I received two separate tax bills. MEMBER DINIZIO: Two separate lot numbers are on the tax bills. MR. FEDYNAK: Yes. I questioned the Town of Suffolk County and they said as far as Suffolk County is concerned, it is two parcels. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, do you have cesspools on the vacant lot? MR. FEDYNAK: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have swimming pool? MR. FEDYNAK: It's an undeveloped pieee of property. MEMBER DiNIZIO: No garage, no, you dou't store anything on there, baseball field. MR. FEDYNAK: No, nothing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Is it fenced individually, is the whole lot feneed or is it just sought of open? Page 24 - Hearing 2,-anscpipts ',June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals MR. FEDYNAK: A fence was put across the [[50 to stop people from using it. MEMBER DINIZIO: From the back? MR. FEDYNAK: From the front. MEMBER DINIZIO: So you don't park your cars on there? MR. FEDYNAK: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's ail. MR. FEDYNAK: As Mr. Monaghan said, it was intended to eventually gift it to my children. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, when did it came to your attention, that you didn't really have two lots? MR. FEDYNAK: Wllen my daughter noticed the lots. MEMBER DINIZIO: Wbat did the notice say? MR. FEDYNAK: That my properties had been joined. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's when you applied for a Building Permit, right? MEMBER DINIZIO: But you took an action. Your action was you wanted to build something on that lot, is that correct? MR. FEDYNAK: Not me, my children will. Most likely my children. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, you came to the town and said, we want to split this lot or whatever. MR. EEDYNAK: I thought for 17 years that it was since I had two separate tax bills that it was two separate parcels. MEMBER DINIZIO: But, what prompted you to, you know, what got you to this point here, I mean did - MR. FEDYNAK: You mean coming to this point here? MEMBER DINIZIO: Did you come to the Town Hall with a specific thing in miad. How did yon get to this point? MR. FEDYNAK: There was a notice I think in the paper that any joined properties had to be applied fop before January a December 31, 1996 and I applied for that. Page 25 - Hearing T~nscripts 'June 19. 1997 Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: You applied for MR. FEDYNAK: For a separation. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That was that ad by the Councilwoman that put the ad in the newspaper? MR. FEDYNAK: Right. BOARD OF SECRETARY: For all undersized lots, they should be aware. MR. FEDYNAK: So we answered the ad. BOARD OF SECRETARY: That's right, he answered the ad in the newspaper. MR. FEDYNAK: I was under the impression that since I had two tax bills I had two separate pieces of property and just because they were in the same name they were put into one continuous piece of property. MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that your understanding? That's the only reason why? Yoa think that's the only reason why it was - MR. FEDYNAK: Well, the area is zoned for one acre too. I think that they placed me in a hardship when everybody is dealing in 50 x ~00 tots and I still have the two large lots and you're creating a larger lot. CHAIRMAN: But, lets do this before we, because we've done the same thing ail throughout the entire town for everyone of these. Would you come back with an analysis cause I want to be, I mean we're completely fair all the time and you raise some interesting issues as well as MP. Dinizio did as well as your attorney did and we realize that this is a timely situation because it took you a little while fop you to come up with this singular and separate search. There's no crilieism, there's no contest on that basis, but come back with an analysis of all the lots in the area on your side from the water all the way back and tell us how many are 50 x 100. MR. FEDYNAK: I think you have a tax map. CHAIRMAN: I have a tax map but I can't read it. I ran blow it up also, but if you want to do so and we'Ii go lot to lot with you. I want to give you every possible advantage on this. MEMBER TORTORA: In.that block 5 or block 5 and block 6? CHAIRMAN: You eau go block 5 and 8. .Page 26 - ttearing T~dnscripts June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals MR. FEDYNAK: Block 5 and 6. CHAIRMAN: Yes and we'll give you every possible advantage. We did the exact same think in Cutchogue, l~robably not 6 or 8 months ago. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Are you interested in only vacant lots, Jerry? CHAIRMAN: I'm interested in every lot, if it's vacant or improved. You're goinK to see most of ttmm improved because most of them are improved there, bat I'm primarily concerned with the ones that are 50 x 100. This particular case is 50 x 150 which is 7500 sq. ft. and we'll give you every possible advantage that we can deal with and if you can't do that by July 10th just let us know and we'd be very happy To rehear it. It's nm something that, I know it's an immediate concern To you but I mean if ii takes another month it takes another month, you know what I'm saying. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just wauted to say, this is a two-fold application also an area variance, did you want to ask about financial, what the value is on it? (Discussion between Member · Tortora and Jerry) CHAIRMAN: Are you familiar with what we're requesting Mr. Monaghan ? MR. MONAGItAN: I didn't hear, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN: You do want to rephrase it? MEMBER TORTORA: Under tile criteria for both an area variance and for a waiver financial hardship is one of the aspects that we're suppose to look at, so it would be prudent if you can present some kind of evidence as to the value of the property with and without the variance and/or waive. CHAIRMAN: This way we'll have the entire everything laid right out on the table for us. We'll give you every possible advantage we can which we woald do anyway, but, we're jast limited on some of this information at the moment. Thank you. MEMBER DOYEN: So you're recessi.ng this? CHAIRMAN: We'll recess it until July 24th. I'i1 make a motion recessing this to July 24th. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. .Page 27 -ttearing T~:=nseripts ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals 8:15 P.M. - Appl. No- 4489 - DOUGLAS W. McGAHAN CHAIRMAN: (Owner: Evelyn Fleet) Applicant is requesting a Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26, for non-conforming lot identitied as 1000-103-07-11, which adjoins non-conforming lot 1000-103-07-12, under Article II, Section 100-26. The lots in question were created by a deed dated 2/1/1923, and dated 10/26/1964; under Section 100-25 the lots in question alee non-conforming and have merged because they have been held in common ownership at some time after July 1, 1983." Location of Property: Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; also shown as Lots ? and 8 on the Map of Green Acres filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office November 3, 19?l. We have a copy these maps as shown in the rendition of the original subdivision as lot #7, 39,956 sq. ft. and lot #8, 39,932 sq. ft. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. McGahan you are on. What woald you like to tell us? MR. McGAttAN: Just timt these lots both are consistent with the size lots in this subdivisiou and with the other lots in the neighboring community and what we plan on doing is building separate houses on each lot, separate family homes, consistent with the size of the homes in that neighborhood. CHAIRMAN: We'll start with Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I just want, I did see the properties and I just wanted to get the exact size of each lot again. MR. McGAtlAN: Well the map of Big Green Acres subdivision which was surveyed by VanTuyl, shows lot ll, 39,956 sq.ft, and lot 12 at 39,932 sq. ft. MEMBER TORTORA: So, both of the lots in question are less than 100 feet of the total required 40,000 sq. ft. MR. McGahan: That's right. MEMBER TORTORA: That's all. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann: MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. Page 28 ' Ilearing Transcripts June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: While you're standing there Mr. MeGahan, is there anybody in the audieuce would like to speak in favor other than the applicant or coutract winder? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving derision until later. Anybody second it? MEMBER DINIZIO: I second it. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. 8:18 P.M. - Appl. No: 4491 LOUIS MOORE BACON CHAIRMAN: This is an application requesting approval for modification, in part, of Variance Project #4354 approved by the Board ef Appeals on March 6, 1996. Location of Property: Robins Island; Suffolk County District 1000, Section 134, Block 3, Lot 5, of 434+- acres. The specific areas requested for consideration are: (1) AREA C. FARM CENTER: Modification as follows: (A) C.4 Agricultural/Maintenance Compound: Reduce size, scope and reassignment of sleeping quarters, and location slightly to the east. (B) C.5 Gamekeepers Barn: Add use for periodic sleeping quarters of two staff employees (reassignment). (2) B.5 DUCI,: INN-COTTAGE: Restore building and add use of periodic sleepiag quarters for one employee. (3) B.1 LANE LODGE-HOUSE: Minor clarification for record purposes to show bright exists as three stories, not 2-1/2 stories as originally requested. I have a copy of the map indicating these and the other existing structures and dwellings on the property and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Law would you like to be heard, Sir? MR. LAW: Kevin Law, Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, for Mr. Bacon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak tonight. In our application to the Board that we submitted on June 2nd, basically we're askiag the Board to (1) clarify and (2) partially modify its prior determination last year m~d in that decision the Board indicated that if there were revisions to the plan we needed to rome back to the Board for /ts review and/or approval. For starts, the request for clarification from the Board regarding the number of stories co,trained in the Lane Lodge, review tbis as more of a housekeeping item. We inadvertently indicated last year that the Lane Lodge was a 2-1/2 story structure when in fact it is a three story structure. We are not changing the growth, we're not Page 29 - IIearing rI'tanscripts ,June 19, 1997 Beard of Appeals changing the height of the building, it's just that it's a three stox~y building and we waut a prior determination to reflect that it was a three story building and we request the Board to clarify that. Again, we are not seeking to renew our additional height bearings for that structure. That's the clarification in minor revisions to the plan the Board approve ..... The Duck Inn is a very smali structure, it's Iocated on your map as 3-5, it is right next to the Mackay Cottage and historically was known as the Duck Inn, one of the caretaker cottages on the property. Very small structure. We had originally proposed to demolish it. We thought it wasn't salvageable and it had some major repairs that we thought it ~xeeded, but, as the Island and the plan was sought of a working progress every day, every week, the project team learns new things about the property and upon further inspection of that building we thought it was salvageable and was deemed worthy of savkxg and we'd like to restore that facility and keep it in the same place. We're not seeking a height' variance, keep it exactly the way it is, but, just we're looking to repair it. Upon restoring the Duck Inn we intend to use it just as, again periodic sleeping quarters for one of the staff members on the property who will be over there during either forestry activities or hunting activities. The property again, will not be a year-round will not be a year-round use. CHAIRMAN: Isn't that the original caretakers' cottage that -- MR. LAW: Our of the origi~ml. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that was the one who the gentleman who basically utilized that cottage for 20 years or so. MR. LAW: Correct, Mr. Tuthill will look kindly upon this in his eternal reward hopefully. MR. LAW: Yes, unfortunately he passed away two years ago. CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you. MR. LAW: Additionally, if you recall in the farm renter, the middle of the island, we had proposed Agrieultural Compound with an existing structure which is referred to as Workshops and Poultryman's house and then we were going to build three new sought of wings attached to that and build a quadrangle type of structure. We,ve changed that a bit and we reduced the scope of those buildings and the size of those buildings and now rather than quadrangle we're talking about two unattached wings and the existing structure which is where the Workshop and Poultryman's house is, we are looking to restore. So, it will not be a quadrangle concept but there will be sought of three unattached wings. One existent wing of that formerIy proposed quadrangle and two new unattached wiugs very close to the area that we proposed it be located last year. I understand the Board wilt be inspecting the Page 30 - }teariug 'l,anscripts "~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals property next week and we can show you and we'll have the area roped off wbere the unattached wings are proposed. You'll notice 50 feet differently than what we proposed last year.. The more significant change involving this structure is that the Board last year approved one of the uses of this building could be used for sleeping quarters for four employees or staff members of the propemy and what we are requesting in light of the fact that we changed the design aud reduced the scope of the building is to reassign those three ~o four sleeping quarters that you gave us permission ~o do. Again, we're not looking for an increase, we're looking for a reassignmen~ of those four sleeping quarters. One of the sleeping quarters we'd like ~o see reassigned would be to the Duck Inn that we're now saviug and we're looking to restore and two of the other four previously approved sleeping quarters we're looking ~o have reassigned ~o what is known as the Gamekeeper's Barn. Whal is interestiug why I referred to before, when you asked me the question abou~ tile Duck Inn as oue of the Caretakers' Cottages, if you notice in our submittals last year, the Environmental Assessment form, [hat rather small document that was thicker than the yellow pages, included in one of the exhibits the historical overview of all those structures. In there, it indicates that the barn was daring the nineteen forties used as a Caretaker's residence and [here was slots if you can calI them where you could actually see that [here might have been two bedrooms or places where you could put beds. Again. we're looking to reduce the scope of some of the buildings and looking to put previously approved functions in existent buildings. This would allow us to get bedrooms and existent building that has undergone some significant renovation over the last year when the structures that continues concentrating on and we would request the Board to reassign three of those four sleeping quarters. Again, we feel like last year we already justified the need for the sleeping quarters. We're only asking for a reassignment. The necessity hasn't gone away. We're again just looking to redistribute what was previously approved and they'll be no increase in the aggregate amount. That's basically it. We provided you as you required of us, a status report, March 31st, sought of gave you an update as to what happened in. the last year since you approved tile plan and if you read it, it's was pretty self-explanatory. I'd be happy to answer any questions relating to the status report or to our request for the clarification and modification of the Board's prior detemnination of last year. CHAIRMAN: What it appears to me on tile surface is that you actually want Io have people occupying certain strategic buildings within the agricultural area. I mean, I call see the reason for Duck Inn. Quite houestly, I can never see the reason for destroying it because it is ahnost a historical building. There are buildings that were worst than that that you worked on, you know what I'm saying? MR. LAW: Right Page 31 - Hearing ri:.anscripts ~ ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: But, that's not for me to comment on other than the fact that I'm happy that you're keeping it, but, it almost sounds like that you want to logistically place people within the Agricultural Compound area strategic buildings for its specific reason. Is there any reason for that? MR. LAW: No, it's a good observation. What we're trying to do is sought of with the security and service needs of the property in mind, be able to have a place in the various areas where there's going to be activity. In that hunting lodge area and then in the agricultural center area. That's what we're looking to do. CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I guess we're going to be over there next week? CHAIRMAN: Right. Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing is, do you have any kind of site plans of the new proposal for the Agricultural Compound? MR. LAW: Yes and it's on your map that we submitted. What we tried to do if I may approach, not the bench, but the dais here, what we tried to indicate on the map here in the gray area that was the formerly proposed site and then right to the right of that you'll see, "sec 4", that's the Iocatiou of the two new wings. We tried to indicate what was previously proposed and then in light blue what is currently proposed. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I was just wondering so that we could fix some kind of size, you kuow, what the actual reductions are, etc. MR. LAW: I'll be happy to provide that to you by next Wednesday. That is, as to what the scope I believe. MEMBER TORTORA: See, but we're not just talking about reduced size, we'll know exactly where we're going. MR. LAW: Fine, I brought Mr. Thompson down from all the way down from Collneoticut, to the extent I can't answer any of your technical questions, perhaps he can tonight. CHAIRMAN: Jim yea want to address that? MR. THOMPSON: Jim Thompson, Mr. Bacon's architect, and I think I can clarify the question. The previous application was for an Page 32 - Hearing 'l~-anscripts ~June 19, 1997 Board of Appeals aggregate of 30,000 sq. ft. of construction, item C-4 and C-4-1, Farm Compound. The curve proposal is for the renovation of the existing Poultryman's Workshop wi~ich is about 7,000 sq. ft. and a construction of 12,000 sq. ft. of new space. So, we're looking at coming from 30 down to 19, so it's reduction is just over 50%. Again, I think to reenforce Kevin's comments if you go back and look at the scenario for construction strategy, the timing, the sequence of activity on the Island recognizing the multiyear aspect of this are mandated then to focus on the restoration of the existing and historic structures that design process has led ns through a number of decisions wlmre we're trying to optimize those facilities and also recognize that in any design process there is some evolution and we find that Mr. Bacon has been there for two years of activity where they did not have the capacity to have shelter or housing for s~aff to support the family and their guest activities of their wintertime so he's really come to us and said, look you've got to rethink the program for space because we're initially saw all of these periodic staff quarters going essentially into new construction and so the combination of looking at the priority of delivering portions of the property for nsc this year and trying to optimize the use of the existing structure such as dock use, I'm the one who is guilty of initially concealing of it not being there and he has agreed to go to some expense to keep it particularly Mrs. Bacon decided that she liked it quite a bit. So, I guess she's the one who really gets the credit for saving it, so, those things influenced us in any - OK. If we could rearrange how we're looking at the use of those existing buildings that we're getting priority attention then that would solve an operational dilemma for him for this coming winter and so that's -- than the trade-off probably in the design processing. We do feel that the need is considerable, there has been a risk and a hardship related to how do we transport people during the wintertime and we'd like to avoid in the coming season and this seemed the best solution to get to that port. CHAIRMAN: In tile construction of any apartment type of aspect and I'm not talking about design construction, I'm talking about fireproofing and so on and so forth, tilts is all done with typical zoning, excnse me, Building Code mandate trend. There's no question, we're all, everything is zoned? MR. THOMPSON: Yes, we're bing monitored very closely by the Building Department. CHAIRMAN: Alright, thank you. Mr. Law, you have something else? MR. LAW: Yes, just two other minor points: Again, I think the Board sl~ould keep in mind all the structures again will only be used periodically. None of them, other than the Caretaker's Cottage that you approved last year cad which isn't built yet, nor plans aren't even designed yet, which that structure was allowed to be used year-pound all of these structures we're requesting, reveal that they Page 33 - Hearing T~ahscripts gune 19, 1997 Board of Appeals only be used periodically and if there is any concern by the Board for precedence I'd just like to get on record that the Island as.we ail know is very unique by the fart that it's an island is unique and I think the property being an island precludes the use of this ease as a precedence for any other proposal similar unless it was of similar size and stroke. I know we got accused of lawyers speaking too much bat since we're establishing a record I just like to put on the record that we believe that all of these requests contain on this application are consistent with the Board's prior determination, will not change tile character of the Island or the community. It observes the spirit of tile Zoning Ordinance and will not have any negative effect on the environment and there will be no undesirable change or any detriment to the health safety or welfare of the community. CHAIRMAN: Right, thank you. MR. LAW: Thauk you, thauk you for your time. CHAIRMAN: In the audience, is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further .. comment I will close tiffs hearing pending the inspection that we will make next Thursday morning at 9:00 A.M. If anything is of concern to us, we'll certainly reopen tile hearing by a unanimous vote but, at this particular poiut we're in effect closing it pending that inspection. We thank you very much gentlemen for coming in. Did you second that .Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes I did. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. RECEIVED AND FILED BY Tile SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE -7/~t/~7 HOUR ~'.o~ ~r~ Town Clerk, Town of Souiholcl