Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/24/1997 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 24, 1997 Prepared by Lucia Farrell from tape recording 6:48 p.m. Appl. No. 4469.GG - RAYMOND FEDYNAK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a second hearing, recessed hearing from the June 19, 1997 meeting. How are you tonight, Sir, and would you kindly state your name again for the record? RICHARD MONAHAN, ESQ: tf I may, at the last meeting I think the Board had asked us to do an analysis of the sections of 5 and 6 of 123 to analyze the lot structure and also in addition to get some, or to get appraisals of the property. What I would like to do is present to the Board copies of what has been done. (Copies distributed to Chairman, Secretary and Board Members.) MR. MONAHAN: If you will turn to the little indexing, and perhaps it's the third page is where the real analysis is - and what we have done, we broke the lots into various square footage categories, 10,000 & under, 20,000 & under, and above 20,000, and as you will see from the analysis what it shows is that of the 39 lots, 18 or 46% of the lots wet'e at least 10,000 sq. ft. or less, 17 are under 20,000 sq. ft. for a total of 35, for a total 35 and almost 90% are under 20,000 sq. ft. Our lot, I think, is 50 by 150. On Section 6 it skews a little bit differently from the point of view there are several large lots and several large elongated lots, so using some of the same comparison but because of the larger lots you have several lots 40,000 sq. ft. or more in that particular section, and those are the elongated lots that I am speaking of. They run down to the beach. There extremely long. Perhaps some of them as much as maybe a half mile, maybe three-quarters of a mile. So that skews the square footage to may be skewing different in Section 6 than in Section 5. On the next page what we did was, the Board had asked us to have some appraisals run on the property showing the combined value of the lots as well as the individual of the lot that we are asking to be unmerged. Silkworth came in on Lot 16 which is the larger lot with the current house and garage on it at between $140,000 to $150,000. And Lot 15 if it's combined in the merged has a value of $10,000 in the merger. Stand along would be a $55,000 to $65,000 lot. Coldwell comes in somewhat surprising to some of us Page 2 - Hearing Trariscripts July 24, 1997 - Board of Appeals who are not out here full time, the brokers are quite as accurate as they are, but they are also pretty close based on the number 16 at $135,000 to $150,000. Lot 15 I think also was at $10,000. Their number was slightly different between $35,000 and $40,000. And Lewis came in, he just gave us one for $145,000. Same number for the merged lot combining 15 and 16, $]0,000, that gives you - Lot ]5 was a stand alone, it's $62,500. We took the average of all three so that the combined value is $52,583. The average value of Lot 15 as a single lot comes out to be about $55,000. One of the things that Mr. and Mrs. Fedynak would like is as I mentioned to you is to gift the property to their children at some time in the future, and so what I basically did was take an analysis of the estate tax rates both for Federal and New York purposes, and then said if they had a taxable estate at a certain level and if they gifted this property which is what they want to do, what tax saving would their estates benefit, for the two of them - if you brought at $600,000 level and you gifted out $60,000 you don't have Federal estate tax and what you do is, you still have a New York tax because New York does not have the same credit facility for federal purposes, so what they would be saving is $6,100 on their estates. And then as you graduate on up, the saving becomes a little bit more significant. Even though you're going to pay federal tax if you were to lose the $60,000 in the calculation you can to see that eventually at the $700,000 level you are going to save $22,600 in estate taxes~ and $750 moves to 23, $$00,00 and above, then it graduates on up. A couple of pie charts showing the analysis that was done. We've included copies of the appraisals for your record. And I think that probably fulfills our obligation that you need. I think Mr. Fedynak did say at the end of the meeting that in all the time that he's owned it, since 1983, that the Town has continuously sent him bills or tax bills for both parcels. So even they didn't consider it merged for bill purposes, so if the Board needs something else, that the Fedynaks are asking is basically to unmerge the lots and give them the ability perhaps to give their children the lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a very nice analysis aud we appreciate it immensely. The only tlfing I failed to tell you is that the Board of Review if the board were so inclined to grant this variance the Suffolk County Board of Review would of course require you to go before them because you know you need 150 feet between wells and cesspools now. So that's something that you have to bear in mind. We'll start with Member Dinizio, do you have any questions of Mr. Monahan? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. It was very detailed. Very good. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann? (No questions). Mrs. Tortora? Mr. Doyen (no questions). I don't have any further questions. Is Page 3 - Hearing Trknscripts July 24, 1997 - Board of Appeals there anybody in the audience that would like to speak? Would your applicants like to say something, Mr. Fedynak? MR. RAYMOND FEDYNAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again, Mr. Monahan. Super job. MR. FEDYNAK: You had just mentioned about Suffolk County and wells being - the wells are really located in an area that -- CHAIRMAN: Oh, that's right. You have a pooled well filter system. MR. FEDYNAK: Right. So that way we are not interfering with one another. And I have a letter from one of our neighbors who has lived there I guess all his life. And I'll give a copy of this to you so you can read it. CHAIRMAN: (Received copy). Thank you. MR. FEDYNAK: He feels that in essence that you know, if this was split it really doesn't deter anything in the neighborhood because everything is basically below that 10,000 sq. ft. - you know the major pieces of property. CHAIRMAN: What happens - you bring up an interesting point, Mr. Fedy~ak, when somebody wants to build another home on a piece of property that is not presently constructed upon. Do they then go into that well field or what normally is the -- MR. FEDYNAK: What had happened about 7 or 8 years ago, the well situation was reconstructed and most of the properties that were undeveloped all have water rights and underground pipes that have been already laid there, and -- MR. MONAHAN: And they buy into the system. CHAIRMAN: Does that water system get shut off during the winger? At any time to your knowledge? MR. FEDYNAK: There are some parcels - each individual one, each individual house that's on it - MR. MONAHAN: There are no more than four on the line, and I believe most of the lines are utilized because there are only three or four permanent residents during the winter, so I don't know what the configuration is as to who uses what line, some of them may be two on a line. CHAIRMAN: That was only a point of inquiry. It has nothing to do with-- The well field itself is interesting because we do run into Page 4 - Hearing TranScripts July 24, 1997 - Board of Appeals that every once in awhile. But, so is there a line in front of your house or would you have to then trench one in if -- MR. FEDYNAK: It trenched to it in part right where our property posts begin and then we have to come down a right-of-way and then just put that in. CHAIRMAN: I see. MR. FEDYNAK: But in most cases there are lines that are just laid in already. CHAIRMAN: Right. And the only other thing I wanted to say again if the Board were so inclined, I don't know if they are or they aren't. I certainly haven't polled them and we don't know. We were kind of waiting for this analysis. Your garage would be nonconforming as to setbacks because I think the garage is - let me just get to the survey again. The garage is 51 feet 5" from the line. So then drawing a line across the property would put the property at 1'5" off. MR. MONAHAN: That would have to be moved, or something -. CHAIRMAN: To be conforming it would have to be moved but I am just mentioning that to you as we see it. Any ether questions from anyone? MEMBER DOYEN: No. OTHER MEMBERS: (None). CHAIRMAN: That's about it. We thank you very much for the analysis and we will certain digest it. I don't think we'll ~et to it tonight. I'm going to go back down there and do another field inspection, not that I don't agree with your analysis. I'm just going to take the analysis with me and go back down. So we may address it on the 14th of August, or it may wait until the 28th of August. All right? Have a safe trip back. MR. MONAHAN: Ok. Tha~k you. MR. FEDYNAK: Thank you. We're only back to Mattituck. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, 1'11 make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. Motion carried. (end of hearing). Page 5 - Hearing Tral~seripts July 24, 1997 - Board of Appeals 7:00 p.m. Appl. No. 4496.SD - JEAN N. CALHOUN. Legal notice was read in the introduction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have some really nice pictures that we got from Member Doyen which we appreciate. And we have a copy of a site plan from Chandler Palmer and King dated May 28, 1996 and updated on 3/25/97 indicating that proposed location of the pool which appears to be I won't even guess, it's between the house and of course the natural bluff, but I won't estimate the distance. I'll wait for the attorney to represent that. MEMBER DOYEN: I think it's 100 feet. CHAIRMAN: It's 100 feet from the beach. Rocky beach, which is referred to. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area, Mr. Lark? How- are you tonight. MEMBER DOYEN: Gee you run just like the railroads used to run. Seven o'clock right on the button. RICHARD LARK, ESQ: OK, not all the time. I try. OK. Good evening. I believe that the petition which I assume ail the board members have read, I believe it covers all the necessary points for this area variance under 267B of the Towt~ Law. However, I would like to cover and highlight a few points for the board. Parenthetically not to be cute but instructive, I'm assuming from the past practices of the Building Inspector's offices and your Board of Appeals and the tacit approval if you would of the Zoning Board of Appeals, that his interpretation of the Zoning Code is correct, is set forth in Exhibit 1, which you have before you in the petition. I bring this to your attention as I say in a positive manner, because even a strict or even a casual reading of the code doesn't back up the building inspector. The building inspector says that the swimming pool is to be constructed within 100 feet of the bluff and so it is, and this is true fact, but under the definition that he cites the section of the code, Zoning Code 239.4 that refers to a building has to be more than 100 feet. 100-13 of your code does define building as a structure having a roof and accepts construction that's entire underground, which of course where a swimming pool is. Further, the definition of a building includes all sorts of things in the Zoning Code that are not building, such as signs, fences, wails, radio and TV Towers, even porches and outside bins, but no swimming pools. One would think that if in this decade of technicality, especially where the environment is concerned, that the word swimming pool of all types, goes where swimming pools of all types could be added to this section Of definitions, especially since swimming pool is defined in the code. Also, pursuant to your interpretive powers pursuant to 100-272-1-1 of the code you could interpret the swimming pool should be included. I say this Page 6 - Hearing Trkriscripts July 24, 1997 - Board of Appeals especially since swimming pools is listed or defined ~n a building area but not as a building which is what the section that we're under.. But, be that as it may, the point that I'm trying to make, is that the existing code leaves something to be desired and does leave open the jurisdictional question. But, to say it another way, we get so with all the amendments and the code over the last 15 years we pay so much attention to detail, we sometimes tend to overlook the obvious. But, for purposes of this appeal and to expedite the matter so that Mrs. Calhoun can build and enjoy the swimming pool with what's left of the summer, I'm assuming that what we're applying for here is an area variance to locate the pool as you see on Exhibit 2. I think it's important for the board to know by way of history, that this is probably the only practical location on this property where you can locate a pool through the boulders as well as the prehistoric artifacts that are presently on the property. The house was moved and built and constructed in this location to avoid impacting the area of archeologdcal sensitivity. In May of ]995, Dr. Robert Miller, I guess at the request of the DEC, did a cultural resources investigation, the result of this particular house site was recommended as the place where to where you see it on Exhibit 2, where to locate it. The DEC also agreed and granted approval for the house site location. Both the DEC as an amended to her building permit has approved the pool ]ocation and so did the Southold Town Trustees. You have those as Exhibits 3 and 4. I also, which you don't have and I was able to obtain and if you'd like to have it for your record, I was able to obtain the cultural resource investigation done by Dr. Miller and you want to have a copy of that for your file, I think 'it might be helpful. Also, I included, which you might not have, even in the building inspector's file, the negative deck done in June of 95, done by the DEC for the house location and when you look at the map there, when you look at where the boulders and where they found those artifacts, you can see the dilemma they were in and that's why they went and located the house where it is. Now, turning to the Town Law, in particular to 267B, I believe, petition and those who have visited the site clearly demonstrates that this appticatipn by placing the pool in this particular location there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties. There is no other place to put the pool because of the geological and the archeological factors that I just spoke about. The variance request itself is not substantial as a swimming pool is a reasonable accessory use to a residential property and residence owner. There will be no adverse impact or physical or environmental conditions to the neighborhood and clearly this situation was not self-created in the sense that no-one knew until she went to locate the house that this is what they call in archeological terms as a hot spot, this whole area and Chocomount Bay, Chocomount Cove rather, and so therefore taking into account the benefits to Jean Calhoun, if you're granting of her request is weighed against the factors as set forth in the law, I don't believe you'll find any detriment at all to the Page 7 - Hearing Trgifscripts July 24, 1997 - Board of Appeals health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and I respectfully request that you grant her, her application and if any of the members have any questions I'll be glad to answer them, if I can. CHAIRMAN: Just as a point of clarification, the pool is 77 feet as requested from by a water mark, whatever that - MR. LARK: Yeah, that could be it. CHAIRMAN: I said 100 feet and I was referring to the, the code reflects to lb0 feet. MR. LARK: Yeah, the code reflects 100 feet, that's correct. I thought that's what you had said. MEMBER TORTORA: What's that 100 foot line? What's that? CHAIRMAN: That's the 100 foot line is here. ~This is 77 to the edge of the bay. Is that a waikway around that, or is that a retainer wall I assume? Must be a retaining wall. MEMBER DOYEN: Will be, I guess. CHAIRMAN: Yes, will be a retaining wall. MR. LARK: Will be. What you see there is prospective. Mr. Doyen, you've been to the place so you can describe better than I. MEMBER DOYEN: Well, I have 79 photographs here. So, actually calling that a bluff is - MR. LARK: No, that's stretching the word. It is in that area. That is it's stretching - CHAIRMAN: How low is it? MEMBER DOYEN: How low is it? From here to there to maybe that much. MR. LARK: It's all rocks. Saying it's a gradual incline and its got overgrown - MEMBER DOYEN: Not only that, it's on the north side of the island and (noise disturbance-inaudible) ]938 hurricane impacted that area significantly. MR. LARK: Its lucky that way because of the you don't get much of the sea storm there. MEMBER DOYEN: No, you can't have a storm sergia. Page 8 - Hearing Tr~HScripts July 24, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. LARK: No, that's true in that particular location on that side of the island. That is correct. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, I just wanted to mention that. We'll start with Mr. Doyen. Anything you'll like to say fop the record? MEMB ER DOYEN: No, only that nearby they found some areheoIogical items. They were 9,000 years old. MR. LARK: There in that report. CHAIRMAN: 9,000 years old! No relatives though? MEMBER DOYEN: Who knows. MR. LARK: There is a site map that the Dr. Miller did and you can see when they did core samples they did find some of these prehistoric. It turned out that this area they're theorizing was cultivated and they found some implements and things of that nature. As I understand it, where they come across things like this, they don't try to dig them up or do anything, they just want to leave them there. CHAIRMAN: Oh! Really, they leave them there? MR. LARK: Yes, they don't want anybody to be, they just don't want it disturbed. No-one wants to come in these areas and dig them up and put them in a museum or anything like that. CHAIRMAN: That's amazing. MR.. LARK: Yes, it is. I was surprised at that. They just don't want anything to disturb it. You know, like bulldozers and thing4 of that nature. They just want them left there. As Mr. Doyen said, the area I g~uess was to the west of it, they did find a bunch of stuff, you know-, like arrowheads, and all of that other kind of things. CHAIRMAN: Well, I assume they exhume the ground for the swimming pool, they'll be there again and something is found they'll probably - MR. LARK: No, they looked in that area and there is nothing there. MEMBER TORTORA: Metal detectors, right? MR. LARK: .No, they do core samples. They actually do core samples and go down in the ground and then pull out the core samples and analysis it. That report is quite interesting to read because I have read them for big places where they were looking for Page 9 - Hearing Trariscripts July 24, 1997 - Board of Appeals species of wild life and stuff like that. Like we had up you know at Tanger Mall, but I have never read one where they're looking for artifacts~ you know, nothing live or anything, they're just looking for anything that might be there and it's interesting the things that they pull out of there. So~ and then the other big factor is that she didn't really want to put the house there to begin with but the boulders and everything else on it and when they got involved they said no, leave the boulders alone because you'll do more destruction by trying to move them out of there to put a foundation in or anything so, it was kind of not squeezed in but situated in between, between them, he can described the size of them. MEMBER DOYEN: No, that's a beautiful place. You can see there where there's two photos here where you drive up so called front yard, that isn't the fpont yard. MR. LARK: Well, no, but under the zoning it - CHAIRMAN: That's why I didn't discuss what was front yard and where the actual location of the swimming pool was because Fishers Island is a very difficult plaee to discuss what's front yard and what's pear yard. MR. LARK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: The only thing that I would ask Mr. Doyen, is maybe you could show us this site while they're constructing the swimming pool or - MEMBER DOYEN: Yes, I ealI the day before~ CHAIRMAN: We'll go over in August, OK. MEMBER DOYEN: I'll just call Jeannie and just tell her. MR. LARK: No, no, that's not a problem and you also, I was here a couple of months ago on another one. I'm told that one is in so the next time you're ovep there, you know on treasure - MEMBER DOYEN: Temple, near Temple, Templeton, never forget Templeton. MR. LARK: Yes, Templeton's old plaee. CHAIRMAN: There's no intentions of closing this in anyway. This is to remain open? MR. LARK: On! Yes! Absolutely because it would take the breeze away from it. In fact, it's going to be flagstone on the top and it's goner be a natural stonewall. They're going to use the existing stones on the property which there's plenty of on the property to do Page 2[0 - Hearing T;raiascripts July 24, 2[997 - Board of Appeals that. No, no, there's absolutely no intention to close that. That would take away from the whole intent of the whole thing. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further, is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak? Anybody like to - MR. LARK: No seriously, you ought to give some attention to because I could see you can get into some real spats on it and it's just add the word swimming pool there. If you could put fence why not swimming pool because it makes complete sense, if you know what I mean. CHAIRMAN: Well, we could put structure in, couldn't we? MR. LARK: Structure is not defined in the code. CHAIRMAN: So then, we'll put structure in and then define structure. MR. LARK: That would be fine. I mean just something should be in there. Most codes I did check with some codes and they are in there. They specifically set forth and we have swimming pool regulations in the code. That's what is so interesting about it. MEMBER DOYEN: So what do they call them in the other codes? MR. LARK: Swimming pools. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Structures or buildings or swimming pools, that's it. MR. LARK: No, .they define them right in the swimming pool. MEMBER DOYEN: Swimming pool is unique, that's it. MEMBER TORTORA: Under the definition of the building, it says a structure. MEMBER LARK: Yes, but structure is not defined in the code. Page 11 - Hearing T~,iseripts July 24, 1997 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Their not defined in any code? MR. LARK: Not in this code. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I know, but other codes? MR. LARK: Some codes, they are. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They are as a structure though? MR. LARK: Some codes they are. But since we define what is a building here and we say $ fence is a building, we say a bin is a building, why not say a swimming pool is a building for purposes of the zone? It's a simple amendment and seem to be able to clarify. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lark. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. Motion carried. End of hearing. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Town Clerk, To~ o~' $outhold .