Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/14/1997 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF AUGUST 14, 1997 HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Prepared by Lucy Farrell PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:48 P.M. - Appl. No. 4497 - NOREEN TOSCANO CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This application is a request for a Variance, based upon the Building Inspeetor's June 20, 1997 Action of Disapproval x~hich states that under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, Article lllA, Section 100-30A.3, the rear yard setback on a lot in an R-40 Zone with less than 20,000 sq. ft. shall be 35 feet and the deck construction exceeds allowable lot coverage. Location of Property: 5225 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, N.Y.; 1000-128-1-12. I have a copy of a survey, most recent date is August 17, 1989, updated in pen on 6/1/97, indicatiug a 14 x 16 foot opened and closed deck in the rear yard lying approximately and adjacent to or attached to the house at 19.8 feet. So, it's 19 feet 8 inches from the rear property line and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody like to be heard on behalf of the Toseano file? MRS. TOSCANO: I'm Noreen Toscano. We replaced an existing deck and the square footage are exactly the same except that we changed the steps to the rear which is what happened to the rear setback and the property has been sold. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio do you have any questions? MEMBER DINtZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Yes, on your application you said that you we~e using the same footage for the new deck, but actually you were changing the footage because you reduced the width but you extended the length of it. The screen porch according to the property record is 218 sq. ft. and the r[ew deck is 224 sq. ft. See the perch was 18 x 12 and you have 16 x 14. So, actually there is a change in it and it of course encroached 2 feet further into it Page 2 ~ Transcript 02 Hearings August 14, 1997 - Board of Appeals setback requirements. Did you have a Building Permit for the new deck? MRS. TOSCANO: No, I didn't because I thought we were replacing the existing. I didn't realize I needed one. MEMBER OSTERMANN: I guess that's the only question I have at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As we understand, the house has been sold, it was sdld some time in the latter part of 96, is that correct? MRS. TOSCANO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, you're not, you're no longer a seller, I mean you sold it and that's the end of it and it's the new people that are dealing with the aspects of it and that's what youtre trying to clean up with this hearing, is that correct? MRS. TOSCANO: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any further questions from any Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. RESOLUTION Appl. No. 4356 - MARTIN KOSMYNKA CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Postponement to September 11, 1997, and I offer as a resolution. Resolution carried (see Minutes for Resolution). Page 3 - Transcript }Sf' Hearings Au~onlst 14, 1997 - Board of Appeals PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued: 8:50 P.M. - Appl. No. 4494 - ANTONIO PIRIANO CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This application is based upon the Building Inspector's June 1997 Action of Disapproval for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-32, Bulk Schedule, permission to place new dwelling with insufficient front yard setback from right-of-way which passes through center of applicant's property, and reduced rear yard setback. Location of Property: 3837 Right-of-Way off the west side of Cox Neck Road, Mattituck; 1000-113-3-2.3. Zone R-80. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Piriano, do you have any further information you would like to add. I know we've moved your footprint a little bit and we'll tell you about that in one second. Anything you want to say for the reeord? MR. PIRIANO: No, just that we received a letter from the Town Engineer and that the part where he was talking about taking precautions during construction, this is my builder, Mr. Schembri, all cautions will be taken during the construction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had a distinct discussion with the Town Engineer yesterday, and we're talking about runoff in the roof. Can we put that in storm drains also? MR. PIRIANO: The permit for my , all my storm drains go to dryw-ells. It's already on the permit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to reenforce it on the hearing record, that's all. Does your builder want to say anything else? MR. SCHEMBRI: ,lust that I've built quite a few houses in areas that have a roof runoff like this and we do want to place the house. We're not going to create a runoff because we're not goner be going up into this hill that is there. That's where the proposed house was. We're coming off that back and goner preserve the hill. I would say, Mr. Piriano, is goner basically adequately make sure that this hill stays a natural stay this way. If he's going to have runoff, it's going to run on his own house, so he's going to make sure that if there is anything that has to be done, we're going to take care of that, if there was a need to do anything, but, where he wants to put it, you're not going to have that, but, If we have to move it in another place, then you might have a chance of that. I spoke to Jimmy, Mr. Richter about it over the phone about an hour, and we over it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are aware that we are proposing moving this house 25 feet closer to the north? He is aware of that? Well~ we'll refer to it as the north, it's really towards the pond. Now, in reference to that question. I spoke to the Chairman of the Trustees, by telephone, we sent him a memo, and then on our way to Fishers Island yesterday, I had the distinct pleasure of talking to two other Members of the Trustees. I don't think we received a Page 4 - Transcript 6f Hearings August 14, 1997 - Board of Appeals letter from them, but after speaking to three Members of the Trustees, I don't think there's any particular problem and that was a concern that you had because I know that you were getting involved in a real tight time limit here. I would say, that we have an affirmation, you know, after discussing that with them and think it's to everybody's' advantage to do what we're anticipating doing. I'll discuss it with anybody in the audience if they're not familiar with what we're discussing. So, what we're doing again, is reducing that side from 50 to 25, toward the pond. When we refer to the pond we're referring to the man made pond that was created by David Creato, who is your adjoining property owner and not the salt marsh wetland which is basically across the right-of-way. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What's the distance from the right-of-way that you approving and the rear yard also? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean have to scale it quite honestly, but it's 35 feet to the a. It's very difficult to explain on this particular piece of property. But, I would assume alright, if you're moving 25 that way you're probably going to be 30 to 35 at its closest point. That 20 is going to move over and we're going to try and scale it, that's all we can do. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: On the west side it would still be 20 feet? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, no, I think it's going to be greater. We'll measure it. My only suggestion to you and of course this is not a Trustee's Hearing is, whatever ground cover you can keep on that lot to reduce the amount of runoff would be to your advantage. " MR. PIRIANO: Well as I said to the Trustee when I had that hearing, the land, once the construction is done, the land will be put back the way it was. The only grass and lawn area is what is already established down by Dave's house. The rest of it is going to left natural. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, great, alright, do you have any other questions of me? We'll start again with Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much gentlemen. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further Page 5 - Transcript 0r Hearings August 14, 1997 - Board of Appeals comment, I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. Resolution carried. See Minutes for formal l~esolution. Page 6 - Transcript or Hearings August 14, 1997 - Board of Appeals PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued: 7:00 P.M. - Appl. No. 4492 - WALTER KLEIN CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This application is based upon the Building Inspector's IVIay 28, 1997 Action of Disapproval for building permits in the "as built" construction of accessory garage in an area other than the required rear yard and deck addition with an insufficient front yard setback from private right-of-way (easterly property line) and excessive tot coverage~ at 3235 Manhasset Avenue, Greenport, N.Y.; 1000-43-~-8. Zone: R-40. Property size: 6821 sq. ft. We have requested a postponement on this particular hearing by a property owner, who is presently incapacitated in a health care facility, I mean a hospital, and, however, we will discuss with anyone that may be in the audience that may or may not be able to make the hearing that we wi]] reschedule this to. Is there anybody who would like to speak on Walter Klein? Hearing and seeing no hands, I'll make a motion postponing it until September 25, ]997 at 6:45 P.M. Resolution carried. See Minutes for l~esolution. Page 7 - Transcript 0£ Hearings August 14, ]997 - Board of Appeals PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued: 7:10 P.M. - Appeal No. 4068 - ELEANOR SIEVERNICH CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Upland area is less than 80,000 sq. ft. per lot; Article XXIII, Section 100-239; Article III, Section 100-32 in this proposed two-lot subdivision at 3200 Cox Neck Road, Mattituek; 1000-113-8-5. Total acreage: 3.5+- acres. Zone District: R-SO Residential. The map I have before me is a survey from Howard Young. Most recent date it was established or created on November 15, ]988, and most recent one I have is February 4, ]992, indicating the proposed vacant parcel as lot #1, shown on the map and the house parcel as lot 12. The lot #1 being 166.63 feet of road frontage and lot #2 which is the house parcel at 73.37 feet of road frontage and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody like to be heard? Mr. Salvatore, how are you tonight, Sir? MR. SALVATORE: We're going to address the letter from Dr. Frumkin. I don't believe that the letter states a valid reason to adjourn. If that poie he complains about is on his property and belongs to Mrs. Si6vernich,if it's on Mrs. Sievernich's property it belongs to him, that could be determined at a later date and is of no great consequence that LILCO will move the pole. Therefore, I suggest that we go ahead with this hearing if the Chairman will agree. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we can continue with the hearing anyway and we'll see what we're going to do at the end of the process. MR. SALVATORE: This is an application for a two-lot minor subdivision. The zoning requires 80,000 sq. ft. to positute a buildable lot. However, with the exclusion of the wetlands the lots are undersized. Lot il, is shy 874 sq. ft. and lot ~2, is shy 9,105 sq. ft. I may point out Mr. Chairman that at the time that this application was made, the wetlands ordinance had not yet been adopted by the Town of Southold and I was informed when I raised that issue previously that this land had not been grant farming, but, the exclusion of the wetlands gives us a serious problem and that's why we're here. Both lots exceed 80,000 sq. ft. including the wetlands. This change will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or determent to any neighboring properties. I'm going by the area variance sheet that I picked up in the hall. There's no way that the division can be achieved in any other way except to divide it. I'm not sure that's such a substantial variance because the wetlands are there. She's paying taxes on them. The fact that the town says, well you can't count that as a building lot, that's your provocative, but the wetlands are there and it constitutes part of her property. The variance will net have an adverse affect on the environmental conditions or the district and the difficulty was not self-created. This property has been in the family since 1949. At the time that they purchased it, three parcels could have been divided up from Page 8 - Transcript 0r Hearings August 14, 1997 - Board of Appeals that piece. Now, it can only be divided into two and its certainly is not a detriment to the area. Most of the surrounding parcels are much smaller and in essence we're asking for a minimum of variance so that we can have two parcels out of this huge 3.7 acres. We complied with the Suffolk County Health Department Regulations. The Suffolk County Health Department has approved the construction of two residential houses on the parcels. We've recorded the necessary restrictive covenants for the proposed subdivision and if you're interested they've been recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office at Liber 11108, Page 416. I believe, that the Board should grant this application in view of the reasons that previously stated. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask two quick questions. Is there, Mr. Salvatore, is there a boundary line disagreement on the Frumkin side? Is there a driveway or anything? MR. SALVATORE: No, there is not. But, if you will look at the map, the map that Mr. Young drew, shows our lines and I think that we should use that until either we get a boundary line agreement or a court of law rules otherwise. But, I don't think we can at this point decide whose line is correct. Unfortunately, Mr. Young's grandfather, who surveyed the original piece, many, many years ago - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Daniel Young. MR. SALVATORE: Daniel Young, I didn't know him. Unfortunately, there was a mistake here by the surveyor and as these pieces became into use and were they found that they had up to grandfather's problem had to be resolved. What they did, is that they resolved it in the best way they could that created those voids. Certainly, it wasn't done by Ms. Sievernich. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions of the attorney? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll hold off any questions of the attorney at this particular time and we'll go into if there is anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody would like to speak against the application? Ms. Wickham, how are you tonight? MS. WICKHAM: I'm fine thank you, good evening. My name is Abigail Wickham and I'm here on behalf of the neighbors to the north, Sidorowicz and I'd like to address the Board first of all by asking I assume that all of the comments that were made at the · previous hearings in this matter are still incorporated into the record and it would be - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There are no comments, just resolutions postponing it. Page 9 - Transcript or Hearings August 14, 1997 - Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: OK. I want to start by saying that I think that I find it very surprising that someone that built such a hugh and sprawling and I must say an attractive house, on a piece of property who then wants to carve it into a little piece with a 20 Foot sideyard, I just think is unbelievable. I really think that's chopping up the property and taking what is otherwise a very nice estate piece of property and making it look like a jigsaw puzzle. We have not only a question of area here, an area variance, but you have skewed property lines because the way the house was built and the envelope is created, you just don't have a rational division of the property. You have almost a lot on one side and the other thing that I think is important, is not only is there a wetland issue in terms of the area, but if you look at the contour there is a very steep bank there and so the actual usable area of the property is much less than perhaps the 80,000 sq. ft. would indicate and I think that's important for the Beard to consider and I must disagree. I do feel that there is quite an element here of self imposed hardship. The applicant knew when she built the house that there were wetlands there. She knew what the size of the lots were and she knew what the zoning code was in terms of the R-SO designation and yet~ she built a very large house right in an area where it was going to create a problem in terms of beach provisions. So, I do think that that's something that the Board should consider. I don't think an applicant can come to the Board and get around the issue of an area variance by saying that it was OK when they acquired it in the nineteen forties. It was OK way back when. We all have that problem. The fact is that the town did address zoning and area variances as they went along and that was the time to address it and not to come in now, 50 year. s later and say, well, we could of done something way back when in a different fashion. The fact is, that the wetlands are important and that they do need to be considered in terms of a variance application. I also like to address the fact that I understand that the neighbors did request an adjournment and I think they're letter indicated to me as I read it in the file, that there was a question of the area based on the two di lines and there might be a question of a boundary line which is not addressed in the size of the lot 2, that the applicant is proposing. There also, I must advise the Board, has not been any resolution of the litigation with my clients with respect to the easement or usage of the property on the north side and that further impacts and limits the area which the applicant has available for the area lot. I think that based on the fact that the neighbor did have a question that appeared to be one of area and dimensions more than just the location of the pole. The fact that its been pending since 1990, I don't think that another two or three weeks should really make a serious difference to the applicant and I would ask if they would consider that request. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you a question? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. Page 10 - Transcrip[ 6f Hearings August 1~, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you refer to a 20 foot sideyard, you're referring to the building envelope in lot ~]? You were talking 20 foot setback or 20 foot sideyard. MS. WICKHAM: 20 foot sideyard. Actually lot #, well where the house, from the house, the house is on lot #2, I think. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, but the house on lot #2, is its closest point to the Frumkins is 37 plus feet and its farthest is like 83 feet - MS. WICKHAM: I'm not addressing the Frumkin's property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, I'm not saylng ttmt. I'm saying that the house itself seems to be moderately placed on this particular proposed lot. I mean I realize its skewed toward the rear, I realize its skewed toward the waterfront, I realize but I mean at its closest point it's 37 feet. MS. WICKHAM: I was looking at the north side. This is where it's going to be with respect to lot 1. I don't have a - MEMBER TORTORA: Lot 1, is 25 and 20. MS. WICKHAM: I think the point is that this is really the way they built the house and the way the lot is situated, this is really an estate property and they're not going to be losing the value by not creating a one, given that the size and the dimension of the character of that house that's my point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only other question I have, is that, representing your client, you are opposed to any subdivision of this particular piece of property. There isn't any type of affirmation that you could deal with, with this applicant in reference to a change of lot lines that would be more palatable to your client? MS. WICKHAM: Well frankly, I haven't discussed that with him but I think we feel the area is a concern that, you know, no matter how you run the lines its not goner to affect them or anything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, I mean if there was a change in someway that you felt that you know, a line could be changed here or there to make things more palatable. MS. WICKHAM: We have not addressed that. I can't think of anything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Salvatore, anything in rebuttal? MR. SALVATORE: Yes, I'd just like to comment vepy briefly. I won't take too much time. The fact that we have not resolved the boundary line with Mrs. Sidorowiez, we have tried and we~ve looked at every angle. It is possible that the court may decide that he Page 11 - Transeripi 6f Hearings August ]4, 1997'- Board of Appeals does not have a right to use that property, or that he may have a right and they may either say, its his property or say he has an easement. If he has an easement, then it's stiI1 our property and I don't think that that should be a reason to deny the application because that parcel is pretty well set and its been use and it has not, the use has not been detrimental for all of these years and to deny the application would create a severe hardship for the applicant. Whether the Board will entertain Dr. Frumkin's application, it's goner be a delay of four to six weeks just to get the survey and then we're goner be relegated to compare its surveys and surveyors ability to mark the lines. His complaint seems to be from his letter, that he believes a light bulb is the problem. He doesn't seem to, he's not here, so I don't know what his complaint would be if he were here, but, I don't think that that is a sub§tantial reason to put this over for another four to six weeks for him to get it surveyed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I haven't seen Dr. Frumkin in several years, but he is a medical doctor and I would assume that he's probably consulting an attorney. It is our normal procedure that we request one postponement. I have not, I have no intention of doing anything with the Board other than asking them. I'm not going to make a motion unless they want me to and it's up to them and we'll see what develops that way, but that's what our normal situation is. I probably haven't spoken to Dr. Frumkin in 8 years, but I'm just telling you. ttearing no further comment from anyone I'll now ask the Board if they would like to grant Dr. and Mrs. Frumkin's request for a postponement. I'll make a motion reconvening the hearing on September 11, 1997. BOARD MEMBERS: Ayes (4). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Member Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you want to give a reason, for the record? MEMBER DINIZIO: I just don't want a postponement. BOARD SECRETARY: Thank you. Page 12 - Transcript 6~ Hearings August 14~ 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN'S DISCUSSION, regarding questions raised by persons in the audience. Planning Board hearing was held recently, and persons attending hearing were referred (in error) by PB to ZBA for tonight's agenda. Several attending believed the ZBA had an application after their discussions at the Planning Board meeting. This is Nota public hearing (no application filed as of this date SUBJECT DISCUSSED: proposed change of zone concerning property of MuHen Motors that is before the Town Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is not a hearing. We have no application before us at this time. MR. (audience rep.) : Who normally submits that application? CHAIRMAN: It would be submitted by Mr. Mullen's attorney, Jenny Gould. SECRETARY: They start with the Building Department. CHAIRMAN: They start with the Building Department, and as of right now we have not received an application. (Brief discussion to explain procedures.) Page 13 - Transcript of Hearings August 14, 1997 - Board of Appeals Aug~tst ~4, 1997 ZBA PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued: 7: 35 P.M. Appl. Nos. 4485-V and 4486-SE. BELL-ATLANTIC/NYNEX by Richard Weyhreter (Owner: A. Rehm). Tile Chafrman read tile legal notice of hearing for the record with respect to this application: Location of Property: 425 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y; County Parcel No. 1000-141-3-34. Applicant is requesting: (a) Special Exception under Article XIV, Section 100-141 (ref. 100-31B-6) for placement of a new tower and building for public utility cellular transmission service, and (b) Variances based upon the Building Inspector's April 29. 1997 Action of Disapproval, which states that "...this lot is in an LI Zoue District and has a lot area of approximately 13,400 sq.ft. Presently there is an existing building and use. The proposed building and additional use would require a total lot area of 80,000 sq. ft. in an LI Zone. The proposed construction [s required to be set back a minimum of 70 feet from the rear yard and 20 feet from all other lot lines. Zoning Ordinance, Article XIV, Section [00-!42 Bulk Aeea and Parking Regulations. Owner: Adrienne M. Rehm. CHAIRMAN continued: I have a copy of the site plan and I have copy of the Sa[folk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties m the area. Would any Board Members like ro make co~nmenrs regarding this. Any Board Me~nbers like to make any comments regarding this? I know this is yours. Maureen. Anything you'd like to say? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No comment. CHAIRrfuXN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINtZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I wouldn't like to say anyttfing. I'd like ro hear if someone would like ro speak on behalf of the application or against it. CItA[RMAN: Seeing ao one in the audience. -- BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: I just want ro mention that we do have a letter that was faxed today from Mr. Pacbman asking for an adjournment ro September 25th.and that it is in the file_ That's basically all I wanted ro say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. aha we are t'e~iaestiug at this particular point seeing no hands, that at the curiiesl t~ssible date that this will be heard is October f). 1997. Ttmt would be the k~sl heariug on tile agenda. Page 14 - Transcript of Ilearings August 1,1. 1997 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY: Ok. I would recommend that the timing on that would be 7:15 p.m? CHAIRMAN: Make it a[~out 7:30. MEMBER TORTORA: October? So. it's going ro be adjourned to Octaber 9th. CHAIRMAN: That's right, we could always make it earlier. BOARD SECRETARY: And the reason I ask for a time is that technically you don't have to ~e-advertise it - did you want me to re-advertise it? MEMBER TO~TORA: Yes. [ do because I am not co~ortabte wSth the last-~num request in this instance for an adjournment. I think the applicant had sufficient time to give us proper notice and I don't feel we got it. We received notice of this request yesterday, and that is a tremendous inconvenience ro the Board, it upsem our normal scheduling and -- CHAIRMAN: It crowds our calendar for future dates. MEMBER TORTORA: We would definkety hope for a Hitle more conside~a[ion in the future. CftAiRMAN: What we might have been able ro do, had we known tiffs, was moved some ~f the hearings from the 28th back ro this calendar. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. Yes. CHAIR~[N: Because alot of us had actually seen the 28 files already m reference ro field reports. So we could have moved those and probably gm a couple of our residents -- ~EMBER TORTORA: It's nor only for the board members but for other applicants as well. Ok. BOARD SECRETARY: Is there any reason in case they ask why we did nor put it on the September 25th calendar? CHAIRMAN: Yes. because they're lucky it's October 9th. MEMBER TORTORA: The Chairman has answered the question. BOARD SECRETARY: And also. yon have othep beepings that night. CHAIRMAN: Rigt~t. MEMBER TORTORA: You will re~tuesr ~hat the applicant re-notice this because it wes a~ lhe board's -- very, vary nice attitude rhat Page 15 - Transcript of Heariugs Angus~ 14. 1997 - Board of Appeals we accommodated his request to adjourn it. We do not have to do that by law. BOARD SECRETARY: I would tike to ask the terminology to re-advertise this instead of re-notice. CHAIRMAN: It's the same tiring. BOARD SECRETARY: No, it's not the same thing. MEMBER TORTORA: To file proper notice according to the Public Officers Law, Open Meeting Law, New York State Town Law, and tile Town Code of tile Town of Southotd. BOARD SECRETARY: So that it going to require all the cert~ied mailings m all surrounding property owners as well? MEMBER. TORTORA: I think (inaudible) adopt this resolution. CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask a question, first. Do we need Town Board approval ro charge an applican¢ for advertising fees? BOAIiD SECRETARY: That's one thing that is new and I would recommend we check into that with the Town Attorney. CHAIRMAN: All right. MEIV1BER TORTORA: I'll discnss this with this Board aud I wanted to talk zo the Town Attorney aboui this today she wasn't in. But 1 wonld like to run it bv her. CHAIRMAN: Ok, why don'l you do that be[ore we (do this~, ok? MEMBER TORTORA: In the meanwhile -Jim and Maureen don't have copies of it (either), I'm going ~o gffve you copies of ~vhat we're _discussing now. CHAIRMAN: To try and- MEMBER TORTORA: Adopt a policy. CHAIRMAN: So that situations like this don't occur again. MEMBER FORTORA: Because we have been getting a lot of requests for adjournments and it aearly 'inandible}. BOARD SECRETARY - Does this get re-noticed by the applicants? CiIAIRMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Ok So we will recess the hearing until October 9, 1997. BOAR,r) SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Subject to if there's ally additional notice, subject to the Town Attorney's approval? Page 16 - Transcrip~ of Hearings August 14. i997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK. Who made the motion? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did. MEMBER TORTORA: 1'ii second it. Motion Carried. See Minu~es for Resolution (Vote: 3-1 ~. MEMBER DINIZIO: I sm voting "no." I think it constitutes harassment of the applicator. End of hearings. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK To~ Clerk, Town of $outhold