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