Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/28/1997 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING August 28, 1997 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) 6:48 P.M. - Appl. No. 4498. - ANNE SHANNON CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Variances are requested under Article IliA, Sec~gion 100-30A.3, Bulk Schedule in the R-40 Zone, for permission to construct deck addition and accessory shed which exceeds maximum lot coverage of 20% by adding an additional 504 sq.ft, over that allowed by Appeal-#4267 dated 9/15/94. Also under Article XXIV, Section 100-244 for non-conforming lots, the deck addition will be less than 35 feet from the rear lot line. Location of Property: 2775 Marratooka Road, Mattituck, N.Y. County Parcel No. 1000-123-2-26. Existing total land area consists of 6775+ sq.ft. I have a copy of the penned in survey indicating a deck area of a variable 15 feet 3 inches by 28 feet on the rear of the house and a shed which I believe is 8 x 10 and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Shannon would you like to be heard? MS. SHANNON: Basically I just put it up for recreational purposes and' the shed went up because I wanted to get everything out of the garage so I could put the car in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Your garage is 14 x 21, right? MS. SHANNON: I don'l know what the exact dimensions of it. It may be on the paper here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I took this off the assessor's card. Why don't you tell us why you built the deck and why you need he deck first. MS. SHANNON: Why t built the deck. Well, basically I built it because I have a large family and 1 have them out there quite a bit and basically for some place to sit rather than sit in the wet grass and the ticks today, I mean you can't sit in the yard and a lot of deer at the moment across the street. So, that would be my reasons. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and the storage building again you stated was? MS. SHANNON: Yeah, I wanted to take, I have a lot of stuff so you know, lawn mower, bicycles, all kinds of stuff in the garage that I ~ Page~2 - Hearing ~,~anscripts Atagust 28, 1997 - Board. of Appeals could use the shed to put it in and put the car in the garage. I have the car sitting right now in the driveway. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only reason why I asked that question is because you have a significant amount o£ lot coverage over the allowed lot coverage and I'll give you a rundown after we run through the Board because they may have questions of you. Will start with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I was wondering just exactly how much the lot coverage is? They were 27% the last balance. MS. SHANNON: It's 35% they wrote me on this one. According to Mr. Boufis's (building inspector's) report, I believe he said it would be an additional 504 sq. ft. relating to 35% coverage and 7.4 for ZBA Appeal :~4267. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, I mean yotf applied for a variance and, MS. SHANNON: Yes, I did. MEMBER DINIZIO: Last? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 1994. MS. SHANNON: Yes, I was having a, I moved out from the City and I had an extension put on the house so it would be feasible. MEMBER DINIZIO: So you went to the BuiIding Department and got a Building Permit. MS. SHANNON: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: And they told you, no you can't, you have to come to us and then what time did the deck get built? MS. SHANNON: Well I really hadn't previously and I really just thought. I was replacing the deck that I had. So I've always had a deck even prior to the extension. MEMBER DINIZIO: They built in that deck that was there? MS. SHANNON: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: But it wasn't part of the lot coverage back then? MS. SHANNON: No, it wasn't, because I didn't even think to at that point of time that I needed it to be part of the deck. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann? ~ Page~3 - Hearing ~i.~anscripts A~tgust 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER OSTERMANN: This application is for the construction of a deck and a shed? They're both up. MS. SHANNON: Well to be honest and truthful, it's constructed. MEMBER OSTERMANN: So this is incorrect. So this is an 'as built' request. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On a lighter sense your house is beautiful. Mrs. Tortors? MEMBER TORTORA: You said that this is replacing a deck that was there. I have a copy of the survey that was prepared by Van Tuyl in 1994 when you went ahead and put on the addition to your house and enclosed that area 36 x 38 ft. area. The deck was on the house at that time? MS. SHANNON: Yes it was. MEMBER TORTORA: Beeause the Zoning Board of Appeals at that time granted you a variance for lot coverage specifically for that addition and no mention was made of the deck in either in the grant of the approval. See, that's why I'm a little concerned. MS. SHANNON: There was a deck on the back of the house at that time prior to my putting the extension on. MEMBER TORTORA: So at the time you came to the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1994 that deck was there? MS. SHANNON: Yes it was. The reason I came to the Zoning Board was because I was extending the house and closing in the structure and again going down to put a subbasement in. It was a complete overhaul of the complete house. It was just about gutted. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm very confused because I'm confused as to why that issue wasn't addressed three years ago. (inaudible) before us tonight which is lot coverage. MS. SHANNON: '89, it was addressed. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I was just wondering if I could add one thing. I was looking at the 1994 file just now and it shows on the assessor's card that the deck that you had there was added in 1990 o~ approximately that time. That's when they started assessing you for that deck. Would you say that's correct? MS. SHANNON: I think it was prior to. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Prior to, OK. They started assessing it in 90 but the survey that you gave to the Board back then- Page~4 - Hearing ~t-ranscripts August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals MS. SHANNON: Was an old survey. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Was an old survey and then you sketched in the porch, the addition that you were adding. MS. SHANNON: Right, right, exactly. MEMBER TORTORA: That 1990 deck was not the same deck though. That was 12 x 20 deck. In back of the property card with the assessor's office. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, they're talking about a 12 x 20 deck. MEMBER TORTORA: Which was, actually that deck was where the existing house is now. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is it possible that you can just come up for a minute to show us where the old deck was before you replaced it. This is the old survey that you had in the file. Without the addition, this was - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: See this is now Marratooka Road here so you won't be confused. MS. SHANNON: This is Marratooks. There was a deck back here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's what the assessors show, yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's 12 x 20. Was it a raised deck or is it a level? MS. SHANNON: It was a raised deck, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Similar to what you have now, only smaller? MS. SHANNON: Yes, you walked out on it. I should have brought photographs, I'm sorry. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, see what it says? It's on the (assessors) card. That was the question, if the deck was there. And it shows that it was. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mr. Doyen, any question? MEMBER DOYEN: No. Page~5 - Hearing rir'anscripts August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? What would you like me to say to Ms. Shannon? Is there anything you'd like me to review with her? MEMBER TORTORA: It's just very confusing because I did see the original plans for the renovation that were drawn by Penny for the addition which the Board acted on before and the deck which you say was there was not on those plans and I'm confused as to why when they addressed the question both the Building Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals addressed the question of lot coverage in 94 this issue is not even mentioned. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, its possible that deck was included in the lot coverage. Can we look and let me look a little further in the file here.? MEMBER TORTORA: No, what we can do, with a simple and decent map drawing %Te can come up with the following. If the house is 36 × 38 ~vhich is 1368 sq. ft., the garage is 14 x 20 at 294, the shed is 8 x 10 is 80, the deck is 424 which gives you 2166. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have the deck at 400. MEMBER TORTORA: 24 feet is what the building, 424. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, but the old let coverage I'm talking about. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, that's the one we don't have. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The calculation that's in the decision here, it says, "the existing building calculation is 1370. So that's without the deck because that's the same figure you said 1368. MEMBER TORTORA: That's close enough, Linda. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, and that's without ~he deck 12 x 20 deck, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, no, the original house was much smaller prior to 1994. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What the original house? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, sure. MS. SHANNON: Yes, we extended it I believe it was 13 feet. CHAIRIVIAN GOEHRINGER: It was only a bungalow, wasn't it? Page~6 - Hearing 2,~anseripts Amgust 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals MS. SHANNON: Yes, it had been a bungalow. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And then it says, "...with the proposed addition". Back then an addition could have included a deck. It is just terminology. "Addition" was used for everything. It was given at 1903 sci. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Total 19037 BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Total 1903. MEMBER TORTORA: Linda, there were two actions given by the Board of Appeals at that time. The original was for a deck addition and then two days later or a day later a corrected addition was sent out to Ms. Shannon for correcting it, saying that it is not a deck addition. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It just took out the word' "deck". It didn't say it wasn't a deck, it took the word deck out and it described it as an addition. MEMBER TORTORA: The first one said, that this is just for a deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, but what you did do, was you destroyed the deck and enclosed the deck. Isn't that correct, Mrs. Shannon? MS. SHANNON: Yes, we enclosed ail of that back area, yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is it possible in your Building Permit that you had for the addition that it might show your new addition was replacing the old addition? Do you recall if - MS. SHANNON: Ray (Nine), you made out the original? MR. RAYMOND NINE: I'm not sure about that. I know that the deck was taken down before we got the permit to put the addition on because I removed the deck before I excavated the hole for the basement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record that was Mr. Raymond Nine. MEMBER. TORTORA: This was the deck, this was the deck that is now the house. This is new? MR. NINE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no contest to this, it's a new deck. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Mrs. Shannon, I'm sorry, there's just a question here in the old file for the (first) addition, was this (the Ioeation) where the deck was, where it says 12 feet? Page ~7 - Hearing ~l~,snseripts Attgust 28, 1997 -Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was the back of the house. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It was the back of the house, so it would have been underneath. So this, here, was an old step area, was it? See that little square drawn underneath. MS. SHANNON: Probably yes. The deck was not as big. I mean the deck was probably and then we just, we bought the house small. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, beeause it's 150 sq. ft. smaller than the one you have now. Actually 175. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And the house was built in - MS. SHANNON: In the twenties I believe. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: In the twenties. MS. SHANNON: I think so, I think it was like 1924. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We very rarely come back and look at places right after, you know, with another application. I mean, it was a vast transformation when I came back. MEMBER, TORTORA: The garage was there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. So, we have a norm with the garage. MS. SllANNON: The garage is still there. MEMBER TORTORA: The other question is, just so we can get this beeause we don't have this. How close is the deck to the property line? MS. SHANNON: To the back of the house. We measured it last night. It was 32.7 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, that's 32.7 feet and what is the distance between the closest distance to the garage because that's kind of deceptive on the survey? I know its a lot closer than it looks on the survey. MS. SHANNON: I'd say maybe its at least 4 because I walk around there ali the time, watering flowers and what have you. MEMBER TORTORA: So, it's about 4 feet from the other distance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll do the best we can. MS. SHANNON: OK, thank you. Page sS - Hearing ~i.anscripts A~gust 28, ]997 - Board of Appeals CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions we'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZtO: Second. Motion carried. See minutes for resolution. Page,9 - Hearing ~lranscripts August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals 7:05 P.M. - Appl. No. 4499 - RICHARD & PAMELA FRERKING CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Variance for addition to dwelling which will have an insufficient front setback as a principal building at less than the existing, established 32 ft. nonconforming setback. The Building Inspector has also confirmed that the setback is less than a 35 ft. setback (ref: setback schedule for parcels having 9972 sq. ft. in size). Location of Property: 680 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Parcel 1000-115-12-9. Copy of survey from Roderick Van Tuyl P.C., dated May 10, 1993, indicating the house at approximately 32 feet at this time and the request I believe is to extend the front of the hou~2 out to approximately 19 feet plus or minus and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? How are you tonight, Sir? MR. FRERKING: Good evening. I'm Richard Frerking. We bought the property as a derelict property. Ten years ago the house was in place, the septic system was in place. We rehabilitated building added to the rear and a little veranda to the front. Ended up with just a tiny little utility- area under the veranda in front of the building. No garage, no sheds. The placement of the septic system restricted us from doing anything more in the back so the hope was that we could build some addition in the front get us a little nice fence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is any of that addition garage area? MR. FRERKING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, its all living area. MR.. FRERKING: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I do thank you for your suggesting that we come down and actually personally meet with you. Its just that this is a very busy time of the year for me and I apologize for not coming down. I've been down to the property three times but I kind of visualize the problem that you have and I didn't think it was quite necessary to go in to the dwelling to do so. If I do after this hearing, I'll let you know, alright. I guess will start with Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: A couple of things. I went down and did visit your property and your cat is an excellent watch cat, a beautiful cat, a good watch cat. One of the things I noticed is that you have a very deep lot, its a very long~ deep lot and that in your application you stated that both the house east and west that you couldn't put the addition on the water side because it would block your neighbor's Page ,10 - Hearing J. ranscripts August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals view. But, I did notice very specifically that both neighbors are much closer to the water than you are on both sides of your property. The other thing I'm a little concerned about is your asking for a 19 foot setback from the road your doing, where is the garage.? That means that you're vehicle and presnmably the large boat that was next to it would be, everything would be moved that much closer to the road. The question is, what's going to happen to the boat? MR,. FRERKING: The boat will stay where it is. I included the plans with the package here. There is no existing garage. Its just a little veranda that went with my workshop underneath and the extension wo't~td come out to where that stone wall was. In the rear we couldn't add any further because I added to my submission the day before yesterday the placement of the septic system that I think we would get too close to the cesspool itself and the septic tank is just to the left-hand side of the house. So, that whole area is kind of restricted in terms of what we get back there. MEMBER TORTORA: The other thing, I did look at some of the setbacks in the surrounding areas within 300 feet of your house and most of them appeared without a survey, you know an accurate survey, most of them appeared to be set back considerably further than the 19 feet that you're asking for. The only exception that I saw was the garage that you mentioned in your original application. What is the purpose of the new addition? MR. FRERKING: This is to give me a utility area, a little workshop area. I do a lot of woodworking and I can show you my existing shop. Its kind of a dangerous setup the way it is now. If I turn around I knock things off my workbench. MEMBEIt OSTERMANN: Where is it now? Where is your workshop now? MR.. FItERKING: It's under the veranda in front of 'the buildirig. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Yes, I saw that. MEMBER DOYEN: A limited space there. Mit. FREI{KING: Yes it is. MEMBER TORTORA: This would be quite a large space. It would be what 21 x 17 x 24? MR. FItERKING: 17 x MEMBER TOItTORA: 24 in the rear and - MR. FREItKING: Yes, right, we're extending 13 feet forward of the existing structure. , Page ,11 - Hearing · ~anscripts August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: For a total of 217 MR. FR2RKING: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no contest that in my mind that it would certainly look 100% better in reference to the overs11 aesthetics of the house. You know, if it was squared off in that area. MR. FRERKING: Yeah, and right now the veranda is . The plan was to shingle the structure to match the existing cedar shingles on the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What was that structure originally? MR. FRERKIGN: It was a house that David Newton built, hand built, he laid the corner stone in 1949 I believe, never finished it, the inside had a big firing stove and basic plumbing facilities, no insulation, it was just an incomplete structure of the sound which is not rpally finished. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just concerned about the by-levels, stone patio and does that have somewhat of a foundation on it, or ? MR. FRERKING: No, its just laid stone. Its ali Pennsylvania River Stone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I guess it bounces back to me. My questions is, that if the Board is not happy with the 19 feet are you willing to accept something in between. MR. FRERKtNG: I'll take what I can get. CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: While you're standing there~ is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands we will certainly address that issue and we thank you very much for your really very nicely detailed plans for each individual Board Member. Therefore, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. Page ,12 - Hearing ', Panscpipts August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals 7:15 P.M. - Appl. No. 4500 - CATHERINE HARREN CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Variance for placement of two accessory buildings as located in the side yard area. Location of Property: 3000 Reeve Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-100-1-6. I have a survey produced by Stanley Isaksen, dated April 15, 1997, indicating those two structures and a one story wood frame residence which the residence is not the nature of this application and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would Ms. Harren be here? How are you tonight? MS. WICKHAM: Mr. & Mrs. Harren bought this property in 1959. I was appointed a couple years ago as the Legal Guardian of Mr. Harren, who at the time was in Stony Brook Hospital in an incapacitated situation. He needed a guardian appointed because Mrs. Harren who is his only relative was herself at the time in Central Suffolk Hospital, also in an incapacitated situation. So, I was appointed as his Legal Guardian and very- shortly after appointed as hers and I might noted not much from each of those positions its been quite a bit of difficulty. Shortly after I was appointed I had them discharged to the Nursing Home where the Nursing Home fees basically used up their persona] resources and I recently- had to sell the home in order to care and maintain Mrs. Harren at Oyster Pond Nursing Home, Adult Home, where she currently resides and so she's not .much-. Mr. Harren has since died and Mrs. Harren is incompetent so she is unable to assist me and give me any information of that and pursuing this application. As I mentioned we contracted to sell the house and because tile purchasers' mortgage commitment was -we had to close before we were able to obtain all of the Certificates Of Occupancy for the house. I have done an exhaustive search to try and ascertain when this garage - the subject of your application was built, who built it, and whether a permit was ever issued for it. I was able to ascertain that it was built in 1962, two years after the house was buiJ. t. I do not know- who built it, and although we've looked and looked it does not appear that there was ever a permit that was ever issued for it. There were permits that were issued subsequent to the construction of tile garage for other structures and renovations to the dwelling. If I could just take a minute I have a, first of all, the affidavits that the Board requires for posting and mailing which I would like to hand in. I also have if you do not have it in your file, a copy of the application for the permit that was issued in 1965 which does show that the garage was existing at the time and this permit was for a deck and a new addition to the rear of the property. Apparently the Building Inspector did not pick up at the time that there was a problem or we wouldn't be here today and that's unfortunate that that didn't happen. I also have a copy of the Town Assessor's Card that indicated that the garage was added to the Assessor's Card in 1973. So, it has been taxed by the Town of Southold since that time. If I may submit those things to you. My hardship today is that I have no basis of Page~13 - Hearing zranscripts August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals going back to the Harrens' and getting any kind of information on how this might have happened, that we could explain it, and present something to the Board, and I have gone through all the records in the house and there's nothing to indicate anything of that nature. The hardship is that the garage is a small frame garage and it is not physically of a condition that it could be moved to the rear yard in order to comply with the Code. I think if you did that you'd basically have to dismantle the garage and that would be a financial hardship. I do know that the garage is almost 30 feet from the sideyard and it is in line with the house, it is connected to the house with a fence and it does present a nice appearance from the road and from the remainder of the property which is quite large in relation to the size of the buildings. So, I would ask that you take the situation (static on tape, inaudible). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, while you're there, Mr. Dinizio, any questions ? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, what do you think it would cost you to dismantle that, just a ball park figure? I know that you had said in your application it is financially prohibitive. MS. WICKHAM: I think you would basically have to remove the garage. I don't think you could move it. You would have to move the shed and then the garage. I would estimate it would probably be upwards of $7,500. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, thank you. CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're standing there is there anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody else? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Page '14 - Hearing' ~ ranscripts At, gust 28, 1997 - Board of ApPeals BOARD MEMBERS: All Ayes. Page * 15 - Hearing' ~'ranscripts August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals 7:20 P.M. - Appl. No. 4445 - CHARLES & MARY TANGNEY CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Variance for insufficient lot area in this proposed set-off or minor subdivision for two lots, situated along a private right-of-way extending from Little Neck Road, Cutchogue: County Parcel ID No. 1000-103-5-2.1 consisting of 143,020 sq. ft. Proposed is the reduction of land area for two parcels, each less than 80,000 sq. ft. in total area. This is an appeal we 'recessed from January 16, 1997. At the request of Mr. Tangney, we are reeon- vening this hearing and we'd ask if anybody would like to add anything to it. Mrs. Tangney, Mr. Tangney? How are you tonight? MRS. TANGNEY: Fine, thank you. We simply wanted to do was either sell our house as you know, and go to the house to your rear of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the lot that you're showing it at 102,829 sq. ft., is that correct? MRS. TANGNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: With that little 15 foot right-of-way to the, well that's actually a deeded piece, next to the house property that you have now. MRS. TANGNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so really nothing has changed since January except that we've expended about 5, or 6 or 7 months of time. Member Doyen any questions? MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. A couple of things. I was looking over the transcript of the last hearing and I know we said a lot of things but a couple of things did not get into the record -. Maybe your voice faded, so, I just, so that we have these things into the record, I'm going to ask you the same questions again and one of them is; why you chose to divide the lot in unequal size with the 40,000 sq. ft. lot in the front and 102,000 sq. ft. lot in the rear? MRS. TANGNEY: That's the way we wanted the property. MEMBER TORTORA: Would you a, this is a R-80 Zone. Would you consider a creating a line, redesigning lot #1, so that extending that southerly property line to run parallel with lot 22? · Page~ 16 - Hearing' ~ ~anscripts August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. TANGNEY: Well, what would that give you? What do you want out of that? Engineer socially what my life should be? What do you want out of that? What do you want out of that? You're going to still have two lots. MEMBER TORTORA: It would square off the lots. MR. TANGNEY: Why do they have to be squared off? We're - lots now. We're in the boondocks. We're down dirt road. MEMBER TORTORA: So you would not want a- MR. TANGEY: I don't see what would that gain. What, you must want something out of it that I can't see. You're just stealing our property. That's what it amounts to. MEMBER TORTORA: Well you have a total of 100 and what 100 and a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 2,000. MEMBER TORTORA: 43,000 sq. ft. now and you're in an R-80 Zone. MRS. TANGNEY: 2-1/2 acres. MEMBER. TORTORA: Right. To get two lots out of that you would have to have 160,000 sq. ft. without a variance. MR. TANGNEY: That's why we here at the Board of Appeals. MEMBER TORTORA: Right. MR. TANGNEY: We understand that. We're appealing that - presently I don't know, I just - MEMBER TORTORA: Because 40,000 sq. ft. is a 50% reduction in the Cod.~ requirement. The Code requirement is 80,000 sq. ft. MR. TANGNEY: It's one of the larger lots in the area. MRS. TANGNEY: Yes, it is the largest. MEMBER TORTORA: Fm not disputing if it is or it isn't. I'm saying that that's what the zoning requirement is. MR. TANGNEY: We're appealing that we change it and ask if we can appeal it. That's what we're asking for. MEMBER TORTORA: We also, would you accept a condition that there would be no further subdivision on it? That a- · Page~17 - Hearing ~ i'anscripts Aagust 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR.. TANGNEY: Why would I want to put covenant to cloud title? Why do you want somebody to do that? You already have a 15 foot right-of-way that violates the code for roads in the Town of Southold. So, I can't use the road unless I come back to you. I don't understand what you want, 15 feet. I got to come hack 25 feet, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please remember that this is Mrs. Tortora asking you. This is not the Board. This is one Member asking. MR. TANGNEY: I just don't understand. I'm sorry I got upset because it's hard for me not to get upset. But, the 15 foot right-of-way makes that a driveway, not a right-of-way and that's a 15 foot driveway. I have to come back in, she'd have to come back in - but maybe 30 years from now that might be that someone might want to use that for something else. Maybe not me, I don't know, but maybe someone else. Why would I put a covenant title? MRS. TANGNEY: I dox~'t think it would be fair to any future hearings - MR. TANGNEY: If I left it with my children? MEMBER TORTORA: I wasn't talking about the right-of-way. I think you're misunderstanding me. I was talking about the 102,000 sq. ft. lot in the rear. If the Board approves this variance. MR. TANGNEY: I definitely would do that. Now we, to put a house there you couldn't provide somebody else in the future? That's, that's heyond reason. And I could change it 30 years from now. I lived in Queens. I saw Queens. There were lots like it here when I was a kid. Now there isn't no lots at all. They were farm houses. That's in one person's lifetime. I don't know what my children would do with that or anybody. Who knows, they might have to sell the whole thing, but, I can't see putting a covenant title. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, that was the question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We'll go on to Mrs. Ostermann. MR. TANGNEY: Thank you. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHttINGER: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much Mrs. Tangney. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Page'18 - Hearing · ranscripts Amgust 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Seeond. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. Pa~e ]9 - Hearing ,ranscripts August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued: 7:28 P.M. - Appl. No. 4501 - E. NAGY CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26 based upon the July 7, 1997 Notice of Disapproval of the Building Inspector stating two reasons: ( 1 ) under Article II, Section 100-24A.(1) land area identified as 1000-27-4-2 and 1000-27-4-3 were created by deed in 1965 and do not meet the minimum lot requirements (12,500 sq.ft.) and, (2) under Article II, Section 100-25A, total land area merger exists for 1000-27-4-1, 2 and 3 having been held in common ownership after July 1, 1983. Location of Property: Harbor Road, Orient, N.Y. Applicant proposes 28,445 sq. ft. of ]and area and 132.57 lot width as to 1000-27-4-3 & 2, and with a remaining house lot of 20,000+- sq. ft. and lot width of 100 feet as to 1000-27-4-1. Zone District: R-40. (Schedule AA as revised July 22, 1997 shows a size reqpirement for lots created between April 1957 thru November 1971 at ]2,500 sq. ft. and 100 ft. lot width). I have a request from Patricia Moore who is the attorney for Nagys and she said one of them is ill tonight and therefore she is requesting a postponement of this hearing, so there'll be no presentation on their part. However, that doesn't stop anybody that would like to speak. I have sketches of two surveys and I do have the surveys here. I just don't have one this split second here and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? How are you tonight Sir? Would you state your name for the record. MR. RIEGER: My name is John Rieger and I live on Harbor Road. I have a question in reference to the division. I have here some - I'd like to comment. I just thought it would make it easier of what I would be talking about. What my main question is, the wisdom of separating the two parcels. These two parcels are very small and are certainly too small to build on and I don't know if its meant to be for building lot or just for separation of doing whatever they went to do with it. Let me just give you a quick history. I live on Harbor Road and I built a house there in ]972 so I'm very familiar with every aspect of the problems which exists on that particular road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where do you live, Mr. Rieger? MR. RIEGER: On 370 Harbor Road which is one block over to the east from the NaRy property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the water side? MR.[' RIEGER: On the water side, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Is that the extension of Harbor Pond Road, down in that area? page' 20 - Hearing ' transcripts August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. RIEGER: set up, I guess it was called Douglas Road once and Harbor Road is part of Harbor Pond Road, yes. Originally I think it was Douglas Development a which by the way I think it should never of happened because the land is certainly a marsh land. It is below water level and I don't understand that even if somebody wants to build now on a property which is basically not buildable. Recently Nags- sold property on the corner across the street which means that another house will be built down that corner., just across from where she is proposing now to subdivide. But, what I don't understand that if she is high, doesn't she want to sell the property or the parcel as one together w~th the house is. Actually it would increase the value of the property she oyvns there. If she is separating it, it would decrease the value of not only her property but also our property since there is a building envelope which falls right into the area where these are which show-s on the picture and if the building envelope exists there, where would be the septic pool, where is the reaching field, since it is underwater? If it is a holding tank well the area is ail the time flooded, once a year it leaks. I have photographs dating back 85 to just last week. We had two foot of flooding and that was deep enough. Salt water, its not rain water. It's coming through the corner of Narrow River Road and Harbor Road and it is constant. I mean it's every year at least once or twice which means that it produce ( ) The hold of the water is not of -. I had the problem, I wanted to provide water for myself in 1972, 25 years ago and was unable to get a line. Actually, Mr. Nagy was against it by the way. So when he was against that particular period of time of building in this area, why does he want to build, I mean enlarge the capacity of building lots in that area? It doesn't make sense. Well, I think another thing it will do, it will set a precedent for unmerging something which has to merge to comply with the zoning. Now, if you know this, the zoning around us there is R-200 and R-80. We are no bigger than R-40 but even the R-40 I think is, a we're not - happy that that would not have been done like 1950. The development was never happy because it is as I said before under water, basically marsh land and I was stupid enough to buy land there and have difficulties of building on it and I don't want anybody else to have to be in the same position where they buy property and would not be able to build on. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Is there anybody else would like to speak? Yes Ma'am. Just state your name for the record please. MS. ALLECIA: Yes, my name is Sandy Allecia. I live at 300 Harbor Road. There is the right-of-way or the next house of the Nagys' property for sale. We have been flooded several times and what concerns me is with the building and I sympathize with the Nagys, they pay the taxes, they have this property is that if they were to berm like we bought our property bermed. I mean the right, I think that our three houses and this is the Nagys the house down a narrow road will become a little island because like last Thursday, we had to open our ears at the driveway because of the water and it wasn't Page~21 - Hearing lranscripts · August 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals raining. It's just a high tide, full moon whatever, and the storm and it just concerns me that how someone would grade the property to build on it, where they could put a cesspool that would be safe, where they can do all of these other things and I think we'll just get flooded back constantly and unfoi~tunately, Frank and I naively bought too. I mean I love my spot, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love it, but I mean, we went out there one time it just gets flooded. I think more than once or twice a year. You know, we're just flooded constantly and you know, you plant things, we bought several trees over the eleven years we've been there, because you just don't expect it but all of a sudden you're just, you're just in three feet of water and it does come down Narrow River it doesn't come over the Bay, it didn't come over the Bay in any of the hurricanes, They stayed out for hurricanes. It never comes over, our retaining wall from the Bay, it comes down from Narrow River and the Department of Environmental Conservation property so that's our concern. If someone was to build and to berm I think we would be an island. No longer part of Oribnt or anywhere else and I'm really concerned about that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak? We will convene this hearing, are we going to go with the llth or are we going to go for the (end of tape) MEMBER TORTORA: I would like to ask a few questions. (Changed Tape to side B). Could you show us where your house is here on this little map here - on Harbor Road? CHAIRMAN: Could you spell you're last name, please? MRS. ALLECIA: Allecia. MEMBER TORTOHA: Would you show me where you house is here on this little map here? Jon, you're on this map here? MR. R1EGER: Yes. MRS. ALLECIA: This is us. This is the right-of-way. This is the property for sale. This is Nag~r right here. MEMBER TORTORA: So, you're the adjoining neighbors to the east and west. MRS. ALLECIA: Yes., and this part of our house here is the property on the bay is only from I would say, (inaudible) recessed goi~tg down the bay, but the side property here has to be a berm I would say 8 feet easy. MEMBER TORTORA: What are you on a specific flood zone? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The houses were built well before the flood zone. ' Ps, ge· 22 - Hearing" ~;panscripts A~gust 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals MRS. ALLECIA: I don't know, we bought it in 1986. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you use the word 'berm,' you're referring to 'elevated.' MRS. ALLECIA: Railroad ties. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, elevated. MRS. ALLECIA: I call them railroad tides. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Berm is like that, so I mean - MRS. ALLECIA: Oh! I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, the entire piece of property is elevated on that side. Significantly. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's a barrier. MRS. ALLECIA: Barrier, but I mean it's a - MR. : We're elevated. We're elevated, our' house is elevated. MRS. ALLECIA: But we're elevated by railroad ties by eight feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Significantly, no there's no question about it. Mrs. Ostermann and myself were there and that was the day you called .the dog in. MEMBER. OSTERMANN: Does the water run down when it does happen? MRS. ALLECIA: The water comes down from here all the way down here. If you saw it, yeah, really, his photographs are very good because the water comes from down here, comes running, this becomes a river that we can't even have our cars in the driveway and I'm like 90 feet, we're quite a distance back. We've always gotten flooded up this way. It's never come over the bank. MRS. OSTERMANN: But then you go down the a (inaudible). MRS. ALLECIA: Oh, the right-of-way is, forget it. The right-of-way, you could be knee deep, or 5 feet of water. MRS. OSTERMANN: Because you're higher. MRS. ALLECIA: I'm, I'm like up here. Yeah, - you come down, my dog was - that whole thing becomes (inaudible). MRS. OSTERMANN: And what does it run down into the (inaudible). Pa*go'23 - Hearing~ x ranscripts Amgust 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals MRS. ALLECIA: Not really, it's kind of a little bit of a sandy hill here, a little bit up, but it does, I mean it has, it's like in the hurricane, you know, the Northeastern, it went over there - but this area becomes very flooded and I really couldn't tell by the amount of foliage and trees and this, how much that area would flood, but I mean, it's obviously getting water, but, but the right-of-way, so like that*s what I'm saying, they berm on this side, the right-of-way is narrow and we're berm on this side and then we get the flooding coming down Narrow River and the Bay is here. Move our three homes, it becomes a island, because its coming up from, I don't know their names. The house after you, their names? MR. NAGY: Zerkovin (spelling ?) MRS. ALLECIA: Zervokin's (spelling?) house is right at the end of Narrow River Road, so it' coming up the Bay there, plus over from the wetlands, coming down, going around and that's our concern really. I mean if we didn't get flooded who cares what they build, you know? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Rieger the spelling of your name is? MR. RIEGER: R-i-e-g-e-r. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. OK, it appears we're going to recess this until September 25th and I'm going to request to the Board write Mrs. Moore a letter requesting a topo of this property because based upon the information that we received tonight, we'd like to see what elevation factors we're talking about. MEMBER TORTORA: We'd also like someone tell us about the flood zone because I an coneerned about that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK, we have an elevation of nine in the flood zone. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Just one other thing. We don't have a survey for the house lot, would you want that also? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So you'll do it all together? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes and in the letter please mention Ms. Moore if she can't have that by September 25th, that we'11 recess it. Yes, Mr. Rieger? MR. RIEGER: Can I -, it's a nine foot elevation? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Flood Zone 9. Flood, no, that means that the lowest floor area has to be elevated at 9, which are pilings. Pa~e ~ 24 - Hearing' ~-canscr/pts · August 28, 1997 - Beard of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: (Addressing the Chairman) Would you like a house to be sited on the one lot or anything like that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, because it's all goning to flow on where the highest elevation is anyway. They can just superimpose the postage stamp back on it if they want to, which is the building area. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, that's what I~m asking. Do you want the building area to be superimposed on the map also? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, thank you, that's al1 I wanted to ask. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Bearing in mind that it's the request of the applicant's attorney, are there any other questions from anybody on the Board. Hearing no further questions 1'11 make a motion recessing tentatively. We are recessing, this is firm, unless we get a change based upon our request. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You could always further recess if you have to. Please ask them (audience) to check with us again about a day or two before that. (Addressing audience) Would you call the office about the 23rd of September and then we can tell you whether it's still going to be on that night or another night? MR.. RIEGER: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll afford you time to look at the surveys or whatever we get, you know, in reference to elevations. MR. RIEGER: Well, I will be away in Europe at this particular period of time so I will not be able to attend. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: You can submit any written comments you want. We're open to written comments until the closing of the hearing. Anything you want to put in writing you're welcome to. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But we'd have to have it by the 25th of September. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Assuming he has something. MR. : Can I leave the original photographs here too, would that be part of the file? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes~ unless you want them back. ' PadRe~ 25 - Hearing rranscripts ~ A*agust 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. : Well eventually, but I'd like to have them be part of the submission - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Well, the problem is that I saw that you made one copy of it. OK, it didn't come out that great on the copy machine. MR. : I know that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The original is made part of the record. If you wamt it back its - MR. : Well, if its part of the record, that's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, that's the problem. There's a 100% difference between the photocopy and the original. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: After 60 days after the Board makes a decision, you could send the Board a letter asking to have it back and then after 60 days they might be able to. Depends on what the situation is then. MR. : OK, I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much everyone for coming in. I offer that as a motion, ladies and gentlemen? MEMBER DOYEN: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. ~ Pefge~ 26 - Hearing ,ranscripts .A~gust tiS, 1997 - Board of Appeals PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued: 7:45 P.M. - Appl. No. 4502 - MOORE'S LANE DEVELOPMENT CORP. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Deck addition to condo unit g60 at 135 R60 Caleb's Way, Greenport, New York; County Parcel No. 1000-40-.1-1-60 due to proposed reduction in the front yard setback at less than 35 feet. Zone District: AHD. I have a copy of a survey indicating a deck that is not attached at this time or was not when I looked at it on condo ~60 and we'll ask the applicant the size of the deck is what? MR. DICI{HOFF: 8 feet out from the house and 12 feet long. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what is the side yard reduction? MR. DICKHOFF: Well we're 36 feet off the road now, so it would be down to 28 feet. CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I have your name for the record? MR. DICKHOFF: My name is Raymond Dickhoff. I'm the builder with Pheasant Run. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is an open deck, it conforms to all the other decks that are on most of the condos there? MR. DICKFIOFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I had a discussion with the owner of the property and he basically stated that it was a private road and it service only those condos that are, you know, continuous to it and he indicated to me that the deck would always remain open. I believe that's in the C & Rs to the - MR. DICKHOFF: Yes, it can't be encroached. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK. I guess I'll go on to Mr. Dinizio. Any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. ~Pa'~e~ 27 - Hearing ~ ~anseripts ~A~/gust 28, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? I think we have a shoe in here but I don't know if we're going to vote on it right this second. OK. We thank you very much for coming in. MR. DICKHOFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment I'll make a motipn closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion Carried. End of Hearings. I~ECEiVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOZD Town Ciezk, Town of ~"outhold t