Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/11/1997 HEARING Transcript of Public Hearing September 11, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) 6:15 P.M. - Appl. #4356 - MARTIN KOSMYNKA by Gary Flsnner Olsen, Esq. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is an application for a Variance, based upon the Building Inspector's Action of Disapproval which states that under Article III.A, Section 100-30A.4 (ret: Article XXIV, Section 100-244B), proposed accessory garage will have insufficient front yard setback. Code requirements: 35 ft. minimum front setback and three foot setback from side property lines for lots having less than 20,000 sq. ft. in area. Location of Property: 19S5 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue; Parcel ~1000-98-1-1].2. It has been recessed since March 6, 1996, and the hearing was scheduled for Aug~ust 14, 1997, and was recessed until tonight. We would like to ask Mr. Otsen if he would, something he would like to say. So nice to see you Sir, how are you? MR. OLSEN: Good evening. For the record my name is Gary Olsen and I am an attorney having-offices at Main Road in Cutchogue. I have been requested by Martin Kosmynka to represent him tonight before the Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with his application for an area variance to locate a proposed garage less than' the required 35 feet from Pine Tree Road. The subject property is located at 1985 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue, New York and is designated on the Suffotk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 98, Block 1, Lot 11.2. The lot has frontage on Pine Tree Road of 53.10 feet and runs approximately 250 feet to Little Creek. Presently located on the property is a one family residence approved by the Southold Town Building Department and for which a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. The applicant seeks to construct a two family garage, 24 feet by 24 feet. Since the property is a waterfront parcel it is not necessary to obtain a variance to locate the garage in the front yard. When the house was constructed Mr. Kosmynka was required to install a drywell in his front yard. The dry well is located approximately 40 feet from Pine Neck Road in the lowest grade of the front yard and is presently located in the existing driveway. Runoff from the driveway leeches into the dry well. The applicant also has underground leaders running from all the gutters on the house into the dry web to prevent runoff from the house falling into the creek. I'm submitting to the Board a sketch, showing the location of the dry well as well as the current figuration of the present driveway. This is a rather large exhibit. Mr. Kosmynka has prepared this showing the existing house and driveway and where Page 2 - Hearing TrairScripts September ]1, ]997-Board of Appeals the dry well as I was discussing is located as well as the septic system and the drinking well. On top of it is an overlay showing where the proposed garage would fit in and how far it would be from the dry well. I'll submit those to you but I've also made photocopies of the pertinent sections. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the persons in the audience that have a concern about this we will certainly recess and allow you to look at these. MI{. OLSEN: I've marked the present configuration on the photocopies in pink and the proposed configuration of the new driveway and the new garage location in yellow and I've got I think, at least five copies here. The personal inspection of the property clearly demonstrates that the logical location of the garage is on the northerly side of the property. The present driveway entrance is located on the southerly side of the property which entrance the applicant wishes to retain. The entrance is cobblestone with a white enirance gates on either side and it would make an easy point from which to enter, the garage. To the left of the entrance is an attractive stonewall and plantings. By placing the garage on the northerly side of the property it would be so located that it would be hidden by the wall and plantings as much as possible and it would be in the least visible location. To locate the garage in the southerly portion of the front yard, the garage would be directly between the street and the applicant's house and would block the applicant's house from the road and would diminish not only the value of the applicant's property but what would be aesthetically unpleasant for all of the neighboring properties. Furthermore, to locate the garage on the souther]y side of the front yard would require the removal of natural plantings between the subject premises and the property to the south owned by Mr. Leviness. liowever, in order to locate the garage as proposed, it requires a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals since it would be 19 feet from Pine Neck Road and not the 35 feet as required by the Zoning Code. To locate the garage 35 feet from Pine Neck Road would position it over the dry well which the applicant was required to install When he built this house. As the Board is aware, this is an application for an area variance. In an area variance application under Town Law Section 267B 3C the Board must consider two basic thi~gs. One, the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, and two, the detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance were to be granted.~ In balancing the interest just stated, ~he Zoning Board must also consider the following five factors for an area variance. Factor ], whether or an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties, if granted. I submit to this Board that there would be no undesirable change to the neighborhood if the variance were granted. Most houses in the neighborhood have garages in the front yards of varying distances from Pine Tree Road. The Page 3 - Hearing Tra~.scripts September ]1, 1997-Board of Appeals suggested location would place the garage in the most inconspicuous place and it would be largely hidden from the street by the existing stonewall and plantings. Also, this neighborhood has developed over the years with houses ranging from the very modest and poorly maintained to those that appear to be seasonal cottages to more elaborate year round houses that are well maintained such as the applicant's home. Factor 2, that the Board should consider. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. As I stated before it is not feasible to place the garage in the southerly front yard which would result in creating an eyesore and require the removing and removal of existing foliage. The garage cannot be set further away from Pine Tree Road since it would result in being placed over the existing dry well which was a requirement to be constructed when the house was built. Factor 3, whether the area variance is substantial. It is respectfully submitted that this variance of 16 feet is not substantial in character. As one drives down Pine Tree Road there appears to be several garages closer than 19 feet to Pine Tree Road, particularly those on corner parcels which have selected Pine Tree Road as a side yard and it appear to be as close as to 3 feet from the road. i'm submitting two pictures of garages on Pine Tree Road which appear to be less than the required 35 foot setback. The first picture shows a garage that's tan on the bottom and brown on the top as you leave Skunk Lane and go on to Pine Tree Road. This is on the right-hand side. It is quite a distance from the applicant's property. The second picture shows a dark maroon building which is very close to Pine Tree Road. After you pass the applicant's property you continue down Pine Tree Road and this is also on the left and it's also on the creek. So, I'll submit these two pictures to you. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the applicant has planted grass between his property line where he has located the stonewall and the physical edge of the roadway which would give the garage an appearance of being even further away from Pine Tree Road than the 19 feet and I'm submitting a picture of this grass area for the record. Factor 4, which the Board should consider is whether the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. As stated previously the proposed location is suited to the natural physical condition of the property so that the garage would be at its least visible position and yet would retain the integrity of the dry well which was required to protect the environment I need to keep runoff from the improvements on the property from flowing into the creek. Factor 5, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the Zoning Board's decision but shall not preclude the granting of an area variance. It is submitted to this Board that because of the small size of this waterfront parcel, the applicant's options to lo,ate a garage are limited and dictate in effect the proposed location. Accordingly, the applicant's difficulty is not self-created. The applicant and his wife are a young couple who Page 4 - Hearing Trm,scripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals have built a house and landscaped the property which is an asset to the community, which improvements in fact have resulted in an overall increase in the property values of the entire neighborhood. A garage is a necessity in this day and age, particularly for young family. The proposed garage will be constructed in keeping with the other improvements made by the applicants and I'm submitting herewith a drawing of the proposed garage. This is again a rather large exhibit and what I've done is I've made photocopies to kind of scale it down for the Board. Factor 6, that the Board should consider. As part of the balancing concept, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. I submit, that to grant this variance application would do ali of the above taking into consideration the unique issues presented by this parcel as weIt as protecting the character of the community. I would like to point out to the Board that if the variance is granted part of the existing driveway will be removed and replaced with lawn and plantings and one of the earlier sketches that I submitted shows how the new driveway will be reconfigurated. I'm also submitting copies of letters from William J. Fishlinger who owns property immediately to the north of the subject property. Wiliiam Peters who lives in the area. Peter M. WaIker who is President of the Nassau Farms Association and Enid M. Rothleder all supporting this application. I would like for the record to read these letters. The letter from Wiliiam J. Fishlinger dated July 24, 1997, addressed to the Zoning Beard. "Dear Sirs: My name is William Fishlinger. I reside at 1935 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue, New York. The location of my home is on the north side of Martin Kosmynka's property which is also the location of the area of where he is hoping to construct his garage. I am in support of this application." Enid M. Rothleder, "Gentlemen: As a neighbor of Mr. Kosmynka, I am writing to say that I have no objection to his building a garage on his property. The hearing on his appeal is set for January 10, 1996 at the evening session." Mrs. Rothleder, I believe her property is just about right across the street from the subject premises. A letter from Peter M. Walker, dated August 20, i997, addressed to the Zoning Board, "To Whom It May Concern: Peter Walker, full-time resident on Pine Tree Rd. in Cutchogue and President of the Nassau Farms Association am in full support of Mr. Kosmynka's application. The Kosmynka's house and landscaping are a credit to our community. I'm sure that the proposed garage will be done as tastefully.", and a letter from William Peters addressed to the Zoning Board, dated December 21, 1995, "Sirs: I am writing to you on behalf of a neighbor, Martin Kosmynka, who lives diagonally across the street from me at 1985 Pine Tree Rd. He and ~ discussed at considerable length over the past year his desire to build a garage. His lot size is such that he can't build a garage on either side of his house nor can he put it behind his house because of his proximity to Little Creek. His only alternative is to put it in front of his house. It was at my suggestion that he request a fiage 5 - Hearing Tra,~scripts September ]1, ]997-Board of Appeals variance in setback from the street because for him to adhere to code and place a garage with a 35 foot setbaek would be aesthetically unpleasing. It would crowd the front of his house and take away a good deal of the charm of his front elevation as viewed from the street; Mr. Kosmynka built his house several years ago in an area which at one time was predominantly a summer community. This ambiance has changed over the years to that of a year round community. His house is very much in keeping with the present character of the community. A garage with a nineteen foot instead of a thirty five foot setback will in no way change this character. I urge you to approve his variance." I believe the Board has these letters in their file. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I was just going to say when you started reading we have several letters in favor and several others against. MR. OLSEN: If you wish, I'll submit these also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure~ thank you. MR. OLSEN: I'm also submitting a photograph of the subject premises, one showing the present entrance gate house and stonewall. Actually, it's the only one I'm going to submit. That picture shows, or tkis picture shows a dark colored car which is parked in the proposed location of the garage. The other picture shows the slate wall, grassed area between the 'wall of the street and the present plantings behind which the garage is proposed to be located. ~n conclusion, I would request that the Board respectfully approve this application as submitted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we're going to start with questions of you Mr. Olsen. Start with Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No~ t don't have any questions. I think he answered everything. The distance is 9 feet from the dry well and 19 from the street, right? MR. OLSEN: That's right. MEMBER DiNIZIO: Would you accept anything less than 19 or a little more? MR. OLSEN: I can't answer that. I would have to speak to my client who's here but, I don't know that it's going to make a significant difference. Whether it's going to make it, because I don't think the application as submitted is really requesting a very substantial change from what the client wants. Page 6 - Heari~g Tra~soripts September l], ]997-Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZiO: Well, I'm just, you know, as part of give and take of things that may go on in our diseussion I just asked that question. MR. OLSEN: Well, I can ask my client. He will probably move the garage a little bit closer to the dry well but, you ean't put it too close. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: The overall height will be 14 ft. 1 inch to the top of the cupola. MR. OLSEN: -ties, including the cupola. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Olsen the reason why I started with the Board was beeause as you know we've had hearings on this before without your presenee. We have discussed the possibility of moving the dry well and all of the other significant things here and I just wanted it placed in the record that we have discussed this with Mr. Kosmynka and I can think of at least two hearings prior to this one, alright, where we discussed alternate locations in reference to distanees, OK, as basically in what Mr. Dinizio was referring to and so we will continue to diseuss that in our deliberation state once we elose the hearing. MR. OLSEN: Alright. I think the dry well is a big issue because it's expensive to install, it's there, it was done as requested when the house was built and there's all underground conduits leading to runoff from the house into this dry well and it wouldn't make any sense to have to relocate it in my opinion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At the time on the Board we did have a sanitary engineer and there were discussions of actually elevating the garage over the dry well and structurally I don't know how that can be done, but, I'm just mentioning that we even got involved in those discussions. MR. OLSEN: It really seems quite frankly, this application to me doesn't seem that complicated and I'm surprised that it has become complicated and I don't know why. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we've granted these buildings before, in front yard areas and it is of concern of the Board, our 43 year on the Board Member is not with us tonight and he will tell you and I'm not speaking for him, that it does not necessarily set a precedent. None of our decisions set a precedent, but, in reality, if it is the first one on that side of the street there is a type of precedent set and in this particular - Page 7 - Hearing Tra~nscripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals MR. OLSEN: Well actually I drove down today and most of the houses already have garages and the front yard isn't the issue, it's the setback from the street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I mean. MR. OLSEN: And with this particu]ar piece of property it's so small there really aren't many options and to put it over a dry well just doesn't make sense to me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I wasn't suggesting that, I'm only telling you that that's what the discussion was at the time that we had I~r. Villa on the Board and so therefore I'm just mentioning that on the record and reaffirming what we said. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, the only thing I wanted to ask is that you said that an alternate location wouldn't be feasible, that it would just involve a lot of relandscaping and digging up the current driveway and config~ration of that driveway, etc., but I would like to know that you also ssJd in your testimony that to put the garage in the location that your proposing, that you are proposing to reconfigure that driveway, so, to some extent you're going to have to do some kind of renovation by your own testimony. MR. OLSEN: Well, the renovation is going to have to be done no matter what happens, but, if you look at I think the last picture I submitted, it shows this beautiful entrance of stonewall, it's an ideal place to continue to enter from and to put the, the only other alternative, is to put the garage over the right-hand side of the property, the southerly side of the property and that's going to put it directly between the street and the house. It's going to look terrible. This way, it's over to the side, as far to the side as it can get. You know, if the Board feels that it makes sense to move it closer, to the dry well, it's submitted as being 9 feet from the dry well, possibly it could be moved say another 4 feet closer. That would be an alternative. MEMBER TORTORA: So, if it came to 4 feet closer that would bring it up to the requested variance setback from the front yard then? MR. OLSEN: Excuse me, I'm sorry. MEIVIBER TORTORA: Then what would you a you're requesting for your variance that you brought it up 4 feet? MR. OLSEN: No, then the- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 19 to 23. MR. OLSEN: Yes, it would be from 19 to 23 feet. Page $ - Hearing Trai,scripts September ll, 1997-Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Just so we're all on the same wave length, it is feasible to relocate this - MR. OLSEN: Further towards the creek. MEMBER TORTORA: To get it away from the road another 4 feet? MR. OLSEN: Right, yes. It could be moved another 4 feet.. That would bring it 23 feet. And again, aesthetically if you look at the grassed area most properties down there the people haven't planted between the property line and the edge of the roadway but visually it would, what he's done there, the garage is going to look even further away from, it*s not going to look as close as 19 feet, it'll look further away because he has planted between the wall and the edge of the road. MEMBER TORTORA: It's evident from my own personal inspection that he has done a eonsiderable amount of landscaping. However, as you pointed out, the Board is responsible to grant the minimum relief necessary. MR. OLSEN: But we're working with a very small piece of property unfortunately and this day and age you need a garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you Mr. Olsen. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? OK, Mr. Nonearrow we'll start with Mr. Walker first, OK?. How are you tonight, Sir? MR. WALKER: Good, thank you. I'm Peter Walker, I am President of the Nassau Farms Association and I think I can speak for a majority of the members as I've spoken to them. None of them seem to have any problem with this. Both Marry and Chris are very active in our community and our association. Christine is our current Treasurer and she is ~ I think looking at this and knowing them, knowing what they've done so far with their house, we all believe, or let's say people I've spoken to, think this will be nothing more than an added asset. So, again I'm speaking in behalf of them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Mr. Noncarrow? MR. NONCARROW: I'm Dick Noncarrow. President of the Chamber of Commerce of Cutehogue. It doesn't have really too much to do with tonight, but just for the record. Also a member of Nassau Farms Association as Treasurer, - Directors. I know a lot of what goes on Pine Tree Road and the Nassau Farms Association. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You also live on the same road right? MR. NONCARROW: We live on the same side of the street also. I know Kosmynkas a number of years. They built a beautiful house Page 9 - Hearing Trai~scripts September 1], 199?-Board of Appeals on Pine Tree Road facing the creek and they've landscaped it almost as good as my property. I don't know if anybody has seen my property or not, but almost as nice as mine and they've done a fine job and to deny them this variance I just, just to me it doesn't make any sense for what they want to do. The house is beautiful, it's nicely landscaped, their an asset to the community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Mr. Peters, how are you tonight? MR. PETERS: My name is William Peters, I live diagonally across from Marry. I wrote the letter a year and a half, two years ago and what I've seen of the two of them it just reenforces my opinion that they should be allowed to build this garage where they want to build it. It is absolutely no detriment to the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Anybody else in favor? My question to the opposition, do you want to look at anything before you speak? ]Do you want to speak first and look at what we, what's be submitted or do you want us to recess for five minutes? (Someone answered they would like to look) You want to look, OK, we'll ask for a two minute recess. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. KOSMYNKA hearing reconvened: Motion made by Lydia, second by Jerry to reeonvene. Motion carried. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. Would you kindly state your name for the record.? MR. LeVINESS: My name is Thomas LeViness. I live immediately next to Martin Kosmynka. In the absence of the air conditioning I'll try to reduce the amount of hot air I'm full of. I appear here with some degree of reluctance because Marry is my neighbor. I do oppose the variance and at the risk of appearing to characterize Mr. Olsen's presentation I'd like to comment on it. I think in summary the Board must recognize that we had very few facts given to this Board. We've had opinion, Marty has a lovely house, Marry and his wife are lovely people. They have an attraetive house. We had some opinion about how it might look. The faets we've had presented are two pictures. Now, these are two pictures of two houses that are not on Pine Tree Road. I've Hved there for over 25 years, there on Skunk Lane. We've also gone through, oh, and I'd like to correct something I think that was inadvertently referred to as a two family garage. Page l0 - Hearing Tree,scripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I meant two story. MR. LeVINESS: OK, thank you. Going through the criteria that Mr. Olsen mentioned, in considering whether it's an undesirable change I consider Pine Tree Road to be a unique rural country road. We have very few garages in the front yards in our community. We have exceptions of waterfront, but on Pine Tree Road and in particularly the side that Marty and I live on we have very few garages in front of houses and for the most part almost every house on the waterside of Pine Tree Road is set back at least 100 or more feet from the road and this contributes to the character of the road and I think that's why people enjoy gardening down it and walking down it. So, I live there, I know the distances and I believe you've seen it and I think we've had suggestions to the contrary. The issue of whether this is beneficial or detrimental to the communities it was suggested and again it's evidence that Marty's house which is certainly attractive has improved the value of the properties in the community. After the house was built having lived there in my house since 1977, we found personal purposes as a matter of taste. We decided that we had to consider moving. I had Burr Lewis, Burr Lewis's office come down and give me an opinion on the value of my house so that we could move to a house where we weren't so near such a large structure. It was their opinion I would of had them come here today had I known that opinion was going to be offered that the value of the houses in the community had been increased. I was told, although Marty's house is attractive, given the size of the house towering over my house that the value of my hoUse has been reduced by $75,000. So, and that's the opinion of a real estate expert. I have spent close to $10,000 to a landscaper to put up trees which Marry and I both enjoy commonly which screens my view and gives me more of a sense of being in the country. But, I'm talking particularly to the factor of the whether the area variance is substantial. Well, 16 feet is a substantial part of 35 feet. 'It's almost half. In regard to whether this was a difficulty that was self-created, I would suggest that the Board would consider that in 1977, Mr. Robodee got a variance to subdivide and create Marty's lot. I have a copy of the determination here and it was conditioned that the lot be 17,000 sq. ft. The lot is slightly under 16,000 sq. ft. When the house was built, I think Marry being a builder, had to make a determination whether he wanted a garage. He has a very large house, he could of put a garage within the confides of his house. He obviously made a decision not to. I think that's a self-created problem. He got a variance from the Suffolk County Water Authority and that's why he has the location of the dry wells and the septic tanks which I think there's a topographical error on that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't mean Water Authority, you mean Department of Health Services. Page 11 - Hearing T~an~cripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals MR. LeVINESS: Wasn't the Water Authority, it was Suffolk County Health Department, because his septic tanks are as stated by the Board, - they're suppose to be 150 feet wide and where he wanted to locate the -, probably the only place he could locate them became less than 100 feet away. So, this is another variance which of course I got a warning from the Department of Health, and we can't drink our water anymore, but, I have a letter which I'd be happy to submit to the Board which came from the Department of Health telling me about the hazards of drinking the water given a septic tank less than 100 feet away. So we've had variances and variances. I've talked ~dth Marry, we've tried to resolve this. He's made generous offers, he offered to keep the height at 12 to 14 feet I believe. If the Board is inclined to approve this I would suggest they consider imposing that condition. But, more importantly, the garage can be built on the other side of the property, 35 feet away without the need of a variance. It's just that you probably can build a garage that's 24 x 24. Now, by my calculations you can park 6 Cadillacs in an area of 24 x 24. So, perhaps he might want to consider or we could discuss his needs and he might be able to put up a garage smaller and conform to the Zoning Law. At the moment that's all I have to offer except in closing it's again in some reluctance because Marry is a good neighbor of mine, but I really- treasured the rural character of a -. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Anybody else like to speak? Yes Sir. Kindly state your name for the record. MR. COTTRELL: My name is Thomas Cottrell. I and my wife own the property across the Pine Tree Road from the property in question. I'm a full-time year round residence of a house within the confines of the community that identifies itself as Nassau Farms. i have been a Member of the Nassau Farms Associations for 31 years. My wife wrote a letter to the Board because she was unable to be here tonight and I've written a second letter to the Board for' this particular hearing. I'd like to read both of them if I may and then I'd like to make some comments. "To the Members of the Board: I write to express my strong objection to the variance applied for by Mr. Kosmynka (Appl. No. 4356). My wife and I own the property directly across Pine Tree Road from the lot for which the variance is requested. If Mr. Kosmynka is relieved of the zoning requirement of a front setback of 35 ft. and builds a 24' × 24' accessory building with only a 19' setback there will be a precedent that will bring about a most undesirable change to the rustic character of Pine Tree Road. The proposed building is so large that if it is placed 19' back, it will extend across the mid-line of the lot as seen from the road and be an imposing, and very distracting sight. Such an obtrusive structure will certainly be a detriment to nearby properties. I have attached a composite photograph of the property in question constructed to scale in which the proposed building has been placed by reference to the marking stakes on the applicant's Page 12 - Hearing 'lranscripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals lot. It shows how glaringly conspicuous such a building would be sited so close to the road, and how out of character it would be on this charming rural lane." And there is one of these pictures in the file and I have another one if you want to examine it. The building by the way that's super imposed on the property is 24 ft. wide and is 14 ft. high. Going on with my letter, "Even though the lot is very small, a variance was required before the house could be built~ there is plenty of room to place the accessory building so that it meets existing zoning code. The distance from the front of the house to the property line at the road is more than 100 ft. The applicant is in the building business, and it is clear that when he applied for the first variance, he had sufficient knowledge of the zoning requirements to plan the use of his property without the need for another variance. With his background it would clearly be easy for him to re-site and/or re-size the building to fit existing code. I urge the Board to deny the application" and my wife is not here tonight though, Dear Members, I would like to add my objections to Mr. Kosmynka's application for a variance to put a 24 x 24 building 16 ft. closer to the road which is not 19 ft. Oh, 16 feet closer to the road than the code allows, I'm sorry she's right, don't tell her. Mr. Kosmynka has other options which might inconvenience him. However, if the - setback is ignored in his favor we all lose. In particular I'm speaking for myself and my wife who own the property directly across the road. I feel a building a building such as this diminishes the scale of a winding rural setting, it would be an intrusive distraction. Other loses in this scenario would be the Nassau Farms property owners who would have no control of what happens to the neighborhood if the zoning laws are meaningless and of course if a precedent is set to allowed an auxiliary or a utility building of this scale so close to a country lane in the Town of S0uthold, North Fork - as well in the long run. Mr. Kosmynka has called on me at my work place and I've asked him if there isn't someway he can work this out without such an impact and without putting his building right in our face. I've also have spoken to a number of residence who because of personal reasons are afraid to speak up of their concerns. I too have made friends in the neighborhood. However, I also value the principal preserving our rural settings within the confines of our local laws. The variance requested suggest to me the type of site planning were commonly seen in the western counties of Long Island and in the industrial areas. Please give this matter your most serious scrutiny with respect ~o --. I'm very concern about the materials that have been submitted in support of the application. As Mr. LeViness pointed out the houses who are suppose to be examples of - are not on ]Pine Tree Road, they're side yards setbacks and in fact they're old enough to come before the zoning code anyway and don't have any . · relevance. But a more serious concern about the drawing which I observed at the recess. If you compare that drawing to the certified survey that are submitted in many places of this application, can you believe it's the same one? It's not the same shape, and the dimensions shown on the drawing are incorrect. Page 13 - Hearing 'i~anscripts September ll, 1997-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: in other words it's not drawn to scale? MR. COTTRELL: No, it's not only not drawn to seale, it's drawn in a different shape, the angle of the northwest corner of the lot is changed and the dimensions, the width of the lot as shown in the drawing are not the dimensions of the width of the lot. And so I think the application is very faulty in the data supporting it are untrue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak against? Seeing no hands. Mr. Kosmynka, could I ask you a question? MR. KOSMYNKA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the we'll refer to it as a site plan that I believe was just being addressed to, the setback of the septic of the dry well, you're showing me as 40 feet. MR. KOSMYNKA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, if we took the 19 and we added the 24 to that, we would be at 43 already, so we would be over the top of it. It should be 19 x 24 and you're showing 9 from the garage. So, it should be a total of 52 feet, is that correct? MR. KOSMYNKA: I'm not sure I follow you. I'm going 19 added 4 to 24. CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right add the 24 and then add the 9 which you're showing me here. MR. KOSMYNKA: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so it's actually 52 feet, not 40 feet? MR. KOSMYNKA: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: The dry well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The dry well, yes. MR. KOSMYNKA: The dry well. CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's 52 feet, right. MR. KOSMYNKA: OK, now, the only other thing to add to Mr. Cottrell's a regarding the survey, this was a proposed survey, the house wasn't even built. In the process of going through the construction of it, we had to put where you were doing the dock and all of the DEC work and you had to show the drainage. It Page 14 - Hearing '¢~anscripts September 11, 199?-Board of Appeals wasn't etched in stone, the house wasn't even built w-ith this. I believe the Board has a fine! survey on this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I have a survey dated a - MR. KOSMYNKA: 92. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, 1/30/92. MR. KOSMYNKA: OK, that is the final survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don~t have a copy of that? MR. COTTRELL: I think I do, but the shape of the lot on that survey is very different from the materials presented tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're absolutely correct. We are aware of that. MR. COTTRELL: And the dimensions shown are wrong. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are aware of that. Thalkk you, that was for the record Mr. Cottrell. Does the Board have any questions of other the applicant or the opposition? MEMBER DINIZIO: How wide is the house? MR. KOSMYNKA: I think it's 34 and change. It's not a wide house. MEMBER DINIZIO: 34. MR. KOSMYNKA: Overall width from side to side. It's only, the house is only 2200 sq. ft. which I don't think in this day and age is a very large house and it meet all code. There was no variance required from the town to put the house in that envelope. I'm referring to Mr. LeViness with the Health Department issue. It was a 100 foot requirement when this was granted back in 82. The Health Department changed their ordinance in 90. They went to 150 separation because the wells and that's the reason why I had to go in front of the Board for a variance. It was going to be granted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're aware of that. MR. KOSMYNKA: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment, we'll take everything into consideration, we thank everybody for their courtesy and I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. Page ]5 - Hearing 'i~anscripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. Page 16 - Hearing 'i'~anseripts · September lJ, 1997-Board of Appeals 7:41 P.M. - Application for parcel known as 3505 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck; Parcel II1000-123-6-12.5: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' This is on behalf of ELEANOR CORWIN, it is an appeal that we are going to open and then we are going to tell you what our determination is. It Appeal ~4504, this is a request for Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26 based upon the July 10, 1997 Notice of Disapproval by the Building Inspector issued on the following grounds: Section 100-24A (1), the 14,113 sq. ft. lot created by Deed on Aug-mst ~, 1978, does not conform to the minimum lot size requirement set forth in Bulk Schedule A.A. as of the date of creation, the required lot size is 40,000 sq. ft. for lots created after December 2, 1971. Under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B the required lot line set back requirements are a minimum of 35 ft. front yard and 35 ft. rear yard, side yard at 10 ft. with both side yards at 25 ft. Survey shows the proposal dwelling does not have the required ~ront yard and rear yard lot line set backs. I have a copy of subdivision map dated June ll, 1969 from Lena F. Howell, which this is lot I believe #2 and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties. What has developed throughout this is that after further investigation we have found that the Planning Board had signed this map and this map does fall within the confines of Plar~ning Board approval by so doing I don't mean to be redundant and therefore the hearing itself is really a moot hearin~ because the property was purchased in 1978 and the property has been held in single and separate ownership prior to the early eighties stipulation. Is there anybody would like to speak on behalf of this? For or against? (someone unknown asking, as far as the ownership?) As far as the ownership. (same individual stating, there are some other issues). Yes, we will discuss those issues. We haven't opened the other hearing, OK. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Motion carried. Page 17 - Hearing Ti,~nscripts " September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The second appeal is an appeal made by JOYCE GRATTAN, as Contract Vendee. This is a request for Variances under Article XXIV, Section t00-244B, for a proposed new dwelling with reduced front yard and rear yard setbacks (ref: July 10, 1997 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector). The applicant is proposing a rear yard setback of 25 and a front yard setback which appears to be 30 but there are a couple of bay windows which reduces it to approximately 27 from the front property- line and I have a copy- of the Suffolk County- Tax Map indicating tiffs and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? Mrs. McMahon, you have a question? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Mrs. Grattan is here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, Mrs. Grattan is here. Excuse me, I apologize. Mrs. Crattan is here, I apologize. We have to do the fora first. How are you? MRS. GRATTAN: ! just want to make it clear that I certainly don't want to be a skunk in a garden party and I would only buy this lot if in fact I got the Building Department approval and the Health Department approval. I certainly would not want to infringe upon anybody in anyway and I think the Realtor and the seller both understand that so I'd be willing to answer any- questions anybody has about it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We'll start with Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: The only- question I have is that tile proposed deck on the easterly side, which would be the rear yard, right, according to my calculations it would be 26 ft. from the rear property line? MRS. GRATTAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Is that accurate? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have 25. MEMBER TORTORA: Because I had the extension at 6 ft. and according to the floor plan that you submitted, I just wanted to make sure what was hsppening back here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have the extension at 11 ft. for the proposed deck which reduces it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We scaled it out in the office. (checking floor plan amongst themselves). Page 1S - Hearing Tr~iscripts September Il, 1997-Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: OK, so tell us, Mrs. Grattan~ a little bit why it's pretty obvious in the ~ront yard to me at least why a variance is necessary. In the rear yard is there no other location for the proposed deck, or that you could place that? MRS. GRATTAN: I don't see another spot for the deck and I have the deck for my grandchildren. We don't wsnt them playing in the front and I'd like them on the back in the deck where they can be seen and stay away from the front of the yard. MEMBER TORTORA: Where is your septic system proposed to be located? MRS. GRATTAN: That's on the, isn't that on the survey map that you have? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I don't see it. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't. You know what I have is (inaudible) I show on the survey a 3., it's very hard to read, it says 3.5 concrete block, ring 2" high. MRS. GRATTAN: Shall I give you this? MEMBER TORTORA: Sure, that would help. (Chairman and Lydia reviewing map Mrs. Grattan gave). MEMBER TORTORA: Was the location of this drawn with the a working with the Health Department, or is this a locatio~l that you had? MRS. GRATTAN: No, this has the first a, the reason the Health Department turned it down to begin with, was not because of anything other than the fact they didn't understand which I just received in the mail today, Mr. Bruer had sent it to Mr. McNulty and I got it in the mail today. The Health Department people didn't understand this bit about the community well site. If you see it up here in the corner so they felt that I had no place to put a well and I tried to explain to them I wasn't putting a well there, I was putting it up with the community well site. IVIEMBER TORTORA: The map that you just gave us, indicates a small structure that I'm not sure what it is right next to the proposed deck. MRS. GRATTAN: I have no idea what that is there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a septic tank. MRS. GRATTAN: Is that, is that Septic tanks? OK. Page 19 ~ Hearing Transcripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: And it shows a distanee of 24 feet rather than 26 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's beiow ground~ MRS. GRATTAN: That's below ground. MEMBER TORTORA: Good, that's the question I had. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's got to be 10 feet from the house and that's the reason why they position there and it's away from the a minimum of 10 feet and then it's away from the deck so that you can still clean it, h~ it needs to be clean. You all done? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Grattan the only two questions I have is the two scalped areas on the front of the proposed 1-i/2 story dwelling are bay windows protruding out into the front of the house? MRS. GRATTAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They're not supported by a foundation not to your knowledge, are they? MRS. GRATTAN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, they're suspended. OK, and the' question that I had about the deck was and please in no way am I singling you out but, we have a substantial amount of deck applications, is there a speeific reason why you are requiring an elevated deck as oppose to a ground level deck which wouldn't require a variance? I know you just mentioned about the grandchildren. MRS. GRATTAN: It's easier to keep the grandchildren fenced in. I have a deck on my house now, we just have a gate at the end. We can sit in the family room, see the grandchildren and know that they're are not going anywhere. Page 20 - Hearing Transcripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there ever any history if this deck was granted for the availability of enclosing it, making it part of the house? MRS. GRATTAN: No way. You mean the deek? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. GRATTAN: No, I don't know how that would happen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you very much and I apologize for not calling on you first. Is there anybody else would like to speak on behalf of this applieation? Speak against the application or concerned about the application? Mrs. McMahon, how are you tonight? MRS. McMAHON: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Use the mike please and state your name. MRS. McMAHON: My name is Milly MeMahon and I'm located on the east side of the proposed building. I object to the 25 feet rear yard. Way too elose to my property. I also have a well south east side, 25 feet from the property line. I think the lot is too small for the house and it should be increased 35 feet, the minimum requirement. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you. Anybody else like to speak in opposition? Yes, Mr. Fedynak? How are you Sir? MR. FEDYNAK: Good evening. For the record my name is Raymond Fedynak and I own a house within the Camp Mineols area and the association that owns that. That is a very fragile area and water is of real concern of ours, partible drinking water. I have a house that's located if you drew a line probably about 150 feet up to 200 feet away from the proposed new home. There is a lot of flooding that occurs in that area and my well was, went salty, went bad, and that was on my own property. I was advised by Suffolk County to go as east as I could and the only as far as I could go east was on the right-of-way which comes down in the north south direction into 'the bay. I have a well at the corner of the Corwin and Homme] property within let's say 5 or 10 feet. In that area is also located another 3 wells that are privately owned and not on a water system of that community and I'm concerned about, you know, where, you know, cesspools are, and so on and so forth. You know, it could be a problem for us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you. Anybody else? Any further questions from the Board? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Page 21 - Hearing Trunscripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Seeond. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. Page 22 - Hearing Tra~dscripts September ]], ]99?-Board of Appeals 7:5_ p.m. - Appl. No. 4503 - HAY HARBOR CLUB, INC. An application for a Special Exception has been filed under Article III, Section 100-31B(7) for approval of new golf club house and related employee housing in this R-120 Zone District~ located at Oriental Avenue, Fishers Island, NY; Parcel ~1000'9-12-8.1, P. IVIoore, Esq. and Sandy Essers. Architect. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anyone here on Hay Harbor and Fishers Island? It doesn't lock like it. We'll just carry it over. Adjourned to October 23, 1997. Motion carried. Page 23 - Hearing Transcripts September 1I, 1997-Board of Appeals 7:58 P.M. Variance application for ELEANOR SIEVERNICH by Anthony Salvatore, Esq. (Continued hearing from 8/14/97). 3200 Cox Neck Road (a/k/a Mill Road), Mattituck, Parcel #1000-]]3-$-5. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you tonight, Sir? ANTHONY SALVATORE, ESQ: I'm not sure how the Board, Mr. Chairman, would like us to proceed. Are you opening the entire hearing up or are yotl opening it up only for Dr. Frumkin to voice his opinion? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we normally open it up for everything. MR. SALVATORE: OK, I will not reiterate anything that I had previously said in the prier meeting. The thing that I would like to say is the two objectives here, at least I think there are only two, Mr. Frumkin a calculated his square footage from the survey from the copy of the survey he has approximately being generous 50,000, 56,000 sq. ft. Mr. Sidorowicz on his own survey has 36,500 sq. ft. The two parcels in question which we seek to subdivide each have $0,000 sq. ft. or more. The problem has arisen because of the ordinance that the town adopted eliminating the wetlands from the buildable property and that is what causes us to come before the Board to seek a variance. I will not read the application that we filed a long time ago with the Board of Appeals. The objective to lhe north, Mr. Sidorwiez, has always come before this Board objecting to the grant of this variance. I may be mistaken Mr. Chairman, but it may be that Mr. Sidorwicz thinks that if the variance is denied, Mrs. Sievernich would then be in a position to give him or sell him some property which he wants. I can tell him now, that's never going to happen. I pointed out in the application that to constrain Mrs. Sievernich to have one house on 163,996 sq. ft; is unrealistic and economically infeasible and actually it's unfair since all the other properties at least that we know adjacent are much smaller, nonconforming uses at this time. I had originally pointed out that there will be nothin~ detrimental to the area by the grant of this variance. It will not change the character, it will be in conformity with the general purposes of the zoning ordinance. There will be no impact on public services, such as police and fire and the Health Department of Suffolk County has given approval for the eonstruetion of two residential structures and as I again said before the Department of Health of Suffolk County requires that we file conveyance of which we did do. There's no reason why this ~rant should not be given by the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just while you're standing there again jus~ refresh my memory again on the basis of what has existed on Page 24 - Hearing TFanscripts September 1], 1997-Board of Appeals both pieces of property. Are they granting right-of-ways over both of these pieces? MR. SALVATORE: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are they claiming right-of-ways of both of these pieces? MR. SALVATORE: What Mr. Sidorwicz is claiming is that he has either a prescription by use or he has adverse possession of the parcel. That case is now in the courts, it has a 96 calendar number, and it will go before a jury and the jury will make that decision as to what he has. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, but at no time unless a judge claims this to be the case, you are not giving any fee title to this man, is that what you're telling me? MR. SALVATORE: Well, we did try to work something out. I took your suggestion but we can't seem to come to an agreement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, now on the opposite side is there any driveway that appears to be on your client's property by Dr. and Mrs. Frumkin? MR. SALVATORE: No, not on the Frumkin property. On that there's a different problem. On that side there's an overlap. The two deeds overlap. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. IVlR. SALVATORE: I had spoken to a Michael Lulkin who told me he was Dr. Frumkin's attorney and I said, the simplest way to resolve that, would be to draw a line down the middle and it's a way of property line agreement. But, even that would not have such a tremendous impact here. We're not talking a great deal of square footage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, the utility polls that we see on Mrs. Sievernich's property, on your client's property, service Dr. and Mrs. Frumkin's house but (someone answered no) No, no, OK, well OK. MR. SALVATORE: I don't believe that that's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is not correct. Did they service Mrs. Sievernich's house? MR. SALVATORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They do. Page 25 - Hearing T~nscripts September 11, ]99?-Board of Appeals MR. SALVATORE: But Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out, if the poll is in the wrong place, we can have it moved, that's not a big impediment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: OK, I just wanted to get that cleared in my mind and we thank you. Does the Board have any specific questions of Mr. Salvatore before we allow him to sit down or ask him to sit down? Anybody? No, OK, thank you a~ain for refreshing my memory. I believe Ms. Wickham or Mrs. Bressler whichever you choose to be called. MS. WICKHAM: Good evening, my name is Abigail B~ickham and I'd like to address the Board specifically on a number of objections we have which I went over in general terms at our last hearing. One of the major problems with this application is that the size of the variance that the applicant is requesting is unknown even at this date which is six or seven years after the initial application was made. First of all as to the wetlands, that wetlands line was defined by an Environmental Consultant in 1990. We do not know whether at this date that demarkation is still accurate and whether that area that's shown is still the correct area. Secondly, the southerly boundary line of the applicant's property is shown by their own survey is apparently not agreeable with that of the neighbor's survey by as much as 3500 or 4,000 sq. ft. and I think that before the applieant eomes to you asking for a variance they really have to ascertain how much of a variance is being requested because the size of the variance is a factor that you must consider i~ making your decision. Thirdly, the extreme slope of the property at the waterside is of most importance because most of the frontage is unusable in that area, therefore making it effectively a much smaller parcel than is shown on the numbers before you. Moreover the outward environmental concerns of that steep slope are severe. The Environmental Consultant that the Town Trustees relied upon did express extreme concern about that steep slope, the erosion and pollution danger that is - by it and recommended remedial action which has not been taken into connection with what's happened on this property to date. The fourth concern about the size of the variance is one of the definition of lot area under 100-~3 of the code. That definition requires that in computation of lot area the area within a right-of-way be excluded. We are alleging based on the litigation that has been pending that there is a right-of-way over the property by preseription and/or an adverse interest in the property. Either one of those has to be taken into account in further reducin~ the size of the smaller lot which the applicant is requesting a variance. The litigation which is and in question is an action that was brought by the applicant against our client, the Sidorwicz, entitled Sievernich v. Sidorwicz, pendin~ in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, under Index No. 91-10863 for the record. That action is pending and has not yet been given a trial date as the applicant's attorney mentioned. So that - is also in question. Moreover, under 100-~3 of the Town Code, the Page 26 - Hearing Transcripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals definition of buildable area excludes slopes of more than 15% and certainly the frontage on this property creek frontage rather not the road frontage has exceedingly steep slopes that are not reflected in the flat survey that you have before you with the computations I'm talking about. My next point is, that there is one important fact that the Board must consider and whether or not to grant a variance which I do 'not believe that the applicant has in any wsy shown and that is whether there is a detriment to the neighborhood .or an undesirable change as well as whether there is an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the property or the neighborhood. On that point, I have several issues that I think need to be raised. First of all, the lot two doors to the south is as the applicant indicted very large and the division that's being requested on this particular property, the applicant could result in a precedent for further reducing the size of any lots that may be applied for in terms of the subdivision on that parcel. In specific that tax map shows that acreage as 7.7 acres which is just under 8 acres. So, with the two acres zoning requirement, a variance here could form a precedent for granting a variance in that in subdivision of that property meaning the difference between three verses four lots and that's a significant impact on the environmental. We're going from possibly three to four lots in the one property and possibly one to two lots in this property. There's been no showing in the record as to the consequences in this regard and therefore the applicant does not make the burden deter showing the deter. Secondly, there is a detriment to the environmental concerns to the ileighborhood because one more sanitary system would be created along the creek front with the consequences flowing into the environment. Third, there'd be loss of seclusion and privacy to the neighbors. Fourth, there would be twice as much usage along the steep slopes including increased erosion runoff, use of pesticides and chemicals on other issues that would be deleterious to the creek front. The third point I'd like to make is that the another factor that the Board must consider in making its decision as to whether to grant a variance is whether the hardship has been self-created and we maintain that this hardship or this situation has been self-created by the applicant. The applicant admits in their papers that it has been in the family, the property has been in the family since the forties. She acquired the property in 1979. She owned it at a time when it could have been subdivided without the application for. a variance and yet she did nothing. The upzoning to 80,000 sq. ft. do not occur until 1983. She further built the house when the 800,000 sq. ft. was in effect and so she knew the consequences of building that house in the location she did and now is faced with the prospect of asking the Board and the Planning Board to divide the property rather irregular way to get the lot lines to work. I would like to submit to the record copies of the deeds by which the applicant and her family acquired the property. Deed in 1949, indicates that based on the transcript stamp shown on the deed, the purchase price for the property was $1,500. There's a deed 1973, indicating that the applicant acquired the property from that grantee Page 27 - Hearing Ti~nscripts September 11, ]997-Board of Appeals for no consideration. So, therefore, no hardship or no financial detriment has been shown in this regarding terms of consequences as a result of the inability to gain subdivision. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: Thank you. Does that conclude your presentation? MS. WICKHAM: And final, almost, yes, OK. Your statute in a authorizing and empowering you to grant variances required at the time that this application was brought that a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship be shown. There has been absolutely no showing in the record of any financial hardship, any practica] difficulty whatsoever and there is no way that the Board could rely on anything the applicant said to meet that burden. We don't know whether she's been harmed or not and in fact the fact thai she acquired the property for almost no money it further substantiates that to you. Even if the current statute is applicable and that's an issue that the Board may- have to decide, the threshold question in that statute is whether there is a benefit to the applicant which would be derived by granting the variance and this applicant has shown no benefit to creating this subdivision. The existence of such a large house on the property, which was built by the applicant, couldn't render the property possibly more valuable as a large estate property than dividing it up into two smaller lots and possibly having a reduction. There is a value there but again, that is pure speculation which there's been shown nothing in the record to indicate what the financial consequences of doing or not doing the variance are and that is critically defective on the problem that I think the Board is going to have to address. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Any questions of opposition? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, can I just ask a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the size of the lot as it stands now? CHAIRMAN'GOEHRINGER: You're asking who? MEMBER DINiZIO: Just approximately - anybody. I just don't like CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The size of which lot? MEMBER DINIZIO: The lot that they want to subdivide. MEMBER TORTORA: That's in dispute. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well let's give an approximation. Is it 25 sq. ft.? Page 28 - Hearing T~nscripts September 1], ]997-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, let me explain it to you. Aeeording to the survey that we have which is dated February 4, 1992, it shows the lot which is to be set-off at 80,323 scl. ft. with the wetland area of 874 sq. ft., so, therefore, an upland area of 79,449 sq. ft. Is that OK, Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, so the both lots together wou~d be approximately, what, 1307 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, you have to add 80,323 and 83,673, OK. However, lot #2 has a substantial amount of wetland area on i't. It has 9,105 sq. ft., leaving lot #2 which is the house lot at 74,568 scl. ft. MEMBER DINIZIO: We'll say we have approximately buildabIe area in here of they can build on 20% of this land regardless of whether they split it in two. They can build on 20% of this land. I'm just wondering you know your statement about the possibility of another lot down the road of 7 acres of them being the difference between 3 and 4. MS. WICKHAM: That's on the other parcel nearby, not this parcel. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I'm just wondering what it really has to do with a whether or not these people build a smaller house on a smaller lo~t or a larger house on a larger lot. What difference would that possibly make? MS. WICKHAM: My point was that if you grant a variance here based on these numbers you may be forced to grant a variance on another property almost immediately adjacent to the property. One property away that would result in one additional lot than that applicant (inaudible, noisy) so you would buy a creating - here and granting a variance possibly the impacting adversely other' properties in the neighborhood and that's one of the factors that the Board has to consider in making a variance determination. MEMBER DINIZIO: We]], I disagree with that. I have a feeling, that no matter what, I mean these people are entitled to build on a certain amount of the lot whether or not it's 20% of - MS. WICKHAM: Oh, I'm not disputing the lot coverage. I'm talking about whether or not the lot area variance should be granted. MEMBER DINiZIO: Correct, I agree and I would go the same for a 7 acre parcel also and we would have to consider that separately. We wouldn't say beeause you know two blocks down someone without a variance with a certain percentage we would have to grant that to anybody. We consider eaeh one - MS. WICKHAM: Oh, but the owner of that property certainly would - Page fi9 - Hearing Ti-~nscripts September 1], 1997-Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: He may ask that. I don't recall every doing that, but I think my point is that you know you're saying that this is substantial increase but it's not when taken into consideration that they can build on 20% of that land. MS. WICKHAM: It's the density, not the size of the coverage. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, what's the difference between a house that has 5 bedrooms and one that has 107 MS. WICKHAM: It could have more than one house, how many houses we can - MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, but a house is a house. The septic system we're talking about you know, environmental impact. MS. WICKHAM: So, therefore, there eould be two 10 bedroom houses on this property instead of one. MEMBER DINIZIO: It could be. They could fill up 20% of each one of those lots with a house. MS. WICKHAM: That's a tremendous impact. I mean you're really magnifying the impaet. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, either way, they could expand this house if they don't get it to 20% which would be a much larger house than would be if this were divided in half even though the percentage would be the same. MS. WICKHAM: But if you grant a variance they could do it twice. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, they can only do it half the size though. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: He's saying it's still 20% of the whole thing. MS. WICKHAM: Oh, well, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO So, what I'm saying is that the particular piece of MS. WICKHAM: But they've already got a house there. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, they could add to it. Again, I'm just wondering how that's relevant to the argument about splitting. Whether or not they split it or they don't. They're still entitled to a certain amount of lot coverage. MS. WICKHAM: I think the impact of two houses verses one house regardless of size isn't of significance. How much is your decision? Page 30 - Hearing T~.=nscripts September 11, 199?-Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, what is that though? What is the significance of that? What impaet does that have that they are not or be entitled to? MS. WICKHAM: You could have more cars, you could have more people, you could here all kinds of - MEMBER DINIZIO: You could have that with a larger house also. MS. WICKHAM: ¥¢s you could. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so I just wanted to ask that question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. On the issue of the suit brought about by Mrs. Sievernich, what are we talking about in square footage in reference to the amount of area that we're involved with? MS. WiCKHAM: I don't know that that's ever been mapped and that's one of the questions I was a. It's shown on your survey. I suppose we could compute it out. I really don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, maybe you could give us that sometime. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is it under 500 sq. ft. or over? MS. WICKHAM: No, I think it's more than thai. I would say it's 1,000 or 2, I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you give us some figure sometime, on it? MS. W1CKHAM: I could ask the surveyor, we could do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, would you mind doing that? MS. WICKHAM: Or I could, he and I could do a rough computation myself if that would be satisfactory. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I do have to applaud you on your presentation on the piece of property on the other side that's 7 plus acres. The only thing that I do want to say that having walked that property several times there is a substantial amount of wetland area on that piece of property. Page 3i - Hearing T[~anscripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: WelI~ there may be other faetors, but again, that's not in the records. They haven't shown that in the record, that's my point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I was not here for the seizures that was on this piece of property. After one hearing on it, I've heard testimony from both sides I hope that we can conclude this shortly so it doesn't drag out for another five years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I hope so too. OK, we thank you. Mr. Salvatore~ do you have anything in rebuttal? MR. SALVATORE: No, but does Dr. Frumkin? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, Dr. Frumkin, I apologize. Dr. you came all the way out here for this, I apologize. How are you and Mrs. Frumkin? DR. FRUMKIN: My name is Eli Frumkin and I own the property next to Ms. Sievernich since 1973. We are the neighbors of Ms. Sievernich. We object to the application only to the extent that this Board may mistakenly believe that part of our property is owned by the applicant. As evidenced by the survey submitted with the application~ there are conflicting boundary lines in the deed of record between the property, our property and the property of the applicant. It appears that the applicant's survey is in error. Our survey- is dated original survey dated June 11, 1973 and it shows 5 concrete monuments that are identified on the land and 3 utility polls that are on our property where their survey goes at a different angle. We respectfully request that the Board we would like if the Board will state in its Resohition that either the disputed area is not included in either determination or in both determination in both of them in to fix both of the boundaries. Thank you very much. We submitted our original survey - to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much doctor. MEMBER D!NIZIO: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, doctor° MEMBER DINIZIO: Doctor, do you have an approximation as to how many square feet that is involved in that small dispute that - MR, FRAMKIN: It's a matter of an angle that goes from Cox Neck Road down to the water so it, the angle, the Hne goes and it becomes mere and more wide so does the water. Page 32 - Hearing T~aflscripts September ll, ~997-Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: How wide is it at the water? Approximately? MR. FRAMKIN: 15 feet. MEMBER DINIZIO: 15 feet, OK, that's elose enough. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Bressler said is was about 3500 sq. ft. (All looking at the survey and talking amongst themselves) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you doctor. Did you want to speak? Surely, yes, Mrs. Frumkin. MRS. FRUMKIN: We just learned about the discrepancy between our deed and their deed when we came before August, when you had the hearing. We just eaneeled- We did not know before that we could of you know, figured out the amount of their land, everything, but it was really kind of a shock to us, to submit the information, so if you do want to know the area we can (inaudible). MEMBER DINIZIO:. Well, I just kind of needed to have an approximation just you know we can grant variance if we need to you know, plus or minus. MRS. FRUMKIN: - I think the lawyer mentioned about that somebody mentioned that 40,000 -, I'm sorry but we can calculate. Anyhow, you do have the survey. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What I think we're going to do Mrs. Frumkin, is, we're going to get the, Mrs. Frumkin, MRS. FRUMKIN: Yes, I'm listening. CHAIRIvIAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we're going to get, what you think the square footage is and we're also going to Mr. Salvatore to ask him, what he thinks the square footage is and so that we'll see what the story is by separate letter. MRS. FRUMKIN: As a matter of fact, we just submitted it to the title company that we search -. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good, thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: If we could get something a little more than an estimate from both -, that would be nice. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK, Mr. Salvatore. MR. SALVATORE: Yes, I'd just like to respond to Ms. Wiekham's comments. She seems to be very coneerned about environmental Page 33 - Hearing T?anscripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals impact. It's my understanding that there's a fire hydrant right across the way on Cox Neck Road and if that's true that means that there would be Suffolk County Water or some other district water available so that we would not have to worry about any impact of cesspool being too close to the wells and if the Board so is inclined and grants this application the Board can require that any new building on plot #1 would have to use city water. MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to stop you there. I don't believe this Board has that power. That is within our power as a condition. I believe that would be up to the Suffolk County Water Authority (noisy, banging) we don't have the power to tell them what to do in plain English. MR. SALVATORE: OK, I agree that Suffolk County Water can do that and say if you have a - MEMBER TORTORA: We could recommend something in writing, but we certainly put it in as a condition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, my, - MEMBER DINIZIO: It's always something. MEMBER TORTORA: Only if there's some real justification for this- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Subject to? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, we could grant it on the condition that he's agreed to. That no-one can build on that lot unless Suffolk County Water gives them water, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a charge system. The system is charged. The system is charged from up above and down below, but you can make a stipulation indicating that it would be subject to. That's not what my concern is. My concern is, the issue that is raised by Mrs. Bressler and that is, is the wetlands lying where it's suppose to be? Has it increased? Has it decreased since the time that Mr. Anderson looked at, OK? MR. SALVATORE: That I can't tell you because you can see on the survey that was submitted with this application the line of the wetlands was determined by Bruce Anderson and if he is to do another survey to visit to determine whether the wetlands have receded or increased that's within your power to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I'm asking you to do. MR. SALVATORE: OK, I really don't know Mr. Chairman. Page 34 - Hearing Tr'a~scripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Along with the square footage that we're discussing in reference to the overlap, OK. I'd appreciate that and a the doctor and Mrs. Frumkin are going to do the same and we'll compare the two figures from both title companies and we'll see where we are and this way we'll have a figure. MR. SALVATORE: OK, but if I remember my high school geometry, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me? MS. WICKHAM: You want our area (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me Mr. Salvatore. MR. SALVATORE: If I remember my high school geometry, the line divergent on the Frumkin's side looks like to be one degree, at most. So, we're not talking a great deal of square footage there. And again~ as I said to Mr. Lulkin, he had personally represented himself to be Dr. Fromkin's attorney, that we could split the difference and again you're not talking a great deal of square footage. A couple of things I'd like to rebut on the issue of whether it would be a hardship. When you have 163,000 sq. ft., and you're regulated to keep one house on that, that certainly is a hardship because none of the surrounding houses have that size. There may be further down to the south a parcel that's large enough to sustain a 163,000 sq. ft. per lot, but none of the other houses in that area have anywhere near that square footage. The fact that she built a large house really has nothing to do (end of tape). If that house had been built by Donald Trump none of us would be here tonight. But, it was built by a retired school teacher, Ms. Sievernieh, and perhaps she might think again if she had to do it over, but, that's what wetre confronted with. The issue that Ms. Wiekham brought up~ that there's a larger parcel, that if you grant this you may be constrained to break them variances and I think that's completely untrue. The Board knows that each application has to be judged on a ease by ease basis. Each one has a, stands or falls on its own merits2 Not what you do here is a precedent for the Pest of the town; And then the other thing was a deed. What difference does it make, she could of inherit it which stliI would not change anything, and again, none of those issues go to the what the fact is, whether or not this Board should grant the variance. The application was made a long time ago. I think the Board is entitled to know why we waited so long. I was trying to get a lawyer for Ms. Sievernieh in the east end. I spoke to Bill Esseks and Tony Tohill and both of them, experienced attorneys, suggested not to pursue it at that time and that's why we didn't do it. I should not have listened to them, but~ unfortunately I did, I really urge the Board to grant this. I think this is a case that merits a variance. That's why this Board was created to do justice in the situation such as this. Page 35 - Hearing T~-~nscripts September 11, 1997-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, you're going to get us those two things ? MR. SALVATORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we just discussed, right? MR. SALVATORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. So, in that particular case, we'll recess it without a date and then when we receive everything, (discussion between Board Secretary Mrs. Kowalski and Chairman Goehringer). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What are they getting exactly? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They're going hack lo an environmental consultant and letting them check the wetlands area based upon what the survey of 1992 states, we're getting a square footage from Dr. and Mrs. Frumkin from their title company indicating what the overlap is estimated, we're getting an estimated overlap from Mr. Salvatore's- MEMBER TORTORA: Title company? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, from whoever he gets it from and we'd be very happ. y to take Ms. Wiekham's or Mr. Bressler's estimate. MEMBER TORTORA: Title company. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Estimate. MEMBER TORTORA: He will bring all three title companies. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Plus, we will also ask Mrs. Bressler for the estimate that she gives us in reference to the Sidorowiez's prescriptive easement, or potentially prescriptive easement. MEMBER TORTORA: Is there anything else thai we need in order to hold a final hearing on this matter? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It would be a final hearing then, the next hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. So just tell us. WeVB recess it without a date, tell us when you have it, and when we receive all of those four things, we'll schedule the final hearing. Hopefully, it will he very quickly. Page 38 - Hearing T~r~nscripts .September 11, ]997-Board of Appeals MR. SALVATORE: Mr. Chairman, are you directing that Mr. Anderson do another wetland survey? Mt{. CHAIRMAN: I don't care if it's Mr. Anderson, or somebody - MR. SALVATORE: Someone else can do it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else ean do it. MR. SALVATORE: Anybody that's qualified? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, of course. MR. SALVATORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would like to see the wetland line though depicted on the map or something of that nature, so, I mean it may, you know, I mean I'm sure Howard Young would you know, I've known Howard for years, I'm sure he will rewrite it on the map if that's what you want. MR. SALVATORE: Well, that's, that's - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I want done. MR. SALVATORE: That's what he did on the survey the Board has. He obtained that information f~om Anderson so we may use him . a~ain. I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He's a very competent ~dividual. MR. SALVATORE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He's been before this Board several times. We thank everybody for eo~ng in. We're sorry for bringing you out here at this long distance Dr. and Mrs. Frumkin, but we do appreciate your coming and we thank everybody's eourtesy. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing with no date. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? ~ RECEIVED AND FILED BY Motion Carried. ~ '?~ ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN CL~ End of Hearings .~~ ~ Prepared by Lucia Farrell from tape recordings] Town Clezk, Town o; ;SsuL~: ,