Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/26/1998 HEARINGv '~ EALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Transcript of Public Hearing February 26, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:35 P.M. Appl. No. 4545 - RONALD J. YEDLOUTSCHNIG CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Request for Variance regarding "as built" (existing) location of open deck addition for which an application for a Building Permit was disapproved by the Building Inspector on January 29, 1998 and which Disapproval reads as follows: "...under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for nonconforming lots, the "as built" deck addition will have a rear yard setback at 27'6" +-. Lot areas of 20,000 to 39,000 sq. ft. require a rear yard setback of 50 feet. The existing dwelling has a present nonconforming setback of 42 ft. +-. Action required by the Board of Appeals..." Location of Property: 250 Jernick Lane, Southold. County Parcel ID 1000-70-3-17. Lot size: 20,586 sf. We have been to the site, we have seen the property, we are aware of the deck and we have a copy of an updated survey, the most recent date was November 27, 1997, updated on February 23, 1998, indicating the rear yard at 26'8", and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? Would you like to say something for the record? Mr. Yedloutschnig: Just for the record, that the house and the deck have been there as long as I have and we're there 25 years approximately and in this Hawest Homes Estate, there was only three homes there when we started building and no-one has ever said and it was sought of part of the community home. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How large is the deck? MR. YEDLOUTSCHNIG: I think it's 12 x 15. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. any questions of this gentleman? Mr. Dinizio, do you have MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN YEDLOUTSCHNIG: Ms. Collins? 15age 2 - Hearing Tr~anseripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Nothing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It looks like it may be a fast one. Is the~e anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? The only point that I want to mention to you Sir, is that, in granting, if the Board so grants this application, there would be a restriction that the deck remain open as it presently is and not incorporated into the living area of the house. Do you have any objection to that? MR. YEDLOUTSCHNIG: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Ms. Collins, I'm going to ask you since I believe you drafted this, if you would like to make a motion? MEMBER COLLINS: I move that the variance as applied for, for the as built deck, be granted and do I have to provide reasons or a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGEi~: what? No, just tell us what it's a, subject to MEMBER COLLINS: Subject to the provision that it will always remain open to the sky without any improvements on the deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll second that. All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. ~age 3 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals 6:40 P.M. - Appl. No. 4546 - HERBERT SCANNELL and SARAH REETZ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Request for Variance based upon the February 2, 1998 Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval (and Stop Work Order) regarding pending Building Permit No. 24471Z and reconstruction and replacement of singie-family dwelling with nonconforming setbacks. Article XXIV, Section 100-242 (ref. setbacks under Section 100-244B) of the Zoning Code. Location of Property: 955 Cove Circle, Greenport; CTM #1000-49-1-16 and 17 .(as one lot). Lot size: .69 of an acre. I have a letter on file from Robert S. Hughes, Esq. I have a copy of the survey, Peconic Surveyors, dated February 20, 1998, indicating the house at its closest point at 12 feet to the private right-of-way and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area along with the Building Plans of the house. We have been out and we have seen the foundation in its present state. What would you like to add? MR. BROWN: I'm presuming that the Board is aware of these most recent circumstances leading to our current situation. The only' thing that I would like to stress is our concern about the hardship faced by the shape of the lot and the fact that we would not be able to comply with front and rear yard setbacks under any circumstances and other than that I offer myself for any questions.· CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I reviewed the Building Permit file on this application and for some reason 16'2" sticks in my mind what the original setback was for the - MR. BROWN: There's some confusion about the original setback because the original survey I believe shows a setback to the corner of the building and another survey shows the setback to the porch, the entrance porch. The bottom line here is that the closest point of what's considered the house to the front Yard property line, is now I believe 2 feet further than what it was. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the footage? MR. BROWN: To the front porch now I believe is' 14. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's 12. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's 12. MR. BROWN: It's 12 to the step. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To the step itself, right. MR. BROWN: Another 2-1/2 feet to the porch itself. Page 4 - Hearing TranScr~ipts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, yes. 2-1/2 feet exactly, right. So it's 14 feet 6 inches and that porch does not e×eeed 30 sq. ft. MR. BROWN: The porch itself I believe it does. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Or the stoop I should say. MR. BROWN: The steps do not, the 12 feet plus the 14.6 feet, that portion there is part of the house from off the center. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it would be 2 feet. Well, just a minute. ~t would be 2 feet. I mean it's showing 2 feet 6 inches, so, it's 2 feet 8 inches by 3 feet. MR. BROWN: Yes, by 8 feet, I believe, a 9 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 9 feet, right. it under 30 sq. ft. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, yes. it goes out. 9 feet out plus a foot here. the foundation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well 3 times 9 is 27; so Here's the figure here, So, it's 1.0 feet out from Alright, but it's still on 6 feet 2" Wide. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And it's 9 feet wide. MR. BROWN: Be careful by which survey you're looking at. CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY: We're looking at the Building Plan. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's longer than the 6 foot width. So, it's longer, it's not 5 by 6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Going back to my original question. So basically, we have a difference of approximately 2 feet from what the original plan was? MR. BROWN: I believe it's 2.6 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 2.6 feet from the °rig~inal house that was there- MR. BROWN: From the back, from the original house, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Why is the existing deck left there? Do you have any idea? On the property? Are you going to utilize that in some way? MR. BROWN: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think we'll start with Mr. Homing this time. Mr. Homing, Mr. Brown, anything you'd like to discuss? Page 5 - Hearing TransCripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, if you could just give us a brief synopsis. I know everything is in writing, we have a whole good idea, just verbly give us a brief synopsis of what occurred. MR. BROWN: Well, what happened, very simply was we had designs of motivations to ( ) structure and in the course of getting bids on the work that we had proposed and doing some preliminary exploratory demolition to get to determine the existing conditions of the house. What actually happened was that when the renovation bids came in, far more expensive than we could have anticipated due to some severe conditions of the house. When the owners realized what the situation was, we had lengthy discussions with them with feasibility, cost wise of just rebuilding the same basic plan that we had ( ) relation, ( ) new construction thereby g~ving us even better ability to comply with current codes in terms of energy conservation structural situations, so forth. When those prices came in fairly comparable to the original foundation that's when we decided that that was more value for money and reapplied. We had received a Building Permit for the renovation at that point and reapplied and the construction we were granted the permit and at the time of the inspection of the foundation the Building Department reconsidered it and stopped us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any particular reason why you chose to go that close to the front property line and not push it back a little bit further? MR. BROWN: Well we did want to push it back a little bit but, there's a house on the, I guess the property bordering to the east I guess it is, which we were basically trying to balance this structure between the houses to the east and to the west. As I'm sure you're aware of the private road which we have no intention of creating any incursion on, there's really right now just grass land and trees and so from an aesthetic point of view we're just trying to balance the location. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Brown, the appeal I believe you drafted, was done in your office; the appeal from the Slop Work Order, actually discusses all the setbacks and the fact that it's a nonconforming lot. It's my understanding that the only issue here, in fact, is the setback from the private road on the west side of the property. Is that your understanding? MR. BROWN: Yes, and if I wasn't clear in the application, my point was, that if we had complied fully with the front yard setback, we would then be in violation of the rear yard. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, yes. l~age 6 - Hearing TransCripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. BROWN: apologize. That was my point. If I didn't make that clear I MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I just wanted to make sure tkat we und~rstoo'd which setback is an issue here, and I think it's the one in the front. MR. BROWN:' That was it. Yes, it's typically the front yard. MEMBER COLLINS: Technically the front of the house? MR. BROWN: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. MR. BROWN: I would also like to point out that obviously it's part of the hardship that we are concerned about here, is the unusual shape of the property because of what is considered the road and the front yard. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, a related question. I believe I concluded from the copies of the Tax Assessor's cards in our file, the two parcels, one abutting the water at Pipes Cove and one inland are in fact in separate ownership., but, they are being treated as a single parcels for purposes of this building and the Building Permit. There's no idea that the rear marked parcel which measures 100 x 100 as I recall would ever be treated, that they would ever try to treat it as a separate parcel if it was useable. MR. BROWN: I don't believe they would. My clients primarily concerned and reason for purchasing that property was privacy. MEMBER COLLINS: Right. It's just that we see cases regularly of eourse, where pareels are in separate names to keep them separately saleable.. But, I assume that was not the case here. MR. BROWN: I believe, in any case, that's a grossly undersized lot. That they wouldn't even be able to should they try to. I'm certain that it's not their intention. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, so that they understand, it use to be a barn. I ~rew up in this area. I use to cut that lawn and everything. How much closer is it now than the barn was? MR. BROWN: It's further away. yard about 2-1/2 feet. It's further away from the front MEMBER DINIZIO: And the parcel one, in 3-R, the deed, in front of it, similar ownership isn't it? Page 7 - Hearing TranScripts February 9.6, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. BROWN: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Alright, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Going back to me before I ask the following questions from the people that may be interested in making conversa~Lion. There's no doubt in my mind, that it's a magnificent parcel in reference to its views and so on and so forth. However, that is the most horrendous driveway I've ever been on in my life. MR. BROWN: I will have to concur that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We as of this past Tuesday, have met with the Building Department, and they have told us that we can include things in our decision that certainly you know may not have been necessarily disapproved for and I'm going to suggest, that you fix the' right-of-way. . There's no question about it. I mean, or get together with the Association and fix the right-of-way in some way, manner or form. MR. BROWN: I was going to suggest that it's a, in fact an Association issue because if you look at. the surveys for all the properties in that subdivision, teehnieally, each. property owner along that right-of-way, owns to the middle right-of-way. So, it would be difficult for us to have our client obviously repair roads that even though it's a right-of-way, on other people's property. But, certainly, I do agree with you, that it's an issue for the Association. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody llke to speak against? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion Closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion Carried. See Minutes for Resolution. ~age S - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals 6:58 P.M. - Appl. No. 4538 -MICHAEL .RAND CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Request for Variances: (]) Based upon Notice of Disapproval (addendum) dated February 3, 1998 disapproving a Building Permit application on the following grounds: "...under Article IIIA, Seetion 100-30A.4, accessory buildings cannot exceed 1S feet in height from existing grade; Height is measured at the mean distance between the eaves and the ridge. Proposed construction has a mean height of 20 ft. + or - from existing grade..."; and (2) Based upon the December 29, 1997 Notice of Disapproval regarding a Building Permit application to construct a three-car accessory garage, which reads as follows: "...under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.4 accessory buildings are to be located in the required rear yard. Since SCTM ~1000-14-2-10 and 01000-14-2-11 also known as Petty Bight Subdivision Lots 19. and 13 'have been merged as per owner's request, the proposed .three-car accessory garage with storage above is located in the side yard of the principal dwelling. Location of property: 1275 Bight Road, Orient; County Parcel ID 1000-14-2-10 and 11. Lot size: 85,115 sf. I have a copy of the survey indicating these two parcels, 40,000 plus each of lots lfi and 13. The approximate placement of this proposed garage is approximately 93 feet, its closest point to Petty Drive and Bight Road and 91 feet 3 inches to the rear property line. It is a 40 x 30 two story plus structure and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Mr. Rand? What would you like to tell us? MR. RAND: Well, the reason why I want to position the garage with this setback is so I can put a circular drive from the ( ) and have a full back yard here. And the whole reason for positioning the three car garage here since these lots are fairly short in depth and fairly wide, so I have a full back yard and I can build a circular drive. MEMBER TORTORA: So, you're proposing two points of access and egress to Bight Road? MR. RAND: Road. Right, on Bight Road. Both properties line on Bight CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If anybody would like to see that in the audience we'd be very happy to show it to you. What else would you like to tell us? MR. RAND: As far as merging the lots, the Building Department actually requested that of me and at first I thought my setbacks were fine, but, after further review from the Building Department, I~age 9 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals they said my setbacks weren't fine. I had already merged the lots which isn't really a problem because I intend to keep this property for my family. I just hope the town approves. I'd like to get going on this project. It's been on the works since, I bought the lot in July. It was July 29th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, let's talk briefly about the structure itself. What are we going to do with that? MR. RAND: It's a three car garage with a loft on top. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the purpose of the loft? MR. RAND: Storage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: in the garage? What types of utilities would be utilized MR. RAND: Strictly electric. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So there'll be no heating of any? MR. RAND: No, no heating. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, and so the loft would be used strictly as dead storage for anything that you' wanted to move up on it? MR. RAND: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Seasonal basis' sought of speak? MR. RAND: Well it's basically a summer home. Weekends we come out here. As far as the house on 1275 Bight Road, that was my mom's house. She passed away in 84. I rented it out for seven years, we got ( ) had to rebuild it and we've been using it quite a bit so I plan just keeping it within the family. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: That the merger of lots, I'm assuming there was idea from the Building Inspector that they were merged anyway, is that, because now it's smaller or did you leave it this way? MR. RAND: Well, the house is on 1.1 of an acre and the lot I purchased was .97 of an acre so I thought I had plenty of property for a three car garage but, he said I needed to merge the lot so I agreed to. MEMBER DINIZIO: So you purchased the lot, someone could of very well have built a house on that lot - MR. RAND: That's right, that's right. Page 10 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 199S-Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: You know with a driveway so you're not adding another egress, you're just moving it over a little bit. MR. RAND: Well I thought it would be nice to own the lot next door. MEMBER DINIZIO': Alright and would there be water out in the garage at all? I mean any water, you know. MR. RAND: I doubt if I'll put another well in, just electricity. MEMBER DINIZIO: You're not going to wash the cars out there or - MR. RAND: Well I might run, I'm not even up to that point. I'm just trying to get an approval here. This has been going on for months. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to cover all the basis as far as utilities are concerned. I mean if you feel that you want to have, then you should say so. If not, then - MR. RAND: I probably would want the eold water faucet on the garage but I really haven't gotten to that point. I don't want to put another well in there. MEMBER DINIZIO: Alright, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: part of the house. Mr. Rand, you have a two car garage that's MR. RAND: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Why is - MR. RAND: Why I want to do this? A very good point. MEMBER COLLINS: Why do you want a three car garage? MR. RAND: If the town is good enough to give me the variance, I build this three car garage, my plan is to make the existing two car garage into a family room, with putting four bedrooms on top. But I haven't proceeded with any Building Permits for that until this is done. MEMBER COLLINS: Let me just say, my understanding I think where the Building Department was coming from when you originally came in with your plans, was that you purchased this lot next door, and you wanted to build a garage on it, and I think that they look the view that under our Zoning Code a garage is an accessory to something it copied, the principal structure on a piece of land and by merging your two pieces of land, you have one piece of land and a garage is clearly an accessory and you certainly can build it. I think thatts the elusion of the merger. The reason that you're here ~age 11 - Hearing Tra~Scripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals now looking for variances are two. One is the height of the building and I will say, that I think that the proposed height is excessive given the Zoning Code in the neighborhood. But, the other is the location and the way I read your survey, you're actually pretty~ close to being in what certainly can be defined as the rear yard. That is to say after the back line of your house and I was wondering how you feel about alternative locations for this garage that might reduce your need for zoning variances. MR. RAND: Well I thought about placing it in the back, but, that would jus't give me so much more driveway. There's enough driveway space on my property as it is now with "this proposed circular drive and that would really cut out my whole back yard. I'd like to try and keep a, as you can see on this here, try to keep this whole area open if possible because the lots like I said are short in depth but wide. MEMBER COLLINS: Well I guess it's the fact that the lot is short in depth that puts this very large building that you're planning to build there, is kind of ciose to the road, and that, .as much as anything, is why the code says put these accessory uses to the rear of the property. That I just wanted to get your feeling on that. MR. RAND: Yes, I think I'd like to keep it where it is if possible to put it in the back with ( ) effect having open area for mySelf and my family to have as far as a back yard. As far as moving it over here it'd be further away from the house and we're just going to incorporate the circular drive in front of the house with the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I'm very concerned because this is suppose to be an accessory garage. It's 1200 sq. ft., it's two stories high, it's a beautifully dormant structure that very closely resembles the house and I really question why you would put or locate a garage 92 feet away from your house? Historically, if you're going, you said it's going to be a three car garage, but historically, when it's raining outside, you come in with your packages, are you going to park the car and then go over to the house? You're talking about converting the existing two car garage in your house, but, what you're proposing is an unusual situation. It is not customary to locate a garage 92 feet from a house. So, I question that and I also question the amount of storage and its location. Again, being 92 feet from the house. Usually when people have storage they want to have it accessible just as they do their garage. And, more to the point, I question I believe that you have alternative relief on this very large parcel that would not require a variance and perhaps above all that is a key issue. As far as creating 2 points of access and egress to the property, you're doing that, it appears you're doing that merely because you have located the garage 92 feet from the house. So, yes, I'm very concern about this application. page ]2 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, ]99S-Board of Appeals MR. RAND: As far as the driveway here, I was going to put a circular drive in to begin with before I purchased this lot which I thought an acre of land would be sufficient to put a three car garage and where I could build it. I was thinking of putting it back here but I think I would of had to get a variance from my neighbor next door here. As far as the size of the garage, I was hoping to build something that I would never have to add on to again. I mean this is going to be built and that's it. I won't be adding on again to any garage. I built my own garage in New Jersey and I built it way too small. That it's basically because of the size of the property and we couldn't build it any bigger. I have three children, they have a lot of stuff. It's a great place for boating out here, that's why I'm building a bigger garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. 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 Mr. Rand we appreciate your coming in and we-appreciate letting us grill you, sought of speak in a nice way, and we hope to have a decision for you in the very near future. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. I also as a resolution ladies and gentlemen. MEMBER TORTOR'A: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 13 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 199S-Board of Appeals 7:09 P.M. - Appl. No. 4541 - RUTH LEONARD CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Request for a Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26 based upon the Building Inspector's January 7, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which reads as follows: "...Both parcels being located in an R40 Zone: Tax Map #1000-78-07-38 and 1000-78-09-39 are merged.. These parcels do not meet with the exceptions as specified under Article II 100-25C... See attached determination by Town Attorney..." 755 and 795 Cedar Drive, Southold,. N.Y. I have a survey indicating the two parcels which they are approximately 75 x 265 thereabouts and one of course is improved and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Dory how are you tonight? It's a pleasure to see. What would you like to tell us? MS. DOTY: Well, I think the application basically states close to everything you need to 'l~now. These two lots were purchased as separate entities on the day before my clients got married. ( ) unfortunately by that too I wouldn't be here and they maintain those properties as separate parcels for 22 years. Ms. Leonard ( ) from the vacar~t land and ,she and her husband owned their improved property. When they needed space, they added a dorma they went up. So, they went back, they stayed off of the vacant land entirely. They didn't even put a garden in there. There's no acceessory structure, nothing, they kept it vacant. And, when Mr. Peck died in 1996, the properties merged because Mrs. Peck succeeded ( ) on his share 'of the house. She is 86 years old and I hoped she was going to be here 'tonight but she was feeling well and she is in a situation where she needs money. The natural thing for her to have done, was to sell the. vacant land and now she just can't do that. I mean that takes time. So, Marsha Maloney(?) asked that the waiver be granted. There's more though. I know that the Board is concerned about density and. size of lots and everything like that and you have the tax bill. I took the liberty of taking a copy of the tax map which I will pass out to the Board and I highlighted in yellow the two subject parcels and I grant you I had a great deal of difficulty reading the sizes of the other lots. But, I highlighted in pink all of the other lots in the neighborhood that are of the same size or smaller than each of the two lots in question here. I'll pass this out to the Board. With respect to actually developing the parcels or the amount of development in the area on Cedar Drive there are only two lots that are vacant. One is the vacant lot here and the other one is directly across the street and that's up for sale and that actually is for the merger of two lots. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's 5.17 MS. DOTY: Yes, yes. This is just not a situation where they sought of maintain them separately and oh, by .the way, they put Page 14 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 199S-Board of Appeals the accessory building on a Separate lot. It looks ( ). They kept it separate. They don't even have a walkway and so I'm requesting that the waiver be granted. Any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I had a question and for some reason it just escaped me at the moment. But, we'll start with Mr. Homing. Any questions of Ms. Doty, Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No, I have none. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just a, I had read through your admitted applicant's reason number 2, with your little survey along Cedar Drive and I just wanted to say one thing as a point of a clal~ification, that in calculating, you're making your calculations, I would include lot 31 and 29, because they both have frontage - MS. DOTY: This is minor. MEMBER TORTORA: On Cedar Drive and would not include the house lot which is obviously merged. Other than that, I'm well versed with the application. MS. DOTY: size ( ). Nonetheless, it's still right in the center in terms of MEMBER TORTORA: in the populations. It's not going to make a significant difference CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does Mrs. Leonard reside in the house? MS. DOTY: She does. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All year round? MS. DOTY: Yes she does. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. I'll get to that. Ms. Collins? There's another question, but, MEMBER COLLINS: others. That was my question Mr. Chairman. I have no CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: feel, 86? Well you all know how I feel about this. I really MS. DOTY: 86. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, the woman shouldn't wait one second longer. She shouldn't have to worry about, she shouldn't have to Page 15 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals go to bed wondering at night without knowing that she has a nest egg pack that woUld be my statement on the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Dory we'll see if anybody in the audience would like to speak. Anybody like to speak in favor of t,he application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no comment, my only concern was that in the past we have denied variances, area variances on this block. It was several years ago. My mind escapes me, but, I believe it was lot number 49., which is 1.9. acres and I'm just mentioning that in putting it into the record that basically was the situation. When I say denied, I would have to, it had to be around 1988 or some thereabouts. MS. DOTY: Well,this is a, you know, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know this is a merger by death. MS. DOTY: Yes, by death. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of that. MS. DOTY: And had I spoken with Mr. Peck before he died, I wouldn't be here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a question. can't vote on it right noW? I'd like to know why we MEMBER TORTORA: I'm prepared to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're prepared to vote on it? MEMBER DINIZIO: I am. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Well then who drafted it? MEMBER TORTORA I did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, well then go ahead. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm prepared to make a motion to grant the waiver in accordance with the application. 2 lots were carefully maintained as separate entities for 22 years, merger occurred inadvertently by death of the applicant's husband in 1996, that the lot result is insignificant increase in the density of the neighborhood because with the exception of one vacant lot, excluding the applicant, all of the other lots on Cedar Drive are improved. The waiver will recognize a lot that is consistent with and exceeds the size of 47% of the lots on Cedar Drive and the waiver would recognize the original lot lines created by deed and the natural Page 16 Hearing TranScripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals details and contours and slopes of the lot will not be significant, altered or changed. I'll make that motion. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 17 - Hearing Tra~scripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals 7:18 P.M. - Appl. No. 4540 - MELISSA SPIRO CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Request for a Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26 based upon the Building Inspector's January 6, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which reads as follows: "...Both parcels being located in an R40 Zone: Tax Map Numbers 1000-110-06-05 and 1000-110-06-11.2 are merged. These parcels do not meet with the exception as specified under Article II, 100-25C... Note: See attached determination by Town Attorney which states that lots are not excepted ..." Location of Property: 340 Glenwood Road and 295 East Road, Cutchogue. CTM Lot 11.2 of 40,000 sf. has a 1979 approval under Board of Appeals #2554 (Moebious Associates Minor Subdivision). I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Dory back again. MS. DOTY: Yes. The nonconforming lot which, has the house on it was part of a subdivision from 1930 and that actually is two merged lots. We're not seeking to unmerge that lot. I have a copy of the original subdivision map. If the Board is interested you'll see from this map. Firstly, all of the lots are smaller than the two merged lots together. Those two lots together are approximately 25,000 sq. ft. a little bit between 25 and 26. There's a house and garage in the back of that lot very close to the rear yard. At this point it is owned by Melissa, Amanda and John Spiro, the house lot. The vacant lot behind it was part of a three lot subdivision in which this Board granted a variance for one of the lots, size variance because it was 36,000 sq.ft. This lot is 40,001 foot ( ), but it is a separate multiple lot and was purchased by the Spiros in 1982. From 1982 to 1987 they were ( ) and this is the result. I so much enjoy using my magic marker earlier today, that I did the same thing with this tax map. This is actually a cutout from 137 and these are the two lots together and again all the pink lots are lots that are smaller or the same size as the nonconforming lot, lot number 5. I didn't go up this hill. This would be virtually pink on this hill and the two lots together are interestedly are about the same size as what is effectively known in the neighborhood as the ( ) line of the property. That area is very heavily developed. I happen to live down there. There are two vacant lots basically in the area and right next door and the vacant lot in the back a 40,000 sq.ft, lot. The merger results from them owning it together or being in the same ownership in 1982 and 87. It's in separate ownership now. There are no plans to develop the house lot, I mean the vacant lot at this point in time. But, they want to be able to build a retirement home on that lot, Mr. & Mrs. Spiro as they get old and they want to preserve it as a separate buildable lot and that's not going to increase the density. Substantially they have that one lot built on and there'll be no changes in environmentally as far as the contour are concerned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What concerns me Ms. DoW on this one, is the fact that if the waiver were granted and the Spiros did not build, that we have a notice for an encroachment on this piece of Page 18 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals property, or close to a noticeable. I mean the existing house which is you know lots 4 and 5 are extremely close. At the culmination of the hearing we could possibly tell you how the Board feels about it. I would feel much better, if there was a lot land revision of about 10 feet on this piece of propertY, quite honestly. MS. DOTY: I'd have to report to the Planning Board to get that revision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know you would and that's why we would recess the hearing on that basis. That's my suggestion. I have no idea how the rest of the Board feels about this, OK, but, that's my concern. I realize that it's a family situation and I realize that I'm not God and never wishing anybody any ill health or anything of that nature. But, I just, it further exacerbates the setbacks on this property as they exists presently. I'm talking 4 and 5 and that's my suggestion, but we'll see how everybody else feels. MS. DOTY: If we were to change the lot line in the back there we would have another nonconforming lot. I mean ( ) square foot lot ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: questions on this one? It doesn't bother me. Mr. Horning any MEMBER HORNING: No, none, I don't have any. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Let's just go by the scenario a little bit. If you were to change the lot line to make it nonconforming, what is it, on that size lot, 10 and 50? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's nothing you can do on the side yard. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's rear yard. 'MEMBER TORTORA: How would that affect the lot you save? ( ) nonconforming? MS. DOTY: The rear yard is 35 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm talking 10. I'm not talking 35. MS. DOTY: Yes, that's ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I'm talking 10 because it's going to put us in a better position in reference to the existing ( ). That's all I'm suggesting. Anything else? _j Page 19 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: the size? Yes, I was just wondered how it would affect MS. DOTY: If we went 35 feet that would make a major difference in the size of the lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, no question about it, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: . What about 10 feet? MS. DOTY: I'd have to talk to my client about it and also with the Planning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, well what we would do is, recess without a date and then you'd just go to the Planning Board. Ms. Collins ? MEMBER COLLINS: You're basically talking about moving it back l0 feet or moving it back 8 feet, because you've got a 2 foot setback behind the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can go 8 or 10, it doesn't make any difference. It really doesn't make any except that any activity back there would be basically on Melissa's property and I mean the person who's occupying the house now or the people that are occupying the house. Yes, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I too, lived for a number of years on Pequash Avenue. I know the area. Is the chronology, do I understand the chronology correctly that at the time that the Spiros decided it was a good idea to buy that land that had been subdivided which I guess was in 82, at that time they owned the house lot jointly. Later on they separated the house lot into I guess, he became the sole owner of the house lot. So, it was just - MS. DOTY: It was ( ), it was five years between 82 and 87. MS. COLLINS: So there was a period of time when they hadn't appreciated I guess, the fact that, the way they'd taken title to the, the undeveloped lot had had this affect. That was how I read the record, I was just curious. Since the Chairman has gone on record as having concerns about the rear setbacks of the existing improvements, I'd just like to say that I would not be particularly concerned about those. I think they are a fact. That's how that house stands and on the ultimate, let's assume that the Sprios do sell the undeveloped lot for one reason or another, rather than building a retirement home there. Someone's going to build a nice house there in the woods and the Spiro' house is going to be back there where it is regardless of where exactly the lot' line is and I think the aesthetics are quite unaffected here by the lot line. MS. DOTY: Moreover than I can imagine that there are any number of houses in that area that are put up against either side yard or i~age 20 - Hearing Trauscripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals rear yard setbacks. I know of one that's 6 inches off the side yard. ( ) encroachment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I agree with you and in the case of that. I'm not an attorney, nor do I profess that. In my situation and with own personal property, myself and my wife own together, in selling the lot next door I basically took ( ) the right-of-way over the property for the sole purpose of the period of time that my wife and myself own the house. However, what I'm trying to do is, very simply create a situation where I think it's better then it exists, and that's my suggestion. So I understand what you're saying. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I'm inclined to agree with Lora. I think that it is a fact that the house has been built and the garage is there. Certainly no-one cannot benefit from having another building lot in that area. It should of been there, if it were not for names on a deed. Certainly that's the way I look at this. The merger was between 82 and 87, that's correct and they were owned jointly by both. MS. DOTY: They went in and out of title. There was a series of deeds. Yes, they were owned jointly 5 or 10 months of that period. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, at that time there ( ) and certainly if they'd, did they consult with an attorney on that? MS. DOTY: I have to assume they did. at the time, but I don't know, did they? I wasn't even an attorney MELISSA SPIRe: I believe they did, but, it wasn't a local attorney. MS. DOTY: Oh, it wasn't a local attorney. MELISSA SPIRe: They were buying a lot in the first subdivision. MS. DOTY: They were buying a lot in the first subdivision. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, well that's my next thing is you know, point out ( ). Certainly how would you take a piece out of that? All you're doing is causing more work for everybody having to approve again. Come back here and approve again an undersized lot. MS. DOTY: I understand, ~I'm not absolutely certain about this, that the Code, the prior Code,~would not have merged these parcels because they were both in a subdivision and that this was the way ihe current Code was written with that merger, retroactive ( ). Also, I'd like to point out to the Board that the house had been there at least since 1958 because that's when the survey was done. It's been there a long, time and that's pretty close to when the zoning ( ). Page 21 - Hearing TranScripts February 26, 199S-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll make a bet that there was no survey done on the house when it was built and that's just about where it ended up. Alright, hearing the - MEMBER TORTORA: Can I make a suggestion before we make an opinion on it? Why don't we allow you some time to talk to your client about the Chairman's suggestions and perhaps if you could get back to us by 9:00 this evening. Is that pressing you too much? MS. DOTY: I could make a phone call. anybody wants to speak for or against it? May I ask if there's CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody like to speak against the application? OK, we'll take approximately 20-25 minutes. MEMBER TORTORA: thoughts. You can come back and let us know your CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: recess, 25 minute recess. OK, so what I need is a 9.0 minute BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Are you making that motion? MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 22 - Hearing Tra.scripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals 7:33 p.M. _ Appl. No. 4543 - ALICE KONTOKOSTA CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Request for a Variance based upon the Building Inspector's December 24, 1997 Notice of Disapproval which states that "...application dated November 17, 1997 for a permit to replace an existing dwelling is disapproved on the following grounds: the existing nonconforming building containing a nonconforming use if damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of more than fifty percent (50% of its fair value shall not be repaired or rebuilt unless such building is made substantially to conform to the height and yard requirements of the bulk schedule, Article XXIV, Section 100-242B-1. (Ref. all setbacks under 100-244 and 100-239.4A). Location of Property: 54155 C.R. 48, Greenport, N.Y.; Parcel ID #1000-52-1-2. I have a sketch of the survey indicating the approximate placement of the house at this time at 85 feet from Miller Road or North Road or County Road 48, as we know it, 14 feet from the westerly property line at approximately 1.6 feet at its closest point and the water site 4.3 feet, 4 feet 3 inches rather from the easterly property line and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Kontokosta how are you tonight Sir? It's such a pleasure to see you. MR. KONTOKOSTA: Board. I'm fine Mr. Chairman. Greetings to the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. KONTOKOSTA: Well, for the record, I'm Manny Kontokosta and I'm here on behalf of my sister Alice and there were certain questions that the Board did have on the application and I've responses to them, if I may. (Handing out responses to the Board). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Board was so inclined Mr. Kontokosta to have you move the house a couple of feet to the west would you have any objection to that? MR. KONTOKOSTA: If the Board would make that as part of the recommendation for approval I'd be glad to accept that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I absolutely have absolutely no problems with this application so I'm going to start with Mr. Dinizio first and ask him if he has anything he'd like to discuss. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no problems, no questions at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Kontokosta what's the condition of the bluff there? Certainly ~here's been a lot of erosion at Town Beach which is only a couple of hundred feet westward. ~age 23 -.Hearing TranSeripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. KONTOKOSTA: Immediately in front of the structure it hasn't eroded to any great degree in the last year. But, I would say about 60-70 feet east it has eroded substantially. The owners do have an intention to bulkhead the property as soon as the building goes up. MEMBER COLLINS: I don't think I had any other questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To answer your question. When I investigated the bluff, I found it completely foliated. There was no change, there was no openings, there were no breaches, there were no anything. MEMBER COLLINS: over and - Right. I walked out to the edge and peered CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: beat the band that day. I lost my hat the wind was blowing to MEMBER COLLINS: And didn't see anything. It was just that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did find it though. MEMBER COLLINS: Given the proximity of some fairly serious erosion, I simply wondered, I mean, it's not our problem if your house, if your sister's house falls under the sound. MR. KONTOKOSTA: bluffs there. I'm well aware of the erosions and all of the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I was just kind of thinking along the lines of Mr. Goehringer and I presume you're talking about cutting back on the east side? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Maybe we can talk about what, maybe he can talk about what he's talking about as far as cutting back on that different road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, my suggestion is approximately 3 feet, you know, so that you would have 3.6, and then ll on the other side. You know I have no objection to your - MR. KONTOKOSTA: I would think that if you make it move over ( ). We would move it over to the west, 4 feet. We would center that structure right on the site. MEMBER TORTORA: then? So, the total distance would be about what Page 24 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. KONTOKOSTA: It would be 10 feet to the west and approximately 10 feet to the east. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, yes, but at its closest point where you have I guess they,re dealing with that stairwell foundation - MR. KONTOKOSTA: as far as the - That stairwell is a great distantly higher. So, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, you're really using a 4.3 is what you're telling us? So then it would be 9.3, I'm sorry, 8.3. MR. KONTOKOSTA: We count on one side about 9 something like that. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just looking for a figure so that we can set a figure. OK, you've answered my question.~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No. Sir, could you detail the sequence of events that led to your Notice of Disapproval in regard to your wanting to rebuild the house, rather than you make repairs? MR, KONTOKOSTA: I would guess that the structure is at least 50 years old. It has deteriorated quite extensively and to repair it in sections would be very, very costly. So, we decided to just demolish it and rebuild. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're there Mr. Kontokosta, we'll ask if anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolutions. 7:44 P.M. - SPIRO Hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need a Motion to reopen the hearing. MEMBER TORTORA: So moved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Second. Hearing reconvened. Ms. Dory. MS. DOTY: I talked to one of my clients and we'd like to hold the hearing open until the next available one or the one after that. She needs to speak to her ( ) and also the people who own the vacant lot to discuss the idea that the Chairman raised. Page 25 - Hearing Tra~iScripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I'll make a motion recessing it without a date and you'll get back ~to us when you want to put it back on. MS. DOTY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: gentlemen. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. I offer that as a resolution ladies and Page 26 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals 7:45 P.M. -Appl. No. 4537 - REQUEST BY SOUTHOLD TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Request is dated January 6, 1998 for "Generic Town-Wide Interpretation" with the following questions: "Is a sculpture a "building" under the Code Definitions at Section 100-13, since a sculpture does not have a roof and will not be intended for shelter, business, housing or enclosing persons. Also, is a sculpture excepted under Section 100-230 under "Exemptions", or do the height limitations of Section 100-33 apply...?" I just want to caution two things Ed and I'll be right with you. We are extremely concerned about the generic nature of this interpretation. We are not sites specific on any one particular site where this is going to sited. Secondly, I am going to ask people that when they get involved in sites, that they complete their statement and not go further any further in reference to that specific statement. We have a rather long agenda. I realize this concerns a lot of people and it is town wide. I should point out before the Executive Administrative of the Building Department talks to us which we do appreciate him coming in that this is a new process that we are treading on tonight. These interpretations have been dealt with as agenda items before but not necessarily in the nature of public hearings and this was a suggestion that was brought to bear last October, and this is one of those interpretations that is before us and without further adieu Mr. Forrester how are you this evening? MR. FORRESTER: Very fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. FORRESTER: Well, trying to keep it as generic as possible, I submitted a written request for the interpretation which on that specifical specific, it does refer to a Building Permit application. So just as a bidder factor we did receive an application for a platform that would support a sculpture. The sculpture in question is large. In excess of 18 feet. The interpretation of the request is, does this sculpture fit the definition of a building under 113, a copy of that definition I'm sure you did too and I further requested should it need interpretation it would open further questions sometimes as far as to asked those questions in my request. If it's a sculpture or a building, and it is being accessory to the height limitations apply or is it exempt as other exemptions are listed in 100-230 and listed according to Code Chapter and verse on those exceptions. I think the last question, yes it is in a form of a question, is, it also exempts monuments and would sculptures according to the definition which is - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Monuments and what? MR. FORRESTER: Would it, monuments are exempted from the Code Limitations as accessory and the accessory portion however, will determine ( ). Would a sculpture - Page 27 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would a sculpture. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Water? MR. FORRESTER: Would a sculpture. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's why I asked - MR. FORRESTER: Would a sculpture. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Would, I thought it was water. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's why I asked. It was coming out as wate~~ sculpture and I couldn't figure out what you were saying. MR. FORRESTER: There's a couple of questions. The first question, the second and third question will hinge on the answer to the first and I'm available for any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just briefly reviewing the Notice of Disapproval .or sought of speak. Since a sculpture does not have a roof and will not be intended for shelter, business, housing or enclosing of persons, OK. Now, I'm going to give you a brief interpretation of this in reference to what my feelings are. We have granted a substantial amount of boathouses, alright. In this town we have reconstructed boathouses in this town. In anyone of those situations, alright, they do have a roof, they are intended for the shelter of a boat and boat related to marine articles. They are not a business, they are not housing or enclosing persons. If there was an existing boathouse which had bathroom facilities in it, sanitary laboratory facilities to include a shower, alright, we have requested for the past 18 years, that they be open to the outside wall. That there be no internal use and that they be, it's a sink basically from the existing boathouse and we refer to that as a boat storage building. So, in that particular case, the only thing that I am driving then at that point is the fact, that it doesn't have a roof and I'm telling you that we have granted these things in the past as a reconstruction and in one or two cases, one of which Cutchogue there's rather an extensive boathouse, but, we have granted that also in its placement. Alright, I then start with Mr. Homing. Mr. Homing, do you have any specific questions? MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: You said the structuring question is in access of 18 feet. So, I'll start off my way of thinking on this. As to whether it's a building or a structure. There are several exemptions in that code or inclusions in the Code and structures, (), signs and walls, etc. Mr. Chairman is correct, it's not an enclosed structure. It probably is a structure in my mind. Let's get to accessory. The word accessory. As to whether something is accessory depends on whether it's customarily incidental to the Page 28 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals principal use of the property. Would you as your experience as the department head, would you say, that this height of sculpture, is customarily incidental to property in the Town of Southold? MR. FORRESTER: It's unusual on it's natures the very fact on ) interpretation. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, that's what I'm trying to get at. MR. FORRESTER: It is a very rare concept. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, let's put it more bluntly. Have you ever seen another structure sculpture of this size as an accessory in a residential neighborhood in the Town of Southold? MR. FORRESTER: In my experience, no. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you. That's about it right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I've seen them in Southold. MEMBER TORTORA: What did you see? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean, in Orient we had a gentleman that wanted to add a bottle blowing business, glass blowing business and there were at least two or three structures across the street from this house that were sitting in the yard and some of them were substantially large. Not more than 18 feet but, substantially large in reference to distance. So, I'm just telling you that. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: views. I think I prefer to let other people tell me their CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think that's a good idea. MEMBER HORNING: view points? Were you asking us to ask questions or give CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Forrester. No, just if you had questions of Mr. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There are other people in the audience that want to speak on this too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I know. Mr. Dinizio, any questions of the Building Inspector? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, my personal feelings that we got into specifics already, but, as long as we're going to. Certainly, a tennis court would be considered a structure in Southold Town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Without a roof. 15age 29 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly a swimming pool would be a structure, a garage is a structure that can be built to 18 feet. So, if we're asked now to determine simply because of the shape of something, say, that happens to be in the shape of a swimming pool, in the shape of a tennis court or a shape of an avocado, OK, for whatever, estheticalIy I'm finding it a little difficult to figure out why it would be so difficult to determine that this was a structure and/or anything built in a yard at this point. I'm saying a tennis court without a fence with two posts that are 4 feet high is considered a structure in the Town of Southold. I'm having difficulty with the fact that if we're dealing with a shape, suppose to anything else, and though it is unusual, the shape is unusual, certainly-the idea of structures in Southold Town, 18 feet high, 2 feet wide are not unusual. Again, shape is that particular shape that you may be seeing is, but, certainly the dimensions that we're talking about are not unusual in Southold Town and I just would ask again, if anybody's going to make comment on this particular shape that they keep it brief and I'm so uncomfortable with the fact that we're listening to this in this manner and not talking specifically about this applicant. What my feeling on this is that this applicant should of been denied a Buildin~ Permit for this and we should be talking specifically about this application. Then I would feel I could ask specific questions to this applicant. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that may be the next step, Jim. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I agree, I agree, it may be or it may not, depending on how we determine, how we make our determination and who decides that they want to take it a step further. You've got my opinion on that. I mean I think a structure is a structure. MR. FORRESTER: Yes, I understand the second part of the definition for a building goes on to say, any combination materials forming a construction if it can be considered a structure and it goes on to specifically to lists size, walls. But, it does, ii is silex~t on this one type of structure that I'm asking for an interpretation. If that interpretation is elementary then but it will lead to other questions. Such as the height, its use as an accessory and if the first question is simple then the second and third question become important if the first one isn't. MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess my feeling on that would be that if the gentleman put a TV antenna on top of that structure, he would probably be here for a tower. MR. FORRESTER: else. MEMBER DINIZIO: MR. FORRESTER: MEMBER DINIZIO: This structure would be supporting something Right. Its use would be ( ) probably a ( ). Right, I guess that's what I'm getting Page 30 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak in reference to this? Mr. Angel, how are you tonight, Sir? MR. ANGEL: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a pleasure to see you again. MR. ANGEL: Long time no see. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. the record, if you don't mind? You want to state your name for MR. ANGEL: It's Stephen Angel. Essek, Hefter & Angel, Riverhead, N.Y., and I'm the attorney for several individuals. I represent Edward and Ruth Meyer, Nancy and John Smith, John Petrocelli, Robert L. Stott, Joseph Macari, Alice Mignerey and Jerry Callis. It is a little bit awkward because of the particular application that was a result of this request for a town wide determination was something very specific and I will not discuss its aesthetic nature whatever and I was, I don't know if I was instrumental but, I was certainly involved in the process with the Building Department requesting a denial to bring it here to your Board to get an interpretation. I did not request that it become to you as a generic interpretation. It would be my preference to deal with it particularly, application also. Now, as I understand it, what you're being asked by the way is to simply say that this particular type of what I would call a structure, I'll get to that in a minute, is pretty much immune from zoning. What they're saying to you what the question is being posed is, does it fall within the concept of the building which in term is a term that's used to encompass the term structure. 'And if it doesn't fall within that, it isn't regulated and there is no limitation on the height if you can call something a sculpture an objet d'art, a piece of art or whatever. The sky is the limit. Well maybe not the sky, but certainly where the airplanes fly is the limit and I think that that's a very risky thing for you to do under these circumstances, especially in the contexts of residential zones, and even commercial zones. Now, in connection with the concept of structure, I've also read that code provision, that Mr. Forrester is talking about, and there is a second part of the definition of building that seems to indicate that its termed that's used to encompass virtually any kind of structure and after it defines building it says also any combination of materials forming any construction except where entirely underground. And it goes on to say the term building includes the term structure. Now, I tried to search for a case in New York that defines the term structure, couldn't find one, but, I did look in the old standby Black's Law Dictionary that we use when your a first year law student and you don't know how to research things and the term structure is defined in there and it's defined very broadly. It says any construction or any production or piece of work artificially built up or composed parts joined together in some definite manner. It would include your tennis court, it would include a sculpture, it would include another object d'art, it would Page 31 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals include a house, it's whatever man' puts together out of materials that doesn't just flow along with the ground, natural repose of the soil. If you like, I can hand this up. Now, I personally think that the work of art has to be considered a structure. There's just no way, once you've fashion something and place it on the ground out of material, it becomes a structure. It's a very generic term. Now, the only other term that brings some confusion to this process is one of the exceptions that was discussed briefly by Mr. Forrester and that's discussed also in his report that he was referring to and that's the term monument, the undefined term. Do you look at it, a sculpture or a piece of art as a monument, and therefore say, that it's not subject to zoning and again, the sky is the limit. You can build a 44 or 45 foot structure in your rear yard or in your commercial front yard. I went to the same source, Black's Law Dictionary and the term monument, is defined, there's two definitions legally for monument. One, is the monument that the subdividers use and the surveyors use that defines the property lines which is not the monument that we're talking about, because ff that were there's no problem, it's one inch off the ground or below the level of the ground. The other monument is defined as anything by which' the memory of a person, thing, idea, art, science or event is preserved or perpetuated, a tomb where a dead body has been deposited. I don't think an object d'art or a sculpture is the type of structure that is encompassed in the exception monument and I'll hand this to you also. This question that's raised covers the context of your residential zones. In your residential zone there's a permitted use and that was touched on by questions from the Board and the permitted use of single family residential structure. A home, and everything else on the property is an accessory use and/or accessory use or aecessory structure. Under your code if you consider a sculpture or such other sculpture an accessory use it would be limited by that 18 foot limitation. That is the one area where I actually did a significant amount of research in the last couple of days. I spent a few hours looking through all the national treatises as well as New York. Look through Anderson on Zoning, Rathkoff on Zoning, both the New York books and the national books and I could find nothing on the question of whether a sculpture or public piece of art was a customary and incidental use to a residential. Well, nor did I find it even in connection with commercial uses. I just could find nothing. There's a lot of discussion on whether a tennis court is, a swimming pool is, a garage is, boathouse is, but not a piece of art in any fashion. I couldn't find it. I don't know. I think that the Board's question before, whether it's customary incidental is the correct question.. By the answer of the Building Inspector, I think, the conclusion has to be that it's not customary. Certainly, it's not customary in my understanding of residential areas on the East End of Long Island. Now, what I did do also, is visually it doesn't show the sculpture in question. As you know, this issue came up because of the extent of the application that was present before .or the extent of the proposed sculpture. The height of the proposed sculpture. What I did is, I assume the sculpture was about 40-42-43 feet which I think is what we're talking about here. I had a picture of myself taken standing next to a structure, a house that was .26 feet high, and I Page 39. - Hearing Transcripts February fi6, 1998-Board of Appeals extrapolated how a 40 site foot high structure would compare to me and the 28 foot high house. I was trying to find a house that I knew the exact height of. I eouldn't figure it out. I didn't know how tall my house is. I don't know how tall anything in Riverhead is. So, I thought I'd call Young & Young, the surveyors, and Kenneth Russo, one of the surveyors at Young & Young, whom you're probably familiar with, if not in person, by name, he said, oh, yeah, Steve, I'll do you a favor, I'll measure our place and so, he measured his, and it's a two story gable structure in Riverhead, it's exactly 20 feet high from a little 6 inch pedestal to the rear door or porch to the rear door, and I'm standing now, and I have two photographs, one for each side of the Board, to give you an idea how high 40 feet is. It's high. MR. FITZGERALD: Why are we talking about 40 feet? I don't understand that. MR. ANGEL: I'll explain that Sir. I have two pictures, one is a picture of Young & Young and the other one is a picture of me. I chose 40 feet or 42 feet as shown in that photograph because the application that I was initially opposing was, for a sculpture of approximately 39 feet high on a 4 foot pedestal. I mean whether it's 39 feet or 40 feet, it doesn't make a difference. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: question Mr. Fitzgerald? Excuse me one second. What's the MR. FITZGERALD: Isn't that specifie, Mr. Goehringer? CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it specific in reference to height? MR. FITZGERALD: It's specific in reference to the change that we're not going to makin~ reference to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I have mixed feelings up here tonight. Some people say, the height is, and some people say, the height isn't, OK. Certainly, if it exceeds 18 feet, that's what an accessory structure is permitted to be, if we determine that to be. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, may I comment? I think that in my opinion, we're not even being asked about height here, or any comparison of any - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: just, go ahead Lora. I didn't find that kind of offensive, I MEMBER COLLINS: I was just going to observe the Building Department's request that the Zoning Board exercise its authority to interpret the Code, rests on the statement, that the Building Department has received an application relating to an object thai is 40 feet high. I will agree with Mr. Dinizio, that we do not want to dwell on that. That is not the issue tonight and I don't think the visual evidence having to do with the impact of 40 feet is particularly what we should be looking at. We outlined what our Page 33 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals issues are very clearly. Is an object of art a structure? If so, what are the implications for accessory use and I think you know, the 18 feet is just a fact in the Code. I think we've got to stick to our central theme here. MR. ANGEL: comment? Well, should I go forward? Can I go on? Do I make a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: we're going to go. I think we're waiting to see which way MEMBER DINIZIO: Well again, I mean, any accessory structure that would be applied to this town would be turned down simply because if we're over 18 feet, it would just turned down. It's not something we need to decide on ( ). I understand about the monument part of this. I understand that. But, we should really focus more on whether or not the Building Inspeetor can see fit to disapprove or approve based on what he has asked us, which is, you know, is there indeed a structure of this type a structure? We can then proceed from there. I mean compared to a house, as !o how high (end of tape). MR. ANGEL: Everybody knows the reality. The reality is there's a Specific applieation lurking around there. When I read the Building Inspector's request for a ruling to you, he did deal with the question of the height and I mean, I presented it to you, you have it for what it's worth, I'm not going to discuss it any further. Let me deal with the issues that you're interested in. I put in my graphic evidenee of a very high strueture which is something I want to discuss even in the context of accessory versus non accessory structure, versus strueture in this case. The basie question here is, is a sculpture a strueture or a building for which the Town of $outhold exercises some zoning control? That's the first question. The second question, is it an aceessory structure in a residential district? Now, I think that the question that's being asked to you is, that if you don't characterize it as a structure, then the sky is the limit. It is not controlled by zoning. If it's not a structure, it's not a building, anybody can build one. They don't need your permission. Whether it's 18 feet, 19 feet, 44 feet or 100 feet, they can build it. Ail they have to do, is characterize it as apieee of art in the context Of the application before you. I think that is a very dangerous precedent of the town. It's not going to be limited to residential districts where you have 40 foot or 18 foot, or 19 foot or 60 foot sculptures in back yards. That's strange enough from my view point. What's to stop the creative entrepreneur, some. of whom we have the pleasure of representing from saying, oh, you know, the Town of Southold only allows me one direetory sign into my shopping center. Well you know, I saw a sculpture over there on CR 111, that red seulpture that's over there on CR 111, that steel one that sticks up in the field about 60 feet. What if I buy that sculpture and put it right at my entrance? Oh, that would be beautiful, don't you think the people of Southold would love that? For you to think that if you eall any object of art or any sculpture something that's other than a structure that has no control Page 34 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 199S-Board of Appeals in the Zoning Board Ordinance, thai that thing is not going to happen. I think you're wrong. I think it's going to happen because you can use a sculpture for both aesthetic and for commercial purposes and you're not going to be able to draw that line if you say that a sculpture is just not a structure and we just don't control it. Anybody could put it anywhere. I think it's a very risky decision. I also think it's not a rational decision because I think that no matter how you look at it, when a man, or a woman, or an artist, or a man or a woman artist puts together a whole bunch of materials, into something three dimensional, I don't think you can characterize it as anything but a structure and once it's a structure it's sought of called a building under your code, and the Building Inspector has to issue a permit, and it's got to fit somewhere and since we're in a residential zone the only way that it can fit on the property, is it's got to be accessory to a principal use. A house, and it also has to be under 1S feet. So, if I would come out and the way that I feel, is that it clearly is a structure and the real question before you is whether you could consider it accessory in a residential district, customary incidental. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We'd like to move this along. If there's anybody else - MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of Mr. Angle? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, Mr. Angel, just one second. eome to be aware that there was a hearing tonight? How did you MR. ANGEL: I'm the person who asked for it. I've been corresponding with the Town, with your office, with the Building Inspector since October, November. MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, you requested the hearing? MR. ANGEL: I requested that there be a denial and that I said that it was not permitted and I said that there's no way that this could go forward under the existing code without it appearing before this Board. My thought was that it would follow the Town Law provisions and that there would be a denial and an appeal here. But, I think the Buildin~ Inspector does have the authority to ask the question. So, I've been a party to this proceeding. I think that I corresponded with Mr. Goehringer back in December of 19- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In writing. MR. ANGEL: Yes. Well, I never spoke, I got stamped letters from him but I wrote the Building Inspector in October, November and then he wrote back to me, and then I wrote requesting that it be determined before the Board sometime and the Board has kept me apprised of what's going on. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Fitzgerald? Page 35 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Hi. One of the points that I think we have to keep in mind is that point we are talking about labeling art work, sculpture, whatever, as structures. They as accessory structures must of course be in the rear yard. And, there are an awful lot of accessory structures in the form of art work throughout the town in front yards and side yards and I just wonder if indeed that is illegal or will be illegal after this decision is made. Why haven't we done anything about it, and/or what are we going to do about it now? I have pictures of dozens of it. None of by the way larger than 18, higher than 18 feet. But all, if we are to assign the definition of accessory structure to sculptures, art work, cutouts, ladies bending over working in the fields, and bird baths, and things of that sought. I presume they all would be included because I don't think we can say, well we haven't talked about it yet, saying that sculptures larger than 18 feet or larger than 12 feet, or larger than something, are sculptures for structures, but, if they're smaller than that, they're not a structure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me say this to you, OK. If the and the only way I can give you a significant, is~ if antennas were not exempt in the code, and we continued with the outlandish, ugly satellite dish, that first came out, we would'ye been here probably 5 years ago. Maybe six years ago, maybe ten years ago. But, what has happened with those are, they've gotten smaller, less atrocious and so that's why we're here today. MR. FITZGERALD: But, the code does permit for instance, talking about the magical 40 or 40 foot height. It permits a 20 foot high - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 18. MR. FITZGERALD: Satellite dish- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, OK. MR. FITZGERALD: On top of a 35 foot high house? That's 55 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's exactly what I was saying. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, but it's still permitted in the code regardless of the size of the dish you can buy in Radio Shack today. So~ it concerns me of course as a citizen of the town that presumably something would have to be done about all of these little statues and so forth. Presumably it would only apply to permanent ones and not the ones that show up at Christmas and Easter and Halloween and so forth. But, it's something I think you ought to consider. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I'm not rushing you, I'm just saying thank you for bringing that up. MR. FITZGERALD: Speaking just briefly about definition. The code specifies that any terms that are not defined in the code, would be as defined in ~¥ebster's Third New International Dictionary, Page 36 - Hearing TranScripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals eteetera, eteetera, not Black's, although I must say, that I think that the definition of monument that the gentleman read, would include the sought of thing that we're talking about. I, maybe I interpreted it differently, but, it sounded pretty good to me. I think from the standpoint of whether or not art work is a structure that's all I would have to say. As far as it being, art work being a monument is concerned, whether or not it's a monument is truly according to definition included in Webster's that I just named before, and three or four others, the implication is, that monuments of really in the, define as it were by the mind of the eye of both the creator and the beholder and that ought to be something that's taken into account. I think that one of the things that ought to be considered also, is what you think our founding fortitudes back in 1979 or 86 or whenever it was, that the, this provision for the exemptions was written into the code had in mind when they said, that monuments were exempt from the height restrictions. In other words, you could make it 19 or 20 or 50 foot monument. What do you think they had in mind? Were any of you, did you participate in that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What the a, the present, did I participate? No, I merely reviewed it, that's all. Basically, Charlie Grigonis who was a Member on this Board for 42 years was the most active participant in the 1989 revamping of the comprehensive revamping of the code, OK, and he reported back to us. I merely reviewed it, that's all I did. To be honest with you, I have a full-time job and I've had a full-time job since 1971 when I graduated from college. So, to be honest with you, that's what we did. It's a very interesting situation and as I said, the nature of this when I began this hearing tonight, was to tell you, that we had Members on this Board that were concerned about interpretations and that we let these interpretations out to the public and that's the nature of this public hearing and we do appreciate your feedback. MR. FITZGERALD CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll just start quickly with this fine gentleman here who has been before us before. MR. ARNOFF: Good evening Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is Harvey Arnoff. I did not have any intentions of speaking on this subject, but, I really feel I have to, especially as a former Town Attorney of this town. Ask yourselves some questions. If this object, was put in Fort (?) over in Indian burial ground. Were we talking about it, is it a monument, or are you trying to put a square peg in a round hole? That's what you're really doing here. I think you're deluding yourself if you're going to draw a line and say, you may say, that this specific structure, or whatever it is, this particular work of art is a structure. But, if you built a barn and got a Building Permit, they put it inside, would he have two structures? A strueture inside a structure? Is it only for things that are outside rather than inside? What requirements are you going to do here? I think what you're really talking about, is a code change. I think you're talking about Page 37 - Hearing Trm~Scripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals preparing a portion of our code that deals with art, that deals with things of this nature that we put outside. I'm reminded of the Big Ducks, the Big Ducks are a work of art or structure? Well, they've got a shop inside of it, it's a work of art. It's been in all kinds of publications around the world. What is it? You know, there's some childhood when is a duck going to duck, or there's something that we learn as children. I've been trying to remember it all night and I can't remember it. But, and then, let me ask you the next question. If you say it's a structure and it becomes an accessory building in the rear yard, front yard, wherever it might be, the Building Department going to tell them how to build it? Is it going to tell an artist how to construct something? What form and shape it should be in, have we reached that point. Is that what we're doing and then I think the gentleman that spoke last is correct. Where do you draw the line? Do you draw it at two feet, three feet, four feet, twelve feet, how many feet? And, I don't think can do, you have to do that if it's a structure. But, if you carve out a different element in the code, for works of art, you may be dealing with an entirely different subject matter and something that's far easier to deal with. I'm just offering that as a suggestion. I'm not doing that to muddy the waters, but, I think you do have a significant question here. I don't think it's something, it's real easy to take the easy way out and say, this thing is a structure and we're going to let the Building Code be what it is. But then you're going to have people here saying, I don't like that bird bath, and that's a structure just as much as the other things are structures. What are you going to do about it? You can't discriminate. It becomes a structure. Somebody's got to get a permit for a bird bath and I don't think that's what we want to do in this town. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: your patience. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for Ms. MIGNEREY: Alice Mignerey from Paradise Point Road. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could you spell your last name please? MS. MIGNEREY: I think if this code structure was under 18 feet we would not be here tonight and unfortunately my demonstration of structure is sites specific but I feel obligated to show it, to show my point that I believe this work of art is definitely a structure. If you'll permit me one minute. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, I won't Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, just wait one second. Can you please reduce it to a photographic situation and just submit it to us so that the people who want - MS. MIGNEREY: Yes, it's right here. Page 38 - Hearing TranScripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, not now. Give it to us before the end of the, before we close the hearing. For those persons who want to look at it, can look at it. Quite honestly, Mr. Fitzgerald, I have to tell you, I found absolutely nothing offensive with the showing me what 40 feet was. I have to be honest with you. I know that some of my Board Members felt differently and this is a democratic organization and so I just have to be honest with you on that basis. OK, anybody else would like to speak? MR. MEYER: Mr. Horoff? Yes, I'd like to ask the gentleman who just spoke, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Arnoff. MR. MEYER: Mr. Arnold? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Arnoff. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could I have your name please? MR. MEYER: My name is Ed Meyer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me Sir. You can't ask, you must ask the Board the question. If he so chooses to answer it. MR. MEYER: I would like to ask him a question, if I may. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You cannot. You have to ask the Board the question. If he so chooses to answer he may. MR. MEYER: May I ask the Board to ask him a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MR. MEYER: The question I would like you to ask him, is, that I think what he has said is, that there are certain, let's not call it structures, let's call it whatever you want. Monuments, it's something that's going to erected on a site over which the Zoning Board has absolutely no control. If we can define it as an art work or it's something you said, two feet, you said, two feet, ten feet, forty feet, one hundred feet. I think that's what he said. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so what's the question? MR. MEYER: point. The question is, I would like him to speak to that MR. ARNOFF: I'll be glad to. I don't think the gentleman understood what I was saying. What I'm saying is, that the Town Code should have a provision in it that gives, empow, ers this Board to take each application as it comes, but not as a structure. If you're going to try to force works of art into the State Building Code as structures, it's not going to work. That's my position. I'm just saying, that I think you're trying to force an issue. I Page 39 - Hearing Tra**Seripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals certainly, just as a member of this community, feel that this Board and perhaps the Building Department, should have some say over 35 feet, 90 foot statues or whatever it is. But, are they going to have a say over a 4 foot bird bath? I don't know, somebody's got to draw up the guidelines and there are no guidelines and I think Mr. Goehringer, you know, if there are no guidelines, you can't create them. That's the problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: height? You can't exclude things over a certain MR. ARNOFF: Sure you can. Yes of course you can do that, but you have to do that by some code provision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. ARNOFF: My point is, I'm not taking a position on this application. I'm just pointing out to you I think there's a problem with the code and I think it should be addressed. That's my point in rising, that's all. I think this Board definitely should have the power to deal with this and if it means staying an application, it means staying an application until something happens. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: for the record, Sir. Thank you. Yes, just state your name MR. MILLER: Mark Miller, Kimberly Lane. I think it's been important to look at the issue of the term monument which served ( )by the Black's Law Dictionary definition or perhaps highlighted on the matter of tombs or something like that. The preceding part of that definition certainly is within the description and the purpose and the whole desire for we are speaking only - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In art form. MR. MILLER: In art form and I think that we have to pay a little bit more attention to that concept of the monument as we go forward here, because there is in the definition, in the code, it specifically exempts monuments. Now, when you go into the definitions of what a structure is, as defined by Black's it's basically anything other than something created by God. Well, when the drafters here in town came up with an exemption for monument, they took into mind that it was also a structure in that it had been constructed by man and so we do have to focus on that fact and realize that there is a specific exemption that had been intended for things that were going to be man made but, not necessarily a house or a boathouse or something along those lines. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Board Members? Thank you. Any further comment by MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I'd love to see Mr. Fitzgerald's pictures quite frankly. You said you have some pictures? Phge 40 - Hearing Trah~eripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fitzgerald? Can you leave them with us Mr. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you leave them here? MR. FITZGERALD: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. FITZERALD: I have another comment where they are. MEMBER DINIZIO: You don't have to. I probably know most of them. I have another comment in that, you tonight, I'm assuming that everybody's completed and unfortunately I didn't get to hear the other side of the story. You know, a person had an idea of what he wanted to do on his property, thought he had the ( ). Certainly he thought he had the right to appeal, you know as anybody does when you read the code. You have an idea, you put together a plan, you come into Town Hall, and the town tells you want goes under the code, what's not in the code, and basically you know, he's turned down. If he's turned down, he comes to us. That's why we're here and you know, I heard a lot of negative on this. But, I didn't really hear or get the question the reasoning behind the application sought of speak. In my mind, you know, I hear you know, tree stumps that look like bears and things like that. These are about things that I had even thought about when I first thought about the application. But eertainly things to take into consideration. The sign with the lady bending over, how it has affected, and you know, I just think that it's sad that this has to take place in this manner that you know in America you can't have your appeal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He's going to have his appeal if we - MEMBER DINIZIO: No, well what I'm saying here, you've got to let me finish. I feel strongly about this is that as I see it, a gentleman wanted to put a structure or something in his yard and the neighbors got upset, rightfully so, OK. He thought he was doing right. Instead of it taking the routes that almost everybody else had, any other person that came in here, they took certain steps to get to us. He's probably sitting home I'm assuming, maybe wholly unaware, certainly officially unaware that this hearing is taking place discussing maybe not his partieular project, but, certainly his concept and I do think that that's wholly unfair. Now, I'm going to say another thing to Mr. Arnoff and that is, my feeling that the town or the Building Inspector is that the town is suppose to make sure that thin~s are safe, the health, welfare of the community. Certainly, a bird bath. I'm talking about one you buy at the h&rdware store and you place in your yard. As long as that thing is placed within the boundaries of your yard and won't fall over onto someone else's property, in my opinion is not a structure. But, certainly, if you have to somehow achor this structure, this thing that you want to build, be it a garage, be it a storehouse or a boathouse or a even a monument. I mean if you've Page 41 - Hearing TrauScripts February 26, 199S-Board of Appeals got to put a cement foundation in there, then I think you're dealing with a structure and I think that we've looked at ( ) a lot of times. Certainly they do with a house and certainly we have done it before. So, I mean, I kind am ready to make a decision, but, I really feel that I haven't heard both side of the story. I hope that someday I will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead Ed. MR. FORRESTER: Yes, Mr. Dinizio I quite understand what you've just said. This project when it came to the attention of the Building Department, because it was unusual, something that we hadn't dealt with specifically before, we have rhetorical conversations. Some people call and say, yes it is. Some people say it isn't. Well, if it is, what about purpose? My request address those. My written request. If it is, what about bird baths? Or, is it another rhetroical ( ), or is it the size of that attributes to it and those are the types of things that we, that force, not forces, but let us ask for this determination because your answer to your interpretation, will have logical, I'm not sure if it is, then we're going to go A, B, C. If it isn't, then we have to proceed another way. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'm just talking back to the fact that the people that are here are people specific to that applicant, that ( ) you ( ). MR. FORRESTER: I understand that. MEMBER DINIZIO: And unfortunately, that person who filed that application or however that came about, does not have the chance to defend himself. MR. FORRESTER: Yes, but this is the only qualm I have as to ask this question in the public form these people sought fit to attend. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you know I would wonder then, Mr. Forrester, if these people read in the newspaper, in the Suffolk Times, this particular statement whether or not they would determine that this had to do with what they were coneerned with. I question that, OK, and this is nothing against you, because I think you've taken probably the proper course considering the environment. But, I must, you know, when these things come up, I feel that everything should take a certain progression and in this instance somehow, someway, it didn't take that progression and I'm wondering who the next guy is going to be and what influence they're going to have in the way that their application is handled or not handled and that has no reflection on you, believe me. What I'm saying is, I understand the ( ) interpretation but I do believe, that it could be handled in the normal channels. MR. FORRESTER: In order for them to be held in the appellate sense, we had to accept it as a structure. Page 42 - Hearing Tra~scripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: You would've had to interpret that. MR. FORRESTER: Right. MEMBER DINIZO: I agree and then they could've disapprove it. MR. FORRESTER: Right and the ramifications of that, would be that every ( ) jockey Madonna in town became - MEMBER DINIZIO: No, until we made the decision. that particular application. Specifically on MR. FORRESTER: OK. That's the way I understand it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Thanks. MR. : Excuse me. This was handled in the usual way. A builder, an application for a Building Permit was submitted to the Building Department and that was the last thing that happened. MEMBER DINIZIO:.. Was it disapproved? MR. : Pardon me. MEMBER DINIZIO: Was it disapproved? MR. : No. MEMBER DINIZO: Was it approved? MR. : MEMBER DINIZO: Well, doesn't everybody who hands in an application for a Building Permit, have a certain, should demand a certain amount of time before some action is taken on it? MR. : Ten days. It says ten days ( ). MEMBER DINIZIO: No action was taken on it. MR. : The gentleman whose project it is, is sitting here. He's not at home watching television. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, number 1, I'm not aware of that. Number 2, does he feel, would he feet comfortable in the environment that we're projecting of just standing up and defending his project when he can't talk about it? He can't talk specifics. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: First of all, let's go back on this here. The purpose of this interpretation hearing, was basically your philosophy to bring it before us, in a public form. That is the reason why we are here. The reason why, we are dealing with a non-site specific situation, is because you know what happens when we discuss a site specific application, alright. This gentleman Page 43 - Hearing Trattscripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals based upon what we do, will and his family, will have the right, if he wants to speak now, he's going to speak to us, alright, and Mr. Miller tell us what you want to say. MR. MILLER: Thank you, thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Certainly, my name is James Miller. I live on Paradise Point Road and as ( ) came, I acquired a beautiful piece of art work and a substantial piece of ( ). It was a significant investment. It's by an international sculpture. I believe it'd be a wonderful record of the beauty of Peconic Bay. I have a waterfront home and I thought it would be an excellent location to display .a piece of art work such as that. I thought it was a wonderful opportunity that Brookhaven Town sacrificed because it had been previously occupied in Port Jefferson. My wife had followed the procedure to get appropriate permits. I submitted applications to New York State DEC, Board of Engineers, all of the vary regulatory agencies, the Trustees for the Town of Southold, and subsequently got all of the approvals to install the piece of art work. As things would go, it seemed to be that if applications were approved by the Trustees, it was an automatic event to go and grade the marine structure that was needed to set the art work on. We wanted to be absolutely accurate in everything that we did. So, we went to the Building Department and submitted a plan for the footing that use to be installed and that was done back in December and the normal course of action would be expected to get a ten day response, negative or favorable or negative. It's been delayed, delayed and delayed. We're here tonight, we're still going on three months into the request for the Building Permit. We're already eight months into the whole project. It's an expensive beautiful piece of art work that would be recognize throughout the world as a wonderful accomplishment for Southold Town. I think if we embark on the program here, of reviewing the erection of art work in the Town, I think we're treading on several areas. I think art work is basic freedom of speech. It's the most basic expression of an artist and his communication of the rest of the world. I think we're treading in very, very dangerous areas and I think we should look at those ramifications of the good American foundation that Southold Town was built on and I think that we need to take those considerations very carefully. I would like this thing to be dedicated as a monument, the beauty, and the lasting of Peconic Bay. The artist certainly believes it that way. There's already a plaque cast to be added to the base of this monument and I certainly hope that we can go forward and complete this project as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. MILLER: Any questions, please? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't have any questions. MEMBER DINIZIO: first place. Not from me. I didn't want to hear it in the page 44 - Hearing TrahsCripts February 26, 199S-Board of Appeals MR. MILLER: I'm asking a direct question. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Angel? MR. ANGEL: Just from a point of clarification if I may. Have we changed the nature of the consideration before you. Because, if we're talking about a particular work of art, we tried to stay away from that, and if we're changing the nature of the application, perhaps we should keep this thing going and the people in the audience should deal with a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This was an extemporaneous statement. I'm not speaking for Mr. Miller. But, this was an extemporaneous statement and I think that he was basically influenced to do that, and I'm not speaking for him again, by Member Dinizio and so I certainly will allow him as a citizen of this town and as a taxpayer of this town to get to the point of at least where he is at this juncture and that was basically - MR. ANGEL: OK, but, as I understand it, what we have tonight, is you're dealing with an abstract question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. ANGEL: You're not going to deal with the particular application that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Department. MR. ANGEL: Right. That is correct. It's before the Building CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. So, if we garnish a wry a little I apologize. MR. ANGLE: Let me just say one other thing because I think there's a lot of confusion here and I'm a little confused at the nature of the application also. I would be more comfortable with just a head on factual application as I think some Members of the Board would be. But part of the confusion was the original application didn't mention the sculpture. The original application was just for a pad and the idea would be to build a pad and then wouldn't have to ask you for putting the sculpture on. So, that, that in and of itself is a very unusual circumstance and may have led to the questions being asked by the Building Department. It wasn't like an application was made for everything that was going to be placed on the property. But then, I'm not going to address or have my clients address the particular aesthetic concerns and ostensible constitutional concerns we can deal with that on another day if there's a site specific application. Page 45 - Hearing Tra~scripts February 9.6, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. comment, I'll make a motion closing - Hearing no further MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, I can't let that go because - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: night. Jimmy, you're going to have this go all MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm going to. I can comment and I'm telling you this is a hearing to find out if we want to make a decision on this and I'm going to tell you one thing. Mr. Miller, I appreciate your comment. But, I'm going to tell you, I didn't realize that the applicant was here and I'm still trying to figure out how you all got here because in all honesty, we're suppose to issue neighbor notices for hearings that we've had, and I'm wondering why people from Orient are here. People from Mattituck are here. If they read this specifically and it had questions about this because certainly Mr. Fitzgerald's comment should of been interpreted that way. Then if things are going to be interpreted as structures, these men leaning outside of buildings if these people want, then there here, but this is very specific and I'm going to tell you, no, I didn't ask for Mr. Miller's comments and I fully expected that if this meeting were run properly, Mr. Miller would not have been able to make those statements because this meeting was open specifically with that statement that we would not be specific. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, then what we're going to do is this. We're going to take this transcript, we're not going to close this hearing cause you infuriated me to this point, alright. This hearing will not be closed. We will have the Town Attorney make a decision on where the hearing is going to go from this particular point and that is the recommendation I have for the Board at this point. So, we will ask in the transcription of this hearing that this be the first hearing to be transcribed. We will let her review the record. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I was just wondering. ther. e a question on where the hearing is going? Why is CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because I don't know. There may be further information that we may want to interject into it and we may need under attorney-client privilege we may want - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is that what you mean, Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: this. No, I mean absolutely no more information on BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: He's not asking that. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a quick one? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Page 46 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Are we going to answer the question of interpreting for the Building Department, the ( ) Code? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I thought we were here for. MEMBER DINIZIO: It needs an answer. MEMBER HORNING: Can I comment on that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER HORNING: I agree with Jim in respect that I have a problem, number 1, that there's no Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is an interpretation. MEMBER HORNING: I understand that. But, without an approval or disapproval all we're doing is making an interpretation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MEMBER HORNING: I ( ) I can comment that way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the reason why it's not site specific, is because the neighbor notices haven't been sent out. MEMBER HORNING: I have no comment that it's site specific anyway. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: party. There's no applicant. Well, there's also no aggrieved MEMBER HORNING: The' other comment I have is a, the code is deficient as I read it, and I'm a novelist as you know. But, I read deficiency in 'the code, and that's the problem here. It's not the applicant's problem, it's a code problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ean make Mr. Homing. Well, that can be a determination that we MEMBER HORNING: OK, good. Comment, is the sculpture a building? Yes, if you strictly interpret the existing code. It is a building because any combination of materials forming any construction, is a building, and I would interpret the code strictly because that's what I thought my job to be and so I would deem it to be a building. However, 100-230 exempts monuments from these height limitations of accessory building and a statue is a monument which is an ( ) which is a sculpture and so therefore, strictly speaking I would interpret that the sculpture would be exempt from height limitation which gives me the problem with the code because the code again is deficient, and it should be addressing these monuments in some fashion in terms of height and size and because it doesn't, we're at a loss and those are my comments. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's good, thank you. Page 47 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARTY KOWALSKI: That's right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to try it again. further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Hearing no l~age 48 - Hearing Tra~,scripts February 26, 199S-Board of Appeals 9:00 P.M. - Appl. 4466 - HAY HARBOR CLUB, Fishers Island, continued hearing at request of applicant's attorney. Yes, Ms. Moore? MRS. MOORE: Thank you. I just want to introduce the members of the club who are here. President is Christophes DiBonaventura, whom you've met, I'm sure, Bob Anthony, who has come all the way from Millbrook, N. Y., traveled four hours to be here and Sandy Esser who has been here many times before. What I did was try to save some time. I prepared a Memorandum of Law and Factual Memorandum, Law Memorandum, so that when you are reviewing the transcript it will all make sense to you and put everything into contexts. I hope that that will be helpful. It will certainly I believe support our application and please if you have any questions along the way, I'm going to be following along with the Memorandum. At least as far as topics so that if you have specific notes or questions, we'll be triggered to them in my presentation. One thing I didn't want to give you right off the bat after a long awaited and very a, I won't say difficult but conscientious work on the part of Bob Anthony and Chris, the letter from Mrs. Husband, Elizabeth Husband which says, "that upon further consideration she withdraws her objections to the Hay Harbor Golf project." She says here, "I feel comfortable that the Club will respect my previously stated concerns as the project moves forward." So, this is consistent with our belief right from the beginning, that she had certain concerns ( ) certainly not whether she did or she didn't we honor any concerns she had. The Club met with her for an extended period of time and at that point they did address many of her questions and they felt very confident that she was certainly in favor again and then later on unbeknown to her sons, her stepsons, and anyone else in the Club another letter poped out, that it would be a letter in opposition. So, that letter has been withdrawn and also as I had mentioned before, the Hay Harbor Club through Christopher DiBonaventura and the Board of Directors has - BOARD SECRETARTY KOWASLKI: giving us? Is there another letter that she's MRS. MOORE: Yes, I'm going to give it to you right now. The second letter that I'm going to give you is the letter that makes a continuing offer to enter into a long term lease for the strip of property or acquire that bit of property. It's really up to her. If she~ as we've said, over and over, this has been a relationship that has been cooperative, it's lasted for over 20 years and we have no reason to believe that it will not continue. But, to make the Board and certainly it's in the best interest of everyone just to put on the record that at any point in time if she wants to discuss lease long term, long term lease or acquisition we're ready. So, I have that letter here. To start off with a, I don't want to rehash all that's been said, I have about $20 worth of phOtocopy transcripts in Page 49 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals my file and there've been numerous hearings, a great deal of transcript and information that has been given to you, and I certainly ask that you refer to it. But, very briefly I want to focus you again, on the fact that this is a preexisting structure with a prexisting use and that there were certain entitlements to continue protection under the law and in particular within our own code. So, I've cited for you this specific Section which not only addressed the setbacks but it's clear from the Code itself, on an nonconforming building structural that the dwelling units for building, the number of parking and loading spaces, all of those issues which have created somewhat of red herrings throughout this hearing process, I bring you back to the fact that as a preexisting use we are grandfathered and so are all the parking concerns. As far as the additional rooms, really the only change to this Club are those four bedrooms, those four additional individuals and with respect to the rooms I've pointed out throughout that this is the seasonal use, that the vehicular access on the island is limited. You can't get there from here you have to come over from Connecticut, the population and Mr. Homing you certainly can confirm this, by my understanding is that, there is a year round population that cost them 300 people and a summer population of 3500 to 4,000 that about. MEMBER HORNING: That's about right. MRS. MOORE: That's about right, OK. So we're now- talking about a significant Garden City type of area where it's condensed, there is concerns about parking and vehicular access, where talking about Fishers Island and the zoning itself is R120. So that probably will ( ) in the most conservative areas we've got acreage (end of tape) the access, all of that, all of the facts in this case point to the that this reconstruction is not a significant one and should be granted. With respect to, we say that even though we are grandfathered with respect to parking and the uses that are conducted on this property at present, that the Club has sufficient parking. We say that a, I checked with Ray Jacobs and he has advised me that in front of Hay Harbor Club and along Heathuile Avenue, it is a 50 foot public right-of-way. It's a town road. So, if the town were concerned about parking and wanted to address it, there would be no legal impediment to haying the town create parallel parking or perpendicular parking all along its right-of way. Most of the roads on Fishers Island according to Ray Jacobs are improved 15 feet wide and in some of the more densed areas 30 feet wide. So, the right-of-way here in fact, is 50 feet wide. So there is amble off-street parking right in front of the Club and extends all the way down the road where a dead end. You describe it as a dead end for all practical purposes. For practical purposes it is a dead end in that it goes over around the bend but it ends at the beach. So all along the side of that road, if cars needed to park there they could. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me ask Mr. DiBonaventura a question. Is it the reason why people don't park on that side of the street rather than diagonal parking in front of Mrs. Husband is ~age 50 - Hearing TranScripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals because they're afraid their cars are going to get hit by somebody that may be slicing a ball somewhere along the line or has it just been a unique situation that no-one has parked over there? MR. DiBONAVENTURA; It's part and parcel to the fact that the parking pressure is very limited in front of the Clubhouse on all but two days only. With that little area right in front of the Clubhouse across the street, Mrs. Husband's property, really handles all our parking near the Clubhouse without any problems at all. MRS. MOORE: At this point, I'd like to raise that issue and have them testify in their experience with the parking. MS. ESSER: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. ESSER: On the club side, of the road, there's a ( ) which we don't park on. So, we park on the other side of the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, but, the road itself is not that wide. It's a 50 foot right-of-way, but the road is what, probably 20 feet wide maybe, not even? MS. ESSER: Not even. I mean it's barely enough for two cars. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. So theTM, if you did park on that side, you could actually inhibit parking is what you're telling me. MS. ESSER: That's right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean ingress and egress. MR. DiBONAVENTURA: On our side. MS. ESSER: Oh yeah, we only park on one side and part of that's taken right down the side line. MRS. MOORE: What's interesting is though according, I'm sorry. MR. DiBONAVENTURA: No, I mean I think you're right. If you had a choice, you would rather park closer to the first tee than further down because you might get a tee shot in the near future. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Just let me say for the hearing, that was all three people who we're representing because the poor lady has to transcribe this goes crazy. All three people from Hay Harbor Club. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: me. It's another lady that does it, not Page 51 - Hearing TranScripts February 26, ]998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: According to Ray Jacobs because I called him specifically, and his man went out and measured specifically this road, and from ( ) Hay Harbor Club. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It looked very narrow. MRS. MOORE: As it did to me. foot right-of-way. However, he did say, it was a 50 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well it looks like it's 50 feet, it's just, I mean what we have paved is what the, you know most people want to drive on the road. MRS. MOORE: Oh, OK. True, but the right-of-way itself is the public way. If you could each just put on the record as far as how long you've been on Fishers Island and what your experience has been with regard to parking. That way, if a Judge has to hear this, I want them, the Judge to hear that, what the facts are with regard to parking situations. MR. ANTHONY: Bob Anthony, I've spent summers there growing up and I'm 51 years old and to my knowledge, the parking hasn't changed significantly at all in 51 years. I use to go by bicycle, I now drive my car there but that's the only difference I sense in 51 years. I also went during the summer until I was about 12 years old and came back after our first child about 10 or 11 years ago and have been parking here ( ) just as it is today and the density both in the main Clubhouse and particularly the Golf Clubhouse of course. It's just that the ( ) except for those two days for summer where we - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I didn't catch the last part that he said. He's not using the mike, I'm not hearing it well. MR. ANTHONY: Except for the two days for summer where we have our award ceremony for the kids. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: days. We happened to be there one of those BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh, OK. MRS. MOORE: Yes, unfortunately, that was the one day we were all there. SANDY ESSER: I go with my husband on Fishers Island for 22 years and I agree that there's never been more than a number of cars than the parking can accommodate. Part of that is the fact that we're only a 9 hole course. You really can only get 36 people out there at a time. So, I love ( ) Fishers Island, when we go. MEMBER DINIZIO: busy days? Well, that day we were there, was one of the Page 52 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: That was the busy day. MEMBER DINIZIO: the putty green. As I recall, I don't even think we parked past MRS. MOORE: No, we all had parking spaces. MEMBER DINIZIO: don't recall - I mean we parked on that side of the road and I CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: awards that day, right? Yes, except that, it was, it was youth MRS. MOORE: Right, all the kids were hanging around. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, the kids were hanging out and they don't, and the ones that I saw, didn't necessarily drive. MRS. MOORE: be there. No, they were mostly ( ). It was a hectic day to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't mean to be technical, I'm just saying that was my observation, honestly. I mean you're very nice people, I'm not trying, go ahead. MRS. MOORE: I'm going to have Sandy testify to most of these issues. But, with regard to the footprint, and the need for the, the footprint that has been proposed, it is very important that that remain and we'll go over specifically why. Sandy why don't you, you and I talked about the square footage. You want me to just refresh your recollection, or do you want to use my notes? SANDY ESSER: Yes, you can use your notes. I calculated the difference between the additional square footage we needed, versus the new requirement for fire safety and handicap standards. The overall addition to go the distance is 304 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the main floor? MRS. MOORE: It's a footprint. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, a footprint. SANDY ESSER: Yes, it's a footprint. And the addition handicap toilet in the corridor leading to it, is a calculation of 41.5 + 32 + 17 sq. ft. altogether.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 41.5 + SANDY ESSER: 32 + 17. The handicap ramp leading up and down from the Club is 87 sq. ft. and the ( ) egress of 203 sq. ft. which is a total of 380.5 sq. ft. So, the addition of 304 and the requirements for the new fire safety and handicap standards is about Page 53 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals 75 sq. ft. which we had to add over and above the addition to the footprint. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, let's talk why you're changing the skew of the building in reference to way the angle is and you're squaring it off more to the road than the way it is. SANDY ESSER: We're not. MRS. MOORE: No, it's the opposite. It's being set back. SANDY ESSER: It's being set back. Back 4 feet into the hill. MRS. MOORE: Let me go over that. Chandler & Palmer provided for us in writing, as well as a plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I wish I had my blackboard here again. You see that. MRS. MOORE: No, no, you don't need it. Because you have what are the requirements, OK, the front yard and side yard setbacks. But, most importantly, which I think the requirements in a sense are irrelevant because we do have the preexsiting structure and the new. You have an existing structure that's at one foot off of the front yard, it's being squared off and pushed back to 3 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's what I said. That's in effect what I was saying in reverse, OK. MRS. MOORE: Alright. Well then we're all on the same wave length. With regard to the side yard, the existing is 32 and you notice that the measurement is actually at the corner of where the bite, there's a bite in that corner. What happens is, the building is squared off to meet all the State Code requirements and the new setback would be 23 feet and that's what the plans had shown. MEMBER TORTORA: It's impossible to tell by looking at this, but, what is it about on that, I believe it probably be the west side? MRS. MOORE: problem. Let me get a plan out so that we don't have any MEMBER TORTORA: It's probably the Hopson side. MRS. MOORE: Yes, Hopson, yes, they're the only ones. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you saying along the road line? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. In other words, this - MRS. MOORE: Hopson is.behind, ( ) the first tee. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. Page 54 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals (Unknown male speaker) That's the north. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, this side? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: North side. MRS. MOORE: Yes, north side, Hopson. MEMBER TORTORA: Then, what you're doing is from the existing footprint, you're expanding that what about, we're talking about 3 feet? 3-4 feet? Oh, on that North Fork? MRS. MOORE: It varies, but, because you're shifting the building so, it looks like a, when the surveyor actually puts in on the plans it goes from maximum 4 feet to 3 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: No, this is pretty clear. MRS. MOORE: Yes, it straightens it out. That issue is very important because if you start tinkering as alternative relief, with the footprint of this building, you are in a sense going to eliminate the preexisting uses of the apartments, and that is something that would be unexcepted. Let me explain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the footprint. You already did that by taking it outside MRS. MOORE: No, I disagree. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why do you disagree? MRS. MOORE: Because the Code talks about, you've got the Code that talks about it as a preexisting use. This is a Special Permit. It is not a use that is not permitted in the Code. I think that there is a fundamental problem with the disapproval that the Building Department issues. And, I can understand why they do it that way, but, I think legally that there is a fundamental problem with it. The Special Permit use is a presumptively valid use. It has to go through the process to get that permission. But, it is not a use that is not permitted in the Code. So, the ( ) for the 243 ( ) or B is a very different - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 242. MRS. MOORE: 242, thank you, is a very different standard that you know, automatically he triggers the provision that says, you can't do anything to this building because you're now affecting a non a use that's not permitted. That is not the case and the Code says, that you can, you can modify your building if it is a permitted use. There's a recognition that when you do alterations that sometimes you have to go around what you're doing or redo what you're doing. There is a variance necessary as far as the side yard. That's why we're here. Page 55 - Hearing TranScripts February 26, 199S-Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: The building is nonconforming. MRS. MOORE: The building is nonconforming. MEMBER TORTORA: To put it simply. What you're saying is that if you accept the premise that the existing use is a Special Exception and the additional 4 apartments are a Special Exception permitted Special Exception with accessory uses and what we're looking at is a nonconforming building. Now that's why I don't understand why you're saying if you move the footprint that there'd be a difference. There would be a difference in the way this application would be handled. MRS. MOORE: No, no, because the Building, I'm agreeing with you. The Building Department in their disapproval cites the section that says you can't change this building. Because of the fact that Special Permits not in place. It hasn't been, the envelope hasn't been, the umbrella hasn't been a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why I asked Sandy that question in reverse so that it came out in reverse, I should have addressed it in a different manner. I know why you're moving the building back 3 feet. You want to get it away from the sidewalk where the water runoff is destroying the building. There's no doubt in my mind that that's what you want to do. If I'm incorrect, tell me. But, I think that's part of it. MRS. MOORE: Yes, but only in part. Sandy, why don't you ( ). SANDY ESSER: Well, the other part I would say is for vacating, moving it back from the road a little bit. It doesn't look quite unsafe for kids. They have a little place to stand before they walk out into the road which they really don't have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Notwithstanding the fact that you're, we'll refer to what Pat refers to as the bite, that you're squaring off the bite. But, by the mere fact that it's not an in place in kind, notwithstanding that, the little addition you're putting on the back there, it's not an in place in kind, reconstruction, because you are moving the footprint. This is not a tantamount issue to me, but I'm just saying that you can't say it's in kind replacement because it's not. MRS. MOORE: No, no, it isn't, but it's a De minimis change. That's what I'm saying. That it is insignificant with respect to what the law says, is a significant alteration that further exasperates a nonconformity. That is not the case here. We have a De minimis change that is the replacement of the footprint essentially with a new foundation, you know, squaring it off, putting it properly on a sturdy foundation with proper drainage. That's what's being done here. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: How much of a change though is it. Like maybe like 300 sq. ft., or 3% of the building? Page 56 - Hearing Tra~scripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Well we gave you the 308, 3 a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 380.5 sq. ft. MRS. MOORE: the equipment. Less, less, less, 304 sq. ft. is the foundation, is BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's the amount you're talking about that is bein~ chan~ed, but, the rest of it is staying in the same footprint. MRS. MOORE: Yes, exactly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You understand. MEMBER TORTORA: I understand. MRS. MOORE: You understand, good. The issue and how, if we were being challenged by a neighbor that didn't want this to occur and said, take the building that you have there and don't do anything with it. Shore up I think that was one question that you posed to Sandy along with one of our hearings, could this be done, and we gave you a financial calculation from the contractor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I contacted them about it. I didn't really understand that nor have MRS. MOORE: Well, Sandy is here and that's why I wanted to bring that up because I think that you raised it the last time and I tried to explain it, but she's much more capable than I am of explaining it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to refresh my memory. MRS. MOORE: That's alright. Sandy, why don't you come to the microphone because I don't want to lose any of the transcribe. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: hard to hear sometimes. Thank you, because it's kind Of SANDY ESSER: We looked at the three things that' you asked me to do. Shore up the existing buildings to allow for the demolition of the new foundation, because the existing foundation is: (a) Does not go under the whole building and it's not stable. So, that comes to $150,000. Demolish the existing foundation to provide for a, well first you have to pick up the building, then you have to demolish the foundation and then you have to reframe the existing structure after you build the new foundation. So, the total of that was I don't know, $150 plus $85, plus $480. So, it came out to (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I know, I just didn't understand what the $480 was. MRS. MOORE: Oh, no, that was reframe. Page 57 - Hearing Trahscripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals SANDY ESSER: 480 was to reframe the existing structure which was taking the existing structure which we have now shore up with a new foundation over it and then reframed to accommodate the new configuration. Now, as you can see from the photograph, that we've given you before, the building is actually kind of an amalgam of the number of building that the frame is on. So, the placement of this ( ) is not what we need because of the building - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: were different floor levels. And you testified the fact that there SANDY ESSER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: numerous additions. Ba~sed upon the fact that there were SANDY ESSER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. MOORE: So, it's impractical as well as various nonsense. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we know, - MEMBER TORTORA: Is that estimate that you prepared to - MRS. MOORE: It's already in your file. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's in here. It was actually during the second hearing. It came out of the first hearing, you got it for us and, yes. MRS. MOORE: OK. Also, in going along with the issue that the Town Code permits the remodeling of the Special Exception of a permitted ' use, 242A, there is a very good case the Frangella Mushroom Farms, Inc., v- Zoning Board Coeymans. I attached that case. What the court reviewed was a Special Permit that was denied where a apartment building was being, was replacing a worker housing situation and the court said, no, that a Special Permit has a presumption validity, that the preexisting structures could be replaced and that it really was in the best interest of the town to replace the dilapidated shacks and trailers with new structure. So, in similar land on Fishers Island you have a building that is in somewhat dilapidated condition. I don't want to be rude, but, it's is not in a very good condition, that's why the Hay Harbor Club Board has proposed the project that they have before you and it would be a significant improvement to what is there by the fact that it will then, the new structure will meet the current State and Federal Codes. So, it's a minor increase in the footprint of the building and it's inconsequential with regard to the standards that we have to meet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: demolition was? Did we ask you what the tOtal cost of Page. 58 - Hearing Trm~scripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: You always ask us something we don't have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have an estimate on that SandY? SANDY ESSER: I do, but I don't have it with me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: all. OK, just give it to us sometime, that's MRS. MOORE: Is there a relevance to this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. MOORE: What I did is, I did review a similar application that was before this Board. The North Fork County Club. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, God. MRS. MOORE: Oh, yes, and it was quite enlightening because you have North Fork Country Club as a similar situation as Hay Harbor Club in the Town of Southold which is much more populated than a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Burnt by an arsonist. MRS. MOORE: Burned by, before it burned down, I building was - well I was there for dinner shortly don't know. The condition of the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was burned by an arsonist. MRS. MOORE: Well, that's right, Fire Department, you would know that. Nevertheless, burned by an arsonist, burned down to the ground, just about, this 18 hole Golf Club had a building that was over 9,000 sq. ft. and the Board granted the replacement of that building with a 13,000 sq. ft. building. Now, we're not talking about 13,000 sq. ft., we're really talking about a foot because the second story consists of storage. There are habitable spaces, the first floor. So, in that particular case, the Board found it appropriate and I think rightly so to grant the Special Permit and in that particular case there was variances for parking because of the additional, significant addition to that building there were - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It said in the Code, I don't mean to - MRS. MOORE: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to clarify. It said in the Code, that the parking had to be a certain distance from the Public Highway and that we granted a variance to place the parking back into the front of the building. MRS. MOORE: Right, correct, off of the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On Moore's Lane, l~age 59 - Hearing Trah$cripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Uniquely Moore's Lane. MRS. MOORE: Yes, true. In addition though, I'd like to point out that the Code remain the same with regard to membership and the need for parking and the calculation for parking which I believe is somewhat a problem in this Code. I don't believe it effects us because again, we're a preexisting situation where the De minimus change. But, the Code requires a certain number of parking spaces for the membership and in both cases you would of ended up with a 2 acre lot. That would have been strictly for parking and the Board recognizes at that point that was not necessarily in a 13,000 sq. ft. building that the parking needs were adequate. I'd like to address the accessory use of the four rooms because it's very important again to the Club. This application is a, it's not a grand ( ) application, it is a very a, compared to the North Fork Country Club, or what, they could be asking for what they're proposing is. the replacement of the two apartments and the addition of the four dormitories. With regard to the dormitories, I know that there is more financial information that I, I point out the financial information for purposes of really tipping the scales on the balancing test. If you recall your standards on other variances, there is no point, financial hardship is no longer a standard that we're obligated to meet. It's a balancing test. But, I use the financial hardship when it's available because I think it's very important that it really sways the scale. It pushes the scales way off the charts that it would be benefit to the applicant outweighs by a tremendous amount the detriment to the community to the confines of the Code. So, I think we have some recent rentals for this year because obviously everything is staying the same. Leasing for your senior staff this year? MR. : Yes. MRS. MOORE: Also be the bearer of bad news. MR. : This also, this does include also, our moving the golf pro out of the building and ( ) to ( ) to a rental property this summer. The whole rental cost plus gross up for their W2, comes to $60,000 this year as rental. $20,000 more than what we expected. Part of that is the golf pro as he moves into a house ( ) with half of that addition, but we're already up $20,000 over what we expected to pay. The rental cost of the additional staff, the senior staff.' We determined that because of those costs, we're going to ( ) dues increase for membership this year. We try to keep that on a regular basis because as we mentioned at the last meeting, we want to make sure we have the capital budget to maintain our property in a fashion because it's important but, also because we have in the past wanted to increase our rainy day fund in the event sometime of disaster. We're just about there and we have enough money on hand to ( ) as a club to handle a disaster that we might have to face during the summer or off season like a hurricane or something like that. We will be dealing into that even after the Page 60 - Hearing Tra~scripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals dues increase this year by $20 or $30,000, something like that. So, we have ( ) addressing that as well as the additional rental cost which we're only covered 60% by the dues increase will be ( ) to this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you had owned property, you know, a house, sought of speak, an old Inn, something of that nature, you would not be forced to pay these costs because the property would be owned by the Club, is that correct? Mr. : Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not referring to the initial - MR. : Gross up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, gross up, right. I think I believe, it was either in the first or second hearing, you told us, that you investigated the possibility of purchase? MR. : Yes. investigated. That's one, one of the options we CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: what was the reason? Right. But the cost was too prohibited, MR. : Well, I guess a couple of things. We've been looking at the kind of structures that we would be able to purchase. Just the initial acquisition cost was going to be very, very substantial. Then, we wou]d have to go through a form that it's used as a dormitory. Generally we were, what we were able to find, would of required some substantial renovation to meet all of the code requirements ( ). But, that, that's the basic rules. First of all we had the building itself, the Gulf Clubhouse which needs to be replaced. So, whether we had our staff in or not, we're going to have to redo that building. Then, we have to go out and purchase the property and this option, purchase the property. That almost by definitions is not going to be sufficient. ( ) will not meet the requirements that we have. The number of rooms, the figuration meaning total requirements for that type of building and then we would therefore have to do the renovations on that lot. I think we ended up in our cost estimates, in the planning process, I don't have ( ), that cost again, estimated because we really didn't know what a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you just submit that to us sometime so that I could have it. It doesn't have to be to this day, this week or whatever. Just let me finish up with Chris. Chris, the only problem that I have, at, one of the problems I have, is the tremendous opposition that some of the Members have toward the reconstruction of this Club. During the 18 and plus years, 18 years that I've been on this Board, I have to be honest with you, and I'll state on record, one of my greatest friend, was Serge Doyen and I think one of his greatest determinations to retire was the fact, that Page 61 - ttearing TranScripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals this application was before us and that he was getting a tremendous amount of pressure. I mean on a daily basis, friends that he knew for years, that he was relating to me, that they're just so oppose to this, this only has a minor amount of weight on this hearing. I'm asking you frankly, why? MR. DiBONAVENTURA: Well, I asked Mr. Doyen that question at the first meeting, if you recall and he made his own ( ) as to what the reason was, and he said, financial. I think there may be some other things of work, but, I think I need to address what you know, your comment. You say, tremendous amount of opposition. I think that is not factual. I think that as in many, many cases, different areas of life, generally the people that are oppose to something so strongly about it, tend fo make the most noise about it. This is certainly the case with this small group and I will use that word small group of the Membership who are oppose to this. They tend to be slightly older, you know-, somewhat older than the average of the Club, they are perhaps seeing a few years of usage for the money that they're being asked to spend. But, whatever their reasons - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Clubhouse? Is it a sentimental reason toward this MR. DiBONAVENTURA: There is some of that as well. There's some of those folks are people who have been on the island for a very long time. Almost as long as Bob who have become attached of doing things in a particular way once they get to the Clubhouse. Some of those things can and will are going to change for them. Where their golf bag is, how they make their way to the first tee. SOme of those things will change slightly because where the golf shop is, there are changes occurring there. Some of those people have a difficult time with that and they have expressed those same concerns and other situations where the island has not changed. I think the folks that you have heard from in letter form to date, definitely among the group that we spoke with and that was frequently this summer and to hear their concerns of the place. I will say though, that they are representative of a true small minority of the Membership, nobody wants to pay an assessment. I don't think, if you ask any of our members, would they say that they would like to pay this assessment. I think if you go out now to the membership and ask anyone individually what they think about the alternatives that we face the Club, that they face those families of the Members of the Club, if even some of the older people who have children who are members of the club, who are about to become members of the club. They see the financial wisdom of what we're doing and now they understand because of the ( ) we voted on, ( ). So, the fundamental premise on which your question is based, I don't think is factual, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I just wanted to say that the main reason since I am on the record why Serge I think did retire, was because he simply was not feeling well and at certain times and we didn't really want him to come over if he was not feeling up to Page 62 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals par and you know he was a man in hiS middle to latter seventies and we were concerned about his health. We are happy that he did what he wanted to do. Thank you. MRS. MOORE: round local - If I could just get, Bob Anthony, his dad is a year MR. ANTHONY: My father-in-law. MRS. MOORE: Father-in-law. MR. ANTHONY: I am the Secretary of Hay Harbor Club and I've been with the Board for seven years and I guess I'm slated to be the next President of the Club. MR. DiBONAVENTURA: dubious honor. Starting in September he will be given this MR. ANTHONY: My father-in-law is a man named Arthur Walsh who actually ran for Town Justice, 8 or 9 years ago and lost and Arthur loves Fishers Island, was born on Fishers Island, and will die on Fishers Island. He's lived there all his life. He has a local contracting business and I speak to him almost everyday. He is not goip..g to bid at Hay Harbor Club project. I'm happy about that because he's going to be living in my house by next summer. He, and I talk all the time about it, who might be oppose to it, who is for it, and I think Chris's comment about, people who are for it, were necessarily going to Serge and saying I just want you to know, we're for this project. Serge heard from a few and most of the people he heard from, were related to me, I'm sorry to say who told Serge they were against it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: as President. So, you're going to have a real fun time MR. ANTHONY: It's going to be a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to go, let's just go right back to the economics that ( ) that Mr. DiBonaventura was discussing before. If I understand it correctly you're talking about the cost of operation with the accessory apartments, the cost of operation of the Club as a whole as oppose to value of the land, is that correct? MR. DiBONAVENTURA: The way we did our analysis was ( ) all of the options to our ( ) process to look at all of the costs of before and after. The existing structure, no change of what life would look like or if we would do nothing. That was really not an option. But, we looked at that as an option. We tried to value that on a present value~, basis. We looked at every other option, including all operating costs that were either incremental or reduction to current operating costs and present value. All of those l~age 63 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals amounts back to todays dollar so that we can take a present value comparison. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly, so that the construction of the additional apartment is directly related to the operational cost and not to the value of the land? MRS. MOORE: Yes, I don't think that there's been an analysis of the value of the land per se. I mean the value, it's a golf course, so, I think you have to talk in terms of operational needs of a golf club. That's why I say, it's accessory to because it's part and parcel of the running of a golf club. I use an example in the Memorandum, which is that if you were operating a summer camp, you'd have certain expectations of housing the camp counselors. One thing that I do want to point out, the two apartments, there are certain State Code requirement and I asked Sandy, I said, Sandy, the square footage and the additional, the-change in the footprints only, that is not because of the four bedrooms, that is because of the accessory apartments and the State Code Egress requirements and the handicap accessibility requirements and so on. Sandy, what is your answer? SANDY ESSER: Yes, yes. MRS. MOORE: Yes, so I'm not testifying and she is. The answer is, yes, again, the whole job isn't about those four rooms. It is accessory but, it's very important to the functional operation of the club which is really what we're talking about with more for a country club. Their functional operation, the way they pay for the club is by the restaurant. They've a very fine restaurant and I mean, you have clubs that focus on different aspects of their operational needs. Hay Harbor has a restaurant at the main facility but, this particular facility has their, has the golf club and the two apartments. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I go along that track too? MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly the overall value of the golf course. I'm talking about the nine holes and that nice practice green they have there would not be affected probably, appreciably whether this building was there or the old building, I guess. If you put a value on that golf course, it's got to be a lot of money. MR. DiBONAVENTURA: Depending on what use you were going to - MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, no, let's say it's just as a golf course because you want to stay within the rem of usefulness. MR. DiBONAVENTURA: We've estimated that we were to have the opportunity to purchase a portion of the navy property right next door and add nine holes, that it would cost us somewhere in the range of $3 or $4 million dollars. This is just some I guess, $3-$4 Page 64 - Hearing TranSerip~'S February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals million dollars just to acquire the land and another couple of million dollars to improve. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I'm not even looking at that point. I'm saying basically you can run that golf course out of a shed that you can buy here and toll over there, put your golf balls in there, you know what you need, hand your gloves up and stuff like that and still have the value of that golf course 'within that shed as oppose to you building this building. In other words, whether or not you have the apartments upstairs, it doesn't add value to the entire parcel. MRS. MOORE: I'm having trouble. I'm not sure how to answer that because I'm not sure it's relevant to the discussion. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we're talking financial, that's what I'm saying. I'm not sure, I'm not so sure that the building and how you're doing it, the cost of that building is relevant in the whole scope of this golf course. MRS. MOORE: See, I would say that, again, I bring you back to the balancing test in an area variance, OK, because it's not really a consideration for a Special Permit use. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MRS. MOORE: Special Permit is presumptively allowed and you know it has not change in the character of the area. It's there already. If anything the new building will enhance the character and the architectural features of this building will match some of the surrounding homes. So, it enhances the value, but, with regard to the area variance criteria, that's where I think that the financial hardship to not be able to do this. If you were to deny the area variance in order to be able to rebuild this building within the footprint that is being proposed. That would create such an enormous financial hardship because now you're talking about jeopardizing the apartments. You would end up having to shrink everything down because you still, well you have choices, you do nothing and let the building fall down around you which is not a ( ) alternative. Second alternative is to shrink the entire building because you still need the act of a handicap accessibility. Sandy you explained this to me very well, so I can I think repeat it clearly. You shrink everything down and you still need certain space for access. That doesn't change, so it only takes space away from other areas and that's what I'm saying, that the financial hardship of shrinking this down eliminates those four rooms that are crucial to the operation only to the club. MEMBER DINIZIO: But, the $60,000 - MRS. MOORE: The $60,000 of this year alone - MEMBER DINIZIO: Alright, I understand. t~age 65 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Over a ten year period is a $600,000 proposition. MEMBER DINIZIO: Alright, I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The last call I got, was, God only knows, I was patching a roof, they told me that the apartment that you did not show us, was not an apartment. That it was something that was added later and that it was really only two rooms. How long has that been an apartment? SANDY ESSER: I've been a member for 22 years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, and how many rooms is there? SANDY ESSER: The apartment has a kitchen, and has a bathroom, it has a sleeping room and a living room. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: years? Was it lived in though, for those SANDY ESSER: Oh, ever, absolutely, every summer. We have two cooks living in it for a while and then the tennis pro had no, should we say ( )? MRS. MOORE: Significant other. SANDY ESSER: But, it has been lived in every summer. It is a full apartment. It has its own kitchen, its own bathroom, its own living room and its own bedroom. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: at this point? Alright. Are you going to wrap this up MRS. MOORE: Yes, the only thing I don't know if you've got this in your file. Do you have a postcard? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the postcard. I remember seeing that' picture, but not BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, I didn't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll take the postcard. MRS. MOORE: Alright. For the record, why I'm giving you this postcard. There was a concern about the height of the building and the impact on the Hobson family. When you look at this postcard you will see that it is a very vegetated area. Let alone the fact that every Hopson that I think is alive, and may benefit from the property is in favor of this and would love to see the improvements. That aside the actual topography and vegetation of this site, there would be no impact on the Hopson family. So, the area variance that we're seeking means a slight encroachment to ~age 66 - Hearing TranScripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals square off the building brings you right back to the area variance criteria. There is no impact or the minimal impact by the setback will not be felt by the Hopson family because of the vegetation and the terrain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I have only two more things and then I'm wrapped. Do you want to say anything else Pat? MRS. MOORE: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the time schedule now that we're in 19987 What are we going to do? Assuming you go to the Planning Board you know, what other remaining things that you have to do, assuming there was a positive determination. SANDY ESSER: Our determination of the Board last year, was that if anything got approval, they'd break ground. We need to rebid it because obviously the market has changed, but, we would go forward at anytime. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, there's really no reason to carry this hearing on until the early spring, or - MRS. MOORE: No, no, I can't go forward with the site plan process until we know the uses are permitted, the permitted use. It's really important (' ). I think that we're very tired of, not that they don't like seeing you, but, (the end of the tape) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Beginning of tape inaudible) guess then, that's what we'll do. Well, I MRS. MOORE: Do you have any questions about the drainage or anything because the last time I was here you asked me about why would anybody want to build where you've had drainage problems, and I said, that we're having all kinds of a, remember, I mentioned that to you? There's going to be French drains and the design of this building is where the retaining wall and we have architects that are professionals in dealing with that. But, if you have a specific question, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody know how old this is? SANDY ESSER: That postcard? Probably 25 years and I Would really like it back. I have a postcard collection and Fishers ( ) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll get it back to you. MRS. MOORE: Chris has one question. I hate to interrupt you. He had a specific question, but. MR. DiBONAVENTURA: Based on your last question, Mr. Chairman, on the use of the second apartment. Short of his one of a number, he sent information on the ( ) l~age 67 - Hearing TranScripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: John Thatcher use to call me on a weekly basis and he would always catch me at the most inopportune time. I happen to be a fireman, I happen to be a fireman for 30 years, I have to be within call with an ambulance service, you know with the Fire Department, and it always when the ( ) would go off whieh is the old radios that we have. And you know, John is not a short spoken person. He's a lovely, lovely man, please, and I know I'm going on the record. MRS. MOORE: Yes, because neighborhood opposition which you're placing on the record is not a ( ) reason to deny this, but go ahead. MR. DiBONAVENTURA: The only slight point I was going to make, was that some of the letters that I know you've received from few of our members and we've seen a few of them, there is a lot of information in there that is not correct, which has been reported to you either' in error or whatever the other motivations might be. So, I just want to make sure that if there's any other question that you have or any other concern that is based on information that you received from others, other than the Board and other than from Pat, we would like to make sure that we respond to them because there has been a lot of misinformation and a lot of misinformation about this project spread through our membership because part of the effort that we had to ( ) some of you to educate everybody about it and to ( ) the Board and other people as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have told us that you've collected most of the monies that you needed for this - MR. DiBONAVENTURA: payment. Yes~ not most. We sought of created a free CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, that's right, you said that. Have most of the people made that first payment or whatever Payment they must? MR. DiBONAVENTURA: Yes most people have made that first payment. I think there are two or three people who haven't and that is special circumstances which we are working with them to actually make them new members of 'the club and still handle the things. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: what would happen? And if they didn't make the payment MR. DiBONAVENTURA: Well if they didn't make the payments and it was not a financial hardship that we couldn't work through we would never have that situation approved. Then, we would have to go through the By-Laws whereas the By-Laws, I don't have those at my fingertips now. MRS. MOORE: off, never. That shows you how many times you throw somebody t~age 68 - Hearing TranScripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: just absolutely opposed. I don't mean financially not making it, MRS. MOORE: reason to. Well, you can express your views, that's not a MR. DiBONAVENTURA: Again, it would .be an unusual situation, a unique situation. We would deal with that like we do with many things that happen at the club on a one off kind of basis. Maybe the Board will decide not to take any kind of action for any kind of sanction, but, that kind of ( ) with her, has been a separate levy and it is ( ). It's a sanction of lower offense and the By-Laws ( ). MR. ANTHONY: If the question is, if that happens, the answer is no. If their assuming that there are people who opposed to the project, they ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it has been brought to my attention that you have closed the membership as you had stated, the membership has been closed. So, conceivably no-one really wants to be thrown out of the club because they conceivably want to continue to play golf and take advantage of all the other amenities that this club offers and you know I could see that reason. MEMBER DINIZIO: I certainly heard that too and that particular closing of the membership affects land values and that you know if somebody buys the house, they like to have a place to play golf. MR. DiBONAVENTURA: That's true, I mean, we would love to expand our membership, but we can't. I don't see that we're going to be able to expand it very much just because our facilities don't permit it. But, what I don't want to see happen, if we avoided this, is a contraction of our membership which is the next step. That is what happens next because our membership goes down from what it is now because we have younger families coming in which put a lot more pressure on the club and the club facilities than the older families and older couples who are leaving. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: demolition costs and - Alright, so, you're going to get me the SANDY ESSER: You want demolition and removal? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes and Chris, what did I ask you for? MR. DiBONAVENTURA: You asked me for the comparison costs of the alternatives that we looked at. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, thank you. Because I've also received calls on that. That people have houses for sale in the immediate area and that you know, I have to go on record. These people think that I don't get telephone calls. I get telephone calls ISage 69 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, ]99S-Board of Appeals not only from Hay Harbor, from the constituents or but from everybody. I'm telling you the truth. Honest to God. SANDY ESSER: Well isn't there a problem with multi non related people in the residential zone? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, there is, but there is no family unit in the State of New York established. SANDY ESSER: So we decided against that offer for a Government issue. We cannot manage people that way. MR. DiBONAVENTURA: We want controllable, controllable behavior. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, I guess if it was back when I went to school and we had those dorm supervisors you didn't have to worry about it. MRS. MOORE: And remember this is the departments and the rules are for the senior staff. I mean there are dormitories in the main facility. We talked about that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so, hearing no further comment, I'll close the hearing based upon the receipt of those two things and please don't rush because we have a substantial amount of stuff going on now, as long as I receive it in two weeks or so. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 70 - Hearing Trahscripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals 10:05 P.M. - Appl. No. 4535 - WILLIAM and PATRICIA MOORE as contract vendees CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Request for Special Exception under Article IX, Section 100-71B(2) for principal offices (professional and business) at 51020 Main Road, Southold, N.Y.; 1000-70-2-8. Zone District: Residential-Office. I have a sketch of the site plan, February 4, 1998 depicting the present location of the building and parking spaces as planed and we have a floor plan of the building submitted by the applicants and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mrs. Moore. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. This application is by Special Exception and it is a presumptively valid use as I drummed into your head on previous applications. With regard to the standards, the use will not prevent orderly or reasonable use of the adjacent properties. Right next door to the east is the dentist Dr. Pascoe who is granted a Special Exception permission this year, 97 or 98? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was two years ago. MRS. MOORE: Two years ago. The second standard is that the use will not prevent orderly or reasonable use of permitted legally established uses in the district. Aside from Dr. Pascoe, I believe that most of the buildings that are businesses have existed there quite some time. You have DeFriest Funeral Home to the east and you have computer offices and further west hardware store. It's in keeping with the character of the community. There are some homes and. that. is why RO is a mixed use of residences and offices, professional business offices and this area. I think that in the future there has been some discussion permitting business office, professional office as permitted use in the . zoning district. However, that has not been done yet. It's still in discussion stages. The next standard is that the Safety, Health and Welfare Comfort of Convenience of the order of the town will not be adversely affected, that is true. We will comply with handicap parking requirements. There is fair access to this property and the property is over an acre, and it extends in a very .long piece of property extending all the way to the high school. So, there is amble room for a business to be conducted on this property. The use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and the intent of this chapter again by the fact that the use is a permitted use by Special Exception presumes that and the fact I hope in the near future people won't have to go through this process, it will be a permitted use. The use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and the community. Again, I refer you back to the previously stated standards of the development of the in particular this side of the street which is a becoming more commercial. Light commercial. The proposed structure's equipment and material shall be readily accessible for fire and police protection. Again the property is quite large and access is available on both sides. We have met with Page 71 - Hearing Transcripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals the Planning Board and have tentatively a resolution waiting for us to grant a waiver of site plan as long as we provide the handicap space that we've shown on the map that we've volunteered to do and the stanchions, the stops, that's not a problem. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: .92 of an acre? MRS. MOORE: What is it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: .92 of an acre? MRS. MOORE: .92 ? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's 40,000. MRS. MOORE: 40,000 sq. ft., yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, well .92 would be based on 43560. MRS. MOORE: Right. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, that's 40,000, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I was looking at. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's on the survey, it's on the map. MRS. MOORE: It should be on the map. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll start with Mr. Homing, questions ? MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions, I don't have any problems. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, Mrs. Tortora. (Heard no response.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No. CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: You're willing to comply with what the Building Planning Board I guess it said about the parking handicap. MRS. MOORE: Yes, in fact we a, on the drawing we placed it on the drawing as something that we'd recognize is something that we expected to be a requirement and rather than go through a site plan process that would need a requirement, we volunteered from the very beginning. Listen, you know, we're going to give it to you, you don't need to put a site plan together. Page 72 - Hearing Tra~scripts February 26, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: And in our decision we can say that the Planning Board said, grant a waiver. MRS. MOORE: Yes, that's fine. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just think we ought to put something that's said in there that covers you as far as you know us approving it and you having to go. over there and finding out other things. We do have a letter that says the indication from the Planning Board stated that and, but that should be made part of the record. MRS. MOORE: I think it has to be part of your record already. MEMBER COLLINS: It is. MEMBER TORTORA: It is, it's automatically part of the record. MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: In the decision itself, that's all. I'm just stating that - MRS. MOORE: Right, that it will be subject to whatever conditions the Planning Board places or you can adopt the conditions as your own. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I don't think they're going to, or they're going to grant a waiver. MRS. MOORE: Well it's going to be a waiver as long as we provided. So it you put it in your a - VlEMBER DINIZIO: Right, we put it in ou~ decision that you'll do the parkin~ - MRS. MOORE: Right, then we get the - MEMBER DINIZIO: Automatic, you get the waiver. MRS. MOORE: Fine, that will work out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I have no further questions. There's no-one else in the audience so hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. MEMBER TORTORA: Motion carried. End Of Transcript. Tile SOU ~ ~O~D TO ~ N CLEt~iK Town Clerk, Town o~~c .... ~.~"'~