Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/23/1998 HEARING Transcript of Public Hearing March 23, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:51 P.M. - Appl. No. 4550 - RUTH MILLER CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a Variance based upon the Building Inspector's January 26, 1998 Notice of Disapproval to locate a proposed dwelling addition with reduction in total side yards. Location of Property: 6400 Indian Neck Road, Peconic; County Parcel 1000-86-7-2.2. I have a copy of a survey from Peconic Surveyors, most recent date is March 6, 1998, indicating a 20 x 29.2" addition to the easterly side of the dwelling, this is the dwelling not the cottage, it's .dwelling on the water and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Stoutenburgh are you representing? Would you like to stand up to the mike and we'll ask you some pointed questions. How are you tonight? MR. STOUTENBURGH: Thank you, good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. STOUTENBURGH: I'm here to answer any questions that may come up. The survey got a little dizzy because we also at the same time were requesting letters of non jurisdiction for approval from the Trustees just so that you people knew when it came before you, that they had no problems with the work that we were planning. The addition I'm sure you noticed when you were down there, duplicates the original studio and it's sought of restricted because at was studio space. The previous transition from studio to residence was done in keeping the open studio with the north lights keeping it the way we did and the people asked I believe, 75-80 years, one of the original structures in the artist colony down 'there. Mr. Wiles is probably the best known artist from that colony ,11 land that was his studio. Mrs. Ewald who had done the conversion p ' her husband lived there until she passed away, and her daughter W s planning on using it as a year round vacation home and they've � t a family and there's two small rooms downstairs. looking to add on to the structure that separates the duplicating and Piige 2 - Hearing Transcripts - March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals its architectural integrity and not alter the studio feeling that it originally had. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Has there been any movement of any of the -, we'll refer to . it as sloping area down to the first bulkhead to your knowledge? MR. STOUTENBURGH: Frankly, I'm aware of it all. I should only get people into the basement, if no cracks or settling or anything in there, and I've been pretty much through it. I think that was done 12-15 years ago. It has been stabilized with. a bulkhead as most of the properties unfortunately have been. When these were divided up some 100 years or so ago, unfortunately they were all unlike todays 2 acres long, narrow lots. 100 acres by 4,000 feet or so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the actual height of this proposed addition is what? MR. STOUTENBURGH: It's approximately, if you'll look at the site elevation there, it's about 2-1/2 feet less than the existing studio and I believe that puts it in at, 26 or 28 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I read I thought. I just didn't remember what the figure was exactly. Do you know what the nature of the existing cottage is, that's in the rear? MR. STOUTENBURGH: I just pretty much the way it has been, it's a non heated structure with a fireplace in it, a bathroom, kitchen, one big open room. It has a cathedral, skylight, ( ) place studio type arrangement in the apartment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any plan on doing anything with that, to your knowledge? MR. STOUTENBURGH: I think just sought of maintaining it as it is. There's no plans that I know of. We've filed nothing in any respect. There had been another studio on the property actually where this addition was located about 6 feet off the property line. I don't have a historyasto why that was removed. But, I do have the survey when they filed the permit for this originally and showed it slightly larger than that studio to the east. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's my understanding also on the west side, the stoop exceeds the 30 sq. ft. , so therefore, is part of the, I'm sorry, is exclusive of the setback? MR. STOUTENBURGH: It is and - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is not exclusive. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is not exclusive of the setback. MR,. STOUTENBURGH: Speaking to the inference. Well I got that information from you people when we upgraded the survey. I spoke Page 3 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals to the owner and they said they had no problems with reducing that change and hasn't in any fashion. I think it's one of these things that somewhere down the line, it appeared and probably was missed by the Building Department, or perhaps happened afterward. It's not in real great shape and it's not an original, it's part of the structure. MEMBER TORTORA: What could you do with it? MR. STOUTENBURGH: They'd be willing to do whatever the - MEMBER TORTORA: To remove it, ( ) 300? MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes, or drop it down to that size, or a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, instead of the 8.5 or 8 feet 511, it's really, it could be 14.9 if you stayed within the 30 sq. ft. MR. STOUTENBURGH: Right, yes, and in fact, I think when the surveyor went down there, it's to be the structure itself. We've been there, it's kind of a CCA, it's nothing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had the distinct pleasure of meeting both Mr. & Mrs. Miller. I was down on a, I don't know if it was a Saturday afternoon or a Sunday afternoon, but, they had just arrived and they were very, very nice. MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes, I think they're a good addition to the neighborhood. I know her mother was ( ) stuff. worked for years doing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will start with Mr. Dinizio. Mr. Dinizio any questions of Mr. Stoutenburgh? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I pretty much took care of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: The filing I think showed that you were asking the Trustees and the DEC for statements of non jurisdiction I guess. Where does that stand? MR. STOUTENBURGH: The latest survey which I think I got probably got to you too late shows all of the contour lines and both of them had sent us those letters which if there not in your file, is OK by both of them. MEMBER COLLINS: Alright, you have heard from them. MR. STOUTENBURGH: Alright, I can show you and get you fresh copies of that. We did that ahead of time so that we already covered that. MEMBER COLLINS: Alright, I just wanted to check. Page 4 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora again. MEMBER TORTORA: Jerry, in some of your questions, the cottages were seasonal cottage? MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes, it's up on ( ) . It's not insulated, it's to ( ) cathedral ceilings and survey. I guess it's (noisy) artist ( ) skylight and there's a fireplace. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I looked in it. I mean I just looked in their window and it was bright. It's bright where that skylight so you can see right in there. OK, George. MEMBER HORNING: I'm all set. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're all set, OK. We'll see what developes. We thank you very much. We hope to have a decision for you shortly. I don't know if it will be tonight, we're a little lengthy at the moment, but, in reference to the hearing calendar but we'll see what we can do. MR. STROUTENBURGH: OK, and again they're open to any thoughts that needs to deal with - MEMBER TORTORA: The steps. MR. STROUTENBURGH: That west side and if - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The immediate thing would be, demolish the existing, and build a stoop not to exceed, I don't care if it's wood, whatever it's made out of, I'm sure they would probably want wood because it would conform to the dwelling, you know, not to exceed 30 sq. ft. MR. STROUTENBURGH: Not a problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you again. Is there anybody else would like to speak in behalf of this application? Sir, would you state your name for the record. MR. O'Dell: My name is Jason O'Dell. My mother's the property owner adjacent to the Miller's property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which side? MR. O'Dell: The left side. I guess the east side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The east side. MR. O'Dell: Where the additional ( ) is and she asked me if I could present this to you, this letter. She disapproves of the building. She has a beautiful view of the bay. That there's been a lot of construction going on over there. They've plowed a driveway through the woods and a tennis court and ( ) homes over there. I Fuge 5 - Rearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals The f? stands are gone, the violets are gone and we decided it should stop. Next to my neighbors are the MIllers - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The tennis court is not on this property, is that correct? It's on the property next door? MR. O'DELL: I'm not certain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask him a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER TORTORA: Your house is to the east of this? MR. O'DELL: Yes ma'am. MEMBER TORTORA: And how far is your house from the property line? MR. O'DELL: 15-20 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's an 87 foot lot; it appears to me. MEMBER TORTORA: So your house is about 15 or 20 feet from their lot line to the west. OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I assume, that if their blocking the water view by this, that your house must setback farther than this one does. MR. O'DELL: Yes Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you just give us a measurement sometime. Give us a call in the office to tell us what the setback is. MR. O'DELL: OK. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Approximately. Again, from the house to the approximate top of the bank. MR. O'Dell: OK, I'll bring a copy of the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Survey, sure. MEMBER TORTORA: That would be helpful. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That would be great, thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak, pro or con on this? Seeing no hands, Peter? Iii _ Page 6 Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. STOUTENBURGH: If you could hold any decision until you see those surveys. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. STOUTENBURGH: So you can get a good idea for distances on those and I would rescale mine so that both of them were pretty accurate. Just so you could see the setback themselves. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so why don't we not close the hearing then. We'll leave it open. MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, very good. MR. STOUTENBURGH: The driveway that was just put in, it was actually the sharing of two driveways and when the tennis court went in, and that previous piece of property to the west was sold, there had never been a driveway on the Miller property, that was put in. MEMBER TORTORA: It's the Miller property that he's referring to the tennis courts? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, it's the property next door, just to the west. We in fact granted that tennis court, I believe. It's in the front yard. I in fact took that next driveway out because you had that little cut and it was rather mushy down there at the time that I was done there. I didn't have my four wheel drive, I just had my front wheel drive, which is OK. I decided to take the lesser of two evils on the way out. MR. STOUTENBURGH: It's very new. But I also get you another copy of the survey if the scales don't match when you put the two of them next to each other. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. Thank you. So, I'll make a motion recessing it to the next regular scheduled date. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could we have the date April - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: April 16th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: April 16th, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ladies and gentlemen I offer it as a resolution. MEMBER HORNING: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 7 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals , 6:51 P.M. - Appl. No. 4549 - CAROL and ANTHONY LOS UADRO� JR. and DONALD TUTHILL CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Variance based upon an application to erect a corral to an existing barn, and February 13, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which reads ". . .horses shall not be housed within forty (40) feet of any lot line. Article III, Section 100-31C(8); and Notice of Disapproval dated February 18, 1998, Article III, Section 100-31A2(b) , that the vacant property located in a General Business (B) district, requires 10 acres or more for keeping horses, Article III, Section 100-31A-2(b) . . ." (Also ref. Sections 100-101A-1 and 100-101C.) Applicants are proposing corral location, including existing barn, for up to two horses as an accessory to their residence of Carol and Anthony Losquadro located at 2855 Boisseau Avenue, Southold, N.Y. ; Parcel 100-55-5-12.1 A portion of the corral/fencing would extend onto a portion of vacant property of Donald Tuthill, known as 3125 Boisseau Avenue, Southold, 1000-55-5-12.2. I have a survey dated, (it's cutoff, it says November 24th,) but in any case includes the Losquadro property and then I have survey on the Tuthill property, April 9, 1973, which includes the other parcel and I have one letter of objection which the court is aware of and I have a copy of the, and I think I have one letter of, I have the agreement between Mr. Tuthill and the Losquadros and for the lease of the property, and I have copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who might be here in reference to Losquadro? Anyone? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They're both here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, they're both here, great. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's Mr. Losquadro. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do tonight? What would you like to tell us Mr. & Mrs. Losquadro? MR. LOSQUADRO: Well a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a pleasure meeting you. MR. LOSQUADRO: Nice to meet you Sir and everybody up there. First of all, I'll start off with if you don't mind, photos. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR. LOSQUADRO: If you take the pictures here, you can see exactly basically what to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MR. LOSQUADRO: Did you receive the letter from the Horseman's Association? I PS.ge 8 - Hearing Tra scripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I did. I did read it in fact, but, I just missed it when we were going over this. I apologize. MR. LOSQUADRO: Oh, that's quite OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I have it here. (Showing letter to the Board) . MR. LOSQUADRO: You know basically what I would like to do? Mr. Tuthill is going along with it. We'd like to use some of his property. Not all of it, just some part, the rear part. All the neighbors outside of one, that doesn't even live in it. The house is vacant. This fellow lives in East Marion. In his letter he states, the odor of manure. All the neighbors ( ), they want manure. They all have gardens. They love it, OK, and he mentions about noise. I've been around horses all my life. Horses are not noisy. Dogs are noisy, they bark, OK. A horse doesn't bark. We have a problem on Boisseau Avenue with noise. We have racing cars, we have tracking trailers going through our house, motorcycles and whatever. That's noise. That's disturbing the peace. A horse, you don't even know a horse is around. The corral and the property is kept nice and clean, there's no problem whatsoever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Two quick questions. Your application says, two to three horses. What is the maximum amount that you'll have? MR. LOSQUADRO: Possibly three, but that's it. Two or possibly three. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, and the manure will be retrieved and be given to the neighbors or what - MR. LOSQUADRO: The neighbors love to have it. I love it. If they don't take it, it's going down to the dumps. The barn is clean, it's immaculate and it's just a beautiful site. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the approximate height of the fence? From the ground up? MR. LOSQUADRO: Probably 5 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, it's a three rail, split rail, post rail. MR. LOSQUADRO: Three rail, post rail fence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we're going to start with Mr. Horning. Any questions, Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. What are your intentions for use with the horses? Mage 9 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. LOSQUADRO: Well, I love the animals. I love the horses, it's just that to keep enjoying and ride them. MR. HORNING: I see. You're not going to have people come and rent them out? MEMBER LOSQUADRO: No. Just maybe people come to look at them and I have friends that would take care of them, whatever. They're not going to be rented out. By no means. MEMBER HORNING: It's a nonprofit usage? MR. LOSQUADRO: Yes Sir. Nonprofit because it's for your own enjoyment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: These horses belong to you is what we're saying? MR. LOSQUADRO: I don't have them yet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You will have? MR. LOSQUADRO: I will be, I would like to purchase some of them though. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I'm sorry George, I didn't mean to jumped in there. MEMBER HORNING: No, I'm finished, thanks. I have one quick question for Mr. Tuthill. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, Mr. Tuthill, how are you tonight Sir? Mr. Horning is one of our new members from Fishers Island, he wants to ask you a question, if it's alright. MR. TUTHILL: I'm Don Tuthill. MEMBER HORNING: Please to meet you. What makes you so agreeable to having a corral on your property? MR TUTHILL: They're good neighbors. MEMBER HORNING: Do you have any intention of doing anything with that parcel in the future? MR. TUTHILL: Not in the foreseeable future. If I can back up a bit ahead of your question. The reason that I'm probably more involved is, that the house they live in was my parents' house. It was all one. It was divided. The portion I own was divided from a house lot before my father died and now that the Losquadros have indicated that their desire to keep up to three horses, I've had no objection to their putting up a fence and allowing them corral Page 10 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals because I have, the lot is right across the street from where I live. I have no intentions, I mean I can't say what will happen tomorrow. But, I have no intentions in the foreseeable future of selling the lot. I'm just keeping it as open lot for my awn protection for sometime in the foreseeable future and as long as they know this, as long as it's done legally, I have no objection to their having the horses. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're there, is there anybody else want to speak to Mr. Tuthill? Anybody else, no. Thank you so much Sir. Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: Where do you plan on stock piling manure? MR. LOSQUADRO: It probably would be on the south side of the barn. Just right behind the barn. MEMBER TORTORA: So that would be the a, there's not too much to the south? MRS. LOSQUADRO: It's spaced between two buildings. MR. LOSQUADRO: It's spaced between two buildings. MEMBER TORTORA: So that's where you would plan to stock piling? MR. LOSQUADRO: It's not going to be much of a problem. MRS. LOSQUADRO: It's in a location that's really not visible to anyone except us, because it sits like behind our house, and to the rear of all of the out buildings that we have on the property are very large pine trees so you can't even see most of the property because the pine trees shade the property. MEMBER TORTORA: No, the only thing I'm thinking of, is there is a requirement that along with that ten acre parcel, there is a requirement that no manure be stock piled within 150 feet of any property line. So I was trying to figure out how you could do this, that on a small parcel and I haven't been able to figure that out yet. Maybe you can do that. MRS. LOSQUADRO: Well if we were going to stock pile it in, you know, how we often say, you know, what's due for sale, or we do have a trailer that you know, it could just be taken off the property on a weekly basis down to the dump. Just something so that there isn't too much being created around the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, actually when you muck out a stall you have both, it's both the shadings and the manure as one unit, right? MRS. LOSQUADRO: Right. Iii _ _ Page 11 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I mean I don't mean to get into a graphic display, you're not actually separating that, it's just a - MRS. LOSQUADRO: No, no, no, it will all just be one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me .Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just wanted to know that part of this property is in a Business Zone. It's been split down the middle according to the map that I'm looking at. MRS. LOSQUADRO: The parcel that. Mr. Tuthill owns is actually right on the north road. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. And does that Business Zone extend south to your property? MRS. LOSQUADRO: Not that we're aware of. I think we're residential. MEMBER TORTORA: It's hard to tell by looking. It's difficult for me to tell. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I don't think I have a question. It appeared to me reading the map, that the total property on the corner was zoned business and the house is zoned R-40 and that the zoning map line lies along the Tuthill, Losquadro property line. I'm not sure what difference that makes and I don't think I have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Just a couple. You won't be boarding horses for other people, it's just going to be your own horses? Is that correct? MR. LOSQUADRO: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: And we could say that in our decision that there'll be no boarding of other people's horses? MR. LOSQUADRO: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: And certainly stock piling the manure is ( ) , but it appears to me like you're going to be spreading it out in the neighborhood anyway so - MR. LOSQUADRO: Like I say all the neighbors want it. We have no problem with the neighbors as far as that's concerned. MEMBER DINIZIO: But I mean we may make some mention of that in the decision. MR. LOSQUADRO: Fine. Page 12 - Hearing Trax-Lacripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the actual linear feet of fence that you have purchased? MR. LOSQUADRO: A little over 300 I believe. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 300 feet, good. MR. LOSQUADRO: For raising the ( ) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, I think that pretty much answers it, we'll see what else develops through the hearing and we may have you back up again. We thank you for your statements and it's a pleasure seeing Mr. Tuthill again. I haven't seen him in years. Thank you again. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Mr. McLaughlin how are you Sir? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Good evening. My name is Kevin McLaughlin. I'm here on behalf of one of the neighbors, Mr. Moraitis who owns property directly across the Boisseau Avenue from where they would like to have the horses. I've submitted a letter to the Board, hopefully you've all had a chance to look at it. Basically, our position is that the variances that are being requested here are extremely substantial in nature. They're basically asking you to ignore setback requirements in that they're going to run the fencing directly across property lines. So obviously they're not going to need a 60 foot setback from property lines The other, is that on the Tuthill parcel I guess we call it, or if you take the two of them together there's only a little over two acres here and at least on vacant lot you would need a ten acre parcel. So there's a very substantial variance they're asking for if you look at that section of the code. Our position basically is, that these requirements were put in the code for a reason and the reason basically is to protect neighboring properties from whatever noises and odors and other types of things that are naturally occurring whenever you have animals such as horses around. It seems to us that you're basically being asked to ignore the code or rewrite the code in order to allow them to do what they would like to do on parcels that really don't lend themselves to this kind of activity in a very predominately residential area. Obviously that as your all aware the criteria for granting area variance are set forth in the Town Law. I won't go through it now, but my letter I think goes through it fairly much point by point and I think if you weigh all the factors at least we're very hopeful that this kind of activity won't be allowed in that neighborhood, particularly on the side parcels that we're dealing with here. As I said also in my letter, if you allow it to happen on the type of situation that's being requested in this application, it's very difficult to see where on any lot in the Town of Southold any applicant couldn't come in here and cite this as an example and said, well you let them do it on this situation, ours is really no worse nor different then what you granted here. For all those reasons we're very interested in seeing this application be denied and that you know, horses will not be allowed in the area where they're being asked to be allowed here. Page 13 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any way to remediate this in any way with your client? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I do not think that there is any way that would satisfy my clients very honestly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to be honest with you Mr. McLaughlin and I do appreciate your statements because you are representing a taxpayer and we're concerned about that. There's no question about it. But, having been on this Board some 18 years, you know we've granted paddock sought of speak, on parcels much smaller than this. I think that the Notice of Disapproval that we have here, and I very rarely ever reflect upon the Notice of Disapproval, in my particular opinion, this is just and opinion, it's only my opinion, it's not the opinion of the Board, that this is by far one of the strictest Notice of Disapproval that I have ever read and that's just my opinion. I realize that it truncates two property lines and that probably is one of the reasons why the Notice of Disapproval is relatively strict. But, it is a substantial distance from your client, which is also truncated by a rather wide road. I'm just mentioning that in general and that's the reason why I'm asking if the controls are placed within the decision, the controls that you had heard in questioning the applicants, that I don't foresee that even though we're dealing with a Notice of Disapproval, it requires what they call '10 acres. This is not a horse farm. This is a person who wants horses for his personal, her personal, or their personal use. Again, I very rarely ever critique or criticize a Notice of Disapproval. But, that's my opinion. But, if you can think of any way of remediating this, I would be very happy to embody that within a decision, but again, that's my opinion. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Again, I'm not sure. My client happens to be in Florida, otherwise I'm sure he would be here. Having spoken with him, two or three times, on the phone, I'm not at all certain that he would be happy or satisfied no matter what restrictions were placed on horses being on this property. I'm sure that if certain restrictions were placed, so that it did make the impact lessen on the neighbors, that would be better for him than if there weren't, but I honestly don't believe that any granting of this variance would sit well with him. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted you to be aware of that. Again, that's not an opinion of the Board, that's only my opinion, alright, based upon what we have done in the past and what has been the nature of this Board in looking at these types of applications and again, we have several steps that we're involved, this is not for profit, this is for personal use for a person's own enjoyment and we've heard Mrs. Tortora ask about where the manure is to be stalled, basically stack sought of speak. Mrs. Losquadro has indicated that they would put it in a trailer and they would transport it away from the site. You know the barns exists, so I mean, you know we're not going to move a barn here in reference to, the barns have been there for many, many years. Also, we have the depths of the lot that's you know, 278 feet on that one Page 14 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals side., The paddock appears to be approximately 200 feet from the property line on the road and your client lives across the street, is that correct? MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and we have at least a 50 foot road. I know that Boissseau Avenue down at as we go over the railroad tracks is 66 feet wide, so, at the very least, with 250 feet if we were directly across the street on an estimate. So, we are substantial amount of distance, I mean I'm not we, this client happens to be substantial. This applicant happens to be a substantial amount of feet away from your client's property, and we'll take the diagonal distance of where they lie in reference to the actual posting of it, you know, it's probably 300 feet or more. So, I mean it's not like being right directly in the back yard. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Again, my only position would be, the relief that's been requested here, is extremely substantial. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, on the literal sense of the word 10 acres or more. But, this is, I do not construe this to be a horse farm alright. You know, I'll go through the whole litany again if you want. In the mid eighties, the prior Town Boards were looking, the original code read, one horse per acre for every half acre over an acre you were allowed another horse. The Horseman's Association then partitioned the town to take that out of the code. We have granted applications 1.1 acres, 2 horses, somewhere in that channel ( ) . That's just a, you know I can't give you the exact name of the person we granted it to at this time, because it's been quite some time since we've done that. But, I'm just saying that in looking at the Notice of Disapproval this is a very strict manner in the way this gentleman has been denied and lady. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Well it seem to me that the code says what the code says and I don't know that the Building Department had any real choice in applying what the code says. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not a horse farm. It's not a horse farm but that's just my opinion. We thank you again. MEMBER COLLINS: Can I ask Mr. McLaughlin a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, I'm sorry. MEMBER COLLINS: Just really to ask whether we're reading the code on the same page. If the Tuthill parcel were not involved, if Mr. & Mrs. Losquadro simply wanted to keep two horses in the barn that's on their land and probably put a fence up to give them a little corral, obviously it would be a smaller corral, the way I read the code, is that horses are permitted accessory on residential property and that the ten acre provision comes in only when as the Chairman has been insisting a horse farm is involved or an operation t Wage 15 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals where the horses are primary to the property and not accessory to a house. Are we reading it the same way? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I believe that's correct. Of course then you have the setback requirements on the size parcel. If you take only the Losquadro parcel, and you meet those 60 foot setback requirements on all lot lines, that's going to make a difficult area to put an enclosure in, I would think of horses. My reading of the code, as far as ten acres go, I believe you're correct. I believe as an accessory use on a improved property you can have horses as long as you meet the setback requirements. But, if you have a vacant piece of land, my reading of the code would indicate, that it wouldn't require ten acres or you'd have to get variance for horses on that, and clearly the Tuthill parcel is a vacant piece of land and is not ten acres even if you add in it's what 1.2 acres or thereabouts and then there's the one acre for the Losquadro parcel. My reading of the code would be, they don't comply with the setback requirements and they don't have the ten acres that is required for vacant land in sense that two lots aren't going to be joined ownership, you can't call it, whatever is on the Tuthill parcel accessory to whatever is on the Losquadro parcel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well like I said, I think that's the reason why we got the ten acre situation because we're truncating two lots is basically the situation. There's no doubt in my mind in what you're saying in reference to setbacks, you're absolutely correct. I agree with you that ' ' he doesn't meet the se g Y setbacks, or they dont meet the setbacks. MR. McLAUGHLIN: But, I don't think you need to call it a horse farm in order to require it to be ten acres on an unimproved parcel of property. My reading of the code is, if you want to put a horse corral on vacant land, you've got to have at least ten acres. I believe that's why the Notice of Disapproval was .given regarding that section by the Building Department and that's my client's position that you're allowing it as a use on at least partially on vacant land when it's either 1.2 or if you add both together 2.2 acres and that's a very substantial variance plus you're allowing him to cross the boundary line and you have no setback. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you Mr. McLaughlin and I think you and I read the code in terms of how the code reads exactly the same and I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Losquadro quickly. MR. LOSQUADRO: It never seems to amaze me. I know Mr. Moraitis for ten years. We were sought of friendly. I'm surprised he did this. Apparently he doesn't know anything about horses, his lawyer doesn't know anything g about horses.. Mr. Moraitis is in Florida� da szx months of the year. He doesn't even live across from me, the house is vacant. He's been trying to sell the house for ill Page 16 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals seven momths, eight months. Before that, it's been rented. It's been rented two, three times, he doesn't even live here. He's not concerned about the neighbors. He's not concerned about the smell of odor. He doesn't live here. He lives in East Marion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but he's trying to sell his sell. Maybe that would concern him. Who knows what his reasoning is. MR. LOSQUADRO: My breeding horses doesn't take away from the community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I agree with you. You don't have to - MR. LOSQUADRO: This is Southold. This is farm country, it's horse country. It makes it better looking, rather than have something that's sloppy to look at and I'm not asking for much. I mean there's all kinds of buildings going up, this or that, I'm asking for a few horses and as you said before, the corral is set so far back, it's a good 2-300 feet from Mr. Moraitis's house across the street. It's not even near his house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My next question is. If we then can create a decision which we agree with, meaning the Board, the five members of this Board, will you accept alternate relief? MR. LOSQUADRO: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is, placement of the paddock in a different area, whatever the case might be. I have no idea. We haven't deliberated on it, we haven't even discussed it and it will be sometime before we get a chance to discuss it. This is only the second hearing tonight and we're way behind right at the moment. MR. LOSQUADRO: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you for your courtesy. We thank Mr. McLaughlin. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 17 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals 7:17 P.M. - Appl. No. 4553 - CHESTER ORLOWSKI CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; This is a request for a variance based upon the Building Inspector's February 28, 1998, Notice of Disapproval for the proposed replacement of two windows with garage door of this building containing a nonconforming use, Article XXIV, Section 100-241A, 35315 Main Road, Cutchogue; 1000-97-1-14. I have a survey indicating this nonconforming building which has been in existence. We'll ask this nice applicant which we've known for years and he wants to do some minor renovations to the building. Mr. Orlowski could I ask you to use the mike, if you would and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight? MR. ORLOWSKI: I'm Chester Orlowski. I've been in business there for 43 years and I use to have 5 to 8 men working for me for 27-28 years. But, now I'm kind of slowing down and kind of working by myself and to put this door right in front there, where the two windows are, I just want to, it makes it ground level so it's easy to come in and easy to go out and this ism main objection. n. J CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How long has the building been there? MR. ORLOWSKI: Oh, I'd say about 60 years or so. My father-in-law had it as a potato house there before I came there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you've been in business there about 43 years? MR. ORLOWSKI: 43. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good. OK, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Mr. Dinizio, this is an easy one. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No response, I guess the answer questions. g wer was no CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? Boy, we're on a roll here ere MEMBER HORNING: One quick question. You run a carpentry shop there? I , Page 18 - Hearing Tr,.ascripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. ORLOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He was a master builder. He built many, many places. You also, didn't you rebuild the Polish Hall in Riverhead? MR. ORLOWSKI: Yes I did. I built abut 400 homes. There wasn't too many guys that built more than I did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We hope to have a decision for you tonight, but if we don't it will be in the very near future. We can have it done, OK, let me just ask, is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? It appears we're going to give you a decision tonight. MEMBER TORTORA: I'll make a motion to approve the application as applied for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Iii _ _ a Page 19 - Hearing Ti-,nscripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals 7:23 P.M. - Appl. No. 4552 - GEORGE LIVANOS MEMBER TORTORA: I just became aware of a letter in the file from a neighbor who is in opposition to this, the neighbor is a Member of a Civic Association of which I am President of a active }, I'm going to recuse from this hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. I don't mean great in reference to you. I'm sorry to have you go, but, that's your choice. This is a request for a Variance based upon the Building Inspector's February 11, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.4, for a reduction in a side yard setback at a corner of a proposed accessory building (garage) located on a nonconforming lot of 7500+- sq. ft. in size. Zone: R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: 555 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck; a/k/a Lot 17 on the Map of Cpt. Kidd Estates; 1000-99-1-23. I have a copy of a survey which indicates the house in its present situation where it's been reconstructed and the applicant is proposing a garage 14 x 17 in the rear yard which is approximately one foot from the property line and I have two letters in front of me at this time. One from Madeline and Frederick Weimann and one from Christine and Jennifer Leimone. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They're opposition, right? CHAIRMAN N GOEHRINGER: Yes, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Now I'm ready, how are you Sir? Would you state your name for the record? MR. CHARNEWS: I'm Charnews on behalf of George Livanos. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you? What would you like to tell us? MR. CHARNEWS: Well, I do have a copy of the letter about the addition ( ) . I guess that's what I'm looking at first. I brought up some issues here, can we go over them a little bit? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. CHARNEWS: OK, We object to his variance. His property lot is only 50 feet wide and already overdeveloped. Overdeveloped, I don't know what she means by that, but, we measure out the square foot of our lot coverage we are not overdeveloped in that sense. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you're taking down the shed if you get permission to put the garage up? Is that what I'm - MR. CHARNEWS: Even without taking down the shed, there's still enough room you know, without going over the 20%. Page 20 - Hearing Trc;riscripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's borderline. It might be just a couple of feet over. Just a little bit. MR. CHARNEWS: We're taking it down anyway. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You're taking it down anyway. MR. CHARNEWS: So I mean if it came out mathematically we're not overdeveloped in the legal sense. And the oversized garage, the garage is 14 x 17 feet. We thought we measured out as par, which I think was 14-1/2 with the bunker thing, leaves about a foot and a half. We want to be able to get the car doors open and to do away with the shed, I mean that's about as small as we possibly could get of that door. I don't know really how we could get any smaller. We kind of struggle with this part of ( ) . So, if the garage will affect our property value, that I really don't know, nor am I a real estate broker. I'm afraid I don't know how it would affect the property value, but, as well as disturb our privacy. I really don't know how it would disturb their privacy. It doesn't say here. In addition to possible damage to the apple tree which exists in that corner of the lot. So I went there today and I measured, and their apple tree, just a moderate size apple tree, we judge it to be about 18 feet tall. It's 7 feet from the property line on their side, and at that point where the garage is, there would be at least three feet from the property line. So it's like 10 feet between the garage and the apple tree. I really don't know. It's beyond me what the impact would be. Most proximity to our property line will be our back yard activities. You know, I don't quite understand that one. The house and the property in question has been enlarged greatly and without question from us. What we did is put a second story on it, and that's about 1800 sq. ft. , give or take a little bit, modest. Nice modest, four bedroom really, four bedroom house which is a, when the Livanos sold their residence in the city, this is the only home they have now and really didn't need to do the bedrooms, for the daughter and company. Really, it's not a large house ( ), but, so that's the kind of the points that I just wanted to go over that. Do you have any questions of me? (End of tape) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Yes. You're the contractor, right? MR. CHARNEWS: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any particular reason why you chose to back it right into the wall as opposed to straightening it out and you know actually - MR. CHARNEWS: Yes, because I was forced into it by this by the geometry of the deal. To try to come up the narrow driveway, basically the garage would have to be at a little bit of a hill so when you come around you don't hit the corner of the house. You know if the garage was set three feet from the property line, you would try to hit the corner of the house trying to get into the garage. So basically that one corner, the whole garage isn't within Iii Page 21 Hearing Tr&Ascripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals three feet of the property line. It's like that front corner, see that could kind a like tilt it this way, so that if you come up to a narrow garage you could just turn slightly and go in. It was a forced situation or we wouldn't be here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright and the only other comment I have is if your applicant will accept alternate relief if we cannot deal with the one foot as it is suppose to be? MR. CHARNEWS: I don't know how else we can do it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know, I'll have to play with it. But, I'm just telling you, you know, we need three votes on the Board. MR. CHARNEWS: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, what if you reduce the size? MR. CHARNEWS: It's a pretty tough deal. I mean just to try and make this work out. I mean if we didn't need to tilt it that way to put it to that property line, we wouldn't have bothered. It's kind like, oh, oh, it looks like we've got to try and do it this way in order to be able not to hit the house in order to get into the garage, in order to be able to open the door and get out of the thing, you know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do we have a yes or no on that? Is that a yes or no on the alternative? MR. CHARNEWS: What, the alternative relief? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. Could you explain to him why? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A maybe or a - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could you tell him why? MEMBER DINIZIO: Someone should explain it to him, please. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you explain it Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I think alternate relief at least gives you the opportunity, OK, to accept something that or we just have to reject it altogether. MR. CHARNEWS: OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: If you're not, I mean if we come to some kind of a compromise and certainly we're going to take into account that you can't turn the car so far, you can't go straight in because it's going to hit the house, those kind of things. So if we can hash Page 22 - Hearing Tra.,scripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals something out that seems sensible to us, it may not at the end seem sensible to you, at least you get a decision. MR. CHARNEWS: I already have Plan B. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so you know, if you want to share Plan B, that would be helpful. MR. CHARNEWS: OK. I was measuring it out today. We were looking at it, looking at it, looking at it, and I looked if I moved the garage, this is how tight it is. I moved it 8 inches more, right, you know, how much difference it would make, where the 36 inches would come to, that it would come to the corner of the fence and so forth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 8 inches which way? MR. CHARNEWS: 8 inches away from the neighbor's property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, good. MR. CHARNEWS: Other than that, it's really, really, really tough. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was great, great oration there Mr. Dinizio on the alternate relief. Thank you. OK, so we'll do the best we can, that's all I can tell you at this point and I'll see how it goes. Was the corner of the house changed in any way in the reconstruction? MR. CHARNEWS: No, it wasn't. It's been that way for a long time. We added the second story only without changing the downstairs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The footprint has not changed in any way. MR. CHARNEWS: Not at all. MEMBER HORNING: I have a question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask, how will your clients turn their car around? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They have to back out. MR. CHARNEWS: They've got to back out. MEMBER HORTON: They will be backing out their drive? MR. CHARNEWS: Yes, crawling back out. Page 23 - Hearing Tra-uscripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's a significant amount of salt air down there so it makes it, it behooves them to have a garage because it's a, you know, it's basically a beach area is what it really is. MR. CHARNEWS: That's what happened. It turned into a year round residence and the winters down there are rough. I mean rough. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No other questions. We thank you Sir. MR. CHARNEWS: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak j in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further comments I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried: See Minutes for Resolution. Page 24 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals 7:36 P.M. - Appl. No. 4068 ELEANOR SIEVERNICH CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a carryover hearing regarding a request for variance(s) in this pending division project (proposed two lots), Article XXIII, Section 100-239 and Article III, Section 100-32, as to total lot size in this R-80 Zone District. Location of Property: 3200 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck; 1000-113-8-5 containing 163,997 sq. ft. This is a hearing that we've had significantly on this calendar and we would like to open it by having the attorney, how are you tonight Sir? It's a pleasure seeing you again. Would you state your name for the record? MR. SALVATORE: It's a pleasure to be here. Last time we were here the Board asked that we resurvey the wetlands and compute the square footage between the Sievernich's property and Frumkin, which we did do. The wetlands were resurveyed, the survey has been sent. Young & Young sent the survey. I believe you have everything that you had asked us to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I just totaled the figures up from the original survey. I just want to get to that one, give me one second. Shown on that survey, dated December 29, 1997, is that the correct one? MR. SALVATORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I have lot number 1, at upland area of 77,409 sq. ft. and lot number 2, at 74,371 sq. ft. MR. SALVATORE: That's right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And lot number 1, which is the side that Sidorowicz lives on, I have an encroachment of 2,089 sq. ft. , is that correct? MR. SALVATORE: Well, I don't know if that's correct. The surveyor did compute that because whatever that may be, if he is successful in the lawsuit, he'll have that. If he's not, then he'll have to take it off. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, . you don't know if that's a correct figure then? MR. SALVATORE: No I don't, and I don't think it is. We did get a survey from Peconic Surveyors that said something along those lines but, I would rather that we have Young & Young compute it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's fine with me. I have no problems with that at all. Page 25 - Hearing Traiiscripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. SALVATORE: See I don't know what they're computing. If they're computing the area that's shown, it doesn't look like to me to be that kind of square footage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I don't want to get involved here, but we're talking basically a portion of the driveway, a portion of the garage and a portion of the stone drive which I assumed is filled in because - MR. SALVATORE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But in any case, if you, sure, get Young & Young to compute it and we'll compare the two figures. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We had asked both sides to do it. MR. SALVATORE: As I indicated in my letter, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I know we asked both sides, but that's the figure we have. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, but they have the claim against the ( ) , right? MR. SALVATORE: In my letter to the Board I indicated that even assuming that we use the Peconic square footage, and even deducted, that square footage and the Frumkin square footage, and as I indicated, we have just as good claim to the deed lines and Frumkin has, we still have more than is necessary to construct. The big problem is that the wetlands of, excluding the wetlands presents a problem, and as I indicated the last time. I was here, the Planning Board application was made before that wetland ordinance was adopted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me Sir. MR. SALVATORE: I said the Planning Board application was submitted prior to the effective date of the wetlands ordinance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. SALVATORE: And for some reason they said to me, we didn't grandfather you in. I don't know what that means, grandfather. Grandfather means, I think, it's a preexisting and therefore can't be changed. How they can pick and choose a Grandfather A and not Granfather B, I don't think that that's appropriate, and I have Bruce Anderson here tonight who would like to speak in favor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, can I just ask you a questions. Who computed the 3,269 square feet on Frumkin side? MR. SALVATORE: The surveyors, Young & Young. rage 26 - Hearing Traiiscripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Young & Young. That's a Young & Young figure? MR. SALVATORE: Yes, that's their figure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what you construed to be a good figure? MR. SALVATORE: Well I consider it to be a good figure. I don't agree that we should give him that, because I maintain that our deed line is as good, if not better than his, and that's what Mr. Young told me. He said, your deed line is as good as his. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Well as I said, very rarely as you are I'm sure aware, that do we get involved in boundary lines disagreements. MR. SALVATORE: I know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Usually, it's cut and dry. This is what it is and so on and so forth and I'm just trying to get from a point of view exclusive of wetlands what we really had in a worse case scenario. That's what I was trying to do. MR. SALVATORE: As I indicated in my letter, even a worse in case scenario we have more than enough to have two building lots from this property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Mr. Anderson, thank you Mr. Salvatore. How are you tonight Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good, I think. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consultant with offices in Bridgehampton. I was told to briefly give you my qualifications which will include a Masters and Wildlife Biology from Hunts University, Master of Science in Biological Sciences with Syracuse University. I've worked with the Town of Southampton ( ) their wetland regulations, I've been in private practice for seven years, we've handled numerous such applications, ( ) with hundreds and I also want to say in particular that at the time when this project came in, I was under the employ of the Southold Trustees. You may or may not have a letter in your file dated, a cover letter November 18, 1990, which included a report that I drafted for the Trustees concerning the wetland issue. If you do not have it, I'd be happy to give you mine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We may have it. MS. WICKHAM: Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement. If this gentleman was employed on behalf of the town, I do not think it is appropriate that he speak on behalf of the applicant. I would ask that he be disqualified on that basis. MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to respond on that. Page 27 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll have to discuss that up here before we can make - MR. ANDERSON: If I may, the Trustees are a separate body established by the St. James patent, they're separate elected officials and they are not quote "The Town", they are indeed separate. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well the nature of your opinion tonight is what, without giving me the opinion? MR. ANDERSON: Well the wetlands are where they are. The setback provided in the survey from both the existing house and where the proposed building envelope is located, is extraordinary far from the a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're still objecting. Your continuing the objection. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Anderson, being cognizance of Ms. Wickham's requests, perhaps it would be advisable to at least consult with the Town Attorney or the Town Ethics Board to see if there is any even appearance of impropriety. We're not, at a position, our Board is not in a position to make that type of decision and certainly would not want to stand in judgment of you in that manner. However, since she has raised the question it may be worthwhile to notify the - MR. ANDERSON: I need not consult with the Town Attorney nor the Town Ethics Board because I'm no longer under the employ of the Southold Trustees. I don't particularly care whether the opposition uses this as a conflict or not. I can stand up here and state what the facts are unequivocally without any fear of appearance of impropriety. Facts are what they are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well let me as a question. We haven't gone to the Board with this yet. I mean we're still doing it OK. Let me just ask you. The information that you can give us tonight without reflecting upon what occurred in 1990, what your opinion is concerning this particular project as it sits before you tonight with the wetlands determination made by Young & Young on December 29, 1997. Can you give us your opinion based on this survey? MR. ANDERSON: The wetlands are absolutely accurate. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any objection to him making a statement based upon - MS. WICKHAM: I have, I vigorously object to his having any testimony. MR. ANDERSON: OK, then I would like to add something else that will clear it up. Application was made by my office to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to our Page 28 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, a permit is required to subdivide. The New York State DEC issued a Notice of Complete Application which will appear in the Suffolk Times this Thursday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On this project? MR. ANDERSON: On this project and in doing so, what they have done, is they have concurred with my wetlands line, otherwise it would not be complete. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you say they, you're talking about the New York State - MR. ANDERSON: New York State DEC. So what you have in essence is two independent agencies arriving at the exact same conclusion. The wetlands are where they are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Now, let's go back to the Board. What do you want to do on this? Do you want him to continue based upon the - MEMBER DINIZIO: Well my personal feeling is this is just a stalling tactics. These people have been here since I've been on the Board. This is probably one of the first, I mean the picture was probably the first picture I took with a camera for the Town. That's probably eight years ago. I think that to waiver to hear the testimony that the whole gist of the whole hearing has been what this gentleman wants to tell us. Just so we can consult the Town Attorneys is ridiculous. That's my opinion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. It's my understanding it's been on the docket on and off, not at our control, alright, the control of the applicant since 1985, but that's not neither here or there. MR. ANDERSON: And if I may, at the time we were reviewing these things in 1990, we were going through a tremendous back log of applications involving subdivision of waterfront, variances on the waterfront and what have you, because it was not the practice to bring in someone to look at these wetland lines to see if they were true and whether they were verifiable. This person may very well have been stuck in this sought of agency paralyzes for 5 or 6 years during which time certain rules change. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you this? Without causing any particular problem for this particular case, could you reduce what you were going to say to us tonight to writing and then we will have the Town Attorney look at it based upon, I don't care if you - MR. ANDERSON: I would be happy to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can throw everything, hook, line and sinker, alright - Page 29 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. ANDERSON: And you can throw it out if you chose to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that OK with you? MS. WICKHAM: May I have the opportunity to respond? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, in one second. MS. WICKHAM: No, I mean after it's submitted? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of course. MS. WICKHAM: No, I won't prolong it tonight. MR. ANDERSON: That's completely accepted but, it's your decision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, good. Mr. Salvatore, is there anything else you wanted to add to this? MR. SALVATORE: Yes, I would just like to say one thing further and I don't want to keep you. It's a strange that Ms. Wickham didn't say anything when we submitted the survey that Bruce Anderson did and then gave it to Young & Young to delineate on the survey. Now, she's making an objection. I think it's too late first of all. She knew that it was going to be done by Mr. Anderson because the Board said so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ms. Wickham. It's actually Mrs. Bressler, we apologize. MS. WICKHAM: Is this the final hearing tonight or are we going to have - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It appears that if your going to make some sort of you know, you're going to petit what Mr. Anderson is going to say, I can't see that we can reduce it to you know, written testimony, no oral testimony and then close it as a matter of fact on April 16th. You understand what I mean? MS. WICKHAM: Yes I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I don't mean that sarcastically. MS. WICKHAM: No, no, no. I think that answers my question. I would like to be able to just repeat again tonight that the applicant has not made a record that has any demonstrable fact as to hardship or practical difficulty for the reason that this variance should be granted. They're here before you asking for relief. There is no demonstration in the record whatsoever that there is any entitlement to it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. SALVATORE: Can I just say one thing for a moment. Page 30 - Hearing Tx-.scripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record this is Mr. Salvatore again. MR. SALVATORE: I can't for the life of me understand that she doesn't see and I think she's much more intelligent than that, that dividing this into two parcels, would be beneficial to her, refusal would be a hardship, not that she created, this was done when it was upzoned and that was also because of the wetland situation that we're here. If you take the wetlands out, she has enough land to build. You don't need a variance. Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: Could I ask a question Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Salvatore, I'm hesitant to ask a question because I only joined the Board four months ago and against the history of this case, that's trivial. But, - MR. SALVATORE: I'm a matrimonial lawyer, maybe I can help you. MEMBER COLLINS: Your statement that you had made earlier and you just reiterated it, that if you do not exclude the wetland, if you include the wetland in the measurement of the size of the properties, that both lots I think you said, both lots are of adequate size. MR. SALVATORE: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: And I don't really read your, these are your numbers in the letter from you transmitting the Young & Young survey which the Chairman actually mentioned earlier this evening and it seemed to me that in your calculations that the lot that has nothing built on, the empty, would be the empty lot if it were subdivided comes out around 78,000 sq. ft. I mean - MR. SALVATORE: That's excluding the wetlands. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Here, these are the figures because I checked them. It's 80,323 for lot 1 and 83,673 for lot 2. MEMBER COLLINS: Alright, but of the 80, alright, that I alright, I see where I got confused. We also have the encroachment. MR. SALVATORE: That's right. MEMBER COLLINS: And if you take the 80,000 and you subtract the 2,000 off the encroachment, so called, I realize fully the encroachment is a matter of lawsuits have not settled, but I see where my arithmetic, I'm sorry to take your time up, I see where my arithmetic went off. MR. SALVATORE: That's OK. ;Page 31 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just as a point, Mr. Salvatore, if you want to calculate the Sidorowicz encroachment, that's fine with me. I don't care, we have another three weeks to go before the final hearing and if you want to submit that, that's fine with me also. We thank you. MS. WICKHAM: Mr. Goehringer, will you take a final statement? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure; MS. WICKHAM: Thank you. I would just like to remind the Board that there has not been one dollar of financial proof as to how this applicant has been disadvantaged by any denial that you might grant. If the Board is to grant a variance, that is based on conjecture or unsubstantiate statements of how much two lots versus one lot is worth or allows relief to an applicant who merely waves his hands and says, I can do better with two lots than one lot then your setting a very, very, dangerous precedent here. It is entirely arguable that a large estate property particularly of this type, with a large beautiful home on it, is as valuable if not more than two ( ) lots who are, which are irregularly shaped in response to the location of a particular house already built, having minimum setbacks and no privacy, this is a self imposed hardship. The DEC criteria is irrelevant to this proceeding in terms of where the actual location of the wetlands when the actual location of the statute came into affect, he is affected by the new regulations that the town has in terms of inclusion of wetlands. There is no grandfather and that's clear in the statute. He's here asking for relief when he doesn't know the size of the encroachments, he doesn't know the location of the boundary lines on either side, he doesn't know the lot size. Therefore, he would not know how to compute a setback. He would not know how to compute a side yard. How can you ask for relief when you don't have the facts? I ask that the Board to deny it because there is no record despite 10 - 12 years of the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, alright. Quickly Mr. Salvatore. MR. SALVATORE: Very briefly. You have the surveys. The survey shows the deed lines, not the encroachment lines, although the surveyor does show the encroachments and those lines show the property that she owns, not what Sidorowicz would like to own and that is not within your power at this point to make that determination. This Board ask if we could settle this case, we tried. We did, but they keep insisting that and besides I like to know how many other times did Mr. Sidorowicz come before this Board to object to any of the variance. He's doing it for selfish reasons. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor or against? Alright, seeing no hands I'll make a motion reducing this hearing to written testimony only pending the brief that we're going to receive from Bruce Anderson 'Page 32 - Hearing TY-anscripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals as Consultant for the applicant and we will close the hearing in toto on April 16th. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 33 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals 7:53 P.M. - Appl. No. 4551 - KAYLA B. STOTSKY CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a variance based upon the Building Inspector's February 9,, 1998, Notice of Disapproval, Article XXIII, Section 100-231-A. Applicant is proposing a fence at a height in excess of four feet along the front yard area (right-of-way/property line) at 335 Osbrey Nest Road, Greenport; 1000-35-6-33; a/k/a Lot #6, Section I, Map of Cleaves Point. I have a survey dated October 17, 1973, indicating on which we have a one story frame house. The applicant proposes a fence to be constructed on a right-of-way, which gains access to waterfront properties from the subdivision. Sir could you state your name for the record? MR. STOTSKY: My name is Gunther Stotsky. I am the husband of Kayla Stotsky. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do Sir. MR. STOTSKY: How do you do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the approximate length of the fence that your proposing? MRS. STOTSKY: I'm Kayla Stotsky. It's approximately 100 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Do you have any objection to graduating the fence if the Board is so inclined to grant the 6 feet at let's say the last 8 feet down to 4? MRS. STOTSKY: The last 8 feet that is away from our property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The last 8 feet adjacent to - MEMBER COLLINS: The first 8 feet from the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The first 8 feet basically, the first 8 feet. MRS, STOTSKY: The first 8 feet of - MR. STOTSKY: The closest to the, to Osprey Nest Road? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, yes. MRS. STOTSKY: We would certainly consider that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, good. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? Page 34 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: The right-of-way, I went and looked at it and read the sign. I gather it belongs to the property owners? MRS. STOTSKY: To the Association. MEMBER COLLINS: To the Association. MRS. STOTSKY: Yes, right. MEMBER COLLINS: Because you had mentioned in your appeal a casual vehicular traffic, which I found sought of surprising. MRS. STOTSKY: Me too, that's why we want the fence. MEMBER COLLINS: I was surprised that anything could get down there. MRS. STOTSKY: It has been more or less a gentlemen's agreement for at least the 25 years that we've been in the area, that the traffic, that the right-of-way was intended for foot traffic only except for emergency access to the dock area. In recent years unfortunately this has not been the case and we have tried to speak with our neighbors about noises at 6:00 o'clock in the morning, dust, lack of privacy, and the Association either cannot or will not enforce the regulations and it continues and grows. We've had suggestions, you don't like it, sell. We'll use our property the way we want to and we won't be told how to use our property. Therefore, we love the house, we love the area, we have a beautiful view of the water and the 6 foot fence actually is what, is the minimum that will block us from seeing the traffic, hopefully cause an abatement of some of the dirt that is occasioned by this and still not block our view of the water which we don't want to do. MEMBER COLLINS: I gather from what you're saying that it has not proved feasible for the Association to put in post or something else to limit access among other things that - MRS. STOTSKY: There has been a post for the sign indicating that vehicular traffic should be limited to as we understood it to be the - MEMBER COLLINS: Emergency, yes. MRS. STOTSKY: The post has been moved. MR. STOTSKY: Subsequent to that, a post, originally there was a chain across - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I remember that. MR. STOTSKY: That chain was taken down by some of the people who drive back and forth. They put the post so, that they cane drive without having to get out of the car and move the post. The Association did try 6 months ago to put a chain back. The same day that the chain was put up, that night one of the people drove Page 35 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals against the chain, broke the post, the Association said, we're not going to do this anymore, put the post back. MEMBER COLLINS: I understand. One other quick question. There's a good deal of shrubbery and trees along your property - MRS. STOSTSKY: In the front. MEMBER COLLINS: Adjacent to the right-of-way, will the fence result in any of that coming down? MRS. STOTSKY: No, no, just one small patch of Forsythia and we plan to build a fence on the outside of that because we don't, as you can see from the look of our property we don't like to cut down trees. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the point of the record, the record that we have to reduce to writing. We're saying that the fence starts approximately 45 feet from Osprey Nest Road which is approximately the setback of your house? MRS. STOTSKY: Yes. We were planning a fence from the front corner of the house - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. STOTSKY: To the back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To the back, right. And how far in the property line would that be placed? I notice your line is a, it doesn't tell us how far. MRS. STOTSKY: We would choose to put it on the property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the property line. MRS. STOTSKY: If we can. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, good. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Sure. Can you tell us why you decided to start the fence parallel with the, around the house, rather than extend it towards Osprey - MRS. STOTSKY: Because if you saw the house, you'll see that there's a walkway that goes up to our main deck on the side of the house. That is also a bedroom there which is, it's annoying to be sleeping at 6:00 o'clock in the morning and have a truck go down to Page 36 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals the dock awaken you. We were hoping to buffer some of that noise by putting it there. MEMBER HORNING: So you're not concerned with the remaining 45 feet? MRS. STOTSKY: The forward 45 feet is already buffered by trees that are there and we've just left it wild because we like it like that way. MR. STOTSKY: Also, excuse me, I believe that the regulation says, that the fence must begin, it cannot begin prior to the corner of the house. MRS. STOTSKY: That's true. A side yard fence has to be cornered if the house has - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you really have two front yards by the use of the right-of-way. That's the reason why you're before US. MRS. STOTSKY: We think of it as our ( ) . We don't think of it as a front yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you didn't have that you wouldn't be before us. MRS. STOTSKY: Right. MR. STOTSKY: But the response to the question is, the regulation I believe is that it must begin, it cannot begin in front of the corner of the house. We would in fact like to have another 10-20 feet, just for the looks of the thing, but, that's the regulations. MEMBER HORNING: Another question. What period of the year do you occupy this house? MRS. STOTSKY: Year round. We are permanent residence although my legal residence is here, our current residence is Manhattan. But, we're here every weekend and my husband is here part of every week. MEMBER HORNING: I was there today and a boat was in the driveway and it seemed like you were vacated for a while. MR. STOTSKY: No, we left Sunday and I finished teaching and dashed down here to make it by 7:00 o'clock. I could have waited another hour but, no, we're here, I spend usually from Friday, Thursday to Sunday. My wife is here Friday night to Sunday. MEMBER HORNING: Alright and can you tell us who has legal access to that right-of-way? MRS. STOTSKY: I believe the Association Owners. Page 37 - Hearing Transcripts • March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals • MEMBER HORNING: Just the Association Owners? MR. STOTSKY: The road, the roads are private in MRS. STOTSKY: They're private roads. MEMBER HORNING: Yes. MR. STOTSKY: In Cleave's Point and so I think only Members of the Association and their guests have access to the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There are a lot of lots in there. MEMBER HORNING: Yes, I was there. Can you give us an estimate of 'his vehicular traffic? Is it a daily occurrence? MRS. STOTSKY: Yes. Obviously it's heavier on weekends. But, it is a daily occurrence and it is constantly dense. MEMBER HORNING: And what do people do when they go down to - MRS. STOTSKY: Well they either park their cars down and go out on the boat for the day which happens quite often, or they trace back and forth, or they will take carloads of people down to the • beach and leave the car parked there all day, or come back for water or whatever it is. But, there is a good deal of traffic. MEMBER HORNING: I see, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MRS. STOTSKY: If I may, I'd like to give you these. Also, I don't know if you have, but we have one letter in support of us, which was sent to us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was nice of her. MRS. STOTSKY: I thought so. These are the regulations of the Association. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Yes Sir, state your name for the record when you get to the mike please. MR. BRANDONETTI: My name is Ralph Brandonetti. I own the, the right-of-way separates the Stotsky' property from my property and I have no objection to that fence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much Sir. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no • further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: So moved. Page 38 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried, See Minutes for Resolution. Page 39 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals 8:03 P.M. - Appl. No. 4548 - JEFFREY WORTHINGTON CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a variance based upon the Building Inspector's January 20, 1998 Notice of Disapproval to construct an accessory building (garage) on the "as built" foundation, which is located in a side yard area. Article III-A, Section 100-33. Location of property: 1025 Long Creek Drive, Southold; 1000-55-3-28, a/k/a Lot 12, Map of Yennecott Park. I have a survey dated November 23, 1998, indicating a foundation of approximately 15 x 22 and the side yard area of this pretty parcel adjacent to the house of course and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir, would you state your name for the record? MR. WORTHINGTON: My name is Jeff Worthington. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you? MR. WORTHINGTON: Good, thanks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. WORTINGTON: Well, we moved the foundation up to that point to the house. Yennecott does require that you have a garage on your property of some type. The lot is on Long Creek and slopes down, and its wooded in the back down into the creek. We moved the garage foundation up without, number 1, knowing that it was against the code because there are quite a few trees and it's very wooded back in there. If we had moved it back much further we would of had to cut down quite a few large trees back there. The DEC has waived jurisdiction on it, the Board of Trustees did one about a 40 to 45 foot wooded or natural zone in that back area there and that was a, moving the garage forward was within keeping with that natural wooded stake back by the creed. So, we did it largely for esthetics. A couple of things happened that the garage foundation got built. Number 1, when the survey was sent in to the Building Department apparently the wrong survey got sent in and there was no garage plan on that. Nobody seemed to realize that you couldn't build a garage in the side yard and when the Inspector came and actually saw the foundation that's when he said I can't issue you a permit for a garage. We had thought that the permit, the Building Permit was actually issued for both the garage and the house. That's why the actual foundation is there at this time. I think that it would be sought of sad to have to push it back toward the wetlands and just ruin that natural area back there. That's why we've looking for an appeal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a one story garage? MR. WORTHINGTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. We'll start with Mr. Horning. Page 40 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: What does that "as built" foundation consists of right now? MR. WORTHINGTON: Just concrete. MEMBER HORNING: Slab? MR. WORTHINGTON: No. MEMBER HORNING: Footing? MR. WORTHINGTON: Footing. I'd say it's about a foot and a half high. MEMBER HORNING: With no slab? MR. WORTHINGTON: Right. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions at this time. CHAIRMAN' GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Worthington you were describing sought of the thought process having to do with the building on the land and not wanting to disturb the trees and the wetlands and so forth. Actually the way I read your foundation survey which shows the rectangle within which the Trustees gave you authorization to build. MR. WORTHINGTON: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Basically they were willing to let you go only about 105 feet back from the road and from there all the way to the creek was closed to you. Am I reading that correctly? MR. WORTHINGTON: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I mean it seems to me reading this thing, even had you been fully aware of the requirement to put your garage in the back yard, I don't know where you would've put it. MR. WORTINGTON: We don't either. It would require a lot of back filling if we pushed it back further to the slopes MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, but it's not clear that the Trustees were going to let you do that. MR. WORTINGTON: I went clown and told talked to the Trustees and they definitely wanted 35 to 45 feet. Wage 41 - Hearing Trt scripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: I see, so that would've been negotiable probably with the Trustees? MR. WORTHINGTON: We probably could've pushed it back further but I think it would've done a lot of environmental damage. MEMBER COLLINS: I think so too. Just a comment in passing. I don't know, I'm afraid you're not familiar with our Zoning Code which is a shame. People shouldn't build houses without knowing what the code says. Anyway, our code does provide, that if you have waterfront property, that the requirement that your accessory building go in the back yard can be accompanied by permission to put it in the front yard and obviously you're not going to put it in your front yard literally, but I think probably where you've ended up with, is kind of tantamount to being in the front yard and I think that's probably where the code if we're able to accommodate you it'll be on that basis. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. MEMBER HORNING: Can I have one more question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: I would like to ask.; have you considered attaching the garage to the side of the house? MR. WORTHINGTON: That's a good question, we did. We have a wraparound porch that goes around probably a little more than half of the house. So, the design of the house really does not permit any type of breezeway that would look blend in and certainly it could not be attached to the design of the house directly to the house. Do you have a picture of the house? MEMBER HORNING: We have this map. So, you're saying in your estimation, you cannot attach a garage to the side of the house? MR WORTHINGTON: Right, that's correct. For one thing, you'd have two roofs sloping down like that. I'm not a builder but, I don't think you want to do that. Have water coming in from the two roofs together and I don't think it would be esthetic attaching a garage to the house. It's just, we build it sought of like a farm house. I just don't think that it would look good with the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Wortington. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. We hope to have a decision for you in the very near future at any rate, alright. MR. WORTHINGTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? How are you Sir? Page 42 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. TUTHILL: My wife and I were the developers of Yennecott Park. We made restrictions to try and keep it a beautiful area. We added to the restrictions that it had to be at least a single garage to the idea that this would keep some mowers or whatever being left outside. This has been in force and about 50 houses have been built there. I actually sold, we actually sold the lot to the Worthingtons, informed them that they needed a garage. Even I was not aware that it should've gone in the back yard because I certainly would have warned them about it. I'm sorry I don't have a picture. He's built a beautiful house there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, we do have a picture. It's a very nice Picture. MR. DON TUTHILL: Oh, you do, OK. A beautiful house and I think the location where the garage is now is the best thing esthetically there. If it is to be moved back, it's going to interfere with the view from the neighbors, and is going to get back into the land that the Trustees would like to keep natural, and I'm completely in favor of it remaining where the foundation is now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are the covenants and restrictions still in effect on that subdivision? MR. DON TUTHILL: In 68, excuse me, what?. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the Are the covenants and restrictions still, C & R still in effect? MR. DON TUTHILL: Yes, es Ido not Y force them myself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Association now forces them, right. MR. DON TUTHILL: I did it up until the time they went in. Every house there has a garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. DON TUTHILL: I want to add one thing. Just looking at the notes there. Just to correct one little item there that the restrictions indicate that the garage can be either attached or unattached from the house. So, there are not problems as far as the covenants. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody speak? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 43 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals 8:15 P.M. - THEODORE and MARIA PETIKAS CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a two-family use at the corner of W/s Sound Road and N/s Main or North Road (C.R. 48) , Greenport; 1000-35-1-8, which requires approval from the Board of Appeals for the following: (a) Special Exception Application No. 4525 as provided by Article III-A, Section 100-30A.2 for a two-family use/occupancy; (b) Variance Application No. 4526 as provided under Section 100-31A.3 for the reason that the substandard lot size of 21,483 sq. ft. does not conform to the requirements for a two-family dwelling usein this R-40 Zone District; (c) Variance Application No. 4526 for permission to locate fence at a height above four feet within/along front yard areas based on the Building Inspector's February 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, Article XXIII, Section 100-231. Alright, Ms. Moore, we're going to open both at the same time and you can address both at the same time. MRS. MOORE: All three? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two variances and a Special Exception. MRS. MOORE: Just to be clear for the Board. In my last letter to the Board, I know that the Board has requested an interpretation from the Building Department or a Disapproval from the Building Department and the Building Department reviewed the file and in light of 100-244B determined that a variance is not required for the size of the parcel and that was based on a single and separate search (Change of Tape) is grandfathered with respect to the size. Area variances would on the other hand be required that we could not meet setback requirement for the structure whether it be a two-family structure or a single family structure. Both would meet the requirements of the code. Nonetheless because the Board has interpreted it that in an R-40, the 40,000 sq. ft. need require an area variance from the size, the lot size. I will present the arguments with regard to an area variance but I would submit that they are not applicable in this case. No variance is required for the size of the parcel. That being said, I will go through the standards for an area variance and I do have some of the presentation will be overlapped into the Special Exception. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The size of the parcel in the respect that the size of the parcel will support at the 21,000+, a one-family dwelling. Is that what you're telling me? MRS. MOORE: I'm saying that under 100-244, there is a grandfathering of the size of parcels as well as setbacks per age 44 Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals parcel. Whether it be a single family residence, or a two-family residence, as long as you can meet, as long as, one, the parcel was created prior to the zoning so it meets the standards of 244, and you meet the setback requirements in that provision, then, there should be no need for this particular area variance. That's the Building Inspector's interpretation as well as my reading of the code. However, the Board I believe in past experience has requested area variances of the R-40 or whatever the zoning criteria is that R-40 is 40,000 sq. ft. If it were R-80 it'd be completely different standards. So, I'll go over the area variance but I would submit that I don't believe that this would be applicable. I will nonetheless present the argument so we don't have a, what's that, Mrs. Tortora, did you have a question? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I think it's appropriate to say that We had some discussion about this, Mr. Chairman and I, and I confess that I was a little naive about the total requirements of this until he did call it to my attention, the Bulk Schedule - MRS. MOORE: Correct, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: The Bulk Schedule in the residential districts for a two-family detached dwelling, in the R-40 district requires an area of 80,000 sq. ft. MRS. MOORE: No. I have the same code in an R-80 it requires 120. I'm not aware of the R-40 requiring 80,000 sq. ft. MEMBER TORTORA: It's a rather an amazing thing, but, it a - MRS. MOORE: Well then it's inconsistent with the language in the code itself. So you understand though that you have the language in the code and then you have the Bulk Schedule. If there's inconsistencies between the two, the language in the code overrides the Bulk Schedule. I'd like to see the Bulk Schedule that you refer to because I don't recall seeing that. MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing is, he called it to my attomtion. I was totally unaware of it and you know he's been on the Board a lot longer than I have, but it does say that a two-family detached dwelling R-40, 80,000 sq. ft. and then there is a ( ) it says, three little iii, after it says, Roman numerical ( }, applicable, ( ) in a Residential Bulk Schedule, you go to that and you come up with the Bulk Schedule under R-80 and there is some kind of consistency here because it also discusses that for a two-family detached dwelling in a R-80 District it's the requirements 160,000 sq. ft. MRS. MOORE: I'll review that. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just letting you know rather than you know, going off in that direction. That is something that has been - Page 45 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: OK, well I will, I will go over the, with respect to the area variance, the same standards. This parcel was created in 1952. These requirements came in long after the lot was created. With regard to whether there will be an undesirable change in the character of this neighborhood, I will point out to the Board what you already know and for the record that this parcel will meet the setback requirements of the foundation. The footprint will meet all the required applicable setbacks of 244, which is the applicable section. With regard to the fence, the reason for the 6 foot high fence is that this parcel is right on Sound Avenue and requires the privacy as well as the security of having that road buffered. I think someone else mentioned today, this evening, that the noise from the vehicle, no different here on Route 48, there's certainly a great deal of noise as well as traffic that's generated by that, the noise is generated by the traffic. With regard to the benefits sought by the applicant, it cannot be achieved by a method feasible for the applicant. The Petikas purchased the property in 1985. That the parcel was purchased is on the Assessor's Record and they're here today to confirm it. If you have any doubt for $80,000. The parcel was zoned business at the time. During the period of time, from the time that they acquired title to the time that they completed their site plan, I have a site plan in the file, this zoning changed to R-40. So it was during that period of time that a significant financial hardship was created for Petikas. It certainly made a two-family residence would lessen the impact, the financial impact on that, in that at least as a rental unit with two-family rental, it can generate a return and be a much more desirable parcel than as a single family residence. This parcel has been there vacant and there has been, I don't know if you've actually marketed the parcel? Yes, it's been marketed for quite some time and never had generated any interest as a single family residence. I'll point out to the Board that you've got across the street, it use to be the Porky's, you still call it Porky's parking lot that's directly across from this parcel, you've got the entrance to Greenport, that's a very busy corner and it's on Route 48. So, it was appropriate as a business zone parcel but the Town Board at the time determined that they wanted to take business off Route 48, so be it. But, they did leave a two-family as a permissible use by special permit. With regard to the area variance it's not substantial. Again, this parcel had at one time been two separate lots. Up through 1984, it was sold as separate parcels. In 1985 when Mr. & Mrs. Petikas acquired it, they acquired it as one deeded parcel. So, at that time, it was merged as one piece. It was also business zoning, so there was certainly the development of the piece of two parcels made more sense. All of a sudden when the business zoning came off, now you've got an oversized residential parcel, oversized for this particular area. I can submit to the Board and I have my tax map but, I will transfer it for the Board so it can be more legible. All up and down Sound Road you have .25 acre parcels. You've got about 12-1/4 acre parcels. Right on to the north of Petikas is a parcel that is approximately 1700 sq. ft, and adjacent to the west of Petikas is another parcel. It's approximately 1200 sq. ft. Page 46 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 12,000. MRS. MOORE: 12,000 sq'. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right and 17,000. MRS. MOORE: And 17,000, I'm sorry. Again across the street is still a restaurant where the parking facility, the parking facility directly across from the proposed residence and that further down the property that's known as LBD Properties is the proposed Brecknock Hall Development which is going to be a Senior Multi Care Facility. So, you're talking about an area that is for the most part commercial. Well, on Route 48 it remains commercial. This area was developed long ago and you've got parcels that are on average 1/4 size of this parcel. So, this is an oversize parcel for this vicinity for the character of this area. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. Again, this two family residence from the outside, be no different than a single family residence. They can certainly come into that if you place that as a condition of the property that and I discussed it with Mr. & Mrs. Petikas would there be any objection to having a one opening front door with the internal foyer going into the two dwelling units. They would have no objection to that. So, from the outside there would be no difference. Certainly this difficulty was not self created. Again, the parcel was purchased as a business parcel. It was up zoned during the time that they owned it. Shortly after they acquired it and it has remained in their ownership since the 1980s as a residential lot and there it remains as a vacant residential lot. I requested from Century 21, an idea of what, the, in the opinion of Robert Scalia, what this parcel would be worth if it were simply a single family residence. He has presented me with an opinion letter that he states that the value from $40 to $45,000 would be what this parcel could generate as far as a resale. So, you're talking about a ( ) when the parcel is up zoned, it's lost half of its value and . right now this letter comes to me February of 98. The values of properties certainly have stabilized and are increasing, but again, the location of this parcel is not conducive to a single family residence. Certainly not one to generate $80,000 return, which even losing some money that's a significant loss. Half the value of the property. With regard to the special permit conditions, again the use will not prevent orderly or reasonable use of the adjacent properties or properties in adjacent use districts. This parcel is R-40 which is a higher density zoning classification. It is across from the restaurant, down the street from the Brecknock Hall Development, and double the size of most of the parcels that are developed on this street and up Sound Road. The second criteria that the use will not prevent the orderly use of permitted or legally established uses in the district. Well again, these are uses that have been established, that don't necessarily conform to the zoning and we have a restaurant across the street, that would of, probably is preexisting at this point. But without any evidence of going away. We have quite a large parking area. That the use will be in harmony and promote general purposes intended of this chapter. Page 47 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals The footprint that's being proposed is one that again meets all the setback requirements and is a ( ) . The proposed footprint would be approximately 50 feet by 30 feet. We might create a footprint that can be a reasonable footprint to construct a comfortable two-family home, again looking the same as a residential, as a single family residence but, with the only difference being that instead of four bedrooms for one family, it would be two bedrooms per family. Use will be compellable with surrounding, with its surroundings, the character of the neighborhood. Again the same criterias that were applicable with the area variance are standards that we should consider for special permit. The Town Board in legislating that two-family use, recognized that this use would be appropriate in R-40. If you have any questions Mr: & Mrs. Petikas are here and I have the letter from Century 21 for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know Mr. & Mrs. Petikas very well from prior applications. I just want you to review that section that we were concerned about because this is an area that in 1989 when they constructed the master plan Mrs. Moore that I had objected to. I had asked them to lessen the square footage of two-family houses in both R-40 and R-80. I specifically asked for 60,000 sq. ft. in 1988-89 for R-40 and I asked for 120,000 sq. ft. for R-80, meaning not doubling it, taking another 40 and putting on, excuse me, another 20 in the 40 and another 40 in the other and the reason why we looked at this, is, we had a special meeting last week and we looked at the criteria at that time and that's when we arrived at that particular judgment. MRS. MOORE: If I could just interrupt you for just one moment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. MOORE: I believe that the wrong classification has been pointed out to you. We have community water. R-40 says here, residential low density, one acre, two-family detached dwelling. Two-family dwelling without utilities, that meaning without sewer, without water would require 80,000 sq. ft. This particular unit has public water. Therefore two-family dwelling with community water, it says not applicable. So that I don't believe that that 80,000 sq. ft. would be applicable in this particular instance because you do have public water and I would refer you back to 244 which deals with the setbacks as well as the standard schedule R-40 which deals with lot size. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have never excluded anything though for public water and I just don't know. MRS. MOORE: I mean that's the way I read it and it seems to be pretty - MEMBER TORTORA: Usually when it says not applicable it means that a, unless, because it says public sewer and water and in some cases it drops the ( }, Page 48 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Well it would make sense that your - MEMBER TORTORA: But they didn't, they didn't in this case so that's why - MRS. MOORE: I think not applicable means that that particular section does not apply. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. MOORE: It would make sense 80,000 sq. ft. would be necessary if you had top rovide potable water for essentially two units in an acre. But, it doesn't make sense if you've got public water, you don't have a Health Department constraints that a - MEMBER TORTORA: The other part of that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? Is there still a moratorium on water in the Village of Greenport. MRS. MOORE: Well, it's, well the Suffolk County Water Authority has now purchased it. There has been a on going application process where an individual applicant comes forward to the Suffolk County Water Authority and they deal with each applicant on an individual basis. So, they said moratorium, however, there have been applicants that have been granted water as I said individually. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, go ahead you have something else? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want to give us a brief on your opinion in reference to what, I know you've scaled it, but, give it to us so we can review it with the Town Attorney prior to. MRS. MOORE: Sure, which part of - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Indicating the fact of what your opinion is in reference to what you just stated on the availability of potable water as opposed to public water. MRS. MOORE: That's fine I'll go back to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright and we'll review it with her. So we'll close the hearing as per verbatim testimony tonight. When you give us the brief, we'll review it with her, and then close it as a matter of record on April 16th. MEMBER TORTORA: Because it does make a difference only because not - MRS. MOORE: I looked at that section and that to me is not applicable, so. Page 49 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you get us a letter from Suffolk County Water Authority? MRS. MOORE: What that they're - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That they can offer water here. MRS. MOORE: But you do have your public water in front of the site, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's what I'm saying. MRS. MOORE: I mean you can't build, you can't get a Building Permit without public water. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I mean but, can you just give them a call and ask them if they - MRS. MOORE: Yes, sure, I mean I can give them a call. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MRS. MOORE: But without a specific application I mean - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean I find this, please in no way am I, I know these people very well, in no way questioning this. We had never made a determination except under business aspects a potable as opposed to public water. I just don't ever remember doing that. Do you know what I'm saying? In other words, I'm saying that - MRS. MOORE: Oh, a two-family is single - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; That that has never been a justification for granting more relief, or less relief, or granting a special permit unless we're dealing with a condo project, unless we're dealing with you know, a resort residential project, or we're dealing with, you know some other type of more intense project. MRS. MOORE: I know what you're saying, but I look at the code and it says under R-40 two-family, and in fact, the Building Inspector said, ooh, if you were in an R-80, you'd .have 180 sq. ft. of, 180,000 sq. ft. But, that's not the case in this a, in R-40. At least the Building Inspector looked at that as well and we all looked at it together, But I g , , I'll be happy to put it in writing and submit to your Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I have a little bit of a problem with a 6 foot fence in that corner. I was late tonight and the reason why I was late is because I had to wait for that ferry traffic. You know, there was many a time I thought, well maybe I'll just pull out II Page 50 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: And risk your life. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd hate to hit that fence after someone hit me in the rear. But, I'm just wondering if the fence can be somehow scaled back. I mean it's almost right at the corner now. MRS. MOORE: The height of the fence reduced down? Is that what you said? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MRS. MOORE: I think we just started wherever the house, the rear of the house would begin. I think once you put the foundation in, we would put a 6 foot fence where the rear of the property. If you want to scale it in, you know, start it at 4 feet and bring it up to a certain level, do you have any problem with that? MR. PETIKAS: No, we have no problem. MRS. MOORE: Yes, I think that's the least. They would have no problem with a, 6 foot fence it just seemed that, that was a good way of creating a buffer, but, if you want to grant a 5 foot fence. MEMBER DINIZIO: What about a garage? MRS. MOORE: The garage is going to be detached garage, in the rear of the yard. So, it would have to meet whatever the accessory setbacks. MEMBER DINIZIO: But it looks like it's in the front yard to me. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, it's the rear yard. MRS. MOORE: It's going to be located at least 50 feet from Sound Avenue. So it'll meet the 50 foot front yard setback of the BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 50 feet from the north road, you mean. MRS. MOORE: Yes, the north road. MEMBER COLLINS: You may have two front yards? MRS. MOORE. Yes, we have two front yards and as long as we meet that 50 foot setback there's no need for a variance. When we mapped out - MEMBER DINIZIO: Could you say that again please? I don't understand that. Could you say that just one more time? MRS. MOORE: Sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: About the garage. I C Page 51 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: The garage is going to be - MEMBER DINIZIO: The 50 feet. MRS. MOORE: The 50 feet, OK. The garage is going to be in the rear yard. But that, this property because it's a corner, has two front yards being Sound Road and 48. The front yard is the setback requirement. We have two front yards, so therefore, we have two front yard setbacks, 50 feet. So that means that this garage is going to have, rather than be located closer to Sound Avenue, it has to be closer to the other side. So whether it's right behind the house at 50 feet, or over some. The parcel is somewhat of an L shape, so there's room to put the garage over on the other side and they had no problem with where to locate the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I also noticed in fact talking about the traffic on the corner, that the fence is in fact drawn in a way that does comply with the code's requirements about fences on corners. MRS. MOORE: Oh, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: So I think it is back a bit out of the way. Let me ask you a question about the lot creation because your argument rests really very squarely on the provisions in the code for nonconforming lots that predate zoning and they're two dates that are floating around in this record. One, is 1952 and the other is 'i 1985, and I sought of went back and forth as to which date was which, and you said something tonight that suggested that the two lots had merged only in 1985. That the two lots individually had been created way back before the war probably. MRS. MOORE: Correct, correct. MEMBER COLLINS: But that they had only merged in 85 and I think that the language in the code about recognition of these old nonconforming lots speaks of the identical lot and I'd just like your views on that issue. MRS. MOORE: Right. We have, at the time I made the application, Petikas, I only had their deed and the property card. So what we did is, said that based on the code that says after certain date, if two parcels were next to each other and they were in the same name, they would be considered one. So with the application as it was submitted, we said, well we know we've got one parcel and we're not even, you know, we're certainly not arguing that fact. When the Building Inspector said, well when this lot was created as significant, because it'll depend, the law will depend on when this lot was created. We did a single and separate search and we discovered that the property card says this and I think the single and separate search is already in your file, I just don't have it in front of me. But, in 49, Scolly conveyed to King. King is really the relevant owner. King in 52 conveyed his interest to ISI, Page 52 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals Straussner. So in 52, Straussner by separate deed you ended up having, it says here in the property card, easterly parcel 100 feet and westerly parcel 100 feet were combined in 52. Then from 52 on even though in 84 Sfaelos Realty conveyed to Sfaelos two separate lots. At that point they had merged. So they had deeds that were conveying the parcels as separate parcels but, even at that time the parcel had merged. And then Petikas acquired the parcel in 85, certainly as one parcel. In fact, I have a site plan or the survey that you probably have, Van Tuyl, the old Van Tuyl survey identified it as two, shows the separate property dimensions. It shows the line between them. However, back from 52 on this parcel was one legally recognizable parcel. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, thank you. That confirms what I thought I was reading on the property card, but, I was getting a little lost and that is important that the parcels were treated as one since 1952. MRS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was the entire business zoned, or just the easterly piece? MRS. MOORE: To my knowledge, it was the entire parcel. I mean we have a site plan. In fact, I have it my file. If it will be helpful to the Board, I can certainly submit it to the Board. It's not useful to Petikas anymore. A site plan that showed a foundation pretty much straddling the property, the old property lines - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I remember seeing that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have it in our file. MRS. MOORE: Oh, you have it in your file? OK. We never went into the details of when, whether it was submitted, or not submitted, it seemed irrelevant at that point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nothing? Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Nothing at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. So, you're going to give us that brief we're going to review with the Town Attorney. If need be, and we have to readvertise, we don't have to readvertise, but if we have to reconvene, alright, - MRS. MOORE: Why don't we hold the hearing open? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I Page 53 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: OK, so that way it's clear we don't have to readvertise notice to all the neighbors. That way, if you have any questions with regard to the memo, I can certainly be here to answer them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. We are inundated on April 26th, so it may have to be the early May meeting. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It will have to be May 14th. MRS. MOORE: OK, so be it, sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just make a comment? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd really like you to consider that fence and just where it is, and how far west you can take the end of that fence, away from Sound Road. How far away from Sound Road that fence can be located. I'd really like you to consider. MRS. MOORE: I mean we'd be willing, I mean if you have a particular idea in mind you can certainly - MEMBER DINIZIO: My preference would be, not to see the fence at all. So we'll start from that point and work our way to - MRS. MOORE: Mr. Petikas would like to address that. MR. PETIKAS: Well the ( ) I'd like to have 100 feet from the west side of the property from Route 48. Also on the back of the property another 100 feet from north side of the property just to hide the house. I don't want to put any fence on the corner of Sound Avenue, on side of road. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about, it looks like there's a fence on the north road. Is that right? MRS. MOORE: On 48. Yes, that would be the reason for the fence. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what I'm concerned about. That fence is going to be 6 feet high? That's what he's proposing? MRS. MOORE: Well, they'd like to have it 6 feet high. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. That's why I'd like you, you know, between now and the next time we meet, to consider - MRS. MOORE: Well 4 feet is legal. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, yes, I agree. Fage 54 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: I mean would there be any problem with that with them seeing the outside? (I believe she was asking the question to her clients) . MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about site. MRS. MOORE: But if you put arborvitae or some kind of bushes on the outside on Sound Avenue - MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not worried about how it looks. I'm worried about seeing over or not being able to see over. MRS. MOORE: Not being able to see over. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. So that's why I'm saying if you get - MRS. MOORE: I think that's why they want the fence, you can't see over. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, but they're asking for trouble. MRS. MOORE: OK. Someone asked if they can speak? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just one second Sir, I'll be right with you. Is there anything else you wanted to say. MRS. MOORE: No thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes Sir. Would you state your name for the record. MR. RAYNOR: Yes. Charles Raynor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. RAYNOR: Sophie Raynor's husband. Both parcels at one time use to be Krzyminski and the corner was Mobile on Sound Road corner. Natsoulis' property, right next to this property, and we can't see having a 6 foot fence, can't see over the top of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, don't worry, we'll take care of that. No question about that. Don't worry about that, one bit. MR. RAYNOR: If you hit that road on 48, forget it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're absolutely correct. Don't worry about it, we'll take care of it. I assure you,. alright. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion, oh, I'm sorry, ma'am. MRS. NATSOULIS: Yes, my property is right next to their property and I have some concerns about it - SII Page 55 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWASLKI: Can I havey our name? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we need your name. MRS. NATSOULIS: I'm Annette Natsoulis. I'm north of the Petikas' property and one of my main concern is the fence. Going on to the north road, the main road, is very difficult with the ferry coming through to make a left turn to go eastbound. Especially when you're pulling a trailer behind you also. I'm not sure as to what they were saying, going for setback of the house. It'll be further back from Sound Road, is that correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. Have you seen the site plan at all? MRS. NATSOULIS: Yes I have. The way I see it, with the house being built over here, my house will be this way to it. I feel that my privacy with a two-family dwelling will be inconvenience because they will have to ( ) access in going directly into my patio which I spend most of the time there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to caution you, that we haven't gotten to the two-family yet, alright. We're still working on that. MRS. NATSOULIS: Well the fence I'm concerned, that is one of my biggest concerns. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. We promise you that on May 14th, that we will do a siting ourselves and tell you because Mr. Dinizio, we have the luxury of having him live down in that area and he fronts that road sometimes 4 times a day making right and left turns and so we will do a siting and we will tell you what our opinion is in reference to the setback of the fence. MRS. NATSOULIS: OK, because I come in from Queens. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Can you make the May . 14th hearing. MR. RAYNOR: Definitely. MRS. NATSOULIS: No problem. MR. RAYNOR: Even a three foot fence by the corner would be too much because the cars sit and they look out, you're not able to see. Impossible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. The new cars are lower and lower and it makes it more difficult to see. MR. RAYNOR: Even a three foot fence would be too much. Even a six foot fence from outside of the property, then they block our view to the main road. III Page 56 - Hearing Transcripts - March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, what we do in some cases and what we have done before is clip the corners of the fences and made them put them on angles. As I said, we're not quite there yet. We do appreciate your coming and you know, we're going to review this whole matter and we'll get back. MR. RAYNOR: What day did you say? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: May 14th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: May 14th. MR. RAYNOR: Are you going to inform us or do we have to - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're not going to inform you, but call us approximately a week before and we'll tell you exactly what the time is. (765-1809) . MR. RAYNOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Anybody else like to speak? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion recessing the hearing to May 14th. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 57 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore, while your setting up for the next hearing, we're going to go to take a short break. 9:03 P.M. - Appl. No. 4547 RIVERHEAD BUILDING SUPPLY CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a variance based upon the Building Inspector's January 2, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which reads as follows: ". . .1) the proposed structure being located in an LIO District is permitted to have a maximum of 60 feet of frontage on one street. The proposed building is approximately 115 ft. facing Rt. 25. Pursuant to Article XIII, Section 100-133C; (2) When fences are located in or along side and rear yards, they shall not exceed 6-1/2 feet in height, pursuant to 100-231B. . ." Location of Property: 74610 and 74500 Main Road, Greenport, N.Y. ; 1000-46-1-1 and 2.1 combined as a single lot. We have a variety of site plans. Site plan drawing S1 is the one that I like the best. The most recent date on that is October 21, 1997, indicating the approximate size of this building at 5,000 sq. ft. plus MEMBER COLLINS: 50,000 Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me, 50,000, plus, thank you for correcting me. I was only off by 45,000 and indicating the site plan of the parking area in the front and I have acopy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Good evening Mrs. Moore, again. MRS. MOORE: Good evening. What I'd like to do is for the record, describe, again, I know all of you've been there, but for the record, describe what's presently existing on the site. Before I start, I apologize, I have, I want to introduce everyone who's here, certainly from Riverhead Building Supply, Russell Goodale, Edgar Goodale, Jeff Bauer, who is the Manager, Allen Smith, Co-counsel, Don Denis, Architect, and I'm aware that there are many other individuals here, certainly contractors who are observing tonight and I believe in many cases in favor of this application. I'll let them speak for themselves if they wish to. To begin with, the existing conditions of the site, Riverhead Building Supply presently occupies 2.2 acres of the westerly parcel. It's a, the parcels are shown on a site plan prepared by Don Denis and it would be identified as Lot number 1. The parcel has a road frontage of 200 feet and extends 600 feet in depth going to the Long Island Railroad. Riverhead Building Supply contain, consists right now of retail building in the front, 2 warehouse buildings as well as outside storage in the rear. The existing buildings are presently setback approximately 27 feet from the main road. The easterly structure is 72 feet wide and one foot off the easterly property line and the westerly structure is 45 feet wide and setoff 5 feet off the westerly property line. Both structures as I submitted to you in my application together are combined 117 feet. We are proposing 115 feet. In addition, the structures are only about 30 feet apart which because of the size of the parcel leaving very little room for screening and parking. With that in mind certainly they're a wonderful client to have because the II Page 58 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals first thing that they said to me when we met, was, well what kind of variances do we need and I described it and they said well maybe we should look into acquiring the adjacent parcel and sure enough through their own efforts they acquired a 3.7 acre parcel. That parcel went through a change of zone application to LIO, the Town Board, the SEQUA review and without exception, except one extension of course, rezoned the parcel to LIO. Both the Town Board during the rezoning and the Planning Board determined that the proposed development which they had before, and has not significantly changed since its inception, will be a significant improvement to the existing conditions of the site. What brings us here aside from the security fence, is a 60 foot local law which was adopted in 1995. I went and I researched that local law to find out how it was created and I found from the legislative history, someone, certainly I will" quote directly from the record, Supervisor Wickham at the time, he stated that he opened the hearing and he stated, he said, I might very briefly preface these comments by saying that, this legislation is pursued to a policy resolution. That the Board adopted over a year ago the pledged to keep open the character of Route 48, this is the Main Road, they throw in, he throws in as a ( ) other major roads in the town to avoid strip development appearance and to keep the visual distance that are currently available for people driving through. Again he states, also, to keep Route 48 as an expressed road without a lot of traffic congestion. The Board I know hasn't changed, deviated from that intent with regard to Route 48. However, this is the Main Road and entrance to the corridor into Greenport and this area really particularly since it went through as rezoning process, the Town Board determined that this was an appropriate use at this site and LIO is the appropriate location for a lumber yard and this type of development. Certainly, it will be a great shot in the arm to the development of this area. Sunrise Coach has done a very lovely building across the way. But, aside from Sunrise Coach, and this building, there hasn't been much development in the last ten some years. Certainly Janie Mills I think is the last major change in that. Mr. Dinizio, you're more familiar with this area than I am. But, I think history, this will be a significant investment in the town. I want to submit for the record, the legislative history the local law and I highlighted the sections that or the language that I quoted to you. 183 or 183 in this particular, when it was adopted, it's another section now, deals with structures that are setback at least 100 feet from a right-of-way. This property right off the bat was setback at 100 feet from the main road. Section B talks about that there's an exception to Section A, which means that, which says, that if adjacent parcels are developed you look at the average setback of the two parcels and then you can establish a closer setback. What I did is, I also went back to a, I took a long at the site plans that were on record, as well as some measurements that we could determine from an old aerial and it appears that well certainly the existing setbacks for Riverhead Building Supply is 27, Sunrise Coach, which is across the street, excuse me, Sunrise Coach adjacent parcel is at 42 plus or minus, 711 Southland Corp. , is at approximately 35 feet. So, when you talk about an average setback of 42 and 35, 100 feet is a significant setback that we voluntarily Page 59 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals put this building and designed significant landscape offer, certainly more than 711. I think if you calculate 10 feet of 711 buffer it's a lot and Sunrise Coach has none. It's all blacktop. So this is again, significant improvement and the setback is in accordance with the code, if not greater setback than would be required reading the legislation and taking an average of the two. Across the road you have Phil's Bar which is maybe 20 foot setback. New York Telephone approximately 44 foot setback and Sunrise Coach the new building is shown at 50 foot setback. I have for the Board in addition to the legislative history, I took the site plan of 711 and highlighted the setback that is applicable so that you can again refer to that when your deliberating. I submit to the Board that this legislation is 60 foot wide rule doesn't make any sense. When you look at the legislative intent and where they were trying to address strict development, it just, it doesn't make any sense and it's just inconsistent with to start with the 3 acre lot size and the 200 lot width requirement in the Bulk Schedule. It does not address a situation where you have added square footage. We've now increased the parcel by another 3 plus acres, so you have a 5.7 acre parcel and you're still using this crazy 60 foot rule. It's a prior administration so I can beat up on it. This was really a very poor attempt to address the design of strict development and certainly overreaching for a single use business such as Riverhead Building Supply. The Zoning Board requested input from the Planning Board and they certainly the first time around recommended this application as it's been submitted. We are before the Planning Board for site plan review. It will be referred to architectural review, but we can't proceed any further until we've got a variance on the lot width. That makes sense. Because this building is over the 60 foot rule, again, Riverhead Building Supply went back to 100 feet. They have a landscape offer of 25 feet. When you compare this project to every other or every project within the 500 feet of this site, they far exceed any requirement that's in the code and that's the preface just to start with my arguments. With regard to variance criteria. Obviously I have to give that to you but, and I'll go through, that there's no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties if the variance is granted. Again, this parcel is over 5 acres. The Planning Board when they, excuse me, no, the Town Board when it adopted this change of zone had some language or their environmental consultants stated and they placed on the record that the proposed change of zone is to prevent better use and the design of the existing Riverhead Building Supply site, the company proposed the state of the art operation that will be include a pickup and pay drive through lumber building. The HD designation to prior zoning did not make sense. It's less than ideal for residential housing as it is located behind 711 store and next to the tracks and the LIO. This project didn't make sense as hamlet, Hamlet Density and the Town Board in adopting the change of zone determined that (change tape) this structure will be in conformity with New York State Fire Prevention Building Codes, Handicap Accessibility Laws. I know that I submitted a letter to the Board with regard to certain questions that you had and you have that in your file with regard to state mandates as well as sprinklers, that's Page 60 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals in your file. Again this will be a significant . investment in the Town of Southold and as far as impact on the character of the neighborhood, it'll be an improvement to the character of the neighborhood here, LIO. I'm sure you have questions on the operations of the building. Jeff Bauer whose the manager can describe for you how this, do you want to describe what goes on inside the building? And what I want you to get from this presentation, very important, that this operation that the width that's being proposed is necessary for the operations. I think you know from the application process what's being proposed and certainly the site plan and the internal diagram, but the width is based on the drive-through concept. You want to describe what's going to go on? MR. BAUER: I don't know if you want to follow with the plan. MRS. MOORE: The plan that I have in front of me is the site plan that is last dated October 21, 1997. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, the one I read. MRS. MOORE: Yes, S-1. MR. BAUER: OK, first the customer would enter through the entrance and we'd like them to stop in the retail part of the building, purchase their material and then drive to the east side of the building, enter and drive, proceed in the building and pick up whatever they purchased in a dry, not ice condition, and then exit the building on the west side, get checked out and exit. That's basically operations. MRS. MOORE: So what you're talking about here is a building with a width of two aisle width to allow for two vehicles as well as truck traffic because a lot of the vehicles that are going to be used are Riverhead Building Supply vehicles that are loaded there and sent out to the job sites for delivery. Is that correct? MR. BAUER: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask a question. When the trucks are loaded are the trucks out of the building when it is open for retail picking up and dropping off? Or, are you still loading trucks? If I was to go to Riverhead now, and see the building which is basically a smaller scale of the tremendously large building you have in Riverhead. That's not a sarcastic statement but is a pragmatic by the way. MRS. MOORE: No, no, in fact, for the record I want you to know that this building is comparing a golf ball to a basket ball. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. MRS. MOORE: OK, you understand the dimensional? i uD Page 61 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there a restriction on the amount of cars that go into this building, or, you know, the ingress and egress that exists in the in and out? If you had say 12 cars in the building, you know, picking up deliveries at certain assorted points, would that be the max that would be in the building, or what's happening in Riverhead in that respect? MR. BAUER: Well, they'd be parking on the side of the aisles for people picking up, so there will always be egress through the center aisle for a vehicle exiting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. This building is 50,000 sq. ft. The one in Riverhead is what, 200,000? MRS. MOORE: Riverhead is actually 123,000. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Riverhead is 123,000. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You were asking about outside lines. Your first question was about outside lines. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, what I'm saying is, there is no outside line use. You're stacking cars outside? How many cars are you allowing in the building? Have you determined that at all? MR. BAUER: No we haven't. It all depends on ( ) business. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, the question I had, was, are you loading and off loading Riverhead Building Supply vehicles at the same time that, apart from forklifts going in? I'm talking about plated registered vehicles, OK, the trucks that you use that we see all over on the Expressway, you know, all over, Southold Town, Riverhead Town. Again, not a sarcastic statement, a statement of pragmatic significance. Are you loading those and off loading those at the time that retail cars are in there working? MR. BAUER: They will be loading outside the building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They will be loaded outside the building. So you'll be going in and out with forklifts with the material off loading those, I mean loading and unloading those trucks outside. MRS. MOORE: I'm not sure if that's a completely accurate statement. No offense, but I think that, well obviously depending on the degree of traffic. I think that's basic. But the facility can accommodate loading their own vehicles internally as well as loaning customers vehicles, which are mostly the contractor's bringing their trucks. So, you know, we can accommodate them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This was just happen to be at a point that I wanted to ask that question and I don't mean to convolute the question. It's only a question that I had, that I was concerned about. I've been in the Riverhead building, I had not seen loading Page 62 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals and of both, you know, individual customers' vehicles, alright, be them trucks .or cars or whatever the case might be or wheeldrives, whatever the case might be and I'm not seeing that, so I would hope that you would allow us to go up there and look at that. MRS. MOORE: You're welcome at anytime, sure. In fact, come into the office and let yourself be known and you'll get the tour. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, good. Go ahead, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to stop you. MRS. MOORE: No, that's alright. I think that the point that I want to stress is that, the width of the aisle, both ingress and egress, because you are talking about a flow here, the width of the materials, correct, and the center as well as on the sides. MR. BAUER: Yes. MRS. MOORE: That the vehicles, two vehicles have to be able to pass through. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's the purpose of the 115 feet, is what you're telling. MRS. MOORE: Exactly, exactly. So when we're talking about the need for something greater than 60 feet, again, the use of this building and the Town Board identified it through their secret process it is unique. The Planning Board in their recommendation said, this is a unique concept. That it's essentially covering storage. The storage that is now outside in the yard and the materials that can be affected by the elements are now going to be neatly stored, drive in the elements and while you always had Class A number 1 materials, now they'll be even better. So, true, it's true. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Lydia has a question, Pat. MEMBER TORTORA: The flow of traffic on both of the west access and egress and the east access is two way, correct? MRS. MOORE: Yes. The state route entrances? MEMBER COLLINS: From the highway. MRS. MOORE: From the high, from main road, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: And yet, that's what I'm trying to figure out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's one way. MR. BAUER: The arrows are pointing one way. (Everyone making various comments. ) Page 63 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: The access to Route 25, in both access areas. On both sides of the building. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER TORTORA: It's two way traffic. MRS. MOORE: You read that correctly. MEMBER TORTORA: Good. Now, my question is this. If someone is coming in from the east side, and they want to come through the building to go, because there is only one in and out _ MRS. MOORE: Yes, you have a one way. MEMBER TORTORA: Method. So, I'm just trying to figure out, how would they get to into the building from the east side? MRS. MOORE: The site plan is as a law, is the flow of traffic, you're not talking about narrow corners here of the, for site purposes? MEMBER TORTORA: No. MRS. MOORE: You have certainly wide enough aisles that if you have somebody coming from the west, that has to come in through the entrance on the east, they will go by the retail center, presumably stop at the retail, pick-up whatever it is that they need from the retail department, or go directly into the lumber storage, coverage storage area and come in. These are site plan issues that the Planning didn't seem to have a problem and this is - MEMBER TORTORA: I was just curious because I was looking at the way the traffic was flowing and trying to figure out. It's very clear how you go through the building, but, there's only one entrance to the building. That's from the east side of the building and if you're accessing it from the west side, I was trying to figure out how you would do that. MRS. MOORE: Well, I think the site plan pretty much identifies where the traffic will or might go. I think Allen can address, your need to the traffic flow as experienced in the vehicular trips that are anticipated. But, this is not a heavily used site, certainly they're going to hope that they'll get increased use, but, - MEMBER TORTORA: The other question I had was, that I noticed it on the site plan it says, that the required number of spaces is 91 spaces and you're providing 48 and - MRS. MOORE: Yes. What you're, the way the parking is calculated, they're using the covered storage, which if you didn't cover the storage area, this whole area is storage, there would be no parking calculations for storage. It's not a, there's no Page 64 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals generation of parking for storage. What they have is a calculation of what they anticipate are the needs of the retail. So really the parking is for the most part addressing the retail use, with certainly some parking that's needed for the wholesale end of it. The, I don't want to say wholesale, the lumber storage, the loading area. If the Planning Department deems that it's necessary to have more parking, they have certainly a great deal of land that they can land bank and have additional parking, but, they're familiar with the degree of use of their facility and certainly the parking, this parking is extremely important to Riverhead Building Supply because it is the retail parking. It's where you and I would go in to buy our nuts and bolts. I wouldn't go through that facility most likely with my Minivan. It's kind of sexist, but I think I'd send my husband to do that. I would go into the retail center and pick out whatever I needed. I can say that because I'm female. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore, Ms. Collins has a question of Mr. Bauer. You have a question of Mr. Bauer? MEMBER COLLINS: I would like to ask a question while Mr. Bauer is standing there and where on this topic, because I guess, I guess the questions that largely occur to me are echoed here about sought of physically, how it'll work, how will the traffic move, because that has implications for how it'll appease the neighbor and so forth? When you first started to describe it Mr. Bauer, you said, well now the customers will come in from the highway and I think you said, and they would park and go to the retail operation and then proceed to the warehouse for pickup. Now, obviously sought of broadly speaking, two different kinds of customers. There's me, when I want something, that would probably have to come from the warehouse, but, isn't very big and it'll fit in the back of my station wagon. And, then there's the contractor, who doesn't get your truck to his site who comes with his own truck. Is that broadly speaking the two kinds of customers that there are? MR. BAUER & MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Obviously, if I show up, I'm going to park out near retail and go get somebody to hold my hand while I figure out what it is I really need. Will all of the professional customers also park and go talk to someone sought of in the front of the operation before they go and pick up? MRS. MOORE: Before you answer that. Only because you don't operate. How it's operated in Riverhead might be more helpful, because obviously in all fairness to Jeff, I'm kind of putting him on the spot. This will develop in the ( ) system will be ironed out throughout the system, but I think - MEMBER COLLINS: I understand that, I just like a concept here. MRS. MOORE: No, that alright. I mean if you feel comfortable with a concept but, I think that if you want to hear how it's handled in Page 65 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals Riverhead, I think that that's gotten at least a month's wear and tear without the - MR. BAUER: A month and a half. MRS. MOORE: A month and a half, OK. Who would like to describe a little bit. MR. EDGAR GOODALE: What do we want to know? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I need to know his name again, please. CHATRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's Edgar Goodale. Edgar could you just explain in a very mild brief sense, how the person must go to the retail portion of the building to get the yellow slip for the articles they must pick up in the back? You know, I mean, very rarely is anyone ever going to go right directly into the storage warehouse without having their pickup slip, right? MR. EDGAR GOODALE: Quite the contrary that's not particularly true. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's not particularly true. OK, would you clear that up then for us? Lora listen to this. MRS. MOORE: Two examples. One is a contractor and one is I'm coming in to buy a - MR. EDGAR GOODALE: Pat Moore comes in and she'll come in to the front, she'll come into the front retail area, and she'll come and talk to somebody and we'll give her a, she'll pick out what ever she wants in the store, and then, by chance, she may want a, she was told to pick up one piece of molding. So she wants to go through to get that. We will give her a ticket, she will then drive around the building, go through on the east side of the building, stop where the molding is, get it, go out. The other part is, is when a contractor or whomever comes in and is familiar with the operation, knows what he wants, knows that it's not in the store, he just wants to go pick up that piece of molding. He can go directly into the building, get that, get billed out on the way out and be on his way and never enter the retail store. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So there's no reason to go into the retail store then. MR. EDGAR GOODALE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's the way it's working in Riverhead right now? MR. EDGAR GOODALE: Right and so far it's only a month and a half old for any of ( }, between 40 - 50% of the people do not go into the retail store. Page 66 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 199$-Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Right. Thank you. That is precisely the question I was asking, and the reason why I was asking it, is because parking is certainly a relevant question in these things and the footnote on the site plan states with respect to the number of parking places that they translated it says, there are fewer than might be required on a scheduled basis, partly because some of our customers are never going to park. That, that's how it translate and I wanted to hear that from you. That some of your customers are never going to park. They are going to arrive, drive through and go away? MR. EDGAR GOODALE: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the same access that you have in the retail store for the aspect of charging this to a particular customer, or, a cash sale, can exist at what you referred to as the checkout booth. MR. EDGAR GOODALE: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. So they can either pay cash or have their account credited and so on and so forth. Alright, that's good. MRS. MOORE: So I think I've addressed the element of that the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible by the applicant to pursue. Again, you now are familiar with the operation of the building and how the drive through, the loading all works in trendily within this building. Again, that's why the width is what it is. Whether or not the area variance is subs-tantial, is a question that certainly you will consider. But, we have to balance the, use the balancing test that weighs in favor of the grant of this variance. If in particular, I mean this is why I get so frustrated with the 60 foot rule, because to start with, if you ask Planning, where did you come up with 60 feet? And, they will unabashedly admit, well we just kind of pulled it out from the air. You know, it really makes, it's not a related to any particular thought process. They really just use 60 feet and I think on a three acre parcel or a what the Zoning Code requires, marginally makes some sense. I won't even say it makes sense, but, marginally there's some justification. On a five acre parcel it makes absolutely no sense. If we were to take out the 60 foot rule, there would be the setbacks that would be required and we could have, I mean maybe there's a reason to have the width requirement, because we could have as much as 265 feet in width. That would not, certainly not be the case here. But, if you, if you look at LIO and the users, and the industrial users, that are considered there. If you were in the business of designing luxury yachts, for some reason, and your clientele buys steamship liners, I mean this is the kind of ship that they would design. LIO is where you would send them. The zoning is the appropriate zoning. And, the building has to make sense, and the width of the building has to make sense in light of the use. So, the 60 foot rule I think eventually may be reconsidered and I think in a certain way they were trying to draft Page 67 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals something that mitigated the 60 foot rule because it talked about, again, if you were dealing with stripped development you would have Paragraph C that talked about, separate structures and that no single structures have to have more than 60 feet, ( ) that if you were setback with multiple structures you go back to 75 feet. So, there was some thought process about, OK, you're going to stagger, if you had a strip development, which is I think what they were trying to address, not very well here, but, that was the attempt, you would push back to 75 feet or so. Again, we're back to 100 feet and 60 width doesn't make sense. The variance will have no adverse affect or impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. That has already been determined through the change of zone process and the SEQUA process. The alleged difficulty was not self created. If anything, they made, they were abundantly cautious by purchasing the adjacent parcel, being able to develope this parcel with full buffers, with full screening, adequate parking. I mean really this is, again, if I had all my clients that were like this, I'd have a very easy time before this Board. With regard to the fence height, it's obvious that this is a security fence. There is an existing 6 foot high fence around the existing perimeter of Riverhead Building Supply, and now with the additional acreage, they'd like to continue that around. It's obvious that you need to have some security in, the fence height wouldn't be adequate. The code would not be adequate. The various request is minimal variance practical given the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant. This is a state of the art complex. The only other complex of this nature is the one in Riverhead and I think it's been described to you how it works. I do have just the front end of the Riverhead Building Supply site because when we asked the architect, I think it was, we asked the architect to give us the same scale so you would know, you know, applying the same scale to our plan as a Riverhead Building Supply site. We could get the entire building within just a part of Riverhead Building Supply in Riverhead. Again, the site, Riverhead site is so much larger than this piece and if any questions come up with regard to comparing the two, you have a significantly smaller site here which is certainly in proportion with the development of this area and they think with the needs of this area. I believe that the Planning Department actually identified it accurately that most of the clientele that's here, hopefully they will increase the uses, but, it's mostly for this area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what you're saying, is the front of the "building in Riverhead is going to be similar to the front of the building? MRS. MOORE: No, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, what are you saying? MRS. MOORE: I wasn't very { }, .I apologize. What we did is, because there might have been some questions on what (someone coughing) comparing Riverhead, I think that maybe one of the neighbors came in to review the file and sent a letter concerned Fage 68 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals about this development and identifying it with the Riverhead development, particularly the brochure that was sent out through the mail. I know I got it. I know it's important to your record. (Yes, you got it) . That shows the beautiful rendering of the Riverhead site and the use of the Riverhead site. It's going to be just as nice, but in a much smaller scale and what we did was just compare the two. We asked the architect to give us the same dimensions, the same scale. OK, the one inch equals 20. The plans that you have in front of you. When you take one inch equals 20, of the Riverhead site, you can fit the entire building in just the showroom area of Riverhead. So what I wanted you Jo do, is to have a comparison of the two that you really can't compare the two. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MRS. MOORE: So you overlap it and you can see that there's a, the Southold, the Greenport site, that's Riverhead, this is Riverhead. Again to give you, you all notice the area, but, to give you a flavor of the existing conditions. There's a pad here that has the photographs of the site, existing conditions, and where 711 is in relation to the property. So, I'll give that to you. Also submit to the Board, the 711 site plan from the Planning Department's records and the legislative history, which I quoted to you earlier. I'd be happy to answer any questions and I have Don Denis here, who, trekked all the way out here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you going to allow us to grill anyone from Riverhead? MRS. MOORE: Whoever you'd like. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, Edgar? The basic question I have, is really, what brought the concept of putting everything inside? What caused you to get to that? I mean and I want to preface it by saying, that I know that since 1985 or thereabouts, the lumber yard in Riverhead had some, a surprising amount of their lumber inside and that was 84 lumber, OK. In a much less, you know, a much less stated manner, alright. The doors, there were never any doors on the building. You know, actually it was colder in that building than it was on the outside most of the time. Not that I ever frequent it much, but, when I did, it was usually a Sunday afternoon and I couldn't get lumber some place else. But, what caused you to come to that point? Anybody? I mean certainly Mr. Goodale, we know that, you know, that a variety of your lumber has to remain inside. There's no doubt about it. But, you know, the green lumber, and everything. What is the purpose of putting everything inside? MR. EDGAR: Besides the obvious of keeping the material even better and out of the ice and rain and snow and shovelling off piles } . It's been proven that it's a convenient factor and comfort factor for customers who much rather choose and pick what they want out of the piles as they see fit. The whole idea was actually, I'd like to take credit for it, but, I really can't. ( ) designer Page 69 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals who grew up in Maine who was designed, he designed one or two of these throughout the country, and he's the one who actually came and actually sold us on the idea of, well we were going to move anyway. We had designed to put it all in separate buildings, the old fashion way and he kind of talked us into it, he said, there's a better way of doing it and create a better flow for your customers. So that's where the idea actually came from. He sold us on that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In the one month that you've been going on, you know, or month and a half, the lumber that has uniquely been outside, what have you seen, have there been any effects of the - MR. GOODALE: Absolutely, much less deterioration of the material and the biggest benefit of that would be during the summertime when you start to get the rain and then the sun beating down on it. That's the worst damage there is to material and the wintertime not as much, or be it, you don't have to shovel snow off of it, but there is much less. We're discovering much less damage, much less waste doing it in this particular fashion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. And, the other thing is, do your insurance carriers require you to put the more toxic lumber in one specific spot, or, anything of that nature? Are they asking you to isolate that for a particular reason? MR. GOODALE: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, so that CCA is all put in a, in the same general area along with all the other - MR. GOODALE: Yes, because basically CCA is not toxic substance. That a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I didn't mean, I meant when it burns. Well to some degree. Whatever they put in it now. They usually put arsonic in it, and they're not doing it anymore, whatever they're doing. I'm sure plastic is more toxic than that is, if it was to burn. MR. GOODALE: No, they have no restrictions on what materials should go where We don't have flammable, you know, combustible type of materials. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Lydia you have a question? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. I see on your buffer zones, you're proposing a 4 foot buffer zone in the side and the rear? MR. GOODALE: 4 foot? MEMBER TORTORA: That's what it says on the site. MRS. MOORE: No 30, 30 foot? Page 70 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: That's to the residential zone. It says perimeters of landscape buffer front yard 25, side and rear 4 feet. MRS. MOORE: Yes, that's the bus yard. Commercial. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes and what would be like on the east side? What would be within that 37 feet to the parking area? You see what I'm saying? All the little cces are. MRS. MOORE: There are a lot of cedar trees on site. MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, there's 4 feet of buffering proposed and I'm not sure what's in the area on the western and the eastern to the. parking area. MRS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Which side are you talking about? MEMBER TORTORA: On the west and on the east. On the west side, there's 37 feet, it's either 37 feet to where the parking lot is. MRS. MOORE: Yes, I see, cccs. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm tried to figure out what's in there. Is that concrete? Is it crushed stone? Is it .landscaping? What is it? MRS. MOORE: No, no. MR. GOODALE: That's green. MRS. MOORE: That's green. You start the curb and the blacktopping. That's the asphalt paving. The 37 feet is actually grass and growth. MR. GOODALE: That's, that new lawn area right before that. It's all new lawn in that area. MRS. MOORE: Yes, right. So, you're actually going to have 37 feet even on the commercial side. MR. GOODALE: New lawn on the east side also. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that's why I was a little confused because it said 4 feet of buffer, see Pat? Under landscaping. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, you mean in the notes to the drawing. MRS. MOORE: Oh, in the notes. Landscape buffer perimeter side and rear 4 feet. Any reason? MR.. GOODALE: I don't know the explanation. MRS. MOORE: Well I mean, we can answer it later. It looks like a - 4 Page 71 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: It looks like 37 feet. MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: But the note say, 4 feet. MRS. MOORE: I think - MR. GOODALE: It's clear 4 foot. MRS. MOORE: No, no, I see what it is. Landscape buffer, these are I think the code requirements. Front yard 25, perimeter side rear 4 and buffer for residential zone 30. That's what the code requires if I'm remembering it correctly. What we're actually providing is what's on the site plan. OK? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you again Mr. Goodale. Alright, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio, questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I have a few. Since you started in Riverhead, have you seen an increase in business? You know over a month? MR. GOODALE: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean it's better, it's not the same, right. So, I guess Jeff will probably answer this question better. On your busiest day, I mean, I see you have what, 12 parking spaces now, if that. You got three where everybody wants to go, and then you have on the other side, where you could park. So, say you had 12 spaces, can you recall anytime when they've ever been full? MR. BAUER: Oh, yeah. MEMBER DINIZIO: And then, where do they park? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jeff, can you come up and use the mike? MRS. MOORE: Mr. Smith can provide some of the details. MR. SMITH: In anticipation of the issue. I had the ticket sales, trip tickets analyzed for the Greenport yard and on an average, it is about 102 trips per day for each business day and that ranges in the winter season, 70 trips in to a high 125. MRS. MOORE: Does that answer your question? MEMBER DINIZIO: Not really, no. I mean I understand you d lot of business. But, are those people coming into the counter, or, are those people, you Know are you selling from the trucks? You know, what is that - Page 72 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Counter, counter. MR. SMITH: That's counter. MRS. MOORE: Counter, yes, that's counter sales, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's counter. So, lets say you have 100 cars going in and out that same day. That'd be a fair statement? MR. SMITH: Correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that pretty much spread out during the course of the day, or, is it a busy time of day? MR. SMITH: There's busy times of the day, Jim. There's between 7 and 9 in the morning and then you get another load in the afternoon about between 1 and 2. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, say about 50% of your business is within that and the rest of it's people coming and going as a, - MR. SMITH: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well lets say 100 cars during the course of the day. You have 14 spaces. I can't recall anybody ever stacking up there, having to park in Browns, or, you know, just with the minimal amount of parking you have now. I mean if your saying to us, that you're not going to have an increase in business, or, even if it's a 50% more, I'm thinking your parking is going to be more, much more than adequate when you have this new building. I mean is that a fair statement? MRS. MOORE: That's presently proposed. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. That's a pretty fair statement? MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: And that you're going to be, not only are you encouraging people to come in, but, more times than not, the people that would have to come in now, would ask you for the wood, and then go back to their truck and then go back to the yard and get it. They're not going to do that any longer. They're going to right into the building, get what they want and leave. So, they're not even going to get any part of that? MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: But, 100 tickets that Mr. Smith had just stated, is that fair, is that a fair statement? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record, that was Allen Smith that spoke prior to Jeff. Page 73 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: So we're looking at a reduction. I think we're looking at a reduction in traffic, parking in this area. I mean, is that fair? MRS. MOORE: I think a better flow of parking than a reduction per se. I mean, what's presently offered on site is, at times inadequate. You know, I know I've been there and it's been kind of tight. This meets the code. In fact, you know again, they're addressing most of the retail use to. be sure that you know, I can go in there with my kids in the Van and stuff and go in there comfortably. People who are there all the time will know how to avoid going into the retail. So, when they designed these buildings I think it's fair to say, that your experts really kind of advise you and parking as well, is that true? MR. SMITH: ( ) MRS. MOORE: So that this concept and Mr. Goodale mentioned the gentleman from Maine, that when they designed this building, they also think about the specific use. So, the parking, we hesitate to reduce the parking in anyway particularly for the retail. We really dont think its necessary to increase the parking because you really don't want to see a parking. And, in fact, when Planning reviewed it, they really had no recommendation to increase the parking. Bob Kassner had reviewed it, and seemed to think that the parking was adequate. You have to give some credence to the professionals that know the operation of the business and listen to them. In fact, in Riverhead, I think that the code requires one set of parking and you actually increased it. Is that correct? For retail. MR. SMITH: Correct, that's right. MRS. MOORE: So, when it came to retail, at least in Riverhead, they said, well we know the code requires X but we think that we'll need more and provided more. Here, they're saying, well the code says, we need, well because of the storage needs that large number 91 whatever the number was, and that's clearly too much parkin g. You'd end up with a sea of parking when in fact it could be a green area. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, that's what I was trying y g to reinforce and also you know, the fact that less cars will be parking and asking questions and more cars will you know, be going through this building and, as far as I can tell, it's not like it will be drawing new customers. It's not as though people are going to come that don't already come. MRS. MOORE: Yes, that's been the experience. MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, your employee parking is going to be in the same area? MRS. MOORE: No, the employee parking is actually on the side. } this side. J Page 74 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. SMITH: On the side, yes. MRS. MOORE: Right. On the easterly side is an area of 11 parking spaces. MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you going to increase the amount of employees as it's taking more people to run the business is more? MR. RUSSELL GOODELL: Yes, hopefully. MEMBER DINIZIO: 50%? I'm just looking for a - MR. RUSSELL GOODELL: We have 15 now. MRS. MOORE: I think that what was said, is that they have 15 employees now. If all goes well, certainly they will increase the employment. They will employ additional people. And as I stated before, there is a significant amount of land here, that if they were to need additional parking for employees, there's room for it. Could it be land bank now? Yes, but it's really not necessary at this stage. MEMBER DINIZIO: Could you tell me what was it zoned before that? MRS. MOORE: Hamlet HD. MEMBER COLLINS: Hamlet Density Residential. MRS. MOORE: Hamlet Density. It had actually approved site plan for multi family in a condominium. MEMBER DINIZIO: Then in the back is the railroad tracks? MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I'm not sure to whom the question goes, maybe the architect. MRS. MOORE: Oh, good, because the architect has importance. MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to explore a little bit further the rational and the basis for the 115 foot (train whistle,) (LIRR lives), the rational for the 115 foot width and I have not ( ) on inside the Riverhead facility, but, like everyone else on the North Fork, I got the brochure, and obviously this is a schematic drawing. This is clearly not a drawing to scale in the Riverhead facility. But, what it suggests is, that on each of the lanes going through, really gh, there al y are three lanes. One is a traffic lane and adjacent to it on each side, are lanes where the customer's truck is going to stop while he does his dealing with the inventory. Talks to u Page 75 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals the staff and loads up the materials So, on the site, on the drawing of the Greenport building, what you show is, one arrow going south from the entrance and then another arrow coming north frog: down by the railroad end of the building. And, I'm assuming that each of those arrows really represents a three lane traffic lane. One for actually moving the vehicles, and the other two for loading from the shelves and bunkers on each side. And, I guess where all of this is leading me is, of the whole 115 foot width, how much of that width is for moving the customers' vehicles through the building, and giving the customers' vehicles a space where they can stop and load up, and how much of that width is for the lumber? MR. DENIS: My name is Don Denis, Architect. Let me explain that the width of the building was arrived at by the consultant that Mr. Goodale talked about. I can give you these dimensions but as I understand it, the aisles are wide enough to have vehicles parked left and right and a vehicle to pass in the middle. MEMBER COLLINS: That's what I thought, yes was described, right. MR. DENIS: I think you're right about that. And then the storage, there's storage on the outside planks of the building and also down through the center. So, he's arrived at these dimensions and I think he's done it through experience and the dimensions of the driving aisle down the center is 30 feet from both cases and then the bin storage seems to be about 28 feet on either side. The storage in the center of approximately ten feet. MEMBER COLLINS: I think we already passed 115. Mrs. Moore and Mr. Denis adding up footage. MEMBER COLLINS: 30 and 30 is 60 and 2 x 28 is 56 and that's 116. MR. DENIS: Well, you're getting me on a foot? MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, no, I'm sorry. Understand, that this is definitely not a, I'm not trying to pin anything on anybody. I really just am trying to get a grasp of why the building is 115 feet? MR. DENIS: Yeah, that's, that's how it was arrived at. I mean, I don't have a working knowledge of a lumber yard storage business. But, I do know, that we did consult with him as a consultant and this is the dimension we arrived at. I believe he actually wanted it wider and he brought the dimensions in and said, this is the least that they could do and have the building work as they wanted it to work and that's how we arrived at that. But, I do remember it was wider and I can't tell you how much wider it was. Since this is Southold, we made it narrow. I do want to say one other thing while I'm here about the entrances. That has been approved by the State Transportation Department. So, that's been all approved and so has the sanitary system. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. George? Page 76 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: My colleagues has asked the questions that I question myself. But again, you're telling us that there's a dual of dance here. One for the customer, one for the business with having this drive through facility where all the materials are stored inside? Is that correct? There's an advantage to the business and to businesses' customers? MRS. MOORE: Oh, sure, yes. You know between the preservation of the materials as well as just customer services, that's - MEMBER HORNING: And you could not provide this type of a situation with a conventional building, 60 feet wide? Is that correct? MRS. MOORE: Correct, absolutely, that's right. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Pat, unless you have more we're going to ask anybody else that wants to speak. I'm going to tell you that we're going to knock off hearing at approximately 20 minutes. MRS. MOORE: I do want to address one point that was made through correspondence. I got a copy of it. A recommendation by the Planning Department to increase the setback by 10 feet. Bob Kassner is on vacation right now so I don't have an opportunity to discuss it with him. But, as I mentioned at the beginning of this presentation, 100 feet is actually greater than what the code would allow. The retail parking is very important for the retail for this use and I .mean if you look at the site plan for 711 which I submitted to you, the parking layout of the front is very similar without the extra vegetation. We are certainly increasing the amount of green space and buffer. But, the layout is very similar. So, if you look at 711 which is a pure retail facility, you can see that this is a standard layout for retail parking. I would ask the Board to consider solely the 60 foot criteria and the fact that we are 100 feet and that we have 711 at 40 something and Sunrise which is also at 42. So, on average you have a 40 foot setback on both sides. You keep pushing this building back nobody is going to see it. That doesn't make any sense either. But, the building has been located again, 100 feet to recalculate all the drainage and everything over a 10 foot setback, it really doesn't make sense. And, to eliminate any parking for the retail, again, would be a significant impact on the retail operation of this building. I would ask again, the Board to consider and concentrate on the 60 foot which I think we've adequately addressed the need for the 115 foot width of the building and the fact that you've got a 5.7 acre parcel and not deal with the site plan. Let us address site plan issues with the Planning Department rather than with you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, at the culmination of this hearing, just see if you have any objection to this. I want to close the oral testimony again and just very simply close it as a matter of Page 77 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals fact on April 16. I just want to tour the Riverhead Building and if I have any particular questions I'll raise them. MRS. MOORE: You can ask and I'll be able to submit it to them, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we'll raise it and you could respond in writing and then we'll circulate to anybody, if we have to. Thank you very much from the Goodale family, and so on and so forth, both co-counsels and Jeff. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this project? Could you just state your name for the record, Sir? MR. DZENKOWSKI: My name is Kim Dzenkowski. I'm a licensed contractor. You asked a bunch of questions here. You almost further had me asking me what you're questions are. I deal with it from both ends. I buy stuff for° my own house, I buy for the customers. I'm not like Chad Orlowski, I don't build new houses. I just do repairs. Everything they've said here, is 100% accurate. You just need to go down there on a Saturday morning and try to find a place to park, or go down there in the winter time when it hasn't snowed in three weeks and you use a sledge hammer to get the lumber apart. Summertime, everything is stocked on top of those stacks, is just twisted and bent. It's not only lost internal for them, it's pick outs for me and it's more for my customers. I have very little delivery, my work is mostly top end stuff, everything is hand picked. This is just a huge asset down there. Traffic will be much better, the facilities will be much better, and the lumber will be much better. As far as extra, I mean they'd love to see that 40 parking lot built. They'd love it. It's never going to happen. There just isn't enough people in Southold Town and nobody else is going to come in here and just to drive all the way to Greenport to buy it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else. Would anybody like to speak against the project? Sir? MR. MAZZONE: How do you do. My name is Jeff Mazzone. What about the increased traffic in that area? I mean has there been a traffic studied? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to reflect on that Pat? MRS. MOORE: A - MR. MAZZONE: Excuse me one second. But, usually I go camping at one of the camps down Moore's Lane. I mean there's a lot of traffic there, then going to the ferry, 711 is right there, there's going to be a lot more traffic. More bigger trucks. You're going to have more truck, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I assume your asking us that question or are you just posing the question? Page 78 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MR. MAZZONE: I'm posing the question. I mean, thinking out loud. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Do you want to respond to it Allen? MR. SMITH: For the record, my name is Aleen Smith. I'm general counsel to Riverhead Building Supply. As I stated earlier I've had the tickets, the trip tickets sampled and I stated earlier to Mr. Dinizio's question that the tickets show an average of approximately 102 trips. The environmental determinations have been made earlier in this process and if the gentleman were truly interested in the issue I would imagine he would of arrived at that particular time and asked the question. But, that being said and having put the actual factual number of trips in the record, I would point out that the standard is established by the, it's called Standard 812 for Trip Generations, additional manual. I have a letter for you on this and it is gaged in two particular letters for the 15 employees they have at this particular site and I have the standard citation here for you, You would see approximately 200 trips that is consistent with the actual and if you use the floor area of the retail, which is the other standard, you would show 150 trips and those are the two standard that { ) of record for this type of work and certainly that has been proposed to you is consistent with those statements. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MR. MAZZONE: Now he's talking, excuse me, he's talking about what normally occurs in Greenport, at the lumber yard, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm assuming that's what he's talking about. I haven't had a chance to review it. What I want to do is give you the benefit of reviewing it, alright, and commenting on it. So, you're welcome to do that. This is the only copy we have. We're going to copy it for you tomorrow, we'll give it to you and we'll let you respond to it. MR. MAZZONE: I just wanted to see what they did in Riverhead. I mean, a new place, why would you build a new place if you think you're going to have the same people come in? I mean, wouldn't you upscale for more people? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that was the purpose of my question, why put everything under cover? Basically the same situation and I assume I'm not answering the question for you, but, I assume that they are telling us that they have much less waste and people appear to enjoy this option as Mr. Dzenkowski said. MR. MAZZONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak against? MR. RUTKOWSKI: ANTHONY RUTKOWSKI. One thing I was thinking about. How about liability? Someone goes in there. I go Page 79 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals in and go to the retail store and buy a couple of saws or whatever and I go out and get my lumber. Suppose I'm standing there and the forklift happens to swirl with my foot, or you something falls and lets say I break my arm. Is there some kind of release or are there signs in the building stating that you know, the customer is at his own risk? Is that ever going to be mentioned? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I haven't had a chance to tour the Riverhead facility to see that. But, will have - MR. MAZZONE: I believe that in the zoning, the 60 foot rule, I think they also mention that was suppose to be related to traffic flow and the amount of traffic going in and out of these so-called future strip malls. So maybe they had that traffic study was related to that. And also, one other point was, since they're going to have " this facility, which they say is like a golf ball to a basket ball, I think she meant, that 711 is the golf ball and this is the basket ball. MR. SMITH: . No, that isn't what we meant. I believe the gentleman raised judicial strip mall and my guess is what he's referring to is Home Depot and what Home Depot might mean for us on the North Fork and like trying to compare Home Depot and what Home Depot might mean to all of us to this particular project. And, there is no comparison. Under the very same standards of traffic generation, if you look at the stamp for that type of a retail center, and you look at the total square feet per se, a Home Depot at 100,000 sq. ft. , you're looking at more trips in a peak out in and out of 100,000 sq. ft. Home Depot center, than you are at this facility in a day. That's the comparison. That's why that is an issue when you talk about Route 58, Riverhead, where Home Depot is proposed. It is entirely different traffic stamp and with reference to libel, Riverhead Supply J insured, it is well insured, their insurance underwriters reviewed this facility that's being proposed and their new facility in Riverhead and make recommendations further the subject to the State Farm Building Codes and their regulated by OSHA. So, there's plenty of insurance and we try to avoid any accidents because it's costly to the operation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Has there been any incidents in the new building that you know? . (Unidentified gentleman) In the new building? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. (Unidentified gentleman) No. MR. SMITH: No incidents in the new building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again for the record, that was both Allen Smith as co-counsel and Edgar Goodale. Page 80 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals CHyiRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak against? Alright. MR. CORRAZINI: My name is Rich Corrazini and the only question I have is about the square footage of the building. How big is the one in Riverhead? MR. DENIS: 125,000 sq. ft. MR. CORRAZINI: 125,000 and this building is how big? MR. DENIS: 50,000. MR. CORRZINI: 50,000, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me one second, Rich. Again for the record, so I don't get yelled at, that was Donald Denis, answered both of those questions. This is from the Hay Harbor situation, OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That was Donald Denis that answered this? I thought Allen Smith answered that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was it Allen Smith? No, it was Donald Denis. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh it was, you fooled me that time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me Rich, I apologize. MR. CORRAZINI: My only thing is for Greenport. It just seems like that building is overkill, or is much more than is needed for the amount of people that's going in and out of there. You know, I don't know, it's not golf ball, basket ball, it's more like baseball, softball. You know, it's like half the size of the building in Riverhead and the building in Riverhead is huge. It's a big building. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Italia. MR. ITALIA: My name is Zito Italia. I think the issue is the traffic. I mean there's a tremendous amount of traffic flowing through Greenport there. The entrances and exits are right on the main road. The bottlenecking through that area is going to be tremendous. You're going to have westbound traffic, people trying to get out of this plaza or the lumber yard` to go westbound, pulling in front of eastbound traffic, fully loaded with plywood, lumber, it is an issue and we should look at it. Also, prior to handing out anymore permits in this town, to various construction projects and additions, there are some vacant facilities right here on the main road in Southold Town. The have ave to mbleweed blown around from east to west, not being utilized. But, we're going to give out a u Page 81 - Hearing Tra, scripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals permit for additional 52 or 53,000 sq. ft. . That's something that should be looked at too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to reflect on your traffic issue, OK. What Mr. Smith was alluding to and I'm not speaking for him, was that the Planning Board did look at the entire SEQUA issue, which is the State and environmental issue, OK and you might want to run, I don't mean physically run but I mean you may want to go down to the Planning Board and look at that LAF, which is long environmental assessment form and if you have any specific questions after you review it, you know, we can readdress those issues or address those issues at the next hearing if you have a concern. Honestly, I mean, you know we'd like you to look at them. MR. ITALIA: No, I appreciate that. But, also, we're putting up buffer building. Here we are we're gearing towards tourism, vineyards, we're trying to make the North Fork of Long Island different than other areas I mean somebody brought up an issue of what's going on in Riverhead. I don't care about Riverhead. I pay taxes right here in Southold Town. I moved here from Howard Beach, Queens. I stopped in Glen Cove for a little bit, New Hyde Park. I moved out here 11 years ago. I've been paying taxes out here for 11 years. I do not want the North Fork of Long Island to become like Howard Beach, Queens, or Glen Cove. This is not what I want out here and it's something that all of us live out here for the same thing. We have a hard enough time going to a, going to Greenport just for the Firehouse, the carnivals that they have. I mean the traffic is just unbearable, even during the week. You try to go to for lunch out there. You can't get up and down the main road. I mean you're saying that there's not a traffic issue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that that issue was an issue that was briefly before the Planning Board, because they did the SEQUA review on this project. That's what I'm saying. MR. ITALIA: Also, meanwhile we're focusing towards, tourism and putting up all of these beautiful places, vineyards and everybodys putting up these beautiful halls and we have all these people coming out here to spend money. We're also going to 115 foot of the main road, we're going to put up a butler building there. Everybodys going to be looking at a butler building. I mean what I do for a living is a construction is my main thing but, unfortunately I hate to be a hypocrite. I do not want it in my back yard. I don't care what goes on in Riverhead, but not in Southold Town. I am totally against anything going on out here. The reason why people moved out here is, I mean we had people horsing around with horse farms earlier tonight. I agree with that gentleman. I mean we came out here to live in the country and live out here to enjoy the country. We don't need another 50,000 sq. ft. building. It is an overkill. Itrs an overkill. I mean if I need a piece of lumber that bad, I mean and I can get my car and drive to Riverhead, whether it's Riverhead Building Supply or Pergament, or Penny Lumber. I mean why do we need that out there? He built a beautiful Taj Mahal in Page 82 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals Riverhead and I think it's a beautiful place and it belongs in Riverhead. It does not belong in Southold Town. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else. Any questions from the Board? Further Questions? MEMBER TORTORA: I just would like to say something in reference to a, I just wanted to say in reference to your comments about the Planning Board's concerns about parking. We have a copy of the memo. You're asking you know, whether the code is right or not, that it is not up to this Board to make that determination as you know. The variance is a 100% request. The building is 525 feet long, it's a 115 feet wide, it is big for our little town. It's not my, you know, this Board's place to pass judgment on whether you're going to be successful or not be successful, whether we like it or not, our refuse is clearly the variance. To that end, to offset the magnitude of the 115 feet, I personally would like to see a greater buffering area in the front. I'm not asking you to move the building, but, 25 feet of buffering for 150 foot width is not going to, is not (coughing), that's my question, opinion, and a, you call it an exchange, or can call it a swap, whatever you want, but, those are my thoughts. I'm not saying to, you know, rearrange you're building, how you do that, is something else, but, I personally would like to see more buffering up there to offset the magnitude of the width request that you're asking for. That's what I like to put on the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, where do we go from there Mrs. Moore then? Do we recess without a date? Do we recess with a date? Do you go back to the Planning Board in reference to the 10 feet that you're talking about and then the additional request from Mrs. Tortora? I'm posing several options here. What I'm suggesting is, we recess without a date, you're going back to the Planning Board anyway to discuss with them the 10 feet that they're requesting in reference to the placement of the building, or not? You're not giving it the 10 feet? MRS. MOORE: I'd like to discuss it with, well certainly we can discuss it with you. If we're talking about an additional 10 feet for buffer, what I'm suggesting to you is, that the code, the intent of the legislation I think I put it on the record. You know your own views aside, we are with 20 feet, you are increasing the buffer, it's greater increase in buffer than any other parcel in this area including the new Sunrise Coach. You're asking for Riverhead Building Supply to provide not only what they're providing which is more than what the code requires, but, much more - MEMBER TORTORA: 25 in the front? I'm talking about the front part. MRS. MOORE: Yes, I'm looking at the front. Page 83 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: I'm talking about the front and the others have been there for a long time. This is a brand new structure and the others are not 115 feet wide. MRS. MOORE: No, no, no. You have Sunrise Coach which very recently built that building. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but it's not 115 feet wide. MRS. MOORE: No I understand that, but, I mean you're talking about a buffer area that if you compare this site to what is presently existing, I understand that they're preexisting and you have a preexisting condition here as well, which they are doing the best that can be done, which is demolish the whole thing and starting over. That's why I say that the extra buffer, I'm not sure that there's. there's, I'll talk to the clients whether or not they can provide greater buffer. But, if you're saying push the building back, we're kind of, we're dealing with the retail parking, and if you create a greater buffer, you're essentially eliminating some very important parking for the retail use. You are not going to want to walk from the side of the building, you and I, you know, as a retail user because that probably what will end up. We're not going to want to park on the side and walk around to the front of the building. And I know you've heard this over and over from most retail operations, but parking has to be in the front. MEMBER TORTORA: That's why I'm not telling you how to do it. I'm just saying that is my personal feelings. You know, if you're interested in economy those personal feelings, then, how you do that is another thing. I'm not going to say to you, cut back your building, wipe out your parking, that's not my thing. I'm saying that I think 115 feet by 520 feet long building could benefit greatly by more front, by buffering the front. I don't think that's an unreasonable at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, can we do this. Can you at least discuss it with your clients and we'll recess for that date, You'll go to the Planning Board and discuss the issue of the 10 feet that they're requesting. Are they requesting an additional 10 feet? Is that what I understand? MRS. MOORE: Well, yes, I think that were. That came after the fact. I mean I went to the Planning Board, they gave a recommendation and then it came later. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, can we just get those two issues concreted so that we know where we're going with it. If we're going with it at all. Tell us when you want us to put it back on, we'll finish it and get it done. MRS. MOORE: Why don't you schedule it for the April is full, so, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: May 14th. Page 84 - Hearing Transcripts March 23, 1998-Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: But Bob Kassner is on vacation. He's the guy I have to talk to unfortunately. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, May 14th. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion recessing until May 14th and we'll have everything done by that time. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for resolution. End of hearing. RECEIVED AND FILED BY rj SOUTHOL D TOWN CL sa'-� DATE Aaa Town. Clara:, Town n o' --