HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/15/1998 HEARINGPp.
INDEX
TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS
HELD October 15, 1998
1 Appl. No. 4611-BUILDING INSPECTOR INTERPRETATION
15 Appl. No. 4606-THOMAS & MOIRA MASTRO
18 Appl. No. 4593-Z. SVATOVIC (OWNER ALICE KELLY)
28 Appl. No. 4608-BERYL E. CAFFREY
36 Appl. No. 4610-D. GAROFALO
39 Appl. No. 4612-D. BURNHAM
46 Appl. No. 4613-HANS & FRANCOISE RIEGER
51 Appl. No. 4614-R. BOARDMAN
54 Appl. No. 4615-P. CHAZAN & B. BOYD
59 Appl. No. 4616-C. MAGGIO
64 Appl. No. 4620-GEORGE J. STARKIE, JR.
66 Appl. No. 4622-EDWARD & JUDY DART
70 Appl. No. 4625-THOMAS JEROME & ORS.
77 Appl. No. 4618-V. MANAGO
84 Appl. No. 4624-SE-LAUREL LINKS, LTD.
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS
ZBA REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 15, 1998
(Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings)
BUILDING INSPECTOR INTERPRETATION #4611 (continuation from
9/30). (This cassette tape contained poor recording and portions
were somewhat inaudible.)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would like to welcome everybody here
to the Regular Meeting of the Southold Town ZBA. The first
hearing on the agenda is the hearing which concerns, "Does a radio
tower fall under the provisions of the Wireless Communications Act of
the Town of Southold Zoning Code?" OK, we have expressly asked
Mr. Gary Fish to come here, and this was a request by one of the
members, and of course, reaffirmed by the Members with a vote.
Thank you for coming. Is there any specific statement you would
like to make (to Mr. Fish)?
MR. FISH: In light of all the statements that were made about a
month ago, I assure you that I would have been here previously.
CHAIRMAN: The gentleman that really wanted to speak to you was
Mr. Dinizio. I'll ask Mr. Dinizio if he would like to start.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you going to swear him in?
CHAIRMAN: Sure. We could take a vote on this. My particular
philosophy is this. Attorneys are officers of the Court. We know
them. Most of them. And it's not necessary to swear an attorney
in. I feel similar to any employee of this Town, but just as you had
requested that Mr. Fish be here, I would be very happy to take a
vote on it - unless you feel uncomfortable with that?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not. Thank you for coming. And my
question is more of a question the Board may have concerning an
application ( ). I don't really want a comment, I would like an
answer to the question, or an explanation as to, why did it follow
this procedure - to get here. ( ) For the record, Mr.
Cuddy or Mr. Rosen made an application. They must have given
you some paperwork. Did they give you a site plan?
INSPECTOR FISH: A survey, yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a survey, April llth. Is that it?
And the Disapproval is dated 2/27 so I don't know how that -- I
mean, you had something similar to this? A drawing?
P~ge 2 - Hearing Trm~scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
INSPECTOR FISH:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
INSPECTOR FISH:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
INSPECTOR FISH:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
INSPECTOR FISH:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Well, I have something in front of me that --
This shows a 3-ft. setback.
That was the more recent one.
Right. And it also has a building in the front.
Right. I remember the whole process. Yes.
So there was something there?
Yes.
I guess what I am getting at is because we have
a question of whether or not you reviewed this at the time that they
made the application.
Which application?
For a Telecommunications Tower dated January
INSPECTOR FISH:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
29th.
INSPECTOR FISH:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
sort, right?
INSPECTOR FISH:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
But then it was changed.
I know. But I mean, there was a plan of some
Yes o
I mean, it was a complete application to you, but
you to make a decision that this was not allowed or that this was
required to be so many feet (reading Disapproval reasons).
INSPECTOR FISH: As per Code. Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess there were two decisions, one was that
you determined it was a principal use for the tower.
INSPECTOR FISH: If that is all he wants to do.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right.
INSPECTOR FISH: But we at the time, Mr. Rosen wanted to take
the building down and there was no other structure on there.
MR. ROSEN or MR. CUDDY.' Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. So this is the reason why you made that
decision on February __th that it was a principal structure because
and it was only going to be a Tower, right?
Page 3 - Hearing Tra,iscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
INSPECTOR FISH: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I want a little unclear on that. Because we are
looking at something that does have something, that has a house on
it, and supposedly something would support the tower, and --
INSPECTOR FISH: Have you been out there?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, yes. I know what is there. So that makes
it very clear to me. So you have cleared one thing up. Now, just
one more question. I have a letter that has questions, and yadda
yadda yadda, and I have that I reviewed it August 19th, but it's
not dated. Do you know the date that you wrote that?
INSPECTOR FISH: (Checking his file.)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
you can always --
Gary, you know, if you can't remember,
MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn't have to be exactly. I just want to --
INSPECTOR FISH: I have it.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The letter is in the file with our
office date stamped on it. He just didn't date it. We have a copy
here, Gary, if you need it.
INSPECTOR FISH: No, I have it. The memo that I have, addressed
to the ZBA - does not have a date.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you recall when you wrote it? We received it
on August 19th. Maybe August 17
INSPECTOR FISH: I remember the memo being typed. I initialed it
and the secretary brought it right down.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So, on March 23rd Mr. Cuddy wrote a letter
concerning the Rosen tower, and was discussing what they want to
do, and how the tower applies to our particular code, and that was
in March. Then he also stated there about the building, in other
words, he says, "I am doubtful that the Town Code Provisions,
Local Law 26 applies to private radio towers .... " Now this next
sentence, I think he is asking - has this plan been revised, before
this letter or after this letter, where he is asking for a
Telecommunications Tower, then there was some point of time now,
must be made whether it is a primary use or accessory use with a
building at that site.
INSPECTOR FISH: There was some politicking going on. It went
from demolishing the building and using the tower as an accessory.
With the tower as the primary use as the owner to renovate the
~age 4 - Hearing Tra,,scripts
October 15, ]998 - Board of Appeals
building, and we view that as the primary use and the tower
accessory.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. And was an application made for that?
INSPECTOR FISH: Yes, there was.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
your August --
OK.
That was about when, March 23rd, and
INSPECTOR FISH: July 1, 1998.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's not March 23.
INSPECTOR FISH: It might be when I got the letter.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. That's right.
INSPECTOR FISH: I have July 1st is when he put in the
application. The check came on July 16th.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Gary, what happened there, and I really
was not going to discuss this application tonight, but at a
subsequent hearing we asked Mr. Cuddy to basically apply for what
he is now asking for, and that is what I assume precipitated him to
do this, and I assume that is what you are talking about.
INSPECTOR FISH: (Repeated same comments.)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean, but I am just saying that as a
result of subsequent hearings that we had, we said well, "give us a
Notice of Disapproval for what you want now." OK, and then in
August you then asked for the Interpretation.
INSPECTOR FISH: I had to, because after reading the law, the Law
says the intended use is Telecommunications Towers. I am having a
problem looking at this as a Telecommunications Tower. I thought
on the Telecommunications Law was that it was for cell phone uses,
with all this about cell phones, and that's why I thought the Law
was meant, with the language in the Law. It was specific to public
users. (inaudible comment). I mean, Telecommunications Tower
Law, this does not fall under it. But I did not want to make that
decision myself, I wanted the Board to make - the Town to make the
decision, not me. Let me answer your question. I don't believe he
falls under the Telecommunications Law. There are people here that
do, and I need help on it. That's why I am asking for the
Interpretation.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If he came to you first with an application for a
Radio Tower first, OK, and explained to you that this is a Radio
Tower and not NYNEX, and yadda yadda, and you were standing at
P~age 5 - Hearing Tra,,,$cripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
the window: he was on one side and you were on the other, would
you be inclined to issue a Building Permit, I mean based on your
Interpretation of the Code?
BUILDING INSPECTOR GARY
inclined to issue anything.
application.
FISH: Well, now, I wouldn't be
I would be inclined to review the
MEMBER DINIZIO:
a decision?
OK. And at some point in time, you would make
INSPECTOR FISH: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Based on the application?
INSPECTOR FISH: Right. But even that, I read that for a Radio
Tower, I heard, "Oh, no, no, no. It's definitely included." It was
in the newspaper that the Supervisor says, "We meant it to be all
inclusive~" I don't think so, but I'm not going to make that
decision.
CHAIRMAN: That was the purpose of the interpretation request.
INSPECTOR FISH: I hear a lot of things from a lot of people.
Sometimes. I don't want to make that decision myself and that's why
there is a Zoning Board of Appeals to make those interpretations.
The Code says "public use" --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well -
INSPECTOR FISH: So the Code goes towards a public use --
MEMBER DINIZIO: My problem is with the interpretation
INSPECTOR FISH: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: As opposed to just an outright Denial in a Notice
of Disapproval, is that even we know if there is an underlying
problem or underlying application, that we're hearing in the generic
fashion and is somewhat, I believe, doesn't help the applicant. It
doesn't give the applicant the right to a hearing. Even though we
hear all the testimony, and you probably get my point - more times
than not an interpretation, and somebody has spoken to you about
this and all of a sudden we've got an interpretation. "Well, I need
this an interpretation on that," instead of just saying, "No, I
disapprove of that and am sending it up to the Zoning Board of
Appeals," and let us make a determination on that application?
MR. FISH: I understand that. I do that many, many times.
Page 6 - Hearing Tra.,scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO:
happen here.
Yes, I know.' I was wondering why it didn't
INSPECTOR FISH: And in fact, this time I didn't.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I know.
INSPECTOR FISH: And now it's up to you to make that decision.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I wondered why it didn't happen here?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MR. FISH: I think that if you put Mr. Rosen in the
telecommunications and everybody that owns his own private radio
tower because there are people who have towers in their back yard.
So all towers are, you know, I think it needs to be made clearer and
it should be made clear for everybody. I don't think that
everybody that has a ham operating, you know, a ham radio tower if
you have to come in and get a variance. And that's why I did
this. If you put Mr. Rosen under the Telecommunications, you
know, slot, then he's going to have to go through a lot more hoops
than if you just have to have an accessory to a business in his
backyard. And I believe I'm giving him the best shots that I can,
and anyone else that comes after him, why should they have to go
for a variance, if in fact, you rule now, and 'say, this is the way
the law is, it's not part of this code, or it is part of this code,
it's up to you.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So when he came in first and asked for a
telecommunications tower, that was a fair decision?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because it was a primary use at that
point, because the tower -.
INSPECTOR FISH: Well, I still have a problem
Telecommunications Tower part of, because just to
that's my own, it exempts it in other parts of the Code.
I don't want to make a decision. I don't think it's right.
with the
make, just
MEMBER DINIZIO: You made a decision.
under the Telecommunications Act.
Based on an application
INSPECTOR FISH: Yes. But after, since that time, and now there
has been a lot of talk about telecommunications tower. But what I
am saying is, it was brought to my attention that there's was a
discrepancy and I agreed it was brought to my attention so, I
agreed with them, yeah, sure.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask a final question.
Whatever way we interpret this, you will then progress with an
Page 7 - Hearing Tra**scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
opinion in reference to a determination of adding this building on
back on to the property.
MR. FISH: Absolutely. I'll either write a permit or I'll issue a
disapproval. I just don't know what slot to put in, that's all.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
MR. FISH: And it's like because ignorant bliss. I mean if you
don't know something, once all of the information starts coming in
and I start to decipher it, then there's the question: What is, what
does this Telecommunications Tower Law address?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought the same thing, Gary. The exact same
thing you thought, OK, up until I listened three months of Mr.
Cuddy preaching the gospel. I accept the fact that I do have some
experience RF frequency allocation. I know what belongs where but
I had thought that the Town perhaps they had applied for it.
INSPECTOR FISH: But if you read the Town Code in regard to it,
it points to "public utility." The language is pretty specific.
Now, I'm not saying either way. I live in Mattituck. I mean I'm
not going to put my personal opinion on it. Let's just leave it
there. It's up to the Board to make the decision that falls under
that. It's not clear. The request stands on its own, that's way I
look at it. It's pretty clear.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, good.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I make one more statement? Gary, I want to
thank you very much for coming here and I enjoy-
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We all do.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I enjoy, we had Mr. Forrester here the last
time, some time ago -
MR. FISH: Mr. Forrester?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, and I learn a lot from you guys because
you're living with that code constantly every day, you know a lot
more about it than we do, and when I asked you to come that's, for
that reason I asked you to come so that I can learn how you make
those decisions. I can't rely on "he said," you know, or this
person said this, I went there and I asked this question, I got this
answer and not give the opportunity to the person who looks at'that
and live with that code every day.
INSPECTOR FISH: I'm amazed at what I say.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am too-
P~age 8 - Hearing Tra~,scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
INSPECTOR FISH: I can't believe some of the stuff I've said.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But, I know, you're job is very hard and I
think you made our job a little easier today by commenting and I
appreciate it.
INSPECTOR FISH: I'm glad for you.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
questions of Mr. Fish?
Wait, wait.
Does anybody else have any
MEMBER HORNING: I like to ask.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, can we wrap it up then?
MEMBER HORNING: Sure. Just for the record, how long have you
been employed by the Town Building Department as a Building
Inspector?
INSPECTOR FISH: It'll be 11 years February 27th.
MEMBER HORNING: So you were in your present position in 1997
when Local Law 26 "Wireless Communications Facilities" went into
effect?
MR. FISH: Yes. Oh, sure.
MEMBER HORNING: To your knowledge did the Building
Department provide any input into the development of that law?
INSPECTOR FISH: That's interesting. Most laws that are put into
effect are, do not have input from the Building Inspector. The
legislation is drafted, it's written up it's put in our code book and
and then we basically get a briefing on what it is.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I just want to change that for one
particular point that, there is a public hearing, OK, and the public
hearing process that the Town Board has could that, if you had a
partieular problem with it, I mean you or anybody else, this is just
a generic statement, could come to the public hearing.
MEMBER HORNING: To your knowledge has the Building Department
received any clarification from the Town Board or the Town Code
Committee as to the intent of Local Law 26 Wireless Communications
Facility?
INSPECTOR FISH:
official.
Well, I read in the newspaper today that it's
P~age 9 - Hearing Tral~scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
INSPECTOR FISH: Not that I'm aware of.
MEMBER HORNING: And one final question I have. Am I correct in
saying, that I heard you say, you don't believe that a private radio
tower fits into Local Law 26?
INSPECTOR FISH: I tend to believe it doesn't.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you very much.
MEMBER TORTORA: Gary, getting to your specific request and the
memo that you sent to the Board requesting the Interpretation. In
it you say, "this request is for an interpretation as to whether this
radio tower intended to be used for the private use of the owner for
his trucking business falls under provisions of the wireless
communications." And then you go on to say-, from what has been
explained to me by Mr. Rosen and his attorney, the radio tower
would solely be used, et cetera, et cetera, you go on about what he
proposes to do and everything in this request is very specific, and
it's very specific to the Rosen Tower, just as you say, it's for an
interpretation as to whether this radio tower, et cetera. Is that
correct? It wasn't just -.
INSPECTOR FISH: I don't the other file, you know, if I had two of
them before me, I probably -
MEMBER TORTORA: No, your letter is very specific.
to get that clarified, thank you.
I just wanted
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I will say this to you Gary, Mr. Fish,
that the variety of telephone calls that I have gotten at home which
are probably about 16 to 20 at this point, are primarily from the
residents in the particular area of this particular tower and they
are of great concern that an applicant, not only this applicant, but
an applicant in general could take this tower and turn it from a
private radio tower for one's own business or one's own hobby or
whatever the case might be, and make it a telecommunications tower
renting it for a profit, OK, and that is the concern that these
residence have and I'm just expressing that to you as a Building
Inspector and some of the input that I've gotten from telephone calls.
MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, would you note for the record
that the calling of this hearing, if you may, and the wording that's
generic, posting of the public legal notice in a generic way, was as
a result of conclusion that you came to after reading Mr. Fish's
P~age 10 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
request as for an interpretation that it was better to attack it as a
general question for these kind of towers than to treat it as
specific to Mr. Rosen. I mean I think that's the reason why we're
doing it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is the reason why we're doing it
and I have to tell you that I had the approval of the Town Attorney
to do so. In other words, we took out the specific site situation,
and we just dealt with it with anybody that would be using it.
INSPECTOR FISH: That was my intent for the request.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, so.
it. Hearing no further comment - yes?
Thank you for mentioning
MRS. ALICE HUSSIE: May I speak?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely.
MS. HUSSIE: Alice Hussie, Town Board Member, and writer, in
part writer of this code that you state tonight. It was the intent
of the Code Committee and the Board by extension that radio towers,
cell towers, television towers, cable towers, all towers are included
in this Law as far as the Town is concerned. The problem that
seems to have arisen about a private radio tower was considered but
when the Code Committee considered private we were considering
ham radio operators or the hobbyist and also considered that that
kind of a person, or that kind of a user of an antenna would not
necessarily mean a tower that was 85 feet tall as the one in this
case. At the suggestion of the attorney for the applicant, not at
his suggestion, but as I was reading the notes, it was paramount
parallel that this tower was either similar to tower that a taxi
service might use and so I went to a taxi service and I looked at
their tower and I see that it is not as tall as this tower is
concerned. However, I came here tonight not to be specific. I just
wanted to tell you, in general, our intention was that all the towers
are into this Act. Now, the difference between private and public
utility, I think, perhaps the Board may have made a mistake in not
being more explicit. Private as opposed to commercial, or used for
business~ that's what we've been talking about. Again, somebody
who can't use a ham operator or for a hobby. Then I respectfully
request to know if you're going to be acting on this application
later this evening?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Probably not, counsellor. We have not
actually developed the specific date but my recommendation is to
discuss it on October 27th.
MS. HUSSIE: On October 27th.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, at approximately 6:45 to 7:00 p.m.
Rage 11 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MS. HUSSIE: OK, and that definitely will happen? I know that
occasionally I read through your Minutes and things happen after
everybody leaves.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, let's ask everybody at this point.
Is everybody available on Tuesday, the 27th at 6:457 Special
Meeting. Actually, it's going to commence at 7:00 o'clock but we'll
get here, we'll be here at 6:45.
BOARD SECRETARY: Well we can't discuss it before the meeting
starts. I would just need to know what time the meeting will start?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 7: 00 o'clock.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh, it's not 6:45?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's 7:00.
MS. HUSSIE: So, it's 7:00 o'clock on October 27th
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does everybody agree with it?
MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman, can we have that earlier like we
did today, like 6:30 ?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I have a request for 6:30. I have
absolutely no objection to that. I just have to tell you that. The
way the situation has been 'I am coming from Hauppauge, I may not
be here until 6:45, but I have absolutely no objection to Jimmy
starting the meeting if he so desires.
MS. HUSSIE: I suggest you have a Vice-Chairman.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I do, it's Mr. Dinizio. I expect to
be here but, like I said, you know, one never knows.
MS. HUSSIE: I expect to be here, too. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Yes, Mr. Cuddy.
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ: I'm Charles Cuddy. I represent an
applicant who is interested in a tower in the Light Industrial
District. I appear only because I'm concerned that a Member of the
Town Board is here. I've been doing this for 30 years. I've
never had a Member of the Town Board come to a meeting and
oppose an application. The reason that it bothers me and I ask the
Board to disregard the remarks. She effectively is becoming the
sixth man on the Board. The very question that you're asking to
determine, she's telling you how to determine it based on legislative
process. There is not a single document that I'm aware of. Not a
single set of minutes, not a record, not a memo that talks about the
Page 12 - Hearing Trmiscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
intent that she just told you. That's an absolute unfairness to my
client and self-serving to the Town to have her come in and do
this. She sets your salaries. She votes upon your appointments,
and for her to come here and tell you what you should do with an
application before a quasi-judicial body is absolutely and terribly
upsetting that she feels comfortable doing it, and certainly your
decision should not be based on what she said. Thank you.
MS. HUSSIE: I can hardly expect that this is going to be ( ).
However, I will say, that this is the first time that the
Telecommunications Law has been in question. It's the first time
that it's being looked at very, very carefully. My appearance here
this evening is to let everyone know, not only this Board, but the
applicant, any other applicant, the newspaper, the Building
Department and everybody else, what the intent of the Board was.
Indeed if the intent has to be in writing, I'm sure that can happen
because there are a number of people on the Town Board right now
who are still there, who were at the time of writing this code.
I am not trying to influence you. You are as independent as the
Town Board. I am here to let you know what commenced at the
time, and Mr. Cuddy, I have to tell you that I read in the Minutes
many times where you, kind of surmised what the Board meant when
they wrote it. So, it's sought of a ( ) field.
MR. CUDDY: It's self-supporting. I just reiterate my comments
and I would ask that the hearing in front of you, be closed, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They will be closed. In reference to
your request of striking of what Ms. Hussie has stated we will have
to take it a~ain to counsel. OK, hearin~ no further comments, I'll
make a motion closing the hearing. Excuse me, does anyone else
want to speak for or against? Seeing no hands.
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
MEMBER HORNING: MR. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Could we request that the Town provide us
with a statement of intent in writing?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can certainly request it, but I think
we should have to get over the hurdle aspect of what Mr. Cuddy is
saying at this point. I don't know if a, I have absolutely in the 18
years that I have been on this Board have never asked the Town
Board for an intent. Again, I reiterate that this is a democratic
board and I have absolutely no problem bringing that to a vote
before we close the hearing.
Page 13 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I feel that, had the intent been there when
the application was made, we can consider it. But, I welcome Ms.
Hussie's comments and certainly will take them into consideration.
I read the paper, too. And I think that asking the Town Board now
to give us their intent of even if puts them in - You know
we're five great mature people here. I think we can make a decision
based on you know, what we heard and make the right decision
without having the Town Board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: I prefer to not to do anything in the formal
sense in requesting any input from the Town Board. Legislative
intent matters. There's no question about it when you're
interpreting statutes, and this is a question of statutory
interpretation, I think. And we all do by this point. We've
agonized over these words. I don't like the idea of requesting the
governing body of the Town to tell us after the fact what they
meant. In an official sense, it just makes me uncomfortable.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora, not to put you
on the spot.
MEMBER TORTORA: I believe it us the Zoning Board of Appeal's
job to interpret the Code, and I don't believe it's necessary to
request the Town Board to give us any opinion.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I feel the same way.
there's no vote, George, OK.
So, we'll say that
MEMBER HORNING:
on her suggestion.
Sure.
I just made the motion. I'd take her up
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No problem.
to say anything? Seeing no hands.
Again, anybody else want
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But there's no second.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It has been seconded by Lora.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
pardon me.
Oh, it was seconded, I didn't hear it,
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The hearing closed.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? It is now closed. Thank
you very much on this particular topic and thank you, Mr. Fish, for
coming in.
P~age 14 - Hearing T~-~nscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
P~age 15 - Hearing Tr~scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
6:53 P.M. - Appl. No. 4606 - THOMAS AND MOIRA MASTRO
This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section
100-239.4B (Zoning) (based upon the Building Inspector's July 29,
1998 Notice of Disapproval), for permission
to extend fence which would be at less than 75 feet from the owner's
bulkhead, or along owner's bulkhead at 6760 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel, N.Y.: Parcel 1000-19,6-11-3.1.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I believe we read the legal notice the last
time. Is there someone that would like to speak? Good evening,
how are you?
MRS. MASTRO: I'm Moira Mastro and we're requesting an approval
for an extension of a fence
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You were kind enough to show me that
fence and we of course have pictures of the fence and would you
just reiterate again. I realize that it's embodied within the text
that I have in front of me but, tell us what is the need for the
fence.
MRS. MASTRO: The purpose of the fence is to protect our children
from falling over the fence while playing on the beach because the
way the beach is at that point there's no sand on that sea level so
we have this level water that's sand. So, we erected a fence and
we'd like to extend it so that it covers both sides of our property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and how many children do you have?
MRS. MASTRO: We have two.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two. My question is, is the fence going
to get anymore sophisticated than the construction that exists now?
MRS. MASTRO: No, our intention is just to take the existing fence,
extend it in the form that it's in and it's also been constructed so
that it's temporary so that when the children are old enough we can
take the fence down.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, no questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: I read the property About how old do
you think they will have to be before you take the fence down?
P~age 16 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MASTRO: Well, right now there ? and 4, so I would wait until
the little one is at least 10 or 12
MEMBER TORTORA: Would you have any problem with us putting
that in by the time they're 157 Sound reasonable?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we would have to put a time limit.
MRS. MASTRO: Yeah, a date. I'll go back to 4 years old.
MEMBER TORTORA:
to us.
Unless you have another one, you come back
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Somehow I was reflecting upon that.
MEMBER TORTORA: She could come back four, five times.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well we could just say until the last child was 15.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
have to come back.
That's right, that's right, then she won't
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing?
MEMBER HORNING: No questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MEMBER COLLINS: Question Mr. Chairman. Since Ms. Tortora
raised the question of putting something in the nature of time limit
into a decision would we want to put something in with respect to
change of hands of property? Because, I can tell the sense of the
Board clearly we're sympathetic to the Mastro situation but, it's
their situation and if five years from now they were to sell the
house to retirees, well they would have grandchildren. You see
where I'm getting?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
have any objection to that?
I think that's a great a.
Do you
MEMBER COLLINS: I think it's specific to them.
owner they could come and appeal their own case.
If there's a new
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I forgot to ask you Mrs. Mastro that you
owe us a green card. Do you have it?
MRS. MASTRO: We didn't receive it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You didn't receive it back?
Page 17 - Hearing Tr~,lscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MASTRO: No, that owner is a, the relative lives is in
Florida, but, I actually think that he's in Laurel because
this past weekend I think they were there, and the sign is very
visible on the, it's right next to you know, ( ).
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you did not receive it?
MRS. MASTRO: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. While you're standing there we'll
see if there's anybody else in the audience would like to speak in
favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a
motion reserving decision until later and we thank you for coming in.
MRS. MASTRO: Thank you.
MEMBER TORTORA: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 18 - Hearing Tr~,iscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
6:58 P.M. - Appl. No. 4593 - Z. SVATOVIC (OWNER ALICE KELLY)
A Variance is requested under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B
(Zoning) for placement of a new dwelling with proposed insufficient
rear yard setback (less than the required 35 feet). Note: Art.
XXIII, Sec. 100-232A, corner-lot front yards are required from both
roads, and one yard other than the front shall be deemed a rear
yard and the other a side yard. 12355 New Suffolk Avenue,
Cutchogue; 1000-116-2-5.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have one or two requests for
rescheduling the hearing so they will honor those and probably keep
the hearing open and we'd like to ask this nice gentleman what his
name is?
MR. SVAOTVIC: My name is Zarko Svatovic and Barbara Best,
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do?
MR. SVATOVIC:
transferred yet,
really ours.
We're the
so that it's
owners of the lot and this wasn't
still in Kelly's name. The lot is
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have title to it now?
MR. SVATOVIC: Right.
Kelly's behalf
So we thought on our behalf and on
CHAIRMAN GOEHi~INGER: No, it was advertised in your name and
owner as Kelly so I very simply just chose to -
MR. SVATOVIC: Right, right, right. That's how it started.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. But we of course have held this
hearing off several times and in the interim you've have actually
taken title.
MR. SVATOVIC: Right, right, because we didn't know how long it
was going to take so we decided just to go with it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us?
MR. SVATOVIC: Well I can tell you the reason why we ask for a
variance on that plot. Just a few points and information about the
lot. It's a small lot, less than an acre, less than a half acre, but
I believe it's .45 ( ). So I believe the standards for the lots,
and the distance is to the, it's important to understand this is a
corner lot so it has requirements towards the street distances. So I
believe the standards for the distances are developed for one acre
lots. I don't know if this is correct but, I believe that it's now
standard for this area, the zoning is one acre, not a half an acre or
not less than a half an acre. So that puts the pressure on what I
~ge 19 - Hearing T~iscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
I can do to build on that lot. It's our feeling that because,
because the conditions was done before the new zoning and
rules that the zoning rules should be served grandfather I believe
the term is grandfather towards the old a , probably because the
lot is small to satisfy that problem. If I have to actually satisfy
the rules exactly as they stated 35 feet from each side, that will
leave me some little box, a small box smack in the middle of the
property with very, very few options. I don't think it's in
anybody's interest not mine, my neighbors, or the town, for me to
build a little shack in the middle of the property. I don't think it
serves anybody's purpose. I believe everybody wants, I mean I
would expect that it would be better for everybody including the
town and the people around that the house be nice to look at in that
sought of interesting. If I forced to go into a small box there's
really only a limited things I can do with this, with this designs
that I can go with. The other thing I would like to point out that
I'm not asking for huge adjustments. Towards the north, my north
neighbor~ I believe 27 feet verses the required 35. I'm fully
satisfy on the street requirements towards the street and I'm asking
for a few feet from the north side and towards the east neighbor.
It's 35 verses 25 feet which is a little bit more but, it's still not
a tremendous amount. So, there's also, that side also I was
planning to do a little like a porch, or a little terrace which comes
in closer a little bit to the east neighbors, maybe they object to
that. But, I'm planning to do that. We talked about it but, I can
see what I can do to accommodate them in that respect. So given all
of those factors, I would appreciate it if you can find some leeway
and the other think I would really like to know, where are my, how
much you can is it impossible, but it's my, is my request
unreasonable within the, within the, I have no feelings?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As it exists right now?
MR. SVATOVIC: Right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's close. There's no question about
it. I'm only speaking as one member of the Board, OK. The thing
to answer your question would be, that it appears that it appears to
be a ranch house, it appears to be one story. I mean it certainly
could be two stories, but it appears in more of an L, than it is a
straight line ranch which therefore puts you on 10 feet closer to the
property line with a 10 feet of that L in the front which is actually
on Short Road. I am just, I cannot give you any indication what
this Board will grant. We work in unanimity and it's a democratic
vote and some person may, some people on the Board may say 25
feet and if they get a second and the people, if you get three votes
then, it's 25 feet. The question that we have to ask you is, and
it's not going to be determined tonight because this hearing will
continue, will you allow us to deal with alternate relief?
MR. SVATOVIC: What does that mean?
Page 20 - Hearing Tr~mcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
tape).
That means that basically (changing of
MR. SVATOVIC: Could you possibly to grant me this meeting to
allow me to do something according to the rules and I assume I
cannot as much by having letting me do more than you wish to
decide for me to do. So I will of course my answer is yes, I will
accept what I have to do, you know, what, what you can give me, I
appreciate that because I want to my problems interest me
to build a box in, properties, no-one's interest are, I'll see,
who would probably, I, I don't see objections to that except, I mean
I can't tell. I didn't want to get involved to redesigning it, and,
and if it's a yes, until I know exactly what the parameters are of my
thing because it's expensive, costly and a waste. I would like to
know before I do anything. What are those parameters that I'm
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't give you parameters. I cannot
give you parameters. No-one, that's beyond what the scope of the
Board does, OK. I can just tell you that 15 feet is close.
MR. SVATOVIC: Right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, under the practical aspects of what
we look at, that's my opinion and only my opinion, that's all.
MR. SVATOVIC: Right, but this is on what we were going to start.
Does it matter? It's only on one spot that a very narrow spot
actually comes that close. Mostly it's really 27, 25 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, most of it is pretty much in the
center of the property, you're absolutely correct.
MR. SVATOVIC: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with Mr. Homing. Any
comments about this applicant, with this application?
MEMBER HORNING: Well, clarification of 15 feet. You're referring
to Mr. Chairperson that it's in the sideyard?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, yes.
MEMBER HORNING: And the code calls for 10 foot on the
sideyard for that side?
MEMBER COLLINS: 10 foot minimum and 25 for the two sideyards
but of course Mr. Svatovic only has one sideyard.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
~ge 21 - Hearing Tr~scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER COLLINS: So a 15 foot sideyard strikes, I'm sorry -
MEMBER HORNING: No, go ahead Lora.
MEMBER COLLINS: Strikes me as reasonable.
MEMBER HORNING: I'm of the same opinion.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I was just reading the Notice of
Disapproval which said that, for nonconforming lot setbacks the rear
yard must have a minimum of 35 feet. OK, so basically I apologize,
then -
MEMBER COLLINS: He has 27.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He has 27, I apologize. That was
completely, I apologize. You know I can't tell you, I looked at it,
and for some strange reason, OK, go ahead George.
MEMBER HORNING: No, that was my questions.
clarification on that sideyard setback.
I wanted
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thought he chose the other sideyard
setback. I apologize. Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Just for the record I want to elaborate on what
Mr. Homing and I have just been saying and that is, as we read
the law and the plans, your problem, and it's your own problem is
that your rear yard is the yard on the north side going up towards
the Truglias and you're allowing 27 feet of setback and the code
says you're suppose to have 35. I see no problem with your other
setbacks and it will be interesting to hear what the neighbors have
to say, apparently they do want to say something. Let me ask
you. It's a very woods piece of land. Are you going to leave up
the trees except where you build or do you plan to go into Forest
Street?
MS. BEST: I wouldn't mind going to Forest Street.
have as many trees.
I'd like to
MR. SVATOVIC: Well, I personally like a lot of green so I believe
I'll try to save what I can.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, obviously you don't know.
MR. SVATOVlC: I don't know what to say, but
don't know how the house is going to look.
besides that, I
~age 22 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER COLLINS: I was just, for other appearance.
MR. SVATOVIC: Right. And a, in general, I'm for the greens.
That's why I'm going there. There's a lot of green around there.
MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions?
MR. DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll see what develops throughout
the hearing and I again I apologize for that. I still don't see it
completely discernible, but I will yield to my fellow persons here,
OK. In reference to my setback situation of 15 that I was
discussing, OK, I realize it's a sideyard as oppose to a rear yard
but, I think you can determine either one, but a, yes, and I think
some of the comments that we have from the neighbors that we
received are concerning that 15. I have to tell you, but that's
neither here or there. So, we will ask if anybody else has any
comments regarding this application tonight and then we will recess
it with a date and allow Your neighbors to come in and discuss and
we suggest your being here, OK.
MR. SVATOVIC: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Does anybody else want to say
anything in support of this application? Anybody like to say
anything against the application? Yes Ma'am.
MRS. GILLAN: I am one of the neighbors and I was told I was
suppose to be here.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes Ma'am.
mike because we're taking it down.
I just need you to use the
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And your name please.
MRS. GILLAN: My name is Jodi Gillan, I'm a neighbor. I'm really
not suppose to be here tonight. My husband is because
we were away. I got hold of an early ferry and I'm here really
to for the first time because I've never been to such meetings
and I like to know what to expect when we are rescheduled in
October or November. I'm quite surprised that this is going on and
I don't know what to do. I mean are we to make our comments
preferably in October when the meeting is officially held? Is that
what your programming?
P, age 23 - Hearing Tra~lscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we're doing is continuing the
hearing. This is an official meeting, there's no problem with it, OK,
and you can make a comment tonight and you can continue those
comments at the next meeting that we intend to have for this
particular application. We have absolutely no problem with you
doing that. If you choose not to make a comment tonight, then you
can hold your statements until the next hearing.
MRS. GILLAN: I think perhaps that's the thing I should do because
I'm not properly prepared. I do have just a question ihat I might
ask of the property owners. That your comment was a, I
understand there's a problem with the lot is small for the house, I
don't know. Obviously I mean there are rules as to which comes
first, the house plan or the purchase of the lot, because the lot has
been very recently purchased. I believe it was February am I
correct that you closed the real property in February?
MR. SVATOVIC: Yes.
MRS. GILLAN: So, it is not a property that's going to show for
years and years. The property was recently purchased and it seems
to me that the plans for the house would certainly be part of
purchasing a lot and after one purchases a lot and plans a house,
then, one says, well dear, I don't have enough property. It seems
to me that that's not analyzing the situation properly. You plan
your house with an idea in mind. I also have to admit it's a whole
lot cheaper to buy than a large lot because you don't how a large,
how one's taxes are perfected by the size of the lot. I
think to investigate that. But, it's not difficult to
be years old and the new property owner has a small lot which
now accommodates a house of choice. Also, I got to admit how the
is I guess that's what one might call my
house. I call it a retirement house. I've never built a house.
I've owned three, never built. I'm not clever enough to figure out
what a house would look like from a piece of scrap. I have to see a
house to know what I've got. I mean when it's done, of course,
but, our lot I believe is the same lot as the lot in question that is
suppose to be built , although it's a smaller lot, it's 100 x
50. Fortunately the laws of this community expect houses to be
separated by a certain distance. That's what makes it different from
the place I eame from and that's , and that's why I like it out
here and I think that's important. I also have to admit I, I, do
question, that when one buys a corner lot I realize there are certain
setbacks that mostly are perspective and that's good. But, I fully
expect it to be a backyard and I find myself a sideyard and as a
sideyard there's less setback required and I about that and
perhaps I should wait for the official, the next official meeting is
held.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I have to tell you that at least three
or four of my colleagues have informed me that I was incorrect in
Page 24 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
interpreting this particular application and quite honestly that was
the reason for the debate about the 15 feet as oppose to the debate
about the 9.7 feet and so for all intensive purposes it appears that
there is no problem with the 15 feet.
MRS. GILLAN: So one can call the back what I would call the back,
I mean it's call the sideyard even though its out to the front door
so that doesn't matter.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, evidently opt to take either one.
MRS. GILLAN: I see.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's the particular problem.
MEMBER COLLINS: Just to elaborate from Mrs. Gillan. The code has
an expressed provision that say, if you have a corner tot, you are
obliged to meet the front yard setbacks on both streets. Of course
you can ask for a variance if you need it, and you may very well
get it, or you may not get it. But, the front yard setbacks are
imposed on both of your frontages and you then may designate one
of your other yards as the rear yard.
MRS. GILLAN: I see.
MEMBER COLLINS: And people are given that opportunity because
among other things our code says, that accessory buildings, sheds
and garages can only go in the rear yard, so you want to think
about what's the rear yard and that's, it's not a random thing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anything else Mrs. Gillan.
MRS. GILLAN: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. So the question is, when do
we put it back on? We have a request from one person that says he
is or his family is not available neither November or December. So
in that particular case we might suggest that he reduces his
comments to writing were he or she, or both. Do we want to go
with November?
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I have it tentatively on the calendar.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have it tentatively for November, I'm
just asking the Board.
MEMBER DINIZIO: When is it?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The 19th of November. OK, November
19th, OK? Alright so we'll recess the hearing until November 19th.
Bage 25 - Hearing Trunscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
Is there anybody else in the au~'ence
that we've gotten that cleared up. ~
like to speak now
MRS. TRUGLIA: My name is Eileen~ other
neighbor Mrs. Gillan but, she was: going to be available, we had
other plans as well so we decide~F/also to come in and hear us. My
husband had asked 'a/physician and to be with us
and this is his schedule.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does the Board want to a take this into
consideration?
MR.
: Move it to December, is that what you're saying?
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well he's not available in December either,
obviously, right, that's what he said in his letter.
MR.
: It's OK with me. I'll refer to the neighbors.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: December 10th.
MR.
December
: If you want to accommodate it, it's fine with me for
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Tute?
December 10th would be better? Mr.
MR. TUTE: I have the same problem. Thursday, December 19th,
(inaudible) I'm not expected to be back (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we
putting this on as a last hearing.
hearing, OK, I have to tell you.
can almost guaranty you by
That this will be a twilight
MEMBER COLLINS: A midnight hearing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well when I say twilight, I'm talking four
hours after, alright. You know, it'll probably be between 9:30 and
10:00 o'clock.
Mrs. Gillan speaking, not clear.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other problem that we have is
possibly we could readdress this at a, at one of our special meetings
so we may want to deal with that aspect of it.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
had suggested that.
Well they could put it in writing too. You
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
ladies and gentlemen?
Yes, yes.
So, what do you want to do
~age 26 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZlO: I can't understand why they can't, if they have
some questions, why can't they ask them now? Reduce any other
questions to writing later on.
MRS. TRUGLIA: We would like to give you a presentation
MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have any objection to it?
MRS. TRUGLIA: Well I'd rather be prepared to answer your
questions I really just got notice last weekend
and
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is your timeliness on this
construction Sir?
MR. SVATOVIC: I'm a kind of a -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now that your in title.
MR. SVATOVIC: Right, kind of waiting to a, we started to
so it's going to be more than a year and four months.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Department approval?
OK, have you applied for Health
MR. SVATOVIC: Yes, I got Health Department, but, even that took
time and a it also dragged It took quite a long time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, well my question to the Board is,
even though we have voted we can change that. Do you want to
hold it over until January?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no.
MEMBER HORNING: I would say November or December and the
people should make a point of being here if they have something to
say or present in writing as has been suggested.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree.
MEMBER COLLINS: I agree.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you feel Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: If a, I would put it, if the applicant has no
objections I would put it for the last hearing in -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: November 19th?
MEMBER TORTORA: Or December.
P.age 9.7 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. SVATOVIC: I'm willing to accommodate it to December. I mean
one more month won't that make much difference, but going to the
next year in ~lanuary, oh, no.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, that's too long.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright, so, the question is, last
hearing in November. We've already voted, but, last meeting in
November, November 19th, or last hearing on December 10th.
Mr. Truglia: Can we have it the third week in December?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That was Mr. Truglia speaking for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that was Mr. Truglia. Could we
change that a-
MEMBER TORTORA: Let's just rescind the other one. I'll make a
motion rescinding the prior. I make a motion to recalendar this for
December 10th, the last hearing in the evening.
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
BO~kRD MEMBERS: Aye. Thank you.
OK.
Anybody else like to speak?
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
~age 28 - Hearing Transcripts
OCtober 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
7:25 P.M. - Appl. No. 4608 - BERYL E. CAFFREY
Variance is requested under Article III-A, Section 100-33C
(100-30A.4) (Zoning) to locate a proposed new garage and tool shed
in an area other than the required rear yard (ref: August 12, 1998
Disapproval of Building Permit Application). Location of Property:
520 Cedar Drive, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-106-10-24.1. Zone
District: R-40 Residential.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It appears to be 23 feet 9 inches by 23
feet 9 inches and its specific placement is approximately or it
appears to be written in 136 feet from Millers right-of-way and
approximately 20 feet from it appears to be the southeasterly
property line and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there
somebody like to be heard? Good evening Sir, would you state your
name for the record.
Mr. KELLY: Bill Kelly.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you Mr. Kelly?
MR. KELLY: I'm representing Beryl Caffrey.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us about this
building?
MR. KELLY: The situation here is that they're calling Miller's
right-of-way a road so that she has two front yards and
because of that we requested a variance so that she could
which is actually what we should of called it the rear yard. Cedar
Drive would be the front yard of the driveway access to the
property to a -.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that 136 feet an approximate figure or
is it about, concrete?
MR. KELLY: That was the scale I figured. I have a new map that
was done by a surveyor. What they do on a survey map is that
they actually the line. They have the line from the
right-of-way so the closest distance from the right-of-way which is
Miller's right-of-way, is 107 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 107 feet.
MR. KELLY: But, if you were to measure down to the side of the
property line, it would be 136 feet.
~age 29 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so the southerly property,
souteasterly property would be 136 feet on that side, is that what
you're saying? At its closest point?
MR. KELLY: No, on the southeasterly property line -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It would be 1077
MR. KELLY: It would be 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry.
MR. KELLY: 20 feet off the southeasterly property line.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm saying that the lot faces almost due
north, OK. A little off. Why don't we -
MR. KELLY: Yeah, the lot faces -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me see yours.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's 100 feet. A little over 100 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The house lot faces north, northeast?
MR. KELLY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other faces southwest?
MR. KELLY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, oh, I see the way they drew it.
It's interesting the way they drew it.
MR. KELLY: they pull it off the property line. They
pull it off the right-of-way. The closest distance to the
right-of-way. I don't know if that's the correct way to do it,
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. KELLY: Not for your benefit.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's at least 100 feet though.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. KELLY: The point of the matter is, it's 136 feet
be considered -
would
P~age 30 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Miller's right-of-way.
MR. KELLY:
front yard.
Miller's right-of-way, which could be considered the
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. OK, what utility will this building
contain?
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There are two buildings.
MR. KELLY: It's a two car garage.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
shed involved.
There are two buildings.
There's also a
MR. KELLY: The shed is a tool shed, or a planting shed. It's a,
it's I think only 8 x 10. That shed is only 8 sq. ft. That was a
portable shed.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
right-of-way.
That's about 100 feet from Miller's
MR. KELLY: Yeah, that's
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I didn't get to that yet.
That's about 100 feet.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, he just mentioned that it was only one
building so I said, no there's two buildings.
MR. KELLY: Yeah. Yeah, actually I was unaware of the small tool
shed that was added to the variance.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MR, KELLY:
they are in
But in either case if Cedar Drive is the front yard
MEMBER HORNING: I wanted to know where the driveway was?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Drive. The question is,
electricity?
The driveway is basically on Cedar
the utility in the garage. Only utility,
MR. KELLY:
the garage.
The only utility of electricity would be a coach light to
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, nothing else, no water?
Page 31 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, ][998 - Board of Appeals
MR. KELLY: No. It should be a two car garage. Actually a one
car garage.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any
questions of this gentleman?
MEMBER DINIZIO: The shed is going to go behind the garage as
opposed to the house. In other words it's going to be a house,
garage -
MR. KELLY: Yeah, yeah. In reference to Cedar Drive, the shed
would be in the rear yard of the house. Cedar Drive is the front
yard.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, but, behind the garage also? The new
garage?
MR. KELLY: I don't have that plan that you have. So whatever it
shows, I guess.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's penciled in.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I think specifically we're just worried about
how close you're going to come to the rear.
MR. KELLY: OK, it would be, it wouldn't be any closer than 136
feet or 1/3 of the driveway.
MEMBER DINIZIO: In other words, the shed will be 136 feet, or the
garage?
MR. KELLY: Yes, both of them. They're going to be both in the
same I believe when the shed is finally placed, it's a
portable shed and I mean I don't know if it's in it's final location
but~ I think it's final placing would be next to the garage.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have it behind the garage, so. (Looking at the
plan with Mr. Kelly).
MR. KELLY: I know that the shed sitting there now, where the
shed is sitting there now, will be next to the garage.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What's the setback? Will be 136 feet to ?
MR. KELLY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we will now write the shed in where
the 24 lies on the garage, is that correct?
MR. KELLY: That's quite alright.
P~age 32 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's an 8 x 10 portable shed?
MR. KELLY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good. Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: I didn't get a chance until today to get over
there and look at the property and I wonder if you know when it
was posted with the notice signs for the hearing because they
certainly weren't there today?
MR. KELLY: I think Mrs. Caffrey submitted the Notice of Posting
herself.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's one right here. He's reading it.
MR. KELLY: The best I -
MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I realize you were not really the person to
ask. But, I just wanted to ask it on the record.
MR. KELLY: As best as I know, I think it was posted on either the
8th or the 9th.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you have a date there, Jerry?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have September 28th.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: September 28, so she put it up early, it
still met the requirements.
MEMBER COLLINS: And took it down. OK, I just wanted to ask it
for the record.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That all the code asks you to do.
MEMBER COLLINS: Because it's unusual.
MR. KELLY: I know, I know when the mailing was done and the
mailing was done on the 9th.
MEMBER COLLINS: It's just unusual not to find the signs there and
I just wanted to ask when they were there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER HORNING:
Thank you. Mrs. Tortora?
Mr. Homing?
I don't have any questions for now.
~age 33 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, ]998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're standing there is there
anybody else in the audience that would 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: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
make a motion?
Unless Mr. Dinizio, you would like to
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's already been made and second.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
will rescind her second.
OK, I'll rescind my motion if Ms. Collins
SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
already.
Wait, you closed the hearing, that passed
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
yeah, we
We didn't take a motion.
We didn't say
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You closed there hearing. You're going to
vote on it now, is that what you're saying?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, I'm going to rescind that motion
for closing the hearing and I'm going to very simply say, that we
are going to leave the hearing open and make a decision.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well let's just address it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I said.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well we can open the hearing or we can just -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't even vote on it yet, so we said
a motion and a second. So we didn't vote on it. So, I'm rescinding
the motion.
MEMBER COLLINS: Let's get back to square one.
MEMBER TORTORA: It doesn't matter if you closed the hearing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
I'll close it.
It doesn't really make any difference.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I'd like to make a motion that we grant it as
applied for and now that we have the 136 feet perhaps just reduce
that somewhere. Under garage and the shed to be
'Bage 34 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
built well within reach setback with the code requirement for
principal structure, applicant to pursue under matters
. The amount of relief requested is not a changeover, that the
applicant has a lot in excess of 40,000 sq. ft. is removing the shed
that is built over the property line and the garage has a
nonconforming setback side garage. That it does not have an
adverse effect and in fact environmental conditions in the
neighborhood district and difficulty
MEMBER COLLINS: Jim, in I just want to be clear in
what we're saying. Applicant has lot in excess of 40,000 sq. ft.,
fine. Is removing a shed, we actually, all we have is sought of a
hearsay statement that the applicant is going to remove the shed,
is on the property line and then it says, and a garage has a
nonconforming setback from the side yard.. I don't understand what
you're saying.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well there's a garage, framed garage on -
.MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, oh.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's being removed.
MEMBER COLLINS: And a garage that has, OK, OK.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
That the shed is over the line and the garage is
MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just didn't understand the a,
MEMBER DINIZIO: If that were in the front yard.
MEMBER COLLINS: I just think there's a word missing, that's the
only problem.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I second it. All in favor.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Jim isn't done yet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, go ahead.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, I'm just waiting for comment.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well you had mentioned that you wanted to
insert 136 sq. ft. I have on the first page of the draft that Lora
just read to you, on the bottom, where it says, area variance relief
requested, second sentence. Setbacks are at least 100 feet from the
front property lines along Miller's right-of-way to meet code, if
that's alright, OK.
MEMBER COLLINS: Fine, That's fine, that give them a -
~,age 35 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn't know when I was writing it how far the
land was. I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll second it.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
Bage 36 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
7:28 P.M. - Appl. No. 4610 - D. GAROFALO
This is a request for a Variance under the Zoning Code, Article
IIIA, Section 100-30A.4 (100-33C) for permission to locate accessory
swimming-pool structure in an area other than the required rear
yard, at 1045 Koke Drive, Southold, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-87-5-16.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating
the right-of-way which is Koke Drive and the right-of-way which in
turn was within the subdivision area which make this a corner lot
and which I assume is unnamed and I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the
area, this one appears as being shown at 35 feet from the unnamed
right-of-way and 35 feet from How do you do. What would
you like to tell us about the swimming pool.
Mr. : Well I'd like to put it in the a, since we really have the
parking situated almost like Parking either directly behind
there, the house there is very narrow I pictures on
here. The piece where we want to put a pool there, won't be like
35 feet off each one of the supposedly right-of-way for private roads
going around and it will be a, large hedges all the way about 10 foot
high and it will hide the whole pool area. It's not going to be an
eyesore to where it is
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, one of the situations that we deal
with and this is, that the setback that you're requiring or
requesting is 35 feet. Most people don't build swimming pools
without having some sought of deck around them or flat terrace or
ground level terrace or whatever the case might be. What are you
intending to build around this?
MR. GAROFALO: Yeah, hi, I'm the owner. What we intend to do is
a, the small patio that we're going to put on to the pool area would
be heading in the direction towards the house if you're looking at
the survey.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
MR. GAROFALO: So everything that's on the 35 foot areas is going
to be more gardens. Any kind of structure that's going to be built
towards the house well there's you know 100 feet on that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, on the three sides or basically the
two sides that face the two rights-of-way, there will be nothing?
MR. GAROFALO: Flowers.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Flowers, OK.
~,age 37 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER COLLINS: The land is sloping rather steeply down towards
Koke Drive.
MR. GAROFALO: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: Isn't it on both those sides? So, it wouldn't be
practical, in fact to build that decking down there.
MR. GAROFALO: It would be practical to build anything, but, yeah,
right, that's, that is a major concern, that's why we figured just
terrace gardens was the way to go with it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the pool shall remain open. There's
no intent of ever of enclosing this?
MR. GAROFALO: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the size of the pool is what for the
record?
MR. GAROFALO: 16 x 32.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 16 x 32, right, OK. I guess we'll start
with Mr. Homing on this.
MEMBER HORNING: I don't have a question right now.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have any.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Just to round out what we were just saying
about decking and so forth. On the drawing that I have which is
your property survey with the pool drawn in, there's a rectangle
around the pool with xes on it. I gather that's the fence?
MR. GAROFALO: I had just put that in there. We had discussed
that later on. The fence is going to go back by the hedges.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Around the property line.
MR. GAROFALO: Right.
MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, yes, I see another set of xes, alright, OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That fence will not exceed the height
limit for the frontyard area?
MR. GAROFALO:
Page 38 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Any other questions Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, that's.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizie?
MEMBER DINIZIO: So then we're looking at the second survey that
doesn't have those xes?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. But it has new xes on
the property line.
MEMBER DINIZIO: How many xes we're going to have are on the
perimeter of the, actually on the property line and then the pool in
the middle of this OK, that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that will be inside the property line
because it will be inside that large hedge .
MR. GAROFALO: Yes, right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; While you gentlemen are standing there, is
there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak in
favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a
motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
MEMBER DINIZlO: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 39 - Hearing True,Scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
7:44 P.M.- Appl No. 4612 - D. BURNHAM
Requests for (a) Lot Waiver for 1000-10-4-7.1 with recognition as a
single lot under Article II, Section 100-26, apart from Parcels
1000-4-7.8, 7.2, 7.3, 8; and (b) Lot Waiver for 1000-10-4-9.3 with
recognition as a single lot under Article II, Section 100-26, apart
from Parcels 1000-10-4-9.4, 9.2, 7.1. This property is shown on the
filed "Plan of Peninsula at Fishers Island," located at Darbies Cove,
Private 'Road (extending off the north side of Peninsula Road),
Fishers Island, N.Y.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a eopy of the survey which
indicates tax map lot 7.1 at .051 acres, excuse me, .51 acres and
tax map lot number 9.3 at the same approximate acreage showing as
both plus or minus and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax
Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr.
Ham how are you, we haven't seen you in a little while. How have
you been?
MR. HAM: Well, I had a round trip to Manhattan today too and
tomorrow. So, I'm tired, but anyway, Stephen Ham, 45 Hampton
Road, Southampton, N.Y.
MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: Could I ask Mr. Ham a question before he begins?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
MEMBER COLLINS: As I understand it and as the Chairman read
the legal notice and I read the file obviously, your raising a
question of the merger which you would certainly like to undo of lot
7.1 with 7.2 and 7.4 whatever and 8. I have it all in my notes,
but, I'm just being a little vague and 9.3 with 9.2 and maybe
another one.
MR. HAM. Right.
MEMBER COLLINS: I read the file, I read the materials in the file
ineluding the deed by which Mr. Burnham purchased all of that land
in 1964 and the deed by which he conveyed to his daughter Betty,
these two lots in 1974 and also the title search that showed that
Grace and Joann also got land in 1974 from Mr. Burnham. As far as
I could see and I'm an amateur, I thought that the lots were
contiguous lots were out of common ownership in 1974 and our eode
would impose merger on nonconforming lots, etcetera, only if they
Page 40 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
were in same ownership after the middle of 1983. So, I'm wondering
where that problem comes from if we're going to address it.
MR. HAM. Well if you, I don't have, well I have the sheet in
the brief case but, I think when you look at these lots for
recognition purposes you refer to a chart in back of the ordinance
which says, for residential A'or whatever it was that they had to be
pushed out sq. ft. I think that 98, 1983 date relates to search
Planning Board approved subdivision. I'm saying that off the top of
my head without having it in front of me. But, if that's the case
then, tell the Building Inspector and I can go home.
MEMBER COLLINS: Well, but we don't have anything from the
Building Inspector addressing that figure question of the merger or
each of those lots with adjacent lots. All the Building Inspector
has at least in my file, all that he has said is, that since 7.1 of
9.3 were both owned by Betty they merged. I have a question
about that too.
MR. HAM: Oh, well, OK.
MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry, I'm not trying to make trouble here.
I'm trying to make the troubles go away.
MR. HAM: No, some of those Notices of Disapproval are not
addressed but, I, if you take the analysis just going through
the Ordinance Sections 125 and 126, you end up referring to the
chart in back of the ordinance which requires 40,000 sq. ft.
minimum and apparently Mr. Burnham Sr. who acquired all of this
property in 1964 did create these lots in 1974 at a time when they
should have been 40,000 sq. ft. but were not and that's the problem
that I would like you to address.
MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I don't think -
MR. HAM: Believe it or not just to make it clear this question came
up or it might come up and I'll address it now. These are several
lots in each case on the old subdivision map of the Peninsula which
we're not trying to undo. What we're we're saying, that lots in the
one case 22, 24 and 25 have merged. We're just asking for
recognition of past lots and analysis. And, in terms of if I can
proceed-
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, sure, I -
MR. HAM: I think if you look at the standards under Which you
review this type of application, the most significant is the
consistency and you'll agree the consistency of the lot size and
that's the bulk of this memorandum that I have given you. I have
~age 41 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
done an analysis of all the lots on the Peninsula, approved,
unapproved, residential. There are few that are excessive roads
and one mariner I believe. In any event you come up with 33
parcels not counting these two that would be devoted to some
residential use, but one or another. Twenty have houses already
and of those twenty, fifteen are in fact smaller than these two lots
which are half an acre and the other point I'd would like to make, I
looked at what the medium lot size is here, half greater and half
smaller and it's .25 so, if these lots are recognized you're
recognizing lots that are already twice as large as those in this
neighborhood. So, even if they don't warrant zoning and did not
conform to zoning there clearly would not be any change to the
character of the neighborhood. As far as the other elements, other
factors are concerned, we speak of density. I think what will
happen here probably is, if you grant relief my client will build on
the landward parcel. The other parcel probably is unbuildable
because of wetlands and setback issues which would have to be
addressed with the Trustees and the DEC and so forth. So, really
density you're talking about, on or at most it would be two, but in
all likelihood only one additional family. As I've said, it would be
on a house on a lot that exceeds by 100% medium size lots in the
area. He has no plans to build at this point and then the economical
hardship that the lots would be worthless So, I just
would, I think really focusing on the neighborhood would be the key
point here and I think that I hope you'll agree that when you
analyze this neighborhood, a half acre lot is a large lot. I'd be
happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We had the distinct of being on this
subdivision or at least a portion of it this past summer and the
houses are quite close together. The lots are extremely small.
There's no question about it. I just didn't understand what you
meant when you said, that he created this lot in 1974. What do you
mean by that?
MR. HAM: Well he owned a larger piece which for Planning Board
purposes would probably be deemed to be merged and I don't think
they would recognize the old map here. So, when he purported
deeds to his daughters they were then put into single and separate
ownership.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK.
MR. HAM: And I think the ordinance refers to when lots are
"created by deed", by Planning Board and so forth. So I was using
that as a term used in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright.
mean I knew they were deeded out.
meant by though created.
I just didn't, I thought you, I
I didn't know what you really
Page 42 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. HAM:
of
I was trying to parrot what the ordinance, a term
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other issue is, what restriction
would you place on the lot, that's on Darbies Cove? Would you, are
you at liberty to do so in reference to the sterilization of that lot?
MR. HAM: I think it's, for practieal purposes, it's sterilized
already in that he would need permission from the Trustee and the
DEC which would be unlikely to be forthcoming. If a, I would
rather have you just address the size issue and say that just for
recognition purposes at this point, say, these lots are fairly within
the character of the neighborhood without focusing on. I have no,
if I were to eome baek, I'd have to come back, I think with
showing setbacks and building envelope, potential building envelopes
and so forth, I think this, at this stage I would just ask you to
recognize that the areas would be consistent to the neighborhood in
that he would have this. I don't think he would like granting a
waiver here. He's saying, that it's buildable or unbuildable for
other purposes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know. I'd have to think about
that. But, the problem would be that if there was an attempt to
build on it, we certainly a, to a certain degree I understand what
you're saying, OK, and I'm just saying that in the past (changing of
tape), of that nature, OK, and that's the reason why I'm just
undrawing a little more out of it than I should draw out of it sought
of speak. It's only a point of passing.
MR. HAM: I could see you might recognize in some decision that
you make that this is a waterfront parcel and would appear to not
have sufficient area for a lot, but I would be reluctant to put place
other than on it at this point without doing some further analysis
and so forth and I think there are other agencies that would have
jurisdiction over that issue where as I'm looking at you for the
recognition issue.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. For the record, does this have a
central water system in that area? I thought I had seen a -
MR. HAM: I'm doing, yes.
Peninsula.
I know on the lower part of the
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Lower Peninsula Road.
MR. HAM: Some people have, yes, I do have an answer for you.
According to, I'm helping a man who is buying a piece of property
and getting permits. There is public water available. However,
some people still use their wells at that part of the Peninsula.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I believe we'll start with Mr. Dinizio.
Page 43 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: I, I just see on the plan that the lot that's on
the is most likely right down the middle -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the actual way to get to the
house.
MR. HAM: That's owned by Albert
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm talking about the right-of-way that goes
down to the water.
MR. HAM: Oh, oh.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, that right-of-way.
MR. HAM: Yes, my client owns that land but apparently people who
have lots in subdivision have rights.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You have rights too, then. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: I've made my stab at trying to understand
this. I'm not going to go any further. I guess I see what Mr. Ham
says the issue is. Basically all of the land owned by Mr. Burnham,
really did not successfully get conveyed to the daughters. I mean
they've been conveyed in sense as to who owns it, but in terms of
lot purposes -
MR. HAM: Right, the title purposes but for zoning purposes it's
not. And believe me that is not a first example on Fishers Island.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. But I mean, I gather then that there are
potential problems here with probably other parts of this land.
MR. HAM: Well there may be, there may be -
MEMBER COLLINS: I'm not raising it, I'm just sought of musing
about it.
MR. HAM: Well, let me, I can, 9.4 it's .25 acres. 7.3, yeah,
there may be, there may be.
MEMBER COLLINS: I gather then, that when Mr. & Mrs. Burnham
bought 7, I and 9.3, in a, two years ago a year and a half years
ago, -
MR. HAM: About last year.
MEMBER COLLINS: None of this surfaced when they -
Page 44 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. HAM: No, it surfaced.
MEMBER COLLINS: It surfaced.
MR. HAM: I was representing them. We recognized the problem and
they felt the hardship, the sellers were moving to Florida and we
had some identification they were fully informed. But, they would
have the same rights that their seller would if you were standing
here. I think it's not a self created situation. But, I can tell
you that this came up, it was addressed and they wanted to help
her out because she was moving to Florida.
MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any questions, thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing?
MEMBER HORNING: I feel comfortable in not understanding what
the issue is. I did talk to the applicant and I viewed the site also
because it was unclear at that time what the intent was. Mr. Ham
has enlighten this a great deal in that respect. There is no intent
of unmerging the old parcels? Let's say 22, 24 and 25 from each
other?
MR. HAM: No.
MEMBER HORNING: Or 21, -
MR. HAM: Although there is a lot with a house on it in this
Peninsula. It's .07 acres.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
literally on the road.
Yes, we did see that one.
It's actually
MR. HAM: Well that's the
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
right-of-way.
I think the front porch is on the
MR. HAM:
it's defined by the house.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I think we went that far last year.
MEMBER HORNING: I don't know what position it would put the
Board in to recognize a lot that was deemed to be not buildable. It
lies on the base on Fishers Island that you have waterfront property
that you couldn't build on. But, it's not our position to judge on
that I don't think, but there is some question as Mr. Ham has
Rage 45 - Hearing TranScripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
mentioned as to whether or not there's actually enough room to build
that south side of the right-of-way if we indeed determine that it
was a separate lot.
MR. HAM: In fact, I mean I recognize that in my memorandum, that
my client is fully aware that that's a difficult property.
MEMBER HORNING: There's not enough space.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, in the recognition aspect, then, are
you saying, that both parcels would be sold together, if they were
sold?
MR. HAM: Well -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe, maybe not.
MR. HAM: Yeah, I don't, again, I wouldn't want to foreclose their
ability to sell. Particularly you know, maybe an adjoining owner
might want one piece just to put a dock on it or something like that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, thank you. Is there anybody else
would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Any
questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I'll
make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Need approximately a three minute
recess. I need a motion ladies and gentlemen.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So moved.
Page 46 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
8:12 P.M. - Appl. No. 4613 - HANS AND FRANCOISE RIEGER
This is a request based upon the Building Inspector's August 20,
1998 Notice of Disapproval, for a Variance under Article III, Section
100-32 Bulk Schedule, of the Zoning Code, to alter, renovate and
convert an existing historical windmill storage building, from
non-habitable use to habitable use, utilizing the existing windmill
nonconformity and location. Location of Property: 2615 Platt Road,
Orient, N.Y., also shown as Lot I on the Map of "Settlers at
Oysterpond;" Parcel No. 1000-27-2-2.1. Zone: R-80 Residential.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll be right with you Sir. I have a copy
of the Map which is dated March 17, 1990 and which shows the
placement of the existing wood frame building at 8.7 at its closest
point, approximately 58.5 from Platt Road and 8.7 is the sideyard
and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area. I think we're ready now. How
are you tonight Sir?
(Mr. Rieger giving Chairman the green cards, only one missing, the
rest have been submitted).
MR. RIEGER: My name is John Rieger and I'm owner of part of it
and my wife and we tried to turn the (? name which is
Historic into a residence. The advantage of it is, obviously
the square footage is there, and it's much easier to convert an
existing structure rather than building a new one. It would be a
hardship and historically speaking it would be I assume an advantage
to operate the building into a residence because it would be taken
better care of it and the usage would be a
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
how much?
The present square footage exactly, is
MR. RIEGER: Well it's 1500, a little bit more than 1500.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
story?
Does that include the loft on the second
MR. RIEGER: There's a loft on the second floor, yes. Now, we're
trying , the intention is, to keep this loft in the original
form that exists a windmill and and scenery which is a also
perfecting the use of it and with a it's nice to
have thai and a to be used as a living quarters although it would be
predominantly taking a temperatures of a
windmill , have different , different , only
partially there. It's not complete, it's tiny. Eventually maybe it
could be completed again through tedious situation.
But, I don't think that would be practical certainly it would be
Page 47 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
too expensive because our system, operates a system
more decoration.
. It's
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
the loft?
OK, the 1500 does or does not include
MR. RIEGER: Does not include the loft.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. The question I have is, is there any
sanitary system on the property at this time?
MR. RIEGER: Yes there is. In fact, there is a, an approved
system which has and has been approved by the Health
Department.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so there at presently is a, there's
bathroom facilities, lavatory facilities on the site?
MR. RIEGER: There are all requirements for it, yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK.
done assuming you get our approval?
So what basically has to be
MR. RIEGER: Well what has to be done, the kitchen has to be put
in a some a, bathroom equipment has to be upgraded and some doors
need to be upgraded. You come into single doors right now and
some lightings has to be approved and outside , some
requirements of the code which would be necessary to upgrade it to
a residence.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, it appears to me to be a studio at
this point. Is that correct?
MR. RIEGER: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it heated, presently?
MR. RIEGER: It has a, yes, it has a hot air system although it is
not perhaps efficient. It has to be upgraded.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Mr. Rieger?
Is there any basement in the building,
MR. RIEGER: No, no. There is a partial well which is underneath
the building. It's a small well and it's out of
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A pit like?
MR. RIEGER: A pit like, yes.
~age 48 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you sir.
Homing. Any questions of Mr. Rieger?
We'll start with Mr.
MEMBER HORNING: I would like to ask again on your intention on
the equipment in the loft area. Do you have that? Do you leave
that there?
MR. RIEGER: No, no, it's not needed. I mean it's just strictly
decoration. I mean it's just to keep it as a memento or as a type of
structure. It's a partially, it's not operable. I mean it's
obviously a, it cannot be used for , or anything. It's a
I mean it shows what it use to be although it
is a 20-60% of
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Excuse me George.
How old is the building in general?
MR. RIEGER: Well the building starts back I guess the original
building was tower and that I assume was built around 1830, and
then as a farm land, and expanded it in order to
accommodate the different requirements like for example ,
upgraded it to a not only for the windmill but also brought in the
gas engine and have all kinds of tools equipment there and I have
some photographs of it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great.
MR. RIEGER: And so it was a done at three different periods of
time. It started out as a tower and then they added the tool sheds
and it became sought of like a model made of different structures
which has a character. It has a character of
It is a just a sought of like a growing architecture which
shows a, I did add to it too. I mean my little that added 20 x
20 sq. ft. to make it a studio, when I purchased it. But,
prior to that, I it was very deteriorated and a, if you're
a basically for taking it apart. That's why I , but I sought of
persistent on rebuilding it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
on you before.
Great.
Excuse me George for stepping
MEMBER HORNING: It's alright.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Mr. Rieger?
Is there anything else you'd like to ask
MEMBER HORNING: I want him to state then that the intention is
strictly residential, is that correct?
MR. RIEGER: That's correct, yes.
Rage 49 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything else, George?
MEMBER HORNING: No, no thanks.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA:
without the loft?
That 1500 feet is the existing structure,
MR. RIEGER: It's a, yeah, it's a outline of buildings.
there's only a loft in upper part. Only partial part of it,
structure has a loft, only as the second part.
Actually
upper
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to say, that when you
measure, excuse me again for jumping in, when you measure a two
story building which a portion of this is the second story you would
add that square footage to it. The footprint itself is 1500 sq. ft.
on the ground floor.
MR. RIEGER: Right, actually it's a 26, is a I think it's a
I believe, 2,394. office structure as a You know
the total is 2,394. So the difference would be seven hundred -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which should be the loft area?
MR. RIEGER: That's right and I have been taxed for the last ten
years for the loft on this particular building meaning that it
was taxed as a residential , and it wasn't, it wasn't occupied.
But, that's not here I'm to say.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything else you want to ask?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. DINIZIO?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. OK, Mr. Rieger we'll find
out what else anybody else has concerning this. We thank you for
your presentation. It's really a super looking building, there's no
question about it. One of a kind, one of a kind. Thank you. Is
there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to
speak against? OK, any other further questions? No questions, I
guess we'll move to close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
rage 50 - Hearing T~,~nscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER HORNING: I'll make such motion.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll second that motion.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
All in favor?
'P, age 51 - Hearing Tz~lscripts
Dctober 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
8:23 P.M. - Appl. No. 4614 - R. BOARDMAN
This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-30A.3
(100-244B) Zoning Code Bulk Schedule (based upon the Building
inspector's August 25, 1998 Notice of Disapproval), for a proposed
deck addition which will exceed the 20% limitation for total lot
~overage. Location of Property: 690 Village Lane, Orient, N.Y.;
Parcel ID: 1000-25-1-13. Existing lot size is 9,626+-sf.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Boardman how are you again tonight?
MR. BOARDMAN: Fine, thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We managed to see your deck in and so
On and so forth in normal progression sought of speak. My
discussion with you some months ago was that you needed more
square footage and that's why you're here tonight. What would you
like to tell us?
MR. BOARDMAN: As I slowly continued my project house, part of
Whieh was already involved in a variance last May involving lot
~overage. My original deck plan was proved to be both small and
partially in the wrong place. I have already requested reloeation
from the Building Department in June which was approved, and the
present configuration leaves the original and somehow unanswered,
{~nd I'm requesting to add approximately exaetly 85 scl. ft. to the
deck whieh in effect puts some portion of the deek in configuration.
The difficulty is that I've completed the approved portion of the
~leck., Some ground level solution would at this point be fairly
inconsistent with what's already there.
~HAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so you have given us a significant
amount of percentages here. Would you like to wrap those up and
fell us exactly what we're talking about here?
MR. BOARDMAN: In May we had a lot area figure of a 20% coverage
Of that. A total of what was proposed was some in the excess
~ver the 20% figure involved 1.16% figures which in effeet the
Board approved a slightly larger figure. That figure evolves other
than what the Building Department -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Calculated?
MR. BOARDMAN: Calculated that at that time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MR. BOARDMAN: Adding the 85 sq. ft. brings me to a total which
in reality using my figure and not the Building Department figure is
Bage 52 - Hearing Tr~mcripts
October ]5, 1998 - Board of Appeals
still within what was originally approved, there's still some
select question of whether I need to go through this at all.
However, there's enough in consistency here albeit in tens of
hundreds of percentage to raise the question.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, when I went into your rear yard and
I saw that partially done area over, in standing in back of the
house, it would be at the left-hand side, that is the portion that
we're talking about?
MR. BOARDMAN: That's the portion in question, yes and it's that
way because I originally built it in that configuration and that's
what they
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Dinizio?
Oh, OK, alright.
We'll start with Mr.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. I was the one who
was responsible for asking you to give us sought of start from
scratch, sought of numbers because I had not first been involved in
your early deliberations and the record just confused me so I thank
you for these numbers No, no questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning?
MEMBER HORNING: I just have one question. I believe you
mentioned I believe something to the effect the, your original plan
deck was insufficient or too small. Can you explain that a little
bit?
MR. BOARDMAN: The rear of the house I have added to a bedroom
and have added a family room essentially side by side. The original
deck configuration involved a larger portion at the bedroom part of
the addition because the walkway that the gamble part issue upon
constructing both additions that the size of the walkway and the
living room was certainly not adequate for usage. In other words
the usable part of the deck turned out to by the bedroom and not
by the where it should of been.
MEMBER HORNING: OK. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Boardman. Is there
anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application?
P, age 53 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further
comment, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision
until later.
MEMBER TORTORA: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
Rage 54 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
8:30 P.M. - Appl. 4615 - P. CHAZAN AND B. BOYD
This is a request for a variance (based upon the Building
Inspector's July 30, 1998 Notice of Disapproval), Article XXIII,
Section 100-231 (Zoning) for placement of a proposed fence which
will exceed the four ft. height limitation when located in or along a
front yard. Location of Property: 280 Sunrise Way, Southold, N.Y.;
also shown as Lot 177 on the Map of "Cedar Beach", parcel
1000-91-1-13.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey which has
been significantly copied, but, however, for Cedar Beach Park of
Lot #177. We have an indication in yellow highlight of where this
fence area is requesting to be heightened, placed and heightened,
and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area. Good evening sir, how are you?
MR. CHAZAN: I'm Paul Chazan.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nice to meet you.
MR. CHAZAN: I have the Affidavit of Mailing/
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wonderful, thank you and some green
cards do you have for us?
MR. CHAZAN: I mailed you, did you receive 4 green cards?
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's alright, probably tomorrow's mail.
MR. CHAZAN: OK, four of the green cards.
cards that I did not get back, but, I have E mail
from, do you want that?
Two of the green
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, 'yes.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We got four. We got the other four. Just
the two. I have a note that we're still waiting for two more.
MR. CHAZAN: Let me give you the E mail as one. The other would
be the Stefanellies and I think they're in Florida.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
fence Mr. Chazan?
Thank you.
Tell us why you'd like this
MR. CHAZAN: The fence, you call it our front yard and we call it
our back yard it would be at the side. We would be putting a
P. age 55 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
portion of our property because it would be used in the backyard
and quite frankly to give us privacy and to also give the neighbors
privacy. As you can see from the survey, the map, it only covers
a portion of the side yard. That portion looks out not only to the
property being towards the south but also to all of the other
properties to the south. That's the reason.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, the distance from Sunrise, Sunset
Way rather which is the westerly portion would be what distance?
Approximately? To the start of the fence.
MR. CHAZAN:
about 40 to 50.
To the start of the fence?
I'd say it's probably
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you measure that exactly for us so
we would have it for the record, tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday?
Sometime next week.
MR. CHAZAN: There's a smoke tree where the fence will start on
the westerly side.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so if you'd kind of pickup the
monument and give us a little shot on that one. The distance of the
fence is how long?
MR. CHAZAN: I'd say about 50 feet. My contractor said 30 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so why don't you measure that area
too and give us that figure, OK? And the height of the fence is 6
feet?
MR. CHAZAN: Between 6 and 6-1/2. We've been looking at
different designs that have lattice on the top. With the lattice it
would be more than 6-1/2.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK and this would be inside your
property line so as not to create any other problems in that respect,
right?
MR. CHAZAN: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good. Mr. Homing, questions?
MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
Rage 56 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER COLLINS: There is a gray fence. It appears to be east of
where you want to put your fence. Is that a fence put up by the
neighbor to your south?
MR. CHAZAN: That fence was there when we bought our
property.
MEMBER COLLINS: I'm asking about it simply because I get the
impression that you're saying, well there are some fencing there
but, that's really adjacent to your house.
MR. CHAZAN: Right.
MEMBER COLLINS: And what you want is a little more privacy in the
back yard. But, I gather your fence would kind of contin, It would
not continue visually.
MR. CHAZAN: It would be going around the block.
MEMBER COLLINS: But it would continue the, hm?
MR. CHAZAN: It would pick up where that would off.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah.
MR. CHAZAN: Well, sought of. I think, I think our fence would
begin a little bit past where that fence
MEMBER COLLINS: OK, so you're not thinking of it as a package?
MR. CHAZAN: No, no, and actually where that fence is we have
put a bunch of plantings. Holly trees, and barberry shrubs grow
very, very high. We actually wanted to do something like that with
this fence that we're asking for but, you can't because of the
shading there and any plant that we would have. Hollies won't work
there and barberries in the shade and any other plants we could
possible put there would
MEMBER COLLINS: Right, thank you.
MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman, can I ask one more question?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chazan can you tell us where your
driveway is?
MR. CHAZAN: Our driveway is the north. See on the Map where it
says, it would be on the north easterly part.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Around the opposite side.
~.age 57 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER HORNING:
MEMBER COLLINS:
two front yards.
MEMBER HORNING: On this map where would it be?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well north east over here, it should be
here.
MEMBER HORNING: Coming in from Sunrise Way.
MR. CHAZAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well there both Sunrise Way.
MEMBER COLLINS: No, that one is Sunset.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, one's Sunset, pardon me, you're
right, you're absolutely right.
MR. CHAZAN: On the opposite side, on the way down.
MEMBER HORNING: I'm just trying to determine how they figure it's
a front yard.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Don't ever determine that.
No.
Well, it's because it's Sunset Way. They've got
MR. CHAZAN: Right, we, we, our property borders, Sunrise is on
the eastern side and Sunset is on the western side and thus they
determine that you know we have two front yards.
MEMBER HORNING: But the distance -
MEMBER TORTORA: The fence is not on the -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because of the presence of the house and
its direction to the other front yard they're still considering it a
front yard.
MEMBER HORNING: I see.
MEMBER TORTORA: This is a front yard, this is a front yard, this
is the property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
MEMBER TORTORA: How can this be
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please I debated this over the last 18
years at and I'm just telling you -
Page 58 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. CHAZAN: I accept this.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fortunately we have an applicant that
accepts it. So, that's the important part, OK. I beJieve Mr.
Dinizio we left you out.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, well I'll avoid making a comment about the
front yard.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, OK. Smart man that you are.
Thank you so much.
MR. CHAZAN: Thank you for your concern.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak
in favor? Anybody like to speak against? This is the Chazan, B.
Boyd application. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion
closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
MEMBER TORTORA: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
?age 59 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
8:38 P.M. - Appl. No. 4616 - C. MAGGIO
This is a request (based upon the Building Inspector's August 7,
1998 Notice of Disapproval) for a variance under Article XXIV,
Section 100-244B (Zoning), for a proposed deck addition to existing
nonconforming dwelling with a reduced front yard setback at 1350
Bailie Beach Road, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-99-3-11.9.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a subdivision map
indicating this particular cottage house and its placement along with
lot 7 through, well actually I through 7 as being and I have a
copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area. The applicant proposes a 10 feet deck
approximately 12 feet from Bailie Beach Road. Is there somebody
here that would like to speak? Good evening.
MRS. MAGGIO: I'm very nervous.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Don't be nervous.
MRS. MAGGIO: What do you want me to say?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need three green cards.
Mr.
: Yes three, thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any more?
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They'll come later.
MR. : No, there should be two more.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You didn't get them yet, OK, good.
We noticed that your neighbor has a similar deck but, appears to be
farther away from the property line, farther away from the road
than yours is, OK. Why have you chosen a 10 foot deck?
MRS. MAGGIO: Pardon me.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why have you chosen a 10 foot deck?
MRS. MAGGIO: Well I wouldn't want it any larger than that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're talking smaller.
MRS. MAGGIO: Oh, I figured that would be enough room for table,
chairs and things like that, I don't know.
~Page 60 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I noticed that all of these cottages were
placed in their original location. I assume that you bought the
house in its present location and had no ability to change this
location.
MRS. MAGGIO: I'm the original owner.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're an original owner.
MRS. MAGGIO: When Mattituck Investors sold.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK.
MR. MAGGIO: I bought it the way, well -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I'm saying. I mean the house
was there and you didn't change the location of it or attempt to,
right?
MRS. MAGGIO: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This deck will remain open?
MRS. MAGGIO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Approximately how high above the a -
MRS. MAGGIO: It won't be very high. It'll just go a, how high?
MR. : 36 inches.
MRS. MAGGIO: 36 inches.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 36 inches, OK.
MRS. MAGGIO: Just up to the door step.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. alright we'll start with Mr.
Dinizio. Any questions Mr. Dinizio of this applicant?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Just following up on what Mr. Chairman just
asked about height. Your answer 36 has to do with the railing. I
gather the deck itself, you proposed really to build upgrade. I
mean you're going to put footings in to support it. But, it's not
going to be raised up off the land?
~P, age 61 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. : No, it's going to be just about flushed with the saddle of
the house. We have only have about to finish the work
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
is right now?
10 inches above grade is what the house
MRS. MAGGIO: That's it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
above that?
So it'll be 10 inches and then a railing
MRS. MAGGIO: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: It was a nearby deck that struck me as
awkwardly raised above the land.
MR. : Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: It made it -
MRS. MAGGIO:
there.
Well he rented the house that's why I never left
MEMBER COLLINS: It made it much more visible.
was asking about this. Thank you.
That was why I
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm fairly familiar with the area and what
you're proposing is very close to the road. You're proposing to not
further than any of the other existing cottages along there. I'm
wondering why or have you considered putting the deck in some
other location?
MRS. MAGGIO: It's where the view is. I get to see the inlet, also
the birds, it's where the sun is and it's the only place I have a
door.
MEMBER TORTORA: There's no back door?
MRS. MAGGIO: No back door.
MEMBER TORTORA: What's the width of the deck?
MR. : 26
MEMBER TORTORA: And the length?
MR.
: Outside the width is l0 foot, the length is 27 feet high.
MEMBER TORTORA: 26 x 10.
Pgge 62 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. : Correct.
MEMBER TORTORA: OK, thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning?
MEMBER HORNING: They answered the question I was going to ask
about what the advantage was as to having the deck positioned
where you have it.
MRS. MAGGIO: There is another advantage as well. I mean I don't
know if this counts, but, I really want to be able to be go on the
side of the deck because of the files. They may still bite on the
deck, I'm not sure, but, I don't think as much as being on the
ground.
MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, one other question.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
MEMBER COLLINS: A, the tree, are you going to build the deck
around the tree?
MRS. MAGGIO: No, that's another thing that we are throwing back
and I would like to keep the tree. It is kind of close to the house
and we're toying with that. I don't think we got an inch~ you
know, What do you think I should do?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MRS. MAGGIO: What do you think I should do?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We, we, really can't comment on that.
MRS. MAGGIO: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean if somebody chooses to, it's OK
with me. The question is, the deck shall remain open?
MRS. MAGGIO: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will you allow us to grant you alternate
relief if we don't like the 10 feet which places you 12 feet from the
property line?
MRS. MAGGIO: I, you know, I didn't understand that, I'm sorry.
Can you say that again?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will you allow us to grant alternate
relief? Cut the deck down?
page 63 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MAGGIO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If we choose.
MRS. MAGGIO: If you think that
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, OK. I think that answers all
our questions. You can see that we're not unnice people and a
MRS. MAGGIO: Well I've never done this before.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, well there's a first for everything,
OK. Thank you for all your information and we'll see what develops
throughout the hearing. Is there anybody else would like to speak
in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the
application? Hearing no further comments I'll make a motion closing
the hearing reserving decision until later. Second it somebody
please.
MEMBER TORTORA: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
i~age 64 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
8:46 - Appl. No. 4620 - GEORGE J. STARKIE, JR.
This is a request for a variance (based upon the Building
Inspector's August 28, 1998 Notice of Disapproval), Article XXIII,
Section 100-239.4B (Zoning) for a variance to locate an accessory
storage building in the rear yard with a setback of less than the
required 75 ft. from existing bulkhead. Location of Property: 630
Tarpon Drive, Greenport, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-57-1-7; also referred to
as Lot 39 on the "Map of Southold Shores."
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating a
proposed shed which is approximately 41 feet from the bulkhead, 20
feet from the sideyard and I have a copy of a shed, it appears to
be, I'm sorry, 5 feet from the sideyard and the shed appears to be
20 x 16 and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Starkie? Are you
Mr. Starkie?
MR. STARKIE: Yes, I'm Mr. Starkie.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you?
MR. STARKIE: Fine and you?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wonderful. Is there something you have
for us? Do you have some green cards, or something?
MR. STARKIE: Yes, I do. I have one that didn't come in.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
tell us?
OK, thank you. What would you like to
MR. STARKIE: Well, I need storage space. We don't have a
basement because we're closest to the water. Not because of the
basement because the neighbors and all of the other have a lot of
problems with water in the basement as well. So we opt not to but
we find now that we really lack storage space. We have a large
patio with furniture. We have two decks with furniture. We
have porch with furniture that all have to be stored away and
boat equipment that has to be stored away, , stored in the
house and ask you for a variance. We didn't know enough. I tried
to stay within all the limits of the town and I've been living out
here for many, many years and it's the first time I've ever asked
for a variance of anything. We try to keep the house as neat as
possible.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
structure?
For the record, this is a one family
~age 65 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. STARKIE: Two story.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
How high?
MR. STARKIE: The shed?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. STARKIE: Oh, I'm sorry.
the peak? About 10 - 12.
Two story. How high is it going to be?
The shed is going to be about, to
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, it will contain utility of what just
electric?, or no utility?
MR. STARKIE: Probably not even electric, no.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Cement floor? Or wood?
MR. STARKIE: Probably wood floor.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MR. STARKIE: Build it up a bit to keep the dampness out.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you. We'll start with Mr.
Homing, any questions of Mr. Starkie?
MEMBER HORNING: Not right now.
OK. Mrs. Tortora?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER COLLINS:
Ms. Collins?
No, no questions.
Mr. Dinizio?, while we're on a roll here.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
OK, we'll see what develops. Is there
anybody else would like to speak in favor of this hearing? Anybody
like to speak against the hearing? I'll make a motion closing the
hearing reserving decision until later.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
P, age 66 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
8:49 P.M. - Appl. No. 4622 - EDWARD AND JUDY DART
This is a request for Variance(s) to consider the granting of
proposed area, depth and width of proposed Lot "A" with less than
40,000 sq. ft., lot depth at less than 250 feet, and lot width as
exists along Peconic Lane at less than 175 ft., for proposed Lot "A"
in this proposed subdivision (or set-off) (and based upon the
Building Inspector's September 1, 1998 Notice of Disapproval).
Location of Property: South side of C.R. 48 (a/k/a Middle Road or
North Road), and along the East side of Peconic Lane, Peconic;
Parcel 1000-74-3-15 containing 2,012 acres total. Zone:
R-40.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a map from Roderick Van Tuyl
dated November 24, 1976 indicating the lot at 28,438 sci. ft. and I
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Mr. Dart?
MR. DART: I'm well. I'm Ed Dart, the owner and applicant here
and it's my purpose to divide my two acre parcel into two smaller
parcels. That the 2 acre piece in a one acre zone L shape and I
would like to divide the parcel along one of the legs of the L and
set-off that from the other piece. We've owned the land there for
over 20 years and it's my wife's and my intention to sell our home
on Peconic Lane after 20 years and setting off the back piece of land
with the Route 48 frontage will enable us to have a lower asking
price for the home parcel on Peconic Lane. So it's something that
I'm doing to enhance the sale ability of the Peconic Lane parcel. I
have no immediate plans at all to sell the Route 48 parcel. I'll
probably continue to own that for a number of years. I have a
garden and orchard there. I may keep that or expand it, just to,
the intent is to enable us to have a lower asking price upon the
Peconic Lane premises.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, while you're there, let's just go
down the Board here. Mr. Dinizio, any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Not at this time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Well you said in your application that dividing
the land so that you have two conforming lots, you have two each of
which has 40,000 sq. ft. It is not feasible because of the shape of
the property.
MR. DART: Yes, that's true. The divided piece of -
'P.age 67 Hearing Transcripts
October 15,. 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER COLLINS: I, I'd like you to tell us a little bit more about
your thinking on that because at a level of taking out a pencil, it
is possible to do it. Obviously one would end up with something
rather funny looking and I'd just like you to tell us your about
this.
MR. DART: I tried a couple of different layouts to see if I could
create two 40,000 sq. ft. lots. It"s possible to do that, but, under
any scenario, one lot or the other, is always weird and inconsistent
with the neighborhood. One of those would have created like an
hour glass shape parcel which would really be unbuildable, unusable
and you know, just not good planning at all. The way that I have
requested with the property line to be drawn now, is, consistent
with the other lots that my neighbors have in size and road
frontage. I thought it would be the least impact on the community.
MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I should point out for the record of
course, that we have had a request from a neighbor who has asked
us to hold the hearing open, just so you're aware of that.
MR. DART: I'm aware of that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good. Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No, I actually did what you did in different
scenarios and how could you make these conforming lots with the two
acre zone plus parcels?
MR. DART: I couldn't make two nice parcels without making one of
them (end of tape).
MEMBER TORTORA: nonconformity of lots being in the future
with setbacks and access to that little L shape in the back. So, I
came up with the same conclusion you did and looking at the
neighborhood it's a -
MR. DART: I'm happy that I can be consistent with the Peconic Lane
parcel.
MEMBER TORTORA:
it's similar in size with the two lots -
MR. DART: And the one that's in the back is a generous lot now.
MEMBER TORTORA: OK, that, that's the question.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing?
MEMBER HORNING: Not having yet seen the location, are the
houses on surrounding, on the surrounding parcels a -
page 68 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. DART: The ones fronting Peconic Lane?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
MR~ DART: Homes, yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Large homes.
the most spectacular, it's unbelievable.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
MR. DART: I have one last question.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
Mr. Dart's being probably
MR. DART: If there's going to be a postponement, do I have a
continued posting requirement? All those posters I have, the
rains.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would say not because we will close it
with a, I mean we'll recess it with a date.
MR. DART: So if the posters blow away, it's OK? Thanks.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Dart before you leave.
Mrs. Tortora's question is, is Margaret Shakespeare, in an adjoining
property owner?
MR. DART: So I found out. She is an adjoining property owner.
She's a very new owner apparently. I didn't know her name until I
went to the Tax Receiver's Office to get the
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MS. COLLINS: Lydia, she owns the property that's called Wolosik
on the survey. I went up and checked over that.
MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Ms. Collins. Is there anyone
else would like to speak in favor or against this application? OK,
we're scheduled to keep this on for November 19th?
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, I have it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we'll recess it until November
19th and we thank you Sir.
MR. DART: I should return then?
P~age 69 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
MR. DART: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
Motion carried.
Yes, I would suggest so.
Yes, I'll make the motion.
Yes, Lora second it. Oh, Jim.
See Minutes for Resolution.
'-P~age 70 - Hearing Tr~,~scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
8:58 P.M. - Appl. 4625 - THOMAS JEROME & ORS.
This is a request (based upon the Building Inspector's July 14, 1998
Notice of Disapproval) requesting a Review and Reversal of the
Building Inspector's July 14,1998 Notice of Disapproval for
two-family dwelling use (instead of non-habitable single family
dwelling use). Location of Property: 48220 Main Road, Southold,
N.Y.; Parcel 1000-69-6-7. R-80 Res.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which 4 acres which includes the
house, sheds, barn, actually garage, barns and so on and so forth
and the nature of this application is this rather
stately two story house which the Building Inspector had denied the
use as indicated in the Legal Notice and I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the
area. Ms. Moore, how are you tonight?
MRS. MOORE: Good, thank you. I have submitted for the record
is posting and the affidavits for posting and notices. I'm somewhat
frustrated for the Jerome family because what I thought would be
certainly simple on the facts and on the evidence submitted to the
Building Department. A simple issuance of the preexisting two family
CO, it became kind of a nightmare for the Jerome family and they
have been going at this since about July of 96. That's when the
Building Permit Application went in to the Building Department for a
two family. It was applied for as a two family building permit. The
house has an interesting background to it. It was the home of Irene
Kowalski. I'm sorry, no, Irene is still living. Stephna Zazecki, I
have to keep track of all these names. Stephna Zazecki had six
children. One of the, she died in January of 1989 and from before
zone, prior to zoning this house was converted to a two family. It
had two separate living quarters. It had the second floor which
consisted of kitchen, bathroom, living area and it had a first floor
which is again, with a kitchen, living area. I have for the Board
photographs. Fortunately there are three photographs. Danny has
the fourth. That before he started renovating this house, to take a
photograph of the second story of the kitchen because shortly after
the pictures were taken they started cleaning up the place and
renovating it to a very lovely two family, two family, two apartments
that is presently being occupied right now. The daughter, Irene
Kowalski had been the, (Jerry interrupted saying: Excuse me Sir,
you're going to have to be quite back there. You're coming into the
mike there.) Irene Kowalski was the Executor and she had obtained
for the Jeromes prior to their purchasing their house affidavit of
the use of the property prior to prior to the death of Irene a, of a
Stephna Zazecki and they had also obtained affidavits of Gayle
Bukmier, Alfred Goldsmith and Lewis Baker, all long time neighbors,
are familiar with the property and its use. All of that information
was given to the Building Department and in spite of all the
P. age 71 - Hearing Tr~,~scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
information, they said, oh, you know, we don't believe it. We don't
believe it is, take it some place else and that's why we're here. We
obtained from Wayne Abatelli, she has provided us with an affidavit
of a preexisting use. Wayne was the realty in regard to this
property and he was familiar with the history of the house. We put
here for the record, Wayne Abatelli being duly sworn, Thomas
Jerome is the owner of the above property. I am the President of
Abatelli Real Estate. I represented the previous owners of 48220
Main Road, Southold in their efforts to sell the property. I am
familiar with the following history of the house. The property was
owned and occupied by Setphna Zazecki as a preexisting two family
dwelling. The house contained two kitchens and two separate living
quarters. In 1989, Mrs. Zazecki died and the estate had me show
the property for sale. I had the listing in my office and showed it
as a preexisting two family residence. Thomas Jerome purchased the
house as a two family residence and restored it as a two family
residence. I have that affidavit for the Board for your record. I
had previously submitted the affidavits of Lewis Baker, Alfred
Goldsmith. Mr. Goldsmith, Gayle Bukmier and Irene Kowalski and I
believe all of those affidavits are in your file.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I don't think they are.
MRS. MOORE: You don't have them?
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, you never submitted them Pat.
MRS. MOORE:
have.
Well I'll have to give you the original, that's all I
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Then we'll have the originals.
MRS. MOORE: I have the originals.
submitted photocopies to you.
The photographs, I thought I
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No.
MRS. MOORE: You know what it was? They were attached to the
Notice of Disapproval, that's where they are. But that's alright.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We never got them though.
MRS. MOORE: OK, I'll give them to you. Here's the affidavit of
the preexisting of Wayne Abatelli, the original.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MRS. MOORE: The back of it, -
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's five sheets altogether.
entering five into the record.
I'm just
Page 72 - Hearing Tru~lscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: OK. Fortunately we were able also to find Westley
Zazecki. Westley is the son of Stephanie Zazecki and from her death
in 1989 until the present owners, Thomas Jerome began renovating
the house, he 'resided in that house and he lived on the first floor
of the two family residence and he had friends that were
renting. Money was never really an issue here. The second floor
residence was occupied. You probably get a better description upon
the second floor and it was maintained as separate living quarters,
cooking, living facilities. In fact, if you look at the photographs
that were taken, the dishes are still in there. There were pots on
the stove and really up until the Jerome took title to the
pro_~erty, the property was being occupied and again it was the
second story was being occupied single and separately from the
person who are residents. In addition, I have an affidavit from
John Zazecki who he is another son of Stephanie Zazecki and he just
built a new house next to this one and he came to my office and
supported the application and it was so he didn't have to appear
here tonight. He put it in writing and he also states for the record
in affidavit form that the town should recognize this as a two family
house. So I'm going to add two additional affidavits, Westly and
John.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MRS. MOORE: I don't know if everyone had an opportunity to go
inside the house. It really is very lovely and when I had an
opportunity to go in it, the house looks very different from its
original condition. It was probably about the only thing that was
accurate of the Building Department's interpret, application was the
condition. It was not in very good condition. It was occupied and
people were living in there and it was a bad condition that it was
in. There were all upgraded mechanicals electrical significant
amount of when it was put in there. Not just aesthetics, the
mechanicals. But, the walls remain pretty much where they were.
The windows all remained, the placed doors, a the , I think they
separated the entrance more clearly. It's a more clearly defined
entrance. As you go up the stairs a new set of stairs was put in
place. But, the living quarters themselves is pretty much in the
same conditions, the same layout that was originally, that was the
original house. So if you haven't had a chance to look inside the
house, the Jerome family would be happy to show you but, otherwise
I know Mr. Goehringer was in the house and he can certainly attest
to the nice carpeting, blush carpeting, new sheetrock~ insulation.
There really is a fine place for families to live. And it's a very
large piece of property and not very large homes. Do you have any
questions ?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I will attest to the fact that he has
this. It's very beautiful, no question about it.
MRS. MOORE: Well done.
~age 73 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing any questions of Ms. Moore?
MEMBER MOORE: I will ask, how the, what you're take on the
Building Department's Pre-CO listed as non-habitable, one family
home. What, what was that about?
MRS. MOORE: Well, the Building Department by the, by your
Agenda, that you've been getting lately, you know that the
Building Department gets things and then they make it a
determination whether or not they agree with the applicant. In this
particular case, the applicant, the Jerome family applied for a two
family use. Everything there is, you just saw the photographs and
I hope you will look at the photographs of the second story, and a
for some reason, I mean, John Boufis, either he talked to someone
that had some erroneous information for him, or he came to his own
conclusion, but, the house was in very poor condition. For you and
I we would call that inhabit. The fact, that it was occupied, that's
the condition it was in and they probably, I would say that it was in
that condition for many years, even during the time Mrs. Zazecki
lived there. That was just the way she lived and that was just her
style. I mean it's a farm family and they were comfortable that
way. They raised six children in that house. Everything was
upgraded. So it's not uncommon for the Building Department to
is sue a ~ they could have issued a two family you know,
non-habitable because it would require substantial and in fact that's
what the Building Permit was all about. We're submitting a Building
Permit to make the renovations that were necessary to make this a
good place for somebody to live in, a comfortable place. Certainly I
would be comfortable living there. But, he chose to call it a one
family and said take it up with the Zoning Board, so. Or, didn't
say take it up with the Zoning Board right away, just, even though
he didn't issue a Notice of Disapproval, just issued a CO. The
Jerome family got it and said, you know, what's this. This is you
know what and a started cleaning up the place.
MEMBER HORNING: OK, thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: So you're asking us to recognize this
preexisting nonconforming?
MRS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: Prior to zoning?
MRS. MOORE: Yeah.
MEMBER TORTORA: In the old alternative Mr. Boufis had said that
it requires Special Exception.
P, age 74 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MRS. MOORE: Yeah, see I disagree. Well, technically under the
Zoning Code, yeah, OK, fine, it would be a permitted use under as
a special permit. But, in order to get a special permit for this,
they would have to take all of the land, the four acres of this
property and in order to get the two family use, when in fact it is a
a two family use and now they're taking away the
whole all of the land in the back that they that develop it.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that's probably the lesser of the two
options. I just really got the title to the Pre-CO. We just got the
file this week. But, I would -
MRS. MOORE: Well, I'll just point out to you, that the application
for a CO, that's dated July 31, 96, is clearly an application for a
two family residence and what comes out of the Building Department
is, one family, non-habitable. That's not what was applied for and
they probably should of, the right way to issue a permit on this
would have been, a denial then. Not a you know a determination of
a single family without, the paper work doesn't make any sense to
start with. But, that's neither here nor there. I mean, here we
are.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is an interesting issue though on
the special exception aspect. How much land would you dedicate to
this particular piece of property?
MRS. MOORE: This piece of property?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MRS. MOORE: As a preexisting use? I think it's a, well it would
depend on, as a preexisting use, two family. It would be, if the
back piece would be developed, it would have to before the
zoning. So it would be whatever the Planning Board would accept it
as far as a lot in back, so.
MEMBER TORTORA: He raised a very interesting question because
if it's a preexisting nonconforming that existed prior to zoning.
MRS. MOORE: Right.
MEMBER TORTORA: What use existed prior to the zoning?
MRS. MOORE: The house.
MEMBER TORTORA:
what acreage?
What you maintain uses prior to zoning, with
MRS. MOORE: Preexisting there was no acreage required in the
prior zoning. But, there was a minimum acreage required on the
P, age 75 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
residence 20,000 sq. ft. That's the preexisting and you can go to
that you know, that logical -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it was twelve five.
MRS. MOORE: Twelve five, yeah. So I mean that technically the lot
could, the house could be built on just about any piece of property.
MEMBER TORTORA: It could have been. I don't know what the lot
was at the time.
MRS. MOORE; Oh, it was part of the farm, so.
MEMBER TORTORA: It wasn't a lot.
MRS. MOORE: Pardon?
MEMBER TORTORA: It was not a lot.
MRS. MOORE: It was not a lot. It was part of the farm.
MEMBER TORTORA: It was part of one parcel at that time.
MRS. MOORE: That's right. But the use has to be recognized as a
two family use and then you know, the development of the back
parcels is irrelevant. I mean as far as, it's not related to the two
family. It's whatever is necessary to make it a comfortable, you
know, properly size lot just for a two family and then whatever is
appropriate under the zoning. What is it a two acre zoning there
and the back acres?
MEMBER TORTORA: Four.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 4.2.
MRS. MOORE: OK, 4. So, a 2 acre zoning that house would be
under a two acre parcel. That would allow us a 2 acre parcel, we
split up. Gee, I should have asked. , I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZlO: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we thank you Ms. Moore.
MRS. MOORE: Thank you.
~,age 76 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak
in favor? Anybody like to speak against? OK, 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 77 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
9:16 P.M. - Appl. No. 4618 - V. MANAGO
This is a request (based upon the Building Inspector's August 7,
1998 Notice of Disapproval) for a variance under Article XXIV,
Section i00-241 (Zoning), for permission to construct an addition and
alteration to existing accessory building with a nonconforming use at
8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-118-4-10. Zone:
R-40 Low-Density Residential.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax
Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. And I
have a copy of the survey indicating the present house, its original
location and the present garage in its original location as is shown
today. We are ready Ms. Moore.
MRS. MOORE: Thank you. This evening the whole Manago family is
here. Manago, the son and Ralph, and from Samuels & Steelman,
the architect. I'm making my living this month with applications
that I don't think should be here. This is the second one tonight I
think should not be here. This is a renovation of an existing
garage. For those of you who have been to the property, a single
family house is there with an accessory two-ear garage and attached
guest cottage with two rooms and a bath. That is the Pre-CO from
May 2, 1996. The plan shows the existing conditions which are the
garage, attached to it is two bedroom cottage, it's not two bedrooms,
it's a two room cottage with bathroom and then it has like a screen
in porch on the side of the garage. What they're proposing, what
the Managos are proposing to do is to take the existing footprint,
not expand on the existing footprint at all, renovate the walls of
the cottage within again, within the footprint, and then take the
garage that if it were a detached garage, not attached to, not
having the cottage to it, would be able to be renovated without a
problem. Then for some reason because I, my sense is, that the
Building Department got several applications that they just didn't,
they kind of lumped them all together, didn't want to look at this
one, apart from other ones and what seemed to be a really common
sense look at this, this was tossed onto your lap and here we are.
The proposed renovation, as I say, take the existing footprint you
have a prior decision appeal number 4557 of Dorothy Thoet, which
interpreted for the Building Department at that time saying, that as
long as you are within the footprint of your existing structure, the
preexisting nonconforming setback structure, that you're permitted
to renovate it, that you're not limited to, you can rebuild it, you
know, renovate it, so. That's what we're doing here. In fact, the
garage, I think, is the only change to the garage besides from the
structural integrity of the law, it will have storage space on the
second floor. I know the Board's feeling in regard to the concerns
about accessory structures and the expansion of the development of
Page 78 - Hearing T~_~nseripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
those accessory structures turning into some of these habitable
dwellings. That is not the intention here and I offered to the
Building Department initially to try to avoid this whole process to
condition the CO that the storage is storage to the garage and it
shall not have, it shall not be converted to a dwelling, or it will
not be habitable space for purposes of sleeping quarters. That has
been something that we said all along but here we are again. So, if
the Board will want to place that as a condition, fine, nobody has a
problem. So, it's unfortunate because again, you've seen the
property. The house was totally renovated. It's a beautiful house
and what's left is the garage that has been not so, it's not a very
sightly structure and it needs to be renovated and this process is
just delaying the ultimate renovation of this property and the
improvement of this property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, before we get into the specifics
about the garage and the bedrooms and so on and so forth, let's
just take up the issue of the neighbor who has requested us to
carry on this hearing. We are probably going to do so.
MRS. MOORE: I'm just going to express and I know Mr. Manago
would like to express his objection to this because it just happens
that in this particular instance, the neighbor who is requesting this
extension of time had the same architect, Samuels & Steelman. They
have known about this project from, between the two architects for
some time. The property was posted and there was adequate time to
certainly come in and review it. I know that they have reviewed
it. I guess they didn't think that the notice was accurate enough or
told them enough. So, they had the opportunity to review the file
and the fact that the Managos really shouldn't be here. That this is
based on your own precedence, your own Interpretation and I would
hope that another Interpretation or another decision against them,
the second message to the Building Department saying, "don't people
through the expense, the delay and the process of renovation to an
existing nonconforming building." As long as the incentive on that
is you're not expanding it. You know, if you stay within your
footprint you don't have to come to the Zoning Board. You don't
have to delay and add expense. So, certainly we object to the
process being extended because now the season is affecting it, any
cement work is going to be affected and we hope that you'll take
that into consideration despite my objections and the applicant's
objection which is do it we hope you'll be expeditious in your
decision.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but that doesn't answer my
question. My question basically is that we usually grant one
postponement. So, it's going to be November 19th is what we're
saying.
MRS. MOORE: Well, we can object.
P~ge 79 - Hearing T~.~l~scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You kind of like turned it around.
I'm just saying, you know.
But
MRS. MOORE: Well, you know, I thought it was a question.
do I think? I think I object.
What
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. For the record, I met Mr. & Mrs.
Manago and their son on Saturday. They were gracious to show me
every square inch of the building, which I did look at and what you
are saying is absolutely correct. We may have a question of the
architect so we do appreciate your bringing him here; and you
know, I can see no further elongation of the nonconforming use of
the two sleeping bedrooms. When I say sleeping, I mean bedrooms
for the use of sleeping, OK, and one bathroom, OK, which is on the
side of the house closest to the water and to the main dwelling.
And for that particular reason then I'll go to Mr. Dinizio and ask
him if he has any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing?
would get to him that fast (jokingly).
He didn't realize that we
MEMBER HORNING: Well, tell us when the buildings were built.
MRS. MOORE: Actually, do you want to give a little history (to
owner). We weren't going to put this on the record, but, since you
asked.
MR. MANAGO: We understood from our neighbor, Mrs. , that the
building was there prior to the house and it was there prior to
World War II, when they called it the spy building after World War
II. They felt that a spy was living there, and he used to make his
way back into Germany. So the FBI asked Mr. Sturdy for
assistance in giving him some surveillance of what they do and he
did and they were watching the house for the time. So we know
that it was their part of the war, too.
MRS. MOORE: Mrs.
is in title so we're not, we're not -
MR, MANAGO: So that's at least 60 years old.
page 80 - Hearing T}~nscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
to say, Mr. Manago, while you're up?
Is there anything you'd like
MR. MANAGO: Well, just that any, you know, type of delay will
give us a problem in the construction because we want to put in the
concrete building and garage forms. If we go into November 19th
because of our neighbors, that really gives us a problem because
we're not going to get a decision from you until near Christmas
which that means we can't do any of the concrete work and
that really gives us a Problem and so on. I'm here to answer
any questions that you may have. All of our other neighbors are
extremely supportive of what we're doing because it's an ugiy site
and You know they face it every day when they come into
their driveways. So they are encouraging us to do the garage.
Again, we're here to answer any questions, that's why we're here.
We use the same architects so, you know, we'd be happy to resolve
any other issues if there be any. I mean so I can answer any
questions they have.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I made a statement at the last hearing
and this again has absolutely nothing to do with you and your
family, who have been very gracious in showing us, me, the
property. The problem is that we usually grant one postponement,
OK. I can assure you, however, that in the granting of one
postponement that we will expeditiously come to a decision quickly,
ok, thereafter. And, so although it pushes it as you so nicely
stated, approximately a month and four days or three days. You
know, I really don't have a choice in the that. I mean we do have a
choice, we could eliminate these people, but we don't, and that's
it. I am sorry. I apologize.
MRS. MANAGO. That's alright.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just a quick question to the architect
back there. Just state your name for the record.
MR. URAL TALGAT: Ural Talgat, Samuels & Steelman.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
again?
OK.
Just the spelling of your last name
MR. TALGAT: TALGAT.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I met with the Managos and I'm
went over the plans they said that the approximate height above the
existing garage ceiling, so, ridge to ridge, OK, what are we
talking? Any estimate?
MR. TALGAT: Existing ridge to new ridge?
Page 81 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. You don't have to give it to me
now. You can give us a call. That's what I was looking for, OK?
MR. TALGAT: I can give it to you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Moore anything else?
MRS. MOORE: No. I just want to emphasize that the garage will be
built in accordance with the accessory structure height
requirement. So we were not proposing to enlarge the, you know,
keep it to the accessory structure, with the storage.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great, thank you. Is there anybody else
would like to speak in favor? Anybody tike to speak against? OK,
we'll continue the hearing until, we'll recess the hearing until
November 19th. Yes ma'am. I apologize. Did I quickly say this?
MRS. DaVANI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sorry, you got -
MRS. DaVANI: We're the people that want the postponement. And
I'm sure the Monangos were very gracious, but there are a lot of
concerns that my family has. So, basically we want to consult with
an attorney.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, you have that right.
MRS. DaVANI: We also, I just want to ask one question.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to use the mike, and you have
to state your name. Just make sure that mike is on.
MRS. DaVANI:
Aloias.
OK, I'm Maria DaVani.
I'm the daughter of the
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you spell the last name?
MRS. DaVANI: DaVani.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good, thank you.
MRS. DaVANI; What I wanted to ask, I mean I know they're
anxious to get the project going, and I just, and I don't necessarily
know whether or not that's a problem for us. But the question that
I have is can we keep it open rather than postpone, like a
continuous ?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We only grant one postponement usually.
MRS. DaVANI: OK.
Page 82 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
November 19th.
So, the postponement is granted until
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It is open.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it's open.
MRS. DaVANI: I'm just trying to understand the terminology of it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No problem, it's open. Right, it's open
until November 19th. There will be another post hearing, OK, -
MRS. DaVANI: OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which we will reconvene and hopefully you
will tell us, you know, either you be represented by counsel or tell
us what your concerns are, OK. I can tell you that we will place
necessary restrictions on the building. I will in any case, alright?
So that it remain as it exists today and the applicant has indicated
to me, both applicants have indicated to me that their concern is
primarily storage, and they want to keep it high and dry and they
have indicated to me through the plans that they have before me
that, or, to us I should say, that they have no intentions of
changing any actual major changes in the building except to change
the exterior.
MRS. DaVANI: I saw the design. It's beautiful design. The only
thing that, the other question I have is, if the concerns that are a
combination of the structure that they're putting up now and other
issues for the prior structure, is that something that you will take
up? I mean I probably shouldn't even be saying this. I should
talk to an attorney first, my mother is saying, and I'm just curious
because I like to be open and honest and just try to understand the
process.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not sure I understand the question.
MRS. DaVani: Basically what I'm asking is that if there were
concerns and issues that coincide with the existing renovations, is
that something that you would take up at a zoning appeal meeting or
is that something you would need an attorney for?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me give you an example, and then
I'll just leave it at that. If you were going to tell us that they
were going to rent this building to another party, and that you
have, this has nothing to do with this hearing -
MRS. DaVANI: No, it's hypothetieal.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hypothetical, OK, and you were to tell
us that it was rented for the summer and you knew the sum was
page 83 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
$5,000 and you wanted to divulge that figure. So, do it, OK, we
will set the limits in reference to what we construe to be germane or
not germane based upon the hearing. It has absolutely nothing to
do with personalities, OK. We're not here to discuss personality
conflicts or anything that would be construed to be counter
productive to this application -
MRS. DaVANI: No, that's not what I'm talking about.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And any specific property concerns in
reference to the property that exists, it's in this particular size
and shape and conformity and that's what's before us and that's
what we're dealing with.
MRS. DaVANI: OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: If you want to call me tomorrow I can
explain ii, tomorrow or Monday.
MRS. DaVANI: Alright, thanks.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, hearing no further comment I'll make
a motion recessing until November 19th.
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we need a short recess we're
going to allow Laurel Links to set up. I need a motion, ladies and
gentlemen.
MEMBERS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 84 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
9:45 P.M.- Applicants by LAUREL LINKS, LTD. (The 2nd Harvey B.
Pollak Ltd. Partnership, Current Owner of Record) regarding
property located along the south side of the Main Road (State Route
25), Laurel, N.Y.; County Parcels No. 1000-126-7-1; 1000-125-3-13,
15, 17; 1000-125-4-21 and 24.1, for:
(a) Board of Appeals approved as provided under Article XX,
Section 100-205 (based upon the Building Inspector's July 30, 1998
Notice of Disapproval) for placement of a free-standing ground sign
in connection with the proposed Laurel Links Golf Course and
Residential Development; and
(b) Special Exception under Article III, Section 100-31-B(7) for
a proposed Golf Club, Gold Course(s), Clubhouse, Pro Shop and
other incidental amenities). (Please note: As part of the overall
plan, a clustered subdivision of 29 lots is pending, for which
Special Exception approval is not required).
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are here to discuss Laurel Links Ltd.
I have a copy of a site plan and notice a copy there if anyone in the
audience has not seen it during the process of this hearing we'll
take another short break and show it to the people in the audience
who have not seen it. Please let us know, OK. And, I have a copy
of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
properties and the indication of all those tax map numbers that I
have read. I believe Mr. Cuddy you are ready to go?
MR. CUI)DY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you tonight sir?
MR. CUDDY: Fine. I appreciate the of your meetings, having
started~ and finish with it. We started with the height now we're
down by the ground up. We have 220 acres which a good part of it
runs along the Main Road from Lewis Realty coming back west, goes
under the railroad overpass past Mr. Carlin's house, cuts back and
goes along Delmar Drive, goes along the back of Peconic Bay
Boulevard so that people who are both Delmar Drive and Peconic Bay
Boulevard received notices. We don't touch Peconic Bay Boulevard
except that one small place which I'll get to later. It goes then
along Bray Avenue and the streets that come off of Bray Avenue
and goes back up to the Main Road. We think that we have
developed this site in a very sensitive way, not just in the base of
a subdivision which is really not before the Board, but, the golf
course itself we believe is in accordance with the standards for
Special Exceptions. Certainly it's not adversely going to impact
into the neighborhood. We have one entrance on the Main Road. We
will have a small maintenance drive also off the Main Road. There is
no other entrance because people have raised the question with us
as to where we are coming in. We're only coming off the Main Road.
~Page 85 - Hearing Transcripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
We will not come in off Peconic Bay Boulevard. We will not come in
off Delmar Drive. There is a small area that I just talked about
that comes down to Peconic Bay Boulevard that's 50 feet wide.
That's used solely as an emergency access. The law requires that
we do that. It's going not be paved, it's going to be grass that
will be used only in emergency situations. We have several speakers
tonight. The first one that I'd like to introduce to you is the Golf
Course Architect. His name is Kelly Blake Moran, he's from
Pennsylvania, he's done a number of golf courses, he's very
sensitive to environmental leads, he has done worth winning golf
course designs throughout this country and also in South America.
We're pleased that he could come and actually layout this golf course
for us. I think you'll appreciate what a good job he's done. Mr.
Moran would you speak.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Moran I have to swear you in.
Would you raise your right hand. The information you're about to
give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge?
MR. MORAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir.
MR. MORAN: Thank you for the opportunity to come before you
this evening and if you don't mind I'll stand here and present from
here so I can speak to the plan -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So long as everybody can hear you. We
do have a mike that may or may not. Will that mike extend to this
gentleman?
MEMBER COLLINS: Why don't you just put it closer to him.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George would you check that mike please
and see if, no, see if it will extend.
MEMBER HORNING: Plenty of cord.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Plenty of cord, OK, here we go. You can
also take it off if you'd like..
MR. MORAN: OK, maybe I should do that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. MORAN: Alright I'd like to begin by giving you a courtesy
tour of the property. Charles said and explained a lot of the
features of the perimeter of the property. 25 is right here, the
Main Road is on this side of the property and there are a number of
important site features that we discovered when I was out on the
property and over several days walking it and developing the
~Page 86 - Hearing Tl..~scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
routing plan and I'd like to point those out. One being the Long
Island Railroad which is on the northern, on the north western part
of the property. There are some significant drainage patterns that
go through the property, particularly on this side and I noticed
those in taking a tour around the site and coming up into this
portion, the property on the eastern portion of it, and seeing that
there were signs along here off of the property, they indicated
there was flooding during this portion of the subdivision up here.
So it clearly there was some drainage patterns possibly coming
through our property that we would have to address and they are in
this area right here. There's a significant woodland on this portion
of the property closer to Peconie Bay Boulevard, that subsequently
we discovered does contain wetland and it is a beautiful woodland, it
has a significant amount of topography in it, and does outlet, does
drain out underneath a very small covert but underneath Peconic
Bay Boulevard and then toward the Bay. A good portion of the
property is open farm land. There is some dense residential
development on this side of the property and up here as well even
though this is buffered by a very nice woodland along here. The
reason that I'd like to take you on just a little tour of the
property is that I think it's important that all of the site design,
the layout of the golf course, the location of even the features
happened based upon our evaluation on the site. That has been a
significant portion of my design philosophy is that all design
decision be based upon being on the property. What I call land
based design and the approach is, that any site no matter how flat
it may be described, has some redeemed qualities that need to be
incorporated into the routing of the golf course into the design of a
particular golf hole or golf holes and the only way to discover those
are early on before any construction begins. We need to know
where those are, how we need to deal with them, what are the
significant positive features and also what are the problems that
we're going to need to address. We want to be able to come to some
conclusions before we ever get into construction so that we can deal
with those problems and solve them and so I've spent several days
on the property looking at the features, determining how, what was
the most common sense way to route the golf course and that is what
we have here and I'll take you on a little tour of the golf course.
I felt that the, probably the least attractive part of the property
and this is relatively speaking but, I mean in terms of making
judgments about the quality of the property, probably the least
attractive part of it would be along the railroad, would be in an
area where there is a lot of residential development, not associated
with the project but, just on the western boundary of the project.
And, therefore, I made the conclusion that probably some of the
qualities, or some of the elements of the golf course that are
probably the least desirable parts of a golf course such as driving
range, should be located closer to these so that we save the better
features of the site for the conclusion of the golf course up in this
area. Therefore, we located the practice range adjacent to, but well
set back from the railroad. The beginning of the golf course occurs
I~age 87 - Hearing Tr~scripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
down on the western portion of the property where we have holes
number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just stop you It appears that
some people are having difficulty understanding this. Maybe they
would rather sit over on this side of the room so that they can see
where this person is directing. Maybe you might want to move over
there. It just, it just, it eliminates a redundant.
MR. MORAN: Yeah, it's difficult to-
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and, and -
MR. MORAN: To speak to a map and let everyone see it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Your welcome to sit in the jury box if
you'd like. It's even more comfortable than the seat you're sitting
in I assure you. We can also put some chairs on the floor if you'd
like. Go ahead, sorry.
MR. MORAN: No, that's alright. So my feeling was at the beginning
of the round should be in this portion of the property because that
is probably the least attractive part of the property so we'd like to
get through it early on and save a good part of the property for
near the end of the round. But, there are some important features
in this area and one of them being a very nice natural swell that
extends from the northern, roughly speaking of the northern part of
the property toward the southern part of the property and goes
through this woodland wetland area. It is outside of the forested
area and is in and is outside of the wetland but it is a nice swell
that cuts through the property and again when you're out on the
site and you look at these features having done it countless times
and having the experience in doing it, you begin to see how golf
holes can be routed along these features and take advantage of these
features. But, also, you become sensitive to the fact that this is a
significant waterway through here that is draining into a very nice
forested wetland area. Therefore, the feeling is to route golf
around it. Not into it, but around it and then naturalize that area
and you know, plant it into the native grasses and shrubs and trees
over time so that we actually extend this nice feature into the
property and also we protect the a, whatever water may be passing
through here. We'll protect it, clean it and which eventually will
help to keep this forced in wetland area healthy as well because it's
important to us that we maintain and enhance the natural features we
have on here. It does the golf course development. It does the
club no good if we a, if we a, you know, take possession of these
resources and then allow them to degenerate. It takes away from
the club, so, and then, and then the front nine routes along this
forested area we nibble a little bit at the edges but it was obvious
when you walked the property, when you walked into that area that
that's not an area you want to go through with all folds and clear
;Page 88 - Hearing Tl-~seripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
and disturb and grade so it became very apparent after having
walked through there that that's an area that we needed to avoid
which we have. Again we nibbled a little bit at the edge of it with
the third hole but, we have stayed out of that area. Then when we
get up into this portion of the property there's some very nice
features, nice rolling terrain. When I first came here I was told
that we're dealing with a flat potato field but I think that is kind
of a layman's view of a property like this when in fact when I go on
it and walk it I see a lot of nice natural movement and it would be
our intent and certainly that intent is captured in the routing plan
because we have provided for golf holes along some of these features
to elevate greens, to lower fairways and increase nice natural
movement. It will be, it is my intent to enhance that movement to
make some of the lower areas slightly lower and to make some of the
higher area slightly higher so that we exaggerate the movement of
the property but we don't destroy the character, the natural
character of the terrain of the property and I think that's important
in this day and age when you think about how so many of our
communities begin to look the same because of developments that are
regional or nation wide and come into the communities and they build
and sometimes it's hard to tell one town from another. So, as an
architect, as a designer, whether it be a golf course, architect
landscape, architect, I think it's important to, when you come into a
property to understand it, to recognize the important natural
features of it and then to enhance those and incorporate those into
your design so that this course is very much a part of Long Island,
very much a part of the North Fork has all the same characteristic
that you see anywhere else that you drive around here. It would
not do any good for the property if we went in and made enormous
cuts in the land and put enormous hills, I guess that's our train
going by right now probably, but it would not do us any good to a
do a massive amount of earth moving, totally change the character of
the property. The property has nice so movement which we will do,
we'll enhance it, but it will still remain the same character that is
there and that's an important feature and I think when you go
around Long Island and you go to some of the great old horses like
the Shinnecocks and you see the native fescue and blue stands that
are out there, that that's an important feature that we need to
incorporate into our golf course and that's what you see in some of
these native areas that are shown and come with brownish color that
would be a very important element design feature. That as you get
into this portion of the property as stated earlier there are some
major drainage waves going through here relatively speaking, I mean
it's relatively through here but it is still a drainage feature
and we have put a pond in one area and will grade some detention
areas within the golf course so that water that was moving through
here and off our site unimpeded. In fact, will be captured in our
pond and captured in our detention areas so that we can improve the
drainage patterns and detain some of the, or retain some of the
water before it eventually will move off the site and certainly any
kind of normal rain situation it probably would not move off the
'P~ge 89 - Hearing Tz~nscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
site. It would be stopped on our property and be allowed to go
down into the ground. There is also a pond in here that a this is a
low area and being out on the side, I noticed it was collecting
water. Again, it's a perfect setting for a pond and for a golf hole
because we know that the drainage is coming here simply by
observing that it is low and wet and so we're going to dig that out,
make it a little larger and then that will be the concluding, that
would be the feature on the concluding hole and clubhouse will
overlook it as well, so we get the benefit of being able to see that
pond from the clubhouse and then also have it as a strategic element
in the golf course. But again, I think that's an important, that's
an important element in the design of the golf course because we are
using a natural low feature creator ponds to improve our drainage
and we're not rearranging site and doing things that go against what
is already existing on the property. I think that pretty much
covers it and addresses how I go about laying out the golf course.
As we go further, hopefully go further and get into designs, the
same, the same approach will apply we'll actually stake the golf
course out on the field. I'll spend several days out there designing
each of the holes in the field again so we'll need the features that
we incorporate in the design of the golf course. We'll compliment
what is out there and we're not trying to create new drainage
patterns and new mounds and things like that. That we'll work with
the features that are out there. So, it's going to be, it's very
much hands on the pros that I have. I think that every golf course
has to be custom built to the site and that's how we approach this
as well.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you discuss the word, length as
oppose to some of the existing golf courses that, you know, that we
have out here, what makes the difference than some of the existing
golf courses?
MR. MORAN: Well I think that the one thing that distinguishes any
golf course is the site that it's on. It doesn't mean there's no way
that we can say that we're going to create a Shinnecock out here
because be don't have Shinnecock's property. But, we can create a
very fine golf course on this property. I mean there are nice
natural features on this property that you can distinguish Laurel
Links as being Laurel Links and I think there's, there's, it's a
waste of time and money to try and create something out here that,
that really doesn't already exist. The Links course is, is,
technically it's a course that is along side the ocean and it has
sand deposited upon it over time and has developed native grasses
and that's a truly Links course. I mean there are going to be those
features in here and since you're going to have lower fairways which
typifies Links courses you're going to have wide fairways that
provide strategy, not necessarily for me to get into that here but,
it's going to have wide fairways that are going to be part of the
strategy course which typifies the Links course. One technicality
that is important to me and I think it was important to the land plan
~Page 90 - Hearing T~-~nscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
is that we do lead the clubhouse with hole number 1 and we don't
return to the clubhouse until hole number 18, which is, is, typifies
a Links course as well. The nice thing about that is that if you are
asked to return to the clubhouse with hole number 9, that becomes a
very difficult thing to do when you have to go out in four holes and
also think about coming back and sometimes that causes you to force
things into the land plan that may not be natural. If you're allowed
to go out and don't worry about coming back until 18, you have a
much better chance of capturing the natural features that you have
identified on the property and it makes it a lot easier to do a land,
to do a routing plan that fits with the property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you leave us, let's ask if anybody
has any questions.
MR. MORAN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing any questions of this
gentleman?
MEMBER HORNING: Not right now.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No.
CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess the driving range will be in
this ground. I don't, I can't tell just how long that
actually is and large enough to be a driving range. Is it large
enough?
MR. MORAN: Yes, it's three yards long which is pretty typical for
a driving range. So it's definitely long enough for a driving range
and we have a lot of width in it, particularly in the area where
players are going to be hitting their short to middle irons and the
high range hit players are going to be hitting the drive is actually
where we get wide in here. So, it definitely is of the same type of
driving range that we're dealing with anywhere else and that would
be the type of range you'd expect on a private club.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
fences or -
But, there won't be any required for like high
MR. MORAN; No, there should not be any. We, we would like to
do some berming along here just to turn balls back into the driving
~page 91 - Hearing Tx,~nscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
range. I think just to provide some screening along here as much
as for the enjoyment of the person who is practicing who may not
want to look at this edge and look at the railroad and all that, as
it would be for safety. But, I do think it does help you know,
keep balls within the range and turning back for the middle range.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And what about lighting?
MR. MORAN: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: There would be no lighting?
MR. MORAN: No, no, no there would be no need.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I was thinking more about those nettings that
you see at some drive range. There's not going to be any of that?
MR. MORAN: Often times that's required by towns.
something that no-one necessarily wants to do unless
adjacent to, unless there is like enough liability that
them to do that.
It's not
they are
justifies
MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean there's certainly enough space from where
they would tee off and hit. Let's say just to the following house
here.
MR. MORAN: Where it is
MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn't possibly reach this house.
(Someone said, don't worry about it).
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'm worry more about you're collecting the
balls Frank, if you sell them. (laughter). I just wanted to get an
idea. (everyone talking, kidding.) Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
presentation.
Thank you Sir.
That was a great
MR. MORAN: Alright, thank you.
MR. CUDDY: I just, one other thing I'd like to emphasize and that
is that in laying this out a great effort was made to save the trees
and I think that Mr. Meike is here from N.Y. Environmental
Counsel. I'm sure that he will indicate to you that when he tried to
follow the concerns of what the Environmental Counsel had including
this. I'd also like now Ken Abruzzo, from Young & Young to
discuss with you some of the design concepts having to do with
entrance way, ingress and egress, where we've located various
things for parking, swimming pool, tennis courts. I know you seem
~page 92 - Hearing T1~nscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
concern about those, but, we can explain why we did it, how we did
it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ken same situation. Do you solemnly
swear that the information you about to give us, is the truth to the
best of your knowledge.
MR. ABRUZZO: I do.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. ABRUZZO: I'm Ken Abruzzo from Young & Young Land
Surveyors. I'd like to just talk briefly about our selection of our
entrance road off of N.Y. State Route 25 on Main Road. If you look
at our map you can see an underlying driveway that already exists
on this property. After a lot of examination of where we could
enter this property, this is the most logical place to come in, both
for site line and grading line planning. As you go towards the east
on this property you get a lot more terrain, a lot more of
topography. There is also a wetland situated up in the north east
corner of this property. So after a lot of walking up and down, it
was decided that the existing driveway was the best to place to put
a road in here. I know there has been some concern about this
property it's 222 acres and there are a lot of connected to
this property of which we are using none. Of course mounds
surround the whole perimeter of this property except as Mr. Cuddy
said, there is an emergency access road coming from Peconic Bay
Boulevard on an existing 50 foot wide finger that this property is
entitled to. That would be for emergency vehicles only. After
Kelly Moran had designed his route plan and picked the places where
he thought the holes would layout the best and be the nicest, we
were left with an area of the north east corner to try and layout a
clubhouse, a parking lot, tennis court, swimming pool and I hope
pool cabana. Certainly we wanted the clubhouse area to take
advantage as in most golf courses of the 18 hole and the starting
hole and for distance and we situated that very close to a pond that
going to be built on the 18 green. So, you have that vista. We
have done a couple of other golf courses, been involved in them and
one of the hardest problems is how you get into a clubhouse and not
obstruct the views and yet make it easy access and for bag drop
offs and parking areas and things like that. This one actually
worked out pretty easy because sometimes the cooking facilities and
the drop-off facilities to worry about. This one comes in very
nicely. That if we come into the road that we use the same road for
the residential subdivision. Our design really tries to make you the
main entrance to the golf course, the main boulevard sought of
speak. If you see that we have as we come in a split road and
sought of a big cul-de-sac in there for landscaping, and the main
thoroughfare would go into the golf course. You can also bare to
the right and go to the residential subdivision. However, as you
reach the subdivision there would be a stop sign as if that's the
~P~ge 93 - Hearing TX-anscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
main thoroughfare will be to get into the clubhouse. We then
situated our parking lot to the north east directly north of the
clubhouse in an area where the topography is generally flat in that
area. It's not too badly shape for grading and for drainage and yet
we're very sensitive to the wetland architect in that north east
corner. We're staying away from that in excess of 100 feet. We
have thought about where to put a pool and a tennis court facility.
We certainly didn't want a pool up by the 18 tee or up in that very
close proximity where developers might be distracted and the
happenings of the pool and the tennis court and we had looked
around and decided that the tennis courts could be sculptured into
that lower area, right off of main road south 50 feet back from the
main road and still leave a substantial 50 foot buff of trees from
the main road back to the tennis courts and sculpt that into the
hillside where it would not be very visible. We also have the pool
area just to the west of the tennis courts and if you look at our
design and saw the heavy scribbling line is trees and buffer area
we'd love to live there too. That would private pool
and the tennis courts area from the golf course and it would also
free us from the traffic area. I also do want to point out that if
Kelly's design and I think he touched on this briefly that we had
had a call from the Town Highway Department about some flooding on
third street and we were asked if we could look into this area and
see if we could try to solve that drainage problem when they have
some extensive storms that third street does flood and I know Kelly
has incorporated into his grading plan some ponding areas that we
will alleviate that water that have been going on for third street
and take care of that before it ever reaches that and incorporate
that right into our golf course design. If you have any other
questions pertaining to the site planning or site entrance I'd be
happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Were there any other options for the pool
and tennis court other than that low area? When I say low I'm
referring to low in reference to the pond would not be low in
reference to you know environmentally centered.
MR. ABRUZZO: Yeah. You know that's a hard question to
answer. There's always other routes. I think I'd be mistaken to
say no, that's our only place. However, it's going to keep an open
lengths vista with this golf course and I looked at North Fork
Country Golf, it looked the same and their tennis courts are very,
very close to the main road and yet with the shrubbery and the
hedges that are in there, you can drive by there. I happen to
know that they're there but many people could drive by and you
wouldn't even notice any of them. Certainly with the trees we want
a, and that has no existence, trees. Everything was planted,
hedges and shrubs. And if we try to leave about 50 feet, that's 50
feet on our property there is a hedge that will come to
somewhat It may be 50 or 60 feet of natural heavy growth
of trees that we got out. We thought it would be nice for the tennis
~'Page 94 - Hearing T~-anscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
players that want to play here to be separated from the golfers and
that you always hit the balls or the excitement of the game wouldn't
necessarily bother somebody who by the flooding area and we
have two distinctly different games. You thought it would be an
appropriate place there. Also with the pool , there are
children and the families that want to come to the pool areas have
fun and create a little noise there is no place near to any of
the except by the golf course. And, that's really
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions from the Board of this
gentleman? No, thank you Sir.
MR. ABRUZZO: Thank you.
MR. CUDDY: Concerning the design and the Board is concerned
about the 100 feet 50 feet is where our setbacks go. We
have no problem moving the lines. We didn't ask for a
variance originally. We were very concerned about fitting them in.
So, we tried to fit them in properly. If there's a concern for
instance there's 50 feet, the distance between the parking field and
those lots that are coming off I guess 7 or 8 feet, what have you,
we don't have a problem making that a 50 foot buffer. We don't
have any problem again moving things 50 feet to satisfy the
requirements. We picked out the best places that we could to put
the various things. After we brought them to Young & Young, and
we told them what Moran and we did that. But again, we
managed to put the variance to sought of extend. That if the code
requires that we setback further we will setback. I'd like to
introduce to you Charles Thomas and Jeff Butler who are the design
people and architect in connection with the clubhouse and status of
the new structure and just to show you what it looks like
have the design.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are whom Sir?
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You are Mr. Thomas?
MR. BUTLER: I am whom? I am Jeffrey Butler.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh, we have the names reversed.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you solemnly swear to tell us that the
information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your
knowledge.
MR. BUTLER: I do.
(Changing of tape)
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The tape is ready, go ahead.
~Page 95 - Hearing Tro;nscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. BUTLER: Even with the flavor of design which we are trying
to achieve, that Kelly achieved with the golf course, Mr. Thomas
and myself came up with a clubhouse design which we feel is the
appropriate size for membership that is generally expected from a
course of this size. The first floor plan is a footprint of 5,000
sq. ft. and as you pull up to the front under the portico area which
is the main entrance here, you enter into a formal foyer area which
has rest rooms, feet off to the side of it, formal stairway
which goes up a level and down a level as well as an elevator. You
walk through the formal foyer area into an area which has a view
back out on to the 18th hole course and that a, to the left side we
have incorporated a grill room and bar area to the front of which is
the kitchen area for food preparation. To the right side is a main
dining area. The sitting is yet to be determined and assumes, how,
how large that's going to get. But, we also have storage space in
the front house area as well as things it needs for the clubhouse.
We have a terrace out to the side and to the rear which overlooks
the 18th hole coming up this airway. On the lower level course,
we've incorporated a pro shop, mens and women's locker areas, bag
storage, indoor park storage and an outdoor park storage which is
under that terrace. There's a garage and loading area for loading
for kitchen and things like that and then there's ingress, egress out
to the starting The concept for the elevation is a gambrel
style structure in keeping with the design of which is familiar with
the North Fork we have single style structure and a lot of stonewalls
incorporating up into the entrance area and on portico.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the cost of the building? Any
idea?
MR. BUTLER: The approximate cost to construct? A, how about a
million to a million two hundred thousand dollars.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
this gentleman?
Any questions ladies and gentlemen of
MEMBER HORNING: I have one.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George.
MEMBER HORNING: Any living quarters proposed ?
MR. BUTLER: No. There are other structures on the site which
we haven't gotten to the design paper along the caretaker's cottage,
that's proposed on the site but that's, this will not have a .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions on this, ladies and
gentlemen?
BOARD MEMBERS: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir.
'~Page 96 - Hearing T~anscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. CUDDY: There's a couple of additional points. Seated at the
end of the first road is Dr. Ron Abrams who is our Environmental
Consultant. I don't know if that's sought of part of this proceeding
but, he's here and in case people had questions he comes from
upstate New York, and I promised him he wouldn't have to speak
unless you asked him questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We always have questions.
MR. CUDDY: I feel we simply I just want to add one or two
other things. We anticipate the water for the golf course will be
over ? Mr. has indicated that Mr. , the principle
in this matter. The water obviously is nearby. But, that's, that's
our understanding. The sewage is of course private septic cesspool
type . We believe that going through what again the
standards that are required are met, that by Mr. Moran testified,
Mr. Abruzzo testified, I think that word can well say, that this is
not going to have an adverse effect on the neighborhood, it's not
going to have an effect adversal permitted uses on the zoning
district. I believe that all of those requirements essentially have
been met with this plan. Again, we're here if people have
questions, people everybody has. If the Board has questions,
certainly we're here to answer them. But, I don't want to make the
presentation longer than it has to be. So, would you please
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before we go into the gentleman that you
just mentioned, what is the situation with this hearing? Are you
asking us to continue with the Planning Board? Are you asking us
to close it? What do you request?
MR. CUDDY: Well, certainly if the Board feels it has sufficient
information we'd like it to close. If we have to do another hearing,
the Board discuss that with the Planning Board. I was
hoping that perhaps we could have a joined hearing because we have
to do much of this presentation to the Planning Board perhaps we
will requirements with our site plan and golf course the
concept we expect it to be probably 90% of the way it looks right
here. What we're saying to you that we've complied with all of the
requirements it has in order to get an approval and but,
if the Beard is satisfied, certainly so that we
will know where we stood at this time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, can we speak to the good doctor?
DR. : Can I come up here?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the grilling position doctor. Do
you, raising your right hand, solemnly swear that the information
you're about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge?
DR. : I do.
~P~ge 97 - Hearing Tx~anscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just quickly tell us because of the
lateness of the hour and so on and so forth, how does a person who
lives in this area deal with the difference between the amount of
involvement of a potato farm sought of speak? I'm not asking you to
address to the potato farm aspect. I'm asking you to address the
environmental aspect of everything that has been mentioned so far
and how those particular aspects conform to the seeding, the
fertilizing and all of the rest of things that are going to be the
integral part of this golf course. You know just a short
Dr. : Alright. Let me assure you that I speak from
experience. My company is presently involved in the development of
various states of seven golf courses, all can't be from ,
everywhere from the East End of Long Island up to Saratoga
Springs. So, we have dealt with all the imaginable questions that
come with a golf course and We can start, we can
go layers, air we don't find any potential for air quality from a
golf course and have never heard them mentioned
The land surface and the vegetation and the resources that are
involved with wetlands forest wildlife, these issues will all be
addressed in an environmental assessment form part 3 that we've
been asked to prepare for the Planning Board. The wetlands have
been delineated, they are not extensive on the property but, they
are in a configuration that fits with the golf course architect
layout so that there will be no adverse impact to the wetlands. In
fact, the farming history on the property had caused some impacts
to those wetlands as we discovered in our delineation of the
wetlands. Silk runoff from farmlands is a common problem. We will
put an end to that with the development of this project because not
only will all the land be covered constantly so that there will be no
fair soil or no erosion from it but, there will be protective
features installed in the golf course to handle the surface graded,
the drainage that comes from irrigation and storm drainage. Where
necessary we will build specific features to capture the water and
either hold it or recharge it into the soil whichever deems
appropriate grade in drainage plan as it is developed from
the full site plan and the site plan is Now, because most of
the land upon which the golf course will be built, was cleared and
opened and the forest and the edges of the property will remain as
simply as they are today. The wildlife of the site will be
very little affected. The wildlife has already been affected by the
agricultural activity and far and in terms of birds for instance, the
open fields and intervening meadows, on a farm, are very similar to
those characteristic to a gulf course. Urbon Society in fact has
identified in public quite a few articles showing how golf courses
and are compatible. So, as an overview I don't see a change
in the wildlife characteristics. Certainly there'll be no change in
the wetlands or the woodland characteristics. The most important
thing in golf course management, is the management of the soils, the
turf and the ground water beneath these. We have engaged Dr.
Marry of Cornell who is the grandfather of integrated turf
~P~ge 98 - Hearing T¢~nscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
management plan. He is preparing an integrated turf
management plan for this project based on having come out with me
to the site taking soil samples from all around the site, had my crew
do a full review of the soil conservation surface soil map so that we
really do know the configuration of the soils in the top layers of
the site. We will prepare that plan for specific grass feces to be
used on the site which will then give a recipe for how to manage the
turf, and that involves irrigation as well as the use of chemicals
for prevention of the disease, enhance to the growth of the turf and
long term management and one of the principals that Dr. brought
with professional is, something that Golf Course
Superintendents really like. You don't use anymore chemicals than
you absolutely have to, to achieve your purpose. We maintain a
viable turf constantly so that it's disease resistance and draught
resistance you select your grasses, your grading and drainage plan
in conjunction with your ingrate purpose management plan and what
you're doing is saving the operator money. There's no wasted
except chemicals, no wasted except irrigation. They're all
integrate. That plan will be available for the Planning Board by
their request in the near future. I will expect in the matter of
weeks. With it will be my interpretation of the natural resources
situation at the site and I can only invite you to wait and see those
documents. Of course I expect everyone to trust us because we're
excellent professionals in the field but will provide the scientific
information necessary to support our claim.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you doctor.
thank you doctor. Mr. Cuddy?
Any questions. No,
MR. CUDDY: I didn't know when you want us to address because
there's a second element and that's a sign application.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. What I would like to do if it's
not an imposition is, recess this until December 10th and wrap it
up. My question is, do you think that you will be that far along
with all the other requirements that the other Board is requesting?
MR. CUDDY: Substantially, but, we really-
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let, let me say one thing. I don't have
to do it until then. This is only a recommendation. But, you have
to understand that this is a very involved plan and it takes some
understanding, OK, before you can actually absorb all of this, OK,
and I don't know how my fellow Board Members feel, OK. I'm just
making that as a recommendation.
MR. CUDDY: No, I, I'm trying to answer your question about
December 10th.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Well think about it.
Page 99 - Hearing T~nscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. CUDDY: No, I just don't know how far we'll be with the
Planning Board. We may be quite far along but, we may not have
our plan completely worked out so that depends how far Young &
Young can get to dealing with the Planning Board. That sometimes
takes more time. So, I don't want to promise you that it will be
completed at that time. I think that we'll have most of the work
that that has been presented probably ready. One of the things
that goes into this and the question depends on design, is if you
had some input into that we wouldn't want to say that this is our
final plan and then do it over again. If you had some
suggestions that we should be doing something that we haven't
done, certainly my suggestion is that we would hope that with the
exception of making some minor setbacks that most of this plan would
be approved.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only concern, actually what we'll do
is, we will look at the plan during our special meeting and come up
with some brief and concise recommendations, for myself, I mean
we'll see if anyone. It will not significantly alter In my
particular case will not significantly change the plan but we'll a,
within some respects you know, require my change here and there.
MR. CUDDY: That would be put
those then we can get to
, because if we can get
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Why don't we see if anybody in the
audience is not going to be available on December 10th, if they
would like to say something. Before you leave Mr. Cuddy there is -
MEMBER COLLINS: Let's go back to the sign.
question. Where is it going?
I have one simple
MR. CUDDY: It's down here. There's an X down in the corner.
From what I understand in the corner.
MEMBER COLLINS: Is that a
I didn't follow
MR. CUDDY: The sign a, so that the Board knows this, has been
erected. That's not always particularly when Member Collins
said, probably not a fictitious late start but, let me explain what
we did. The applicant has a sign that's very close to where the
entrance is going to be. The sign is 24 sq. ft. I think I put a
copy of it in the folder.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes you did.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes you did.
MR. CUDDY: It's obviously a sign on 220 acres of land. It's on
our land that it's on. We were hoping that the Board under Section
205 can bring us the right pattern. We put it up prematurely on
~P~ge 100 - Hearing ~l~anscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
the basis that one of the principals of Laura Links, understood that
that sign was a permitted sign. He went to Peconic Landing,
call, saw a sign that he liked, copied that sign , the same
size sign and , the residential developed, he just put it
on his property. , the first two acres were
business He didn't know that. Instead of taking down we
did not deliberately take it down because we felt once we put it up,
to take it down, it was not helping us to generate memberships.
So, we took the physical position of saying, yes, we did it,
would you please confirm it to us. The reason I don't think that
will attract too many people until we have copies of signs in all the
places across the street and we really next to the sign of the
Normans. So, I don't think this time
MEMBER COLLINS: I, I apologize for the dumb question. I had not
driven by there of lately and hadn't -
MR. CUDDY: Well it's a normal question because usually we don't
do anything until -
MEMBER COLLINS: I mean I have absolutely no problem with the
sign and I also suppose you could argue that it is a subdivision sign
and you can have a subdivision sign until every lot in the
subdivision is sold.
MR. CUDDY: We tried that and it didn't seem to work.
MEMBER COLLINS: Well, yeah, it has a little, little twitch.
MR. CUDDY: So, we just did it this way. But, I'll just put these if
I may. These are copies of all the signs across the street from
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to a, there was a letter,
actually I have two other letters that I haven't even opened yet.
But, there is at least one letter requesting the non use of Peconic
Bay Boulevard during the construction of this project.
MR. CUDDY: I saw that letter a person I believe is in Brooklyn.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I assume they have a house out here.
MR. CUDDY: They have a lot here.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. CUDDY: And I assure you as I did in the beginning and ,
we have no interest with Peconic Bay Boulevard. We're not going to
Peconic Bay Boulevard.
~P~ge 101 - Hearing ~.anscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board Of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. The last question I have of you is,
the access for the superintendents, plan superintendent's house plot
you have shown here going to use that as access to Peeonic Bay?
MR. CUDDY: That may be used as a driveway to the house. But,
not for any other purpose and the lot would be permissible for a
driveway.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, OK. Alright, what we will then do
is ask anybody quickly if they have anything they would like to say
with great brevity and if not, we will see you all back on a, yes ,
I believe the gentleman in the back in the blue sweater raised his
hand first.
MR. CARLIN: Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I
am Frank Carlin from Laurel. I have no objection to It's
better than, I have no objection because it's better to see golf
holes being swiped or hooked rather than have grow by my
windows 40 ft. away, bedroom window , and seeing all the
dust all summer and pond but from the kids with their I
have no objection. No objections at all to the Town Code. And, I
have two reasons why I believe the town will benefit. Number 1 is,
tax revenue, from the green, clubhouse, 29 houses plus having a
beautiful golf course. Thank you. Maybe someday I'll be able to
touch the golf ball and I'll give the Senior Citizens a discount.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
your name for the record.
Sir? Would you kindly state
MR. ROSANSKY: Yes, good evening ladies and gentlemen. John
Rosansky, 5980 Peconic Bay Boulevard, my wife, Cecilia. I
call him Clinton because likes Anyway, two
concerns or three concerns. One they previously addressed without
the access being alerted to the I like to make sure that
it is stated very plainly and definitely that it is going to be
alerted to the and another one is to have, I don't know how
many people are in Laurel, but with the 390 members and 30 houses
that they're going to have and swimming pools and stuff of that
nature. Even if they should consider sewage plans it's going to
go down usually in southerly direction then they're going to be
affecting some of the people. I don't know if that's probable,
possible or what, but consider that. And, there's rumor going
around that they're going to have some sort of access I believe
that's a Peconic Bay. We'd like to have that clarified for the
residents of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Gray Avenue, etcetera,
etcetera. Are they going to have access, right-of-way, and stuff of
that nature?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, right. The three questions or the
two that you have regarding the sewage treatment plant and the
~P~ge 102 - Hearing '~.anscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
other we'll ask the attorney to address, not necessarily right now,
OK. But, we will have him address those.
MR. ROSANSKY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Yes Sir. Sorry, I
didn't see you at the jury box. We'll get to you the next time
there.
MR. McEVOY: My name is John McEvoy. I'm a seasonal resident
down 4th Street off Gray Avenue and while I don't have any
objections I have three concerns all dealing with water. One had
been addressed concerning the ground water. Another one I think
they have looked at. I really would like to make sure when we were
talking about the use of chemicals and so forth and the effect of
runoffs on the quality of Peconic Bay. Closer to home it was
mentioned about the problem with runoff water on 3rd Street. I'm
assuming they're talking about 3rd Street and Gray Avenue. I think
it's called Gray Lake. We live on 4th Street and several years ago
the drainage on the farm was changed and during the winter when
the ground is harder and frozen and there are heavy rains we have
suffered cascades of water coming across the road, the street, the
lawns and flooding basements and I'm just deeply concerned that
when you take a look at 3rd Street take a look at 4th Street also
because we have been having big problems the last three, four
years. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Sir?
MR. MEINKE: My name is Howard Meinke and I live in Cutehogue.
I'm a member of the North Fork Environmental Council. We have
had~ spent a lot of time thinking about golf course in general and
when we're committed at Zoning Board of Appeals we generally feel
that Zoning Board of Appeals should do very little work because
generally speaking the codes and rules and ordinance should cover
the case. But, I do think that Laurel Links is a pretty well planned
operation. We've spoken to them, they say, we know they did do a
good job with routing the golf course around it, acutely feature the
woodland and things like that and we compliment on that. It is of
course a sensitive location. It is very close to Peconic Bay and
golf courses depending how they're operated and how their
management plan is arranged do use a lot of noxious materials that
can get into the ground water that would be Peconic Bay and that is
a very important point being Laurel Lake well is nearby and for
that end we spoke to them and the principals and they were very
receptive that when the management plan is produced that we
would be able to sit with them whether this point a, remember the
Suffolk County Water Authority and whatever other experts in that
field to both evaluate and the Planning Board obviously. Both
valuate the turf management plan and to set up some sort of a plan
of outside monitoring because all of the statements that are made are
'~P~ge 103 - Hearing 'i~anscripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
well intention but, the golf course goes on for years, the people who
make the statements go on to other business and you have the
budget. Relatively wealthy folks that want to have green grass cut
close, well water and all the rest of it and the greens keeper is
very tikely to go out of his way to make those people happy and
that may in actual fact concede the use of fertilizers, chemicals and
etcetera. So, I think that you monitor a plan and that part of it is
very, very important and certainly if all that comes to tuition,
North Fork Environmental Council is very happy with the golf course
and we think that as oppose to the , a great number of
houses are certainly beneficial and we'd like to see it, but, we
would recommend that they do what they actually said they would
and go into that program and have monitoring, and have some
recognized outside agency run a program. We don't know precisely
what the program is as yet, but, I think that's an important part of
the ongoing monitoring as oppose to the initial representation of
presenting a plan is the point I make. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes Ma'am.
MRS. FELDON: My My mother who has had property for 20
years directly across from suppose emergency exit at Peconic Bay
Boulevard. I have great concerns on that in the beginning with
people's once they've established the point they face emergency
only. But once it's there it then becomes something other than that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll write that in the decision.
just have your name for the record.
Can I
MRS. FELDON: My name is Feldon, the property owner is Kenal.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What was her name?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fedon. Felden?
MRS. FELDON: Feldon.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Somebody else? Yes Ma'am.
MRS. Andel: My name is Marie Andel and I live on 6th Street in
Laurel. I believe our house would be the closest to the golf
course. One gentlemen says, that there is the possibility of
additional 50 foot buffer between the golf course and houses. I just
want to go on record that I would be in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. (Changing tape) If it's
alright with everyone is to discontinue this hearing and recess it
until December 10th and we thank everybody's courtesy and we
thank the presentation, we thank you gentlemen for coming and
"''P~ge 104 - Hearing '~anseripts
October 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals
thank Mr. Cuddy and we hope you, wish you all a safe home. I'll
make a motion recessing.
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution.
End of hearing.