Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/23/1999 HEARINGPp. TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS HELD February 23, 1999 1 Appl. No. 4658-JEANNE SWEET BARTOS 10 Appl. No. 4609-MARY MURPHY 12 Appl. No. 4653-WILLIAM & CATHERINE (SMITH) MULRAIN 15 Appl. No. 4654-MILES D. GORENKOFF, D.M.D. (Owner Greeves) 21 Appl. No. 4656-JOSEPH KOLLEN 27 Appl. No. 3426-G. DOROSKI & ALEX & S. VILLANI 26 Appl. No. 4651-WILLIAM HANDS, JR. 29 Appl. No. 4655-J. BOYLE & HANDS FUEL CO. 36 PATIO INTERPRETATION discussion (Hands)~Not a public~~) 51 Appl. No. 4649-PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 62 Appl. No. 4643-JOHN MESLOH 63 Appl. No. 4644-MARIA TRUPIA Transcript of Public Hearings February 23, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:38 P.M. - Appl. No. 4658 - JEANNE SWEET BARTOS This is an application for Variances under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.48 and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon issuance of two Notices of Disapproval dated January 7, 1999, for total lot coverage and setbacks from bulkhead for a proposed addition to dwelling, and "as built" deck. Location of property: 1829 Mill Road, Peconie, N.Y., 1000-67-7-14. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey by John C. Ehlers indicating the proposed addition, the existing deck and the other improvements on the property. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who is representing Bartos? Good evening Sir. Can I ask you to use the mike please and speak into it and state your name. MR. BARTOS: Yes, I'm Michael Bartos. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do. MR. BARTOS: Jean's husband and I have the architect. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. Specific questions on the size of the parcel and the size of the building and so on and so forth. Are you prepared to do that Mr. Bartos? MR. BARTOS: Yes. We have copies for the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Great. You want to give them to us? MR. BARTOS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Bartos, how long is the existing deck in there to your knowledge? Page 2 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. BARTOS: I really don't know, it was before my father-in-law passed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And there have been no changes to that deck and there are no anticipation of any changes to that deck? MR. BARTOS: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll review this. If I have any questions on it, I'll do it at the hearing. Mr. Dinizio do you have any questions of the applicant? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: The drawing that you just gave us which I'm just absorbing, this shows what I would call the front stoop or the front entrance area, - MR. GABRYSIAK: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: But it does not show the existing 10 x 14 deck. MR. GABRYSIAK: No, it doesn't. MEMBER COLLINS: And there was another drawing in our files which I believe, Sir, probably came from you because it has some architect's notations on it that's marked "existing wooden deck to be relocated?" MR. BARTOS: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: What is the story here on that? MR. GABRYSIAK: That's - the existing wood deck is 10 x 14. It's location is not appropriate to where the entrance doors are going to be in the new addition. So the deck will be dismantled and relocated. MEMBER COLLINS: Where? MR. GABRYSIAK: To the back of the house. It's shown on one of the drawings. Would you like me to bring your attention to that drawing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: record, by the way? Sure. Could you state your name for the MR. GABRYSIAK: OH, yes, Marion Gabrysiak. CHAIRMAN GoEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Page 3 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Gabrysiak, I mean we have of course the drawings of the called the survey of the house as it exists now, and it shows the deck and I was there and I looked and the deck is indeed where it's shown. What I'm getting at is, your statement that it's to be relocated, since we're concerned here among other things about setbacks, I'm interested where it's going to go. MR. GABRYSIAK: If you would turn to drawing A-IA, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right here. MR. GABRYSIAK: Second sheet. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, I should have studied it. OK, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: wall that's in between. It's actually going to truncate the new BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I think we didn't have six originals of these and we can't duplicate these maps, so there's one for the file. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, OK, I'm sorry and I've been on vacation. MR. GABRYSIAK: Let me just spread this out so you can see it. MEMBER COLLINS: I apologize. I've been on vacation and I didn't go into the office to look that up. MR. GABRYSIAK: Oh, no, that's OK. We probably do this in New ~lersey at the Planning Board, so. What we're going to do is,- MEMBER COLLINS: This is the addition over here. MR. GABRYSIAK: This is the addition and this is where we're going to relocate the deck to. So basically what we're doing is we're moving it, if you were to look at the back of the house to the left. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, then, now I therefore understand the - yeah, now I understand why the Building Inspector's denial refers to the deck as being only 16 feet from the bulkhead. And it was clear to me that in fact~ that it's further from the bulkhead. But when you move it, it's going to be only 16 feet. MR. GABRYSIAK: Right, that's exactly. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, fine. MR. GABRYSIAK: That's the exercise we went through when we went for the Building Permit. OK, would you like me to leave that? MEMBER TORTORA: Lora, I was confused about the same point. If the deck as it is, is 16 the nearest edge is 16, I measured it off Page 4 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals from the bulkhead. When you move it, it's going to be even closer. If you take a ruler you'll catch it very quickly. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, I read about 20 using a ruler as the current setback. But the point I think Lydia and colleagues is that the proposed moving of the deck will in fact put it closer to the bulkhead than it is now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why that deck has to be raised? Why it can't be ground level? MR. BARTOS: It is ground level. MR. GABRYSIAK: It's only about 8" off the ground. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's still above ground. MR. GABRYSIAK: One step. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, well it's still above ground. That's the reason why I asked the question. Is there any reason why a monolithic pour of cement couldn't be done there? MR. BARTOS: Oh, no, I could do that. That's no problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: problem that we have here. Yeah, that would eliminate the whole MR. BARTOS: I can do a patio back there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It has to be flush with the ground. MR. BARTOS: there. Oh, that's no problem. I'll put a blue stone patio CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that would be greatly appreciated. You see, in looking at the surrounding neighborhood, I'm not positive that your neighbor's deck which is approximately in the same location as your proposing it, OK. MR. BARTOS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not sure that's legal, OK. So I mean I certainly didn't do any investigation on your neighbor's house but I can tell you that we are getting very close to this bulkhead and that's an area that we are concerned about as you can see. Is that correct, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? Page 5 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, a couple of things. The new figures are a little confusing. You have Trustee approval. The approval that you got from the Trustee does not include the deck and didn't include relocating it for that matter. It does say that there should be no further construction that should be done seaward. MR. BARTOS: No. They had a permit. No, they had a survey that had the deck ineluded on there. They had a current survey. MEMBER TORTORA: Is this the May 4, 1998 survey? MR. BARTOS: I think so. Yeah. I have it in my briefcase. MEMBER TORTORA: I just wanted to make sure that what they approved included that. MR. BARTOS: Well could they -we have a waiver from the Trustees. MEMBER TORTORA: It doesn't make any mention of that of a waiver. MR. BARTOS: Of the deck? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you do this Mr. Bartos. don't you just call the Trustee's office, - Why MR. BARTOS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Or go down and see them and tell them that is it alright and get it in writing from them to construct that, you know, that particular, we of course want a ground level deck. Monolithic pour, blue stone is fine with us also, OK, I don't care. When I say monolithic pour I'm referring to one piece poured, OK, as oppose to you know, done in sections or something. And of course blocks would be fine too, but as long as it's alright with them. You know, in coordination with what Mrs. Tortora is saying. MR. BARTOS: Because, this is, I gave them the plan that the DEC approved and I gave them (interrupted). CHAIRMAN GoEHRINGER: Right, OK, remember though that that deck is now being relocated to the southeast. MR. BARTOS: Right, OK, right. MEMBER TORTORA: I guess that's part of what troubles me here because this is the one that the DEC approved and what they approved is about'600 sq. ft. in addition. Correct? And one of the conditions they also didn't want you come any closer to the water. MR. BARTOS: OK. Page 6 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: water. So what we're doing is we're coming closer to MR. BARTOS: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: And the other thing they were concerned about and I'm concerned about too, is that I'm trying to figure out where you going to get those drywe]ls 75 feet from the tidal wetlands? MR. BARTOS: OK. of the house. We can put them over here closer to the front CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's a stipulation that he has to live with, so I mean, I mean he'll have to do it, or his contractor will have to do it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: before they get a permit. They have to get all approvals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. OK? Why don't you think about that for a little while (to Member Tortora). I mean we don't even have to close the hearing tonight. We can ask them to come back in a half hour or something, 'and you can-study it. '~ MEMBER TORTORA: The addition is 15 x 36? Is that the addition? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 36'6". MR. BARTOS: 36'6". MEMBER TORTORA: And that's on not really the south side of the house? I guess the east - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Southeast side. (Silence) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you done now? MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just, the only thing - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you can come back. MEMBER TORTORA: You had revised the calculations on the lot coverage downward from what you originally submitted. You originally estimated 2,006 sq. ft. and you readjusted those downward. MR. BARTOS: Well I'm responsible for that. When I first came to the Zoning Board I saw there was a discrepancy between the Building Department and our records, and I made them the same because I didn't want to get into trouble with the Building Department and then I was told that was wrong so I had the architect recalculate the measurements. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. Thank you. Page 7 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what's the percentage over? MEMBER TORTORA: He's maintaining there isn't any over. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're maintaining that there overage of 20%? Is that what you're maintaining? MEMBER COLLINS: No. MR. BARTOS: It's about 1%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. BARTOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: About 1%. OK, so you are 217 OK. MR. BARTOS: And if I take the deck off- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. BARTOS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: More or less. MR. BARTOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. So it's going to be even then? is no I mean that was my point. So he only needs the setback MEMBER HORNING: Is Mr. Bartos telling us that this 10 foot by 14 foot deck on the survey as May 4, 1998, will not be moved? Will be removed? MR. BARTOS: It will be removed. MEMBER HORNING: It will be removed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER HORNING: And you will do something else? A patio or something - MR. BARTOS: Yes, I'll get the approval first from the Trustees. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As long as it's in accordance with the Town Trustees. MEMBER HORNING: OK. Page 8 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. BARTOS: No problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, OK, while you're welcome to sit down and we'll see if anything else develops throughout the hearing. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any further comments from Board Members? Anybody? (None) OK. So Mr. Bartos, just so I keep this - I'm just addressing basically. You will go to the Trustees, you will discuss with them the patio issue, OK. MR. BARTOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: whatever ground level- And, if they agree to a, you know, MR. BARTOS: No problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you'll let us know on that. Type of material you intend t° use, MR. BARTOS: Absolutely. All I have to do is - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, either submit a letter, fax us a letter, or whatever the case might be, or ask them to fax us a letter you know, based upon that situation. Because that will eliminate the lot coverage and that will eliminate the setback situation. MR. BARTOS: OK, fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which is of importance to us. MR. BARTOS. Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It does not eliminate the setback. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It does not eliminate the setback? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: setback. He still needs a variance for the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It doesn't eliminate. You said eliminating the setback. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the setback. Well if he uses gravel, it will eliminate BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well the corner of the addition needs a variance. Page 9 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I was talking the deck specifically. Yes. Oh, I know there's still a setback issue on that. OK, thank you so much. MR. BARTOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision pending that information from the applicant. MEMBER HORNING: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 10 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 6:55 P.M. - Appl. No. 4609 MARY MURPHY This is a request for a Variance, based upon the Building Inspector's August 14, 1998, Notice of Disapproval (for a Building Permit) Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 for permission to locate new dwelling with a setback at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff on Long Island Sound, at private right-of-way extended north of Bridge Lane, which parcel is known as 9206 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-73-2-3.3. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, on the issue of Mary Murphy, just for the record I know that we have basically closed this to verbatim. I revisited the property. I will make my presentation to the Board and I offer a Resolution to close the hearing. Unless anybody has anything specific? MEMBER TORTORA: on the record? Is that you want to provide your presentation BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Presentation? I don't understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: opinion about a decision. Well my presentation in reference to my BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: hearing record. Oh, I thought you meant for the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, not for the whole hearing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No. OK. MEMBER COLLINS: You don't intend to do that tonight, Jerry? You intend to do that at the meeting which we - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well unless we do a straw poll tonight, I will tell you what my opinion is. I mean it's entirely up to you. I mean I can restate here at this time. MEMBER COLLINS: No, I'm just asking if you wanted this to go on the record? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: opinion? You're talking about deliberations CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, deliberations opinion. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, deliberations, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: a - In reference to setbacks and reference to BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We're talking about the hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The hearing itself. Page 11 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: So, you move to close the hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I move to close the hearing. MEMBER COLLINS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 12 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 6:58 P.M. - Appl. No. 4653 - WILLIAM & CATHERINE (SMITH) MULRAIN This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33, based upon issuance of a Notice of Disapproval, dated December 29, 1998, in applicant's request for a Building Permit for an "as built" shed which does not meet the minimum three feet setback, required by the Zoning Code. Location of Property: 1520 Bray Avenue, Laurel, N.Y.; 1000-126-7-27. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the existing house, blacktop driveway and the nature of the application before us which is the shed, which is within two feet of the property line instead of three feet. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: At two feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At two feet, yes. And a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? Good evening. Would you state your name for the record. MRS. MULRAIN; Mulrain. Good evening. My name is Catherine Smith CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MRS. MULRAIN: Well, I've owned the property for the last 10 years and the shed has been up and none of the neighbors have said anything against and no complaints about it. It's a very good, well made shed. MR. MULRAIN: The shed is also wired which we have the Underwriters and the shed is also being -- because we couldn't just pull it back, it's 2 foot plus. So we just couldn't pull it back. You would have to almost destroy it. I could show pictures of the condition of the shed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we've all seen it, thank you. That was the question I was going to ask you. It is fixed to a permanent cement foundation? Also, this shed was built by a prior owner? MRS. MULRAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And this was an issue that you weren't aware of? MRS. MULRAIN: (Nodded yes). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Until this time? MRS. MULRAIN: See, when I bought the house from him he held the mortgage and then when I went for my own mortgage, they never Page 13 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals you know, asked me for a CO. will only need a CO. But, I just sold the house and we MR. MULRAIN: It was brought up when we went to see our lawyer when we were getting into contract upon selling the housem he looked at the Survey and asked were there a CO for the shed? So we called Clarence Barry and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who was the prior owner. MR. MULRAIN: He was the prior owner, and he said to my wife, "Oh, I'm sure there is." At which point I came down to Southold Town Hall to find out that there wasn't. So at that point that's where we're at right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record, that was Mr. Mulrain speaking. George, I apologize. They were willing to give us pictures and I don't know if you looked at it. Would you like to see the shed? MEMBER HORNING: No, I didn't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, would you show Mr. Homing that picture of the shed. It's a rather stately nice shed. MEMBER HORNING: to move it? Sir, where did you get your estimate of $3,000 MR. MULRAIN: I was told that by my lawyer who contacted them. MEMBER HORNING: Do you want this for the record? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mulrain. I could take one if you don't mind, Mr. MR. MULRAIN: You can take them both if you'd like (photos). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, that's great. Thank you. For the record our Assessor's card indicates the shed has been in existence since 1979. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: record, right? There's actually a Building Permit CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, there's actually a Building Permit record. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: For the adjacent property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. So we assume it's been there that long. It's in excellent condition. It actually looks almost brand new. MRS. MULRAIN. Right. Page 14 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora, questions? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have any. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I thought the fact that the 1979 Building Permit for the adjacent property showed the shed there then and just made the shed an historical artifact. That doesn't bother me at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We'll see what develops here throughout the hearing. We thank you for your presentation. MRS. MULRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? In an effort to move this along, is there anybody that would like to make a resolution regarding this? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll make that resolution (to approve). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have a draft ready on that. MEMBER DINIZIO: Granted as applied? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: There was. I think to point the exact measurement, probably is a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's approximately two feet plus or minus. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, because we said 2-1/2 feet approximately in the decision I think. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, 2-1/2 feet. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's fine. Is that OK with everybody? 2-1/2 feet? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I'll second that Mr. Dinizio. All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 15 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:04 P.M. - Appl. NO. 4654 - MILES D. GORENKOFF, D.M.D. (Owner Greeves) This is a request for a Special Exception, Article VII, Section 100-71B(2) for permission to establish Professional Office Use, as provided by Article VII, Section 100-71B(2) of the Zoning Code. Location of Property: 14216 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-140-3-26.2. Zone District; RO, Residential Office. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have one letter from a contiguous property owner that is requesting screening in the rear yard. I have a site plan indicating the proposed placement of the building which is not an issue at this hearing. The site plan indicating the parking and this plan was done by Donald G. Feiler and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard, Don? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's Mrs. Mesiano. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, ok. How do you do? MS. MESIANO: My name is Catherine Mesiano. I'm here on behalf of Dr. Gorenkoff and acting as his Agent and if you have questions, or would you like me - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. Why don't you give us your presentation and if we have any questions. MS. MESIANO: The separate site is a 40,000 sq. ft. site located on the north side ~of the Main Road in Mattituck. 313 feet west of Maple Street. Dr. Gorenkoff proposes construction of 1600 sq. ft. one- story dental office. The property is currently zoned RO District and under that zoning professional office is a use permitted by the Special Exception. The basis for his request is as follows. The proposed use is consistent with the present makeup of the neighborhood which is a mixed use. There is some residential multi-family,., medical and for the professional uses as well as a church and library. The proposal of ( ) materials are consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. The proposed parking is situated to the rear of the building. The Zoning requires five parking spaces; ten are provided. The proposed site lighting is designed so as to provide on site lighting only and the existing trees that are shown on that site plan are to be preserved near additional plantings which are also indicated on that site plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: site plan? OK. Have you made an application for MS. MESIANO: An application has been made for site plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Has the Planning Board reviewed it at all? MR. MESIANO: Don can answer that. Page 16 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. FEILER: The Planning Board has been reviewed by the TOwn Engineer. The Health Department approved it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: if you wouldn't mind? Could we just ask you a question, Don, BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You might have to use the mike because we're not picking you up very well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: just said. Yes. Why don't you re-state what you MR. FEILER: It's under review for a Planning Board approval. We have Health Department approval. We have State Department of Transportation, a Highway Permit, and Architectural Review Committee under review. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just wanted to mention today that Bob Kassner said, they have no objection to the Special Exception. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. My question is, I don't know if we should take jurisdiction in reference to the neighbor's concern or if we should give jurisdiction to the Planning Board in reference to the buffering in the rear yard. Maybe by the time we have completed this hearing we'll make a determination which way we're going to go. We certainly could state it. It looks like you have plenty of area to land bank parking back there if you need it. It appears that you don't need it. So I don't know, maybe we should ask the Planning Board to address that issue rather than deal with it ourselves. But, we'll see how we go on this particular issue. Do you have any recommendations on that, Don? MR. FEILER: I think that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Mesiano was there anything else you would like to state? MR. MESIANO: No. I think I addressed all the issues that were brought up in the Zoning Code and if you have any questions - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with the Board. Dinizio any questions of these two nice people? Mr. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? Page 17 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Do you have any objection to putting a buffer along the property line? The neighbors that are concerned about that. MS. MESIANO: I had discussed this with Don earlier and we, I think we would like to see more of the random evergreen planting of a straight privet hedge type of planting. Something that's a little more consistent with the nature of the existing proposal, I think is what we like to be able to do rather than a solid wall across the back because the parking is only 41 feet wide. So it's not a significant portion of that contiguous neighbor's property, t think a planting up closer to the parking area rather than on the line would be more appropriate in this situation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How far back from the rear line? MR. FEILER: It's at least 80 feet from the property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (interrupted). No, I meant where they're going MEMBER TORTORA: I see what you're, you're, in other words I see what you're talking about, but area - MS. MESIANO: Screen the back of the parking area. MEMBER TORTORA: You put a fence right along - MS. MESIANO: Right, rather than just a straight line across the back property line. Screen the back of the parking area. MEMBER TORTORA: I actually see what you're talking about, right here? MS. MESIANO: I noted, rather than go a straight line and make it look 'like a strip wall, do something a little more preformed and naturalized across the back so as to screen it because I don't see that noise is going to be an issue. MEMBER TORTORA: This is the neighbor that's concerned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, they have a swimming pool which is relatively close to the rear property line. They actually contacted me personally by telephone. MEMBER TORTORA: Generally, these types of conditions are types of conditions that the Zoning Board would put on. MS; MESIANO: Zoning? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. See the problem I have is I don't know what's going to happen in back of that. Is it going to be lawn? Page 18 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of ApPeals MS. MESIANO: Yes, this is all going to be planted and grassed. You can see on here it's noted grass. I have indicated the trees that exist and that are being maintained as well as the additional plantings that will be put in. So this will be grassed. Parking is to be extended as indicated here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, why don't you come up with a plan for us and we'll submit it. MS. MESIANO: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And to the neighbor of concern. Either that or you can submit it to the neighbor of concern and then get back to us. Submit it to both of us. MS. MESIANO: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And a - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And one to the Planning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: also. Yes and submit it to the Planning Board MS. MESIANO: Board. To the Zahras, to the Zoning and to the Planning CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, the Planning Board and if no-one has any objection we'll go with it. What? MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just thinking if, you know, do you want to close the hearing and do this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I wasn't going to close the hearing. I was going to close it as verbatim and then just close it at the next meeting. It's the easiest way to do it and if there's any verbal communication between the two and they're not happy with it, we'll reopen it at the next hearing. We'll very simply say, we're going to reopen it to verbatim and we'll change the buffering. Do you have any objection to that Mr. Feiler? We're talking three weeks here. MR. FEILER: No, I'm not sure. dense these a - Did the neighbor mention how CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you see, that's the concern. The concern is that if you do it in back of the parking OK, which is not a problem to us, it still leaves this wide spanse in back, OK, so that when somebody is cutting a lawn, they are still going to see the lawn cut. I mean you would see that even if you had a house there, you know what I'm saying. But I don't know if that's a concern to them. I was just trying to alleviate any future problems here and that's it. Personally I would do double buffering, but I know it's costly. I would do it directly in back of and I would do Page 19 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals this planting smaller in back of the parking area and then I would do wider plantings in back by the line. And you can stagger it. I mean it doesn't have to be straight. It could be staggered. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly. I tend to agree with the Chairman simply to avoid any problems in the future here. But that looks that were, you know even if you wanted to do random planting like this exactly. You're only talking about a distance of 100 feet here essentially. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And they should be six feet apart to allow for growth, six to eight. MEMBER TORTORA: You know, if you want to do just what you said, random, fine. We could put it in as a condition to be done. You don't have to wait three weeks. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's right. MEMBER TORTORA: That's what I'm trying to do, to get it moving. MEMBER HORNING: The other concern issue is that if you did it right up against the existing proposed parking if in the future you decide that you needed to increase the parking by a space or two you would already have - MS. MESIANO: But parking is already double the amount. MR. HORNING: I know, but you might decide that you needed more or that it would be desirable to have another (interrupted). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well in the past what has happened is when additional doctors come into a site, then there are additional parking spaces needed so on and so forth. We've gone through this in Southold over the years, particularly in the areas down across from Hart's Hardware. MEMBER TORTORA: Let's put it this way. Would it be acceptable if a, because I really don't have no objection to this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I don't think anybody does. pragmatic application and it's a - It's a MEMBER TORTORA: Right, so, in the interest of getting it done, would you have any objection to the condition of putting random planting for a distance of 100 feet from the westerly property line setoff from this property line? What do you want to do, Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the planting. You have to go six to eight to allow for MEMBER TORTORA: apart. Six to eight feet apart, right? Six to 8 feet Page 20 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Random. MEMBER TORTORA: Random and what distance do you want to come off that line? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 6. Well it should be six to allow, yes, 4 to MEMBER TORTORA: You want some growth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, 4 to 6. MEMBER HORNING: : And the height. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well the height has to be special. There had to be two issues here, OK. The height of the planting, the minimum, OK, and that they be continuously maintained, OK. So, if it died you would have to put another one in when you plant them. So, I mean those are issues that we can state right here. You know, within the body of the decision. MEMBER TORTORA: Would something like that be acceptable to you? MR. FEILER: Well~ I only have to speak to the owner so I hope he wants to move it along. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, Don, you know you can give him a call tonight. If you want to get back to us, we'll - MR. FEILER: No, I'm sure he would consider this you know in the alternative. He's not out to be cheap on anything. MEMBER TORTORA: Well this will save you time. save you a little time. OK, sounds good. MS. MESIANO: We'll get back to you later. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: any qUestions? MEMBER HORNING: No. MEMBER HORNING: condition then? Jerry, Yes, thank you so much. I think this will Mr. Homing the question being there will be a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we'll deal with that. OK, is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? (None) Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 21 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:15 P.M. - Appl. No. 4656 JOSEPH KOLLEN This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon issuance of a Notice of Disapproval dated December 16, 1998, in applicant's request for a Building Permit to construct a deck at less than the required 35 feet from the rear property line. Location of property: 1010 Hiawathas Path, Southold, N.Y.; 1000-78-3-50.2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey from Howard Young indicating the present plaeement of the house which is not an issue here. The issue is a deck whieh is approximately 12 x 14 affixed to the rear of the house, approximately 20 feet 4 inches from the rear property line and which makes it a setback issue. Not an issue to us but the applicant and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight, Sir? Can I just ask you to use the mike. Are you the applicant? MR. KOLLEN: Yes, Joseph Kollen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nice to meet you. Is there anything you'd like to tell us about this. MR. KOLLEN: On the deck, well I don't think it'll bother the neighbors as far as appearance and you know, encroaching on their property or anything. I have a back door right off that porch for access to the deck and that's really the only area I can put a little deck in on this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The property is relatively well screened with trees and bushes. I drove by the proposed deck myself. So, I agree with you there. You have no anticipation of enclosing this in anyway? MR. KOLLEN: No. I have enclosed deck now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Will start with Mr. Horning. questions of this nice gentleman? Any MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? We're on a roll here. MEMBER COLLINS: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Page 22 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. While you're up there is there anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? OK, so you have no objection to a restriction that the deck remain open to the sky? MR KOLLEN: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we hope to address this tonight. If we don't get it tonight we will do it within the next week and we appreciate your coming in. MR. KOLLEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. 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. Page 23 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:20 P.M. - Appl. No. 3426 G. DOROSKI & ALEX & S. VILLANI Request for Variance in establishing minimum construction standards under Section 280-A, New York Town Law, over private right-of-way extending from the north side of CR 48, Peconic; Parcel 1000-68-4-10.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Dory how are you tonight? MS. DOTY: Fine. How are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, Is there anybody else that's here that's going to address us from the other side that you see in the audience at all? MS. DOTY: No, I don't see anybody. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We got a letter today. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. I'm aware of the letter from the Suffolk County Water Authority, yes. MS. DOTY: I would like to first of all thank Linda for getting that letter to me so promptly. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You're welcome. MS. DOTY: Basically what we're seeking is what's on the Agenda which is, does the Board establish minimum construction standards for 280-A Access? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We never had any contest with that at all, we have to tell you, OK. MS. DOTY: We're not asking for a subdivision right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MS. DOT¥: At the present time the contract vendees which to build their home on the property. But we don't know if within ten years they're going to want to subdivide it, put up a second dwelling for their parents, or something like that. We just don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, because that's what five acres? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's eleven. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, pardon me 11 acres and it's a what an R 80 Zone District, right? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. MS. DOTY: Again, we're just not asking to subdivide. We're asking for the 280-A approval from the ZBA to get up there. Page 24 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MS. DOTY: And I think the Suffolk County Water Authority is in the wrong forum if we over-burden the right-of-way, you know running up and down there with two lots. It's not just before the Board at this point. It's been there for 100 years and it's a travelled road that people have been using; and it's on our mat) since 1985. I believe but I'm not certain that it's on the Suffolk County Water Authority's Map. I have not seen the map. I believe also, that their title report for their recent purchase a couple of weeks ago, excepts out the right of others to travel across the right-of-way. There is also a second right-of-way - possible one on the eastern side of their property. We're not asking that that be approved. We're asking to go up the road that exists. So, we just ask the Board to give us our 280-A without any restrictions, you know, subdivisions relatively. All we want to do is build a house. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: that on anyway. We don't uniquely put restrictions like BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: the past. We offer subdivision. We have in CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. DOTY: That's really Planning Board, isn't it? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well I can show you some old decisions if you want to look at them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean I'm not prepared to put that restriction on. That's what I'm saying at this point. I'm not doing that. I don't know if the Board's is prepared. But, I'm not prepared, OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well I guess it depends on the width. If it's 15 feet maybe for two lots or 12 foot width for one lot. It depends on how many lots there are. MS. DOTY: Well, if we went for the subdivision that's when it would be further improved. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But the Planning Board doesn't take jurisdiction if the right-of-way is outside the area that they have jurisdiction. MS. DOTY: Well then we have to come back here, right? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: that they put in usually. That's right. That's a condition CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this, OK? That we have an undescribed width and that it would- it's important that we have Page 25 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals a width that is adequate enough to service fire and rescue vehicles. I will agree with you: the right-of-way is there. I will agree with you: that about 270 feet of it has gone through the worst excavation that I have ever seen in my life, OK. MS. DOTY: I didn't even try. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank God because you may not be here today, OK. But you know, the minimum restriction is that we are writing, or the minimum specs that we are writing, are to accommodate that type of situation, alright? And so, yes, if you go for a subdivision in years to come, you may be required to macadamize it or whatever the case might be. We're certainly, I'm not certainly dealing with that aspect of it right now. So, that's all I can tell you at this point. Does anyone on the Board have any questions of Ms. Dory? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I just want to comment on the letter. think that it is a little advanced. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Which letter, Jim? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Suffolk County Water Authority? MEMBER DINIZIO: Suffolk County Water Authority. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Water Authority. I just want it on the record, OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, when they do come to that point where they want to subdivide it, I suppose that's when they would have the right to say that they need to subdivide it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's right. MS. DOTY: If we want to subdivide it. I don't even know if they want to subdivide it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. OK. Anybody else over here in reference to questions to Ms. Dory or statements? No? MR. HORNING: No question. CHAIRMAN GEORHINGER: We thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? OK, seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 26 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:25 P.M. - Appl. No. 4651 WILLIAM HANDS~ JR. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B for "as built patio", which as constructed, partly above grade, is located less than 75 feet from existing bulkhead, at 960 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-26-2-21. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (change tape) indicating the I scaled the concrete slab which is the patio, at approximately 50 feet is it's closest point to the bulkhead and 57 on the northerly side and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is Mr. Hand available? MR. HAND: Yes I am. CHA~IRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you tonight Sir? MR. HAND: Good, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Since the last time we've see you, that's quite a house you constructed there Sir, it's beautiful, absolutely beautiful. MR. HAND: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had the distinct pleasure of being out there last Saturday and to a look at your patio and I have absolutely no objection to it and I think we'll start with Mr. Homing. Any questions of this applicant? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I recall this application very clearly a couple of years ago. In fact, in 1996 when we granted the setback of 57 feet to the house from the bulkhead, one of the conditions in that was that you not build anything except a ground level deck. And, the next year you built a concrete deck that you're here for right now. I'm trying to figure out what happened? MR. HANDS: The question was, the answer rather is that at the time when the original plans were for the house, would show a raised deck with a possible screened in porch which was knocked down and you folks asked me not to come back two years from now and apply for a raised deck, and I asked what about a patio? And, they said that was not a problem. So consequently we built a patio and did not build a raised deck. MEMBER TORTORA: then? So I'm not sure what you are here for tonight Page 9,7 Hearing Transcripts February 9,3, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. HANDS: Obviously because I'm too close to the bulkhead. house is too close to the bulkhead, so- My CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just answer that question for you and see if the question is proper in reference to the way that I stated. At the house, OK, the deck is or the patio is actually at grade. OK. Unfortunately, as I've mentioned to this Board, that no pieces of property except for a piece that is graded absolutely flat, OK, is going to remain flat. In this particular case, Mr. Hands' property falls away toward the bulkhead, which thereby keeps both or allows for some height, and he has indicated 16 inches. I actually think it's a little less than that. MR. HANDS: I guessed at that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, right. I am requesting that this Board in this decision, that we do an interpretation for the Building Department, and that we allow in this decision that if a cement patio as this gentleman has indicated that he has built or was built in two years ago, is now built now, OK, as long as more than 50% of it, OK, is below grade, that people like Mr. Hand do not have to come back before this Board, OK, and I have been even bodied that within a draft - MEMBER COLLINS: You don't mean below grade, Mr. Chairman? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, below grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I meant below grade and so that's my opinion on this particular project. I mean he's done everything he said he could do. I mean you would actually or would have had to of built it 16 inches below grade at the house for it to come out zero. MEMBER TORTORA: You mean at grade or below grade? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Below. He would have had to build it 16 inches below grade at the house for it to come out zero. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And not more than an average of 16 inches above grade at either end. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At either end. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm reluctant to. I mean I understand. I see what happened. I'm personally reluctant to do an interpretation that could have far reaching effects on other applications without you know having noticed it. That's just my feeling. I do not have any objections to it. I've know the application. I approved it two years ago. My curiosity was there and you explained it. MR. HANDS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? Page 28 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. I would agree with Mrs. Tortora's sentiment that I would be very cautious about putting interpretations into this decision without having a chance to think about it pretty well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I for one have thought about it pretty hard and you know this is the old "lawn mower" rule. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I want to take care of. old lawn mower issue, yes. The MEMBER DINIZIO: It really is a good thing that maybe just get rid of that. I've heard so many of these things and a few months ago we had a patio less than 8 inches just because he couldn't drive the lawn mower over it and you know, this would be a good time right now just to sort everything now and be done with it. But I have no objection to the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER HORNING:: the bulkhead? Mr. Chairman. Do we have a distance from CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 50 feet is its closest point. There's a scale, OK, and 57 feet at the northerly portion. It's 50 feet plus or minus of the southerly portion and you know, the bulkhead is not straight also. It runs all at an angle. MR. HANDS: the bulkhead is Right. The problem is, that the high water mark, ? feet above high water mark. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: George there's a photo in the file if you want to see it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so regardless of the interpretation we'll make a decision sometime in the very near future and we appreciate your coming in. We'll be seeing you again in a couple of minutes anyway I think, OK? MR. HANDS: Yes I will. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'H make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 29 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:33 P.M. - Appl. No. 4655 J. BOYLE & HANDS FUEL CO. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-31 to allow use of a strip of R-80 Residential Zoned land proposed to be merged with land identified as Parcel 1000-18-2-32. (Current Owner: William Hands), Main Road, Orient, N.Y. This use is proposed as an accessory use for parking and/or storage of vehicles being serviced), related to the Hands Service Station property which is zoned "B General Business". Proposed accessory automobile storage is not permitted in an R-80 Residential Zone District. Location of Property, 24405 Main Road, SR 25, Orient; Parcel 1000-18-2-33. (Current Owner J. Boyle). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Hughes, how are you tonight? ROBERT HUGHES, ESQ.: I'm fine, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you been? It's a pleasure to you again. How have MR. HUGHES: I'm fine, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tell us? Good, thanks. What would you like to MR. HUGHES: I'll just give a short explanation of why we're here on this and then I'll leave myself opened for any questions that you have. Mr. Boyle is the owner of - for lack of a better expression - of the "L" that we which to annex Mr. Hands' property. The L is part of an R-80 Zoned parcel which extends back and comes to about seven acres. What Mr. Boyle would like to do is transfer this L to Mr. Hands, and at which point Mr. Hands would merge the L into the piece of property that encompasses the Orient Service Station. Before Mr. Boyle does this, he wants the town to grant a variance which would essentially legitimize a preexisting nonconforming use. We've tried to come up with various alternatives as to how we could allow, how Mr. Boyle could allow Mr. Hands to use the property, the L shape piece for parking. Without doing a transfer, we really, we could not come up with any other way of doing this. Mr. Boyle's - one of his main motivations is that he wants Mr. Hands to be able to use the property, but he doesn't want any liability. And the only way to really do that is transfer ownership. Now, one of the side effects of this is that if this transfer takes place, the remainder of the piece of property that the L is now part of will be landlocked, and the proposal on that, and I don't know whether I've included in your package a description of it, there's a proposal to create a right-of-way parcel across the parcel which is directly to the east of the parcel that has the L. That is also owned by Mr. Boyle, and he is willing to create a right-of-way across that piece of property to the remaining part of the what would now be a landlocked parcel so that we can avoid any access issues. Page 30 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you mean Mr. Boyle owns the other 22 acres next to that? Is that what you're saying? MR. HUGHES: He owns it in, the various -. He's one of the owners. The parcel, the parcels that he has are checkerboarded. He has control of it. Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. HUGHES: What we're asking for is a use variance and, you know, we were aware of the various elements, such as we need to show a reasonable rate of return. Without the parking, there is now, used on this 25 foot L, the service station would probably have space for 15 cars. With the requirements that Mr. Hands' operation requires, it requires more space than that to generate the income to make this property viable. For the record I asked Bob Scott in the Assessor's Office to look, according to the assessment of what the value of the Orient Service Station piece of property is, and by their formula it's $275,000. It's also, I think important to note that the service and inspection aspects of the service center employed people who basically it feeds three families. So, there is an employment aspect here. The hardship on this piece of property is unique to the area that this is the only business zoned piece of property in the area and I don't think anyone would contest the fact that it will not change the character of the neighborhood in that this parking has been in existence for 70 years since Joe's Garage was first built there. I did include a photograph which I'm not sure the exact date of that, but I would dare say that was before 1957 judging by the cars showing that that area was used for parking way back and (interrupted) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was all of this used by, the actual piece in the back that you're anticipating has not been used? Is thai correct? The piece that, the flat flag of the - yeah. MR. HUGHES: I think that's been used for, as far as I know it's been used for parking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It has been? MR. HUGHES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because I thought it kind of like lined up with the next door neighbor's property. And so, when I was there, I didn't realize that it was actually jutting out into the Boyle farm. MR. HUGHES: My understanding is that it has, you know, it has been used. You know that's was sort of farmland back there and you know how everything is when you get to the other side of crossway. As far as I think it's been used for parking. .But, if Mr. Hands has to pull back to his actual property line, then things become pretty much contrained back there as far as having room for Page 31 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals cars that are towed and wrecks, you know, vehicular, cars that need to have service. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are we actually talking a full 25 foot strip of the north south or the south east to, north? MR. HUGHES: You mean to the main road back? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Are we actually talking 25 feet there, and then we're talking 25 feet along the back? Now, in transferring - MR. HUGHES: Twenty-five and, yes it's on the survey from the Main Road back is 25 and the other one is 25 as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, what you're telling me is that, in transferring fee from Mr. Boyle to Mr. Hand, that you are not going, that Mr. Boyle is not going to request a right-of-Way over this which would actually landlock this piece of property? MR. HUGHES: That's the intention. They will create a right-of-way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In a different location? MR. HUGHES: In a different location and that is the proposal. He appreciates that this would essentially landlock that piece but, he is a very nice person and he is willing to do this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: property? How long has Mr. Hand own this MR. HUGHES: Since 19- MR. HANDS: 12 years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 12 years. Right and its been his substantiation that this property has been used this way prior to owning the property? MR. HUGHES: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't have any affidavits from the prior owner or anything like that? MR. HUGHES: I don't. guess. Joe Andrade- You know I can get one from Joe Andrade I MR. HUGHES: Joe Andrade was the original of Joe's Garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. mean that was Joe Andrade? That was Joe's Garage, yes? I MR. HUGHES: Joe Andrade, Sr. Page 32 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. That would be greatly appreciated if you could do that. It would alleviate a lot of a, maybe you could do that for us? OK, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. Hughes? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, Mr. Hughes, a little more about this his- tory of how the land was used. Based on the file in your submission, I was feeling uneasy about a use variance here because a use variance is such a formidable thing in the Code and that led me to question whether you need the variance at a11. It would seem to me that if we can find adequate evidence in the form of affidavits that :this L shaped piece of land was used for this kind of purpose from before there was zoning, I think that Section 241 of the Code says even if the ownership changes you can keep on doing it. And, I just think that's something worth thinking about because it's certainly easier than, it seems to me, that if Mr. Hands owned, actually owned the L-shaped property right now and was stuck with a R-80 land that he couldn't use, he could make a very good use variance case saying this land is absolutely useless to me, give me a use variance. But he doesn't own it. It's Mr. Boyle whose asking for it. I think that's kind of a muddy situation for us when we come to write a variance, a use variance. So I'd be very keen to find a way to show that this was a preexisting nonconforming use and it can continue as long as it isn't expanded, all you know, all that language in the code expanded, altered, which it isn't. MR. HUGHES: Nobody would even know the difference. would have to just - They MEMBER COLLINS: But I gather there's never been any kind of lease or anything like that. It just happened. MR.HUGHES: Exactly, it just happened. And the use of the property is - it's always been a gas, you know, generic gas station. There's always been cars stored there. I can remember when I was a kid, I was a summer kid, we use to leave our car with Joe Andrade for the winter. It was stored there. And I can always remember, you know, cars parked along the side there and so, you know, Mr. Boyle wants assurance that it's OK with the Town before we go ahead with transferring. But what you're saying is that if it were transferred, then we came back to you and asked for a use variance, you would actually prefer that. MEMBER COLLINS: Well I think it would be a clean case. That's all I'm saying. I mean I understand very well that Mr. Boyle and Mr. Hand don't want to finalize this deal in the dark. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: aspect. Well why don't we go with the affidavit Page 33 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: But, that is my thinking. promising route. That that's a MEMBER TORTORA: It's very fuzzy to me because actually the variance that you're requesting a use of is R-80 and is not the Hands. It's not the business. So any relevant financial documentation as far as the Hands' business is moot because I think it has to do with whether or not the Boyle property can be used for anything else other than use variance criteria. I'm willing to go down other avenues because that's one, frankly I see it's the easiest for you to go to the Town Board and get a change of zone. That would be the, you want the quickest way? MR. HUGHES: No, that was an option then and quite honestly what we were trying to do what was really the least intrusive to Orient and at sometime in the future the use was abandoned and then, you know, we weren't expanding business zone, you know, business zone in Orient because we are cognizant of the fact that this is, that area, that neighborhood is essentially a residential neighborhood. MEMBER TORTORA: That's not criteria for a use variance, R-80 parcel zone. So, I mean you know how stringent it is. MR. HUGHES: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: That's my first thought. The second question I wanted to know, where does the right-of-way go to? I see that it comes from the State Road, and then it kind on dead ends at somebody's property? MR. HUGHES: Well I have - MEMBER TORTORA: If you could, you know, what would be helpful if you could just kind of show us? MR. HUGHES: Well, I have, I wasn't sure as ! said, I wasn't sure whether I had included that in the package. So, what I have here is are ones that I have colored for you and I will explain it to you. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, we have this one. MR. HUGHES: OK, well the blue is the right-of-way going from, you see, it's a proposed right-of-way. The orange is the L shape piece that we have been discussing. So the right-of-way would (interrupted) MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, get you back in. MR. HUGHES: It would get you back in, it dead ends basically on the property line of the rest of the parcel that the L is part of. MEMBER COLLINS: Just a side question about the right-of-way. I in fact had figured this out from the black and white drawing and saw where the right-of-way went and then you had given us a description of that right-of-way done by Van Tuyl in 1996, and I Page 34 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals was just curious why the description reads as an easement given to William Hands. MR. HUGHES: I think that Mr. Hands was the one who went to Mr. Van Tuyl. Basically Mr. Hands has been given the obligation by Mr. Boyle of writing herd on this end, including the cost, OK. Mr. Hands went to Mr. Van Tuyl, Mr. Van Tyle who wrote this. This was actually done by Mr. Van Tuyl about a month before he died and so that aspect never changed. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. MR. HUGHES: I think that's basically what happened there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Mr. Homing any questions? Right, so you're going to get us an affidavi'L? You're going to attempt to get us an affidavit and we'll reconvene this at the next regular scheduled meeting and if you need more time than that let us know. MR. HUGHES: You want an affidavit as to the L shape piece has been used - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, concurrently. MR. HUGHES: Concurrently and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For X, Y, Z, years. MEMBER TORTORA: Documentation that you can prior to. MR. HUGHES: Prior to 1957. MEMBER COLLINS: Sure, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I don't know how long Joe owned the proper~y prior to that. MR. HUGHES: Well Joe owned it from when it was started in 1928. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and he's still alive. MR. HUGHES: He's still alive and his son - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Joe, Jr. is like a 55 years old, so. MR. HUGHES: Right, Joe, Jr. is 55 and his father is. MEMBER TORTORA: Old photographs, anything that could substantiate this. Page 35 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. HUGHES: It may be easier to get Joe, Jr., but of course he can't go back to 1927. MEMBER COLLINS: Well we only need to go to 57. MR. HUGHES: Prior to 1957. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, sure, whatever. GoOd, thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: So that where sure of what we're asking. The important thing is to determine that the use was there before we had zoning and that it hasn't been interrupted for a period of more than two years since we've had zoning. Those are the things and I think if you can get those in a way that you know has some legs that Section 241 does what you need. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. While I have you there I don't if there will be any future questions. Is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak to him, in favor of this? Anybody like to speak against it? OK, we'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regular scheduled meeting. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: March 25th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: March 25th. I need a second. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 36 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals PATIO INTERPRETATION discussion (Hands). Not a public hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to reflect before I go on to the Gremler hearing. I don't want any misconception on what I was trying to do here ladies and gentlemen. This is a clarification in reference to patio structures, OK. This is a construction aspect. This has nothing to do with the town wide interpretation. This is to give the Building Department an opinion in reference to what we intend to do in reference to these structures. I just wanted you to be aware of that Jim, OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, I agree because you can't on one hand drive a lawn mover on one part of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Patio, yeah. MEMBER DINIZIO: What they do is look at the other end and say, well, I can't do it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK. Well, you don't understand that Mr. Homing is about to ready to leave us because he has to go back. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So therefore, I am asking you to digest it so if he would like to vote on it, he can vote on it. You're very welcome to digest it. But, this has nothing to do with a, you know, a vast town wide interpretation. This is very simple a Building Department function. We're directing the Building Department so that if situations like this don't come before us in the future when they don't have to. And that is the issue. Comments, anybody? (None) OK, I'm going to make a motion and we'll see how it goes. Would you second it, Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes I will. MEMBER HORNING: For your second/resolution? MEMBER DINIZIO: We'll leave it. Do you have a question? MEMBER COLLINS: I don't understand this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we're saying is, that in a situation where, a monolithic poured deck, and I want to be very specific about these decks, these patios. They can be either of cement. They can be either of wood, which is CCA, below grade, grade level, CCA, or even grade level CCA, or the new thing is plastic, OK, that reinforced fiber plastic deck, OK, and I'd like to add that to it. That if more than 50% of it is below grade, then it is not necessary for us to deal with it on the aspect of the setback, OK, and that it is not necessary for us to come before uso That's what I'm saying. Page 37 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: aloud for definition inaudible). In answer to what they're doing (read draft or type of construction). (Question was BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Construction. type of construction. It's defining the MEMBER TORTORA: I know this. The problem that I have Jerry - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What? MEMBER TORTORA: Is contrary to what the town ,code is, we're setting new rules for the Town Clerk. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, this is the Building Department function. This is why we are saying - MEMBER TORTORA: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are telling the Building Department - No, no, wait. If we take an accessory structure and we tell them that they cannot go to 18 feet. We know that they can build it to 22. They're taking an average. This is exactly the same thing, OK. We're saying to them, that if it were started at zero and because the property fell away, regardless of the height situation, as long as it doesn't exceed 16 inches at the other end, it is an issue that is moot. That's what I'm saying. MEMBER HORNING: I agree with your theory Jerry, although the wording be resolved - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's the height, yes, it's the height of the patio, Jerry. Forgot to put the word height in there. MEMBER TORTORA: I just don't feel comfortable because - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: patio shall be limited to - You're saying the height of the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we'll change the terminology of it. MEMBER HORNING: end. Well, it has to be zero at zero grade on one CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It is? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: end. MEMBER HORNING: Right. Yes, it's got to be zero grade on one MEMBER COLLINS: Well no, it doesn't say that. Page 38 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: end. Well we'll say that. Zero grade at one MEMBER HORNING: To get the concept. MEMBER COLLINS: That's why. The concept is fine but, that's why I was holding out for working through this language a little more before we turn it into a decision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER COLLINS: Because there's also an assumption here that we know what a l~atio is. MEMBER HORNING: from this -. Why don't we have an interpretation separate MEMBER COLLINS: OK. One should say, I mean- BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Repeat all that? MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, yeah, because - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jimmy, I'll withdraw my motion until next week. OK, we'll deliberate then? MEMBER DINIZIO: approve this? I don't quite understand why we can't just MEMBER DINIZIO: In all honesty, I mean, it looks to me like we're taking some ambiguity out of this. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: record. Well, you have a second on the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: his second. I know. Well I'm asking him to withdraw MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not really - I'm not willing to withdraw. I'm looking to discuss this a little bit more. What we're doing here I think in this decision and I grant you that if you put height in there instead, you're saying to the Building Inspector, that you can't use the lawn mower theory anymore. We can't say, you know if you can't drive a lawn mower then, you know, it's a deck. We may be very specific as to the reason why we're granting this by giving him an idea as to what the base symmetric system on this when he comes. I mean I don't see, I see this as being very intelligently written by, you know, by the Chairman. I don't see any reason why we can't pass it and go on with it. MEMBER HORNING: one end. I think you need to have a zero grade level on Page 39 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we will put the zero grade level in. MEMBER TORTORA: And it shall be deemed to be construction which is at least 50% built into the ground? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Or on ground level. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's like a monolithic slab. MEMBER DINIZIO: On grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On grade. MEMBER TORTORA: It shall be deemed to be grade level, correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fine. MEMBER DINIZIO: On grade. MEMBER TORTORA: That's what we're trying to get to, grade level. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, but - MEMBER DINIZIO: Inspector's call. Yeah, but that's his call. That's the Building BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's not all grade level. MEMBER TORTORA: confusing me? What are you saying here then, that's what's MEMBER COLLINS: More of this needling over words, but, there's also the problem, it shall be deemed, OK, we're deeming the construction to be da, da, da, but, the rest of the sentence says, and not more than an average of 16. That I think is a proviso. That's not something we're deeming. That's a requirement. It's just to make sure that the thing parses is my concern, nothing more substantive than that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: have it ready for next week. Well we can reword it then and MEMBER HONING: Jerry, Mr. Chairman, is this for the parcels that have a sloping grade to it, or, or is this for a117 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well this is basically all parcels because George, in my particular opinion no parcel is exactly flat and I've said that before, you know, unless you make it completely flat and then we have a rain storm and it's no longer flat. You know what I'm saying? MEMBER HORNING: It could read that it's zero grade down one end and not to exceed 16 on the other end then, I can support it. Page 40 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. All in~ favor? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Does anyone oppose? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm going to abstain. BOARD MEMBERS: Alright, you're abstaining, OK, so it's four to zero, one abstention . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We apologize. We were moving a resolution for everybody in the public prior to a member having to leave and we apologize to the Gremlers because we realize their application was next. (See Minutes for Resolution prepared separately). Page 41 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:00 P.M. - Appl. No. 4659 WILLIAM & MARYANN GREMLER This is a request for a Variance under Article III-A, Section 100-30 A.4, based upon issuance of a Notice of Disapproval dated January 20, 1999, in applicants' request for a Building Permit to construct a proposed addition to dwelling which addition would exceed the 20% lot coverage limitation under the Bulk Schedule of the Southold Town Zoning Code. Location of Property: 375 Kraus Road, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-122-5-6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a sketch of a plan indicating the square footage that the applicant is requesting. It is over the 20% and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Gremler would you like to be heard? How are you tonight Sir? MR. GREMLER: Fine. Just to run down, you know it's probably on the drawing there. The addition doesn't come out as far as the existing L shape of the house and it's a pretty well buffered you know because of the pool. We have a fence there with trees and all. So, but we didn't have any objections, that's all I've got to say. But I have something here for Linde. Here I forgot to give it to her. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: for it. Thank you I was going to ask you CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the Boards' knowledge. Mr. & Mrs. Gremler experienced a quite a severe fire in this dwelling and in looking at the proposed plan of the house they had decided that this addition would be to their best interest and of course realizing of course that they were over the amount shown on the sketch plan here, that is the reason why they are here before us. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: What would the addition be used for? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well it's basically additions to the rooms of the house itself. It adds to specific rooms,- MEMBER HORNING: Extending the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. & Mrs. Gremler? Yes, extensions of a, isn't that correct MR. GREMLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They have an extensive pool area in the back which would see on the plan. What it does basically is encroaching to the garden area, OK, which was garden in the back of the house. Page 42 Hearing Transcripts February 23, ~1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: It doesn't seem to block anybody's - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it, it's almost, you really even can't see it from the surrounding property owner. Mrs. Tortora questions? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I haven't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins, questions? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. In the audience, anybody like to speak in favor of the application other than the applicants? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing ~the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 43 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:05 P.M. - Appl. No. 4657 RICHARD & DEBRA HEFFERNAN This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, to locate proposed deck addition at less than 75 feet from existing bulkhead at 580 West Shore Drive, Shouthold, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-80-1-48.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the penned in area which L shapes around the house on the easterly side and the closest part of the deck will be 40 feet from the bulkhead and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like-to be heard Sir? MR. GRIGONIS: No, just if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and what is your name? MR. GRINGONIS: Bob Gringonis. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nice to meet you. Mr. Dinizio any questions of Mr. Grigonis? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I guess I have views but net questions, so I'll pass. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I haven't any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We assume this deck will remain open? MR. GRIGONIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is no possibility that it will be enclosed in anyway? MR. GRIGONIS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The applicant has no objection to a restriction that it will remain open to the sky? MR. GRIGONIS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Page 44 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I realize that Mr. Grigonis is the builder and not perhaps the agent in the sense that we might wish. I'm mumbling, excuse me. My reaction to this proposed deck is that given the deck of the rear of the yard, facing the water, it's a big deck, because although it's 40 feet from the bulkhead, the bulkhead is well below the bluff and this deck is going to fill up like half of the yard and I'm interested in the fact, that no neighbors have made any comments. But, if I were a neighbor I'd been a little concerned about just about the size of it and I was really going to ask whether we believe that the applicant would be willing to except a somewhat less deep deck than 15 feet? Do you know, Mr. Grigonis? MR. GRIGONIS: Yeah, I don't know. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you ask and get back to us. MR. GRIGONIS: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: Because you can see where my prejudice lies. MR. GRIGONIS: Do you have a size in mind? MEMBER COLLINS: Well 12 and that's a, I'm just giving you my thinking when I looked at the property and looked at the neighbors. MR. GRIGONIS: I call them and I'll have them send a letter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good, we expect to have a Special Meeting next week. It would be greatly appreciated if we receive the letter before midweek, next week. They could fax it to us, whatever. MR. GRIGONIS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright? MR. GRIGONIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience 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, pending the letter from the applicant. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 45 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 3-4 minute break then reconvened. 8:14 P.M. - Appl. No. 4661 ELLEN VIOLET This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B based upon issuance of a Notice of Disapproval dated February 2, 1999 in applicant's request for a Building Permit to construct an inground swimming pool with fence enclosure in the rear yard, at less than 75 feet from the existing bulkhead. Location of Property: 650 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold, N. ¥.; 1000-90-2-17. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of the survey indicating a pool as proposed at 12 feet. It's a 16 x 44 foot pool with a l0 foot deck on one side and it appears to be a 3 foot deck around the other three sides at closet point of the pool to the bulkhead is approximately 35 feet and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard regarding this application? How do you do Sir? Would you state your name for the record. MR. WENDELL: Doug Wendell. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us about this? MR. WENDELL: Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, when I was there of course the applicant was not there. I would have asked to go into the basement to see if the porch area and that one addition is a crawl space as oppose to basement because I personally would like to put the pool a little closer to the house, OK. Bearing in mind that the other 3 foot deck around it, OK. MR. WENDELL: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I couldn't see any reason why if we didn't have in actual basement walls there thai it couldn't go 8 feet say to the end. MR. WENDELL: way out. The basement does not go out. It's solid all the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that's a crawl space underneath that? MR. WENDELL: Yeah, it could move closer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. WENDELL: I was under the opinion you couldn't get any closer than 12 feet, but, I'm sure they'd be willing to. Page 46 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Well the Building Inspector or the architect, I'm sorry, the engineer for the town is saying 10, OK. But, if you take a 3 foot deck and you put that around it, that doesn't have any effect upon us. So, in this particular case 8 feet would be applicable in my opinion. MR. WENDELL: Right, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this a liner pool or a gunite pool? MR. WENDELL: It's going to be gunite. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Gunite pool so that even further strengthens the aspect. I mean it's really another foundation where the building is. MR. WENDELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: pool at anytime? OK, there's no intention of enclosing this MR. WENDELL: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora, any questions of the applicant ? MEMBER TORTORA: The only question I have. Where did you plan on putting the range field for the pool? MR. WENDELL: Range field for the pool? MEMBER TORTORA: Hm, bm. MR. WENDELL: future? In terms of draining off any access water in the MEMBER TORTORA: goes straight down. Yes, because it is such a severe bluff that MR. WENDELL: The angle of the bluff. Have you seen the pictures? I took some pictures of the bluff there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. WENDELL: Well if we were going to drain it, we'd strain it the other way. I guess out the driveway on the front side of the house. That's the only way I could see going with it. MEMBER TORTORA: So in the side yard you mean? MR..WENDELL: Well, I would say more out of the front yard. Everything doesn't lean back towards the street. Nothing pitches towards the front. Page 47 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: That's it, that was my only question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: views. No, I guess I don't have questions. I have CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. WENDELL: The only thing I'd like to add is they've been there for 31 years and the real reason for this going in, is because of her medical condition. I've improvised some - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, we did see the - MR, WENDELL: And that really is the only reason at this point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so let's see if we went to 8 which would be 4, that would put it at 39 then. MR. WENDELL: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: to the deck. 39 to the pool less 3 which would be 36 MR. WENDELL: Right. The deck is flushed, right. So, I mean you were talking about passing one maybe a little lot low. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I think we might have taken care of that, OK, so we'll deal with the full aspect of 39 feet then as we look at it, at this you know, juncture at any guess in this juncture. And the other setbacks seem to be appropriate. So, what is the deck material going to be made out of? MR. WENDELL: CCA. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: CCA, OK, Great. While you're standing there is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this applieation? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Seeond. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 48 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:24 P.M. - Appl. No. 4648 ROSE DIACHUN This is a request for a Variance under New York Town Law, Section 280-A and Section 100-235A of the Zoning Code, and the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval, for a determination establishing the minimum construction standards for safe and sufficient access for emergency and other vehicles to travel over designated rights-of-way, extending northerly off the north side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, over land identified as District 1000, Section 127, Block 8, Lot 17.3 to the applicant's vacant lot (proposed for single-family dwelling use), known as as 430 Diachun Road, Laurel, N.Y., District 1000. Section 127, Block 3, Lot 10. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is an appeal that has been continued and we would like to ask Mrs. Diachun if there is something she would like to say for the record. I have to. tell you that at the last hearing I did get in trouble with the person who was transcribing because there were too many conversations going on. So, we'll just ask you to make just one specific statement. MRS. DIACHUN: I just want to tell you that I sent Mr. Danowski a certified letter that as of th'eit date he's no longer my attorney. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so what we're going to do I think at this point is recess the hearing without a date. When the person that is looking to put the right-of-way over your property, comes to you and you agree on an appropriate location, then you will contact us and they will contact us and then we'll reconvene the hearing in reference to the improvements to be made to the right-of-way. How does that sound to you? MRS. DIACHUN: Well I don't know if there's going to be one because that's where the right-of-way is. It's my lot, it's my driveway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I'm just saying to you that if in the future some appropriate thing happens. Now if this thing should go longer than a year, OK, we're going to send a certified letter to the attorney and say, we're stopping this hearing as processed. It's no longer going forward, OK. MRS. DIACHUN: Alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But I mean we're just going to keep it open for a short period of time because if for some reason, OK, there is an agreement that is forthcoming then, we can reconvene the hearing rather than start a whole new hearing process all over again. Is that alright with you? MRS. DIACHUN: Yes. Page 49 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK, and at anytime I have to tell you, anytime you will never be barred from speaking at this hearing. So just remember that, OK. You, your son, whatever, any family member. When it concerns your property nobody is putting a right-of-way over your property unless you approve it and that's it. MRS. DIACHUN: Well what happens when a they threaten me that if I didn't sign that, that they were going to take me to court. But I know they .were just doing that because they wanted me to sign it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know this is still America and nobody can force you to do anything that you don't want to do and that is the purpose of this hearing process and I - MEMBER TORTORA: They don't have permission so, I can't see how they can take you to court because they need permission to get the right-of-way and we haven't given them the permission yet. MR. DIACHUN: They have to right-of-way. I mean we're not granting her a right-of-way. buy a right-of-way now. They sold their own CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, just for the record that was Mrs. - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Ronald, Ronald Diachun. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that was Ronald Diachun. Alright, it's a pleasure again and we'll keep you posted. If we hear anything we'll keep you posted. If you hear anything you keep us posted and we'll go from there. MRS. DIACHUN: OK, thank you very much, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, is there anybody else would like to speak in behalf of the Diachun application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion recessing without date. I just want to add one thing in. If this goes more than six months or a year we're going to very simply just do away with it. MEMBER TORTORA: They'll have to reapply. MEMBER COLLINS: Chairman? Well do you mean six months or a year, Mr. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Between six months and a year. Well from an individual situation when we do it and audit what's still out there, that we' haven't made decisions on, I would say from a year of this particular date, OK. But, I mean next January, we could say that we haven't heard anything. So, you know, as of this date effective we are now disposing of this application. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, as of February 23, and the year 2,000, this application will be deemed what? Page 50 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Null and void. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I offer that as a resolution. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 51 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:29 P.M. - Appl. No. 4649 PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION Carryover Resolution adopted January 21, 1999. (Drossos site and possible Town-Wide Interpretation). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will ask the attorney who is representing the owners of the property if he would like to say something. Mr. Cardinale, how are you tonight Sir? PHILIPCARDINALE, ESQ: Good, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a pleasure to see you again. MR. CARDINALE: I know there are a few other people who would like to speak so I'll make it very brief. I'm a little confused as I was the last time as to the actual issue before you, the Board. I believe the last time, if you look at your Notice it indicates that this is an application which is itself unusual by the Southold Town Planning Board for an interpretation to consider whether or not addition tables in the service area for alcoholic beverages are accessory to a food service as determined by the Building Department on November 4th and then they cite the Building Department's determination which states among other things, that the use is permitted in the zone and the accessory service of alcoholic beverages is common to restaurants in this town. There's a follow-up paragraph which indicates that this includes possible Town-Wide Interpretation under Zoning Code Section 100-91A regarding restaurants and/or drinking establishments in the Limited Business Zone. I think that last paragraph, I believe, and that's why I want to get clarification so I don't have' to waste your time talking about an issue that isn't an issue. I believe that the sense of the Board was that they did not have the authority or the inclination to review this last part a Town-Wide Interpretation because that would be appropriately in the domain of the Town Board which is the Legislative Body. I believe that, therefore, the only issue before the. Board is as posed in the Planning Board's statement last time as to when an accessory use becomes a, as they put it, when, what point does an accessory bar use increase in size and operations so as to cross the line and become a second primary use, or stated another way, how can we determine when a, when the restaurant and a drinking establishment are both primary uses? I think the definition is what the issue is what they're seeking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In reference to your statement about the last -. MR. CARDINALE: Paragraph. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Paragraph, we do have the authority, OK. I'm not sure we're going to deal with it at this aspect, OK? We are primarily concerned with a site-specific situation before us, OK? In all fairness to you, Mr. Cardinale, you've raised that issue, and I have to tell you that we do have the authority to do so but we may not at this particular juncture. Page 52 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. CARDINALE: OK, I guess I've misstated and I'm glad it has been clarified by that statement. I have no doubt that you have the authority to interpret by your functions. But what I found interesting was for example the Planning Board submitted to you with copies to your Board to me, the Zoning Reports indicating from the Zoning Report some very interesting ideas and the facts and proposed statutes as to how to differentiate between taverns, restaurants, package stores and that's all of interest. However, you can't interpret a code that isn't written for the Town yet, and I think that really is at the heart of the Planning Board's legitimate concern here. That there might be a good idea to further clarify and develop the code in regard to this. But you can't interpret a code that doesn't exists and that,s kind of how I think what has happened here to the applicant. They've gotten caught in the middle. The Planning Board made this an issue before and I think that there could be a code created by the Town Board which can address these issues. At the moment there isn't, at least I don't believe there is. As I understand it looking at your code, you have definition of accessory use unsurprising, definition of principal use unsurprising and a definition of restaurant unsurprising. And that's really the only code provisions together with the indicated 100-9lA that you can interpret walk-up and I don't really think the issue is that. The real issue is, that. there is no code provision differentiating a tavern and restaurant and accessory, restaurant with accessory use. Let me move along that point quickly. I want to be able to finish a few points I want to make before I sit down. The issue which has been raised by the Planning Board other than the issue of maybe we should get a more clear code is when do you know if an accessory use is a an accessory becomes a primary. How do you find out? How do you determine when, under the definitions of your code, you wind up having two primary uses? Well, 'the first thing you do obviously is you look up the definitions. I don't want to read your own definitions to you. You know where to find them. They are not surprising. But, the other think you might do, you might ask the Administrator who under Section 100-280 of your Code who is authorized to make these interpretations which is Ed Forrester, the Director of Code Enforcement, and ask him what he thinks because he's the one that was given the authority and he thinks that since it is his call that this particular circumstance indicates an accessory use as he put it in his approval. That is, the use is permitted in the Zone and the accessory service of alcoholic beverage is common to restaurants in this zone. That certainly would carry a great deal of weight. The next thing you might want to look at is what the applicant just said. Or the applicant currently created part of your own problem here by, since they are civilians and they are throwing around the use of the word "tavern", but one of the things not pointed out to you was, although they use that word in the initial application, in December of this year they submitted a clarified letter to Mr. Kassner of the Planning Board which reads, "This letter is to serve as an amendment in terminology for the above-mentioned project, which the Planning Board seems to be Page 53 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals having some difficulty with. We, the Drossos Family, are looking to renovate an existing space. This renovation is to convert the snack bar into a full service restaurant in conjunction with serving alcoholic beverages." So I suppose you look at the Administrator's opinion that is authorized in the town, the applicant's statement. Another thing you might want to look at is the Health Department, the sister Agency. This is particularly helpful. The Health Department's issues I'm told by Mr. Brown, he was going to be late, but I guess he didn't make it; and their site plan application - that someone had asked for a clarification on this point. They issue two kinds of approvals or licenses. One is accessory to an existing use, in this instance existing permit for restaurant ID #8275 and this is now an application for accessory use. That is the way the Health Depart- ment's application reads in this instance and if they wanted a tavern that approval would not be sufficient for a tavern from the Health Department's perspective. So certainly what they have said to other agencies, the applicant, what they have said to the town, and what the Building Department has concluded would be very important here for consideration. As I indicated earlier, the Planning Board's basic concern I believe is a need for a more precise statute which the Town Board may well like to address. The bottom point I want to make before I sit down is that I would hope that you would issue a decision shortly after this meeting for the equities here require it. They've had unnecessary and unreasonable victimizing delay in regard to this because at all times the Drossos have been ready to comply with whatever the code said. I think what has really happened here is that there hasn't been a great deal of sensitivity to their needs as business people and what has occurred is that they are being asked in effect to comply with a code that is not yet written. If you look at what's on your code book now, the accessory uses, the principal uses, department's recommendation, the applicant's statement, so beit. They did use the tavern words too loosely initially and the Health Department application. I think it's demonstrative and we need not be here. It probably would get better for us if simply that had the Planning Board refer this to the Town Board. Put that aside I would ask for a quick decision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to elaborate on that one second. We had not deliberated upon this at all, OK. So we are going to take whatever appropriate time we need to do so. So, I mean, I would hope that we would have a decision in the near future. Not to belabor this topic. MR. CARDINALE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: want you to know that. But it's not going to be tonight. I just MR. CARDINALE: I understand. I've indicated that to my clients. Page 54 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, I- you know these interpretations require an appropriate amount of thought on everybody. MR. CARDINALE: Which reminds me. One last point I want to mention. I want to note for the record, that of course you did do a site inspection. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Inspection, right. MR. CARDINALE: Site inspection. I want to note for the record one other thing that you would obviously want to look to because if you look at this accessory/principa] thing, you look at the amount of square footage within the plans. I mean under this there's a square footage issues a few feet here and there. But by everybody's account if you look at the plan you're going to see three times as much in food service in that facility as you do in the bar. So I think that looking at the plan if you wish to do I'll appraise of that conclusion, there's one other point which, when I was speaking I thought of as I recall, and if it helps me, I'll come up again, but basically I think I'm just saying that I know there are other people here that want to express themselves. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Giving the attorney representing the Drossos, Costas, is there anybody from the Town that would like to speak? OK, there's none. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The Planning Board, you mean? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Planning Board or the Building Department. I don't think anybody is here from that, OK. In the normal course of action I just want to tell everybody that the applicant that it concerns and the attorney are usually people who are inclined at all times as in the case that affects these applicants, they have been very gratuitous in giving us a very nice on-site inspection and we appreciate that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They're not the applicants. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They're not the applicants, pardon me. They're the affected people, OK, we'll use that phrase. However, it is normally the procedure of this Board to swear in other people that are speaking, so please be aware that I may swear you in and so anybody that would like to speak concerning this application we're ready. Do you want to hold up your right hand? JOSEPH LIZEWSKI was sworn in: Do you solemnly swear that the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge. DR. LIZEWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. This is Joseph Lizewski. Page 55 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals DR. LIZEWSKI: I'm representing at this time part of the Business Lions. My concerns for this is basically the battle between two departments in our Town and the authority that was actually taken from the Building Department which I believe is still has in making determinations as to what uses can be done, which was taken in 1995 I believe in May our law gave the Planning Board the right to determine if you need site planning, then would be able to allow you to issue a Building Permit and this is a case where the Building Department made a determination that this was a legal use and then in the correspondence I saw had a letter from Bob Kassner, who is a Site Plan Reviewer and not actually a Planning Board Member elected, not a Planning Board Member, decided to challenge the decision of the Building Department. ' I find that this case that you're going to decide on is a lot more than just a decision for Drossos. It's going to have to realize that the authorityof this Building Department which represents the State of New York in these things and by your Board about five or six years ago was also determined to be the proper place for the person who decides who did site plan. I believe if you look into a study that the Zoning Board did, you'll find that the Building Department and not the Planning Board was determined to be the proper member of State Government, of the government, to determine who decides who gets a site plan. But, that was all changed by a code change and of course it has never been changed back again. And that code change is now starting to reek havoc on people like the Drossos who in former years would probably of gone to the Building Department, it would of decided there was no change of intensity of use which is the big bugaboo with the Planning Board. Intensity of use could mean that you're building an 8 x 10 secretary addition or for storage, could mean changing your business from a realty office, you're moving into a store office and I think that determination intensity of use somewhere along the way is going to come into a town battle in our Courts because it certainly has been used with just anything it wants to. But I'm really surprised thai these people are actually before you because I don't believe that the Planning Board Member, Planning Board really the Site Plan Reviewer should of been able to actually challenge this and bring these people in. If they wanted a determination on what you people think as a Zoning Board, I don't know why it should affect the Drossos. I think it's an interpretation that really shouldn't be affecting them at all. They should be looking for an interpretation of the law. As you interpret it. Not necessarily a decision to be made by you. So I just hope that you realize that the decision that you're making with this, I think, has far reaching implications of where the power of the Building Department is going to lie in the future, and where the Planning Board is going to be. I mean the Planning Board would like to be the Zoning Board. It likes to write laws even though we don't elect it to do so. It likes to be the Building Department in this ease. It likes to be everything. I mean the Planning Board was certainly given a lot of power by the Wickham Administration as we all know and it's maintained it, it has grown and grown and grown. And I think it's going to be challenged someday. But at this point in time, I hope we realize Page 56 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals that this determination is going to probably take in an awful lot more than just Drossos because I don't think the issue is as much Drossos as it is interpretation of who is going to make these decisions. I can't believe that the Planning Board can override the representative of the State of New York who represents the Building Department. The Planning Board doesn't represent the health and welfare of this community. The Building Department does and it's responsible but to the Attorney General's office. The Planning Board is responsible to nobody. I just hope that we get this, you know, factored out sometime. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just as a point of clarification Dr. Lizewski~ this. particular application was brought and there was a prepared statement which we have a copy of by Mr. Kassner. However, the Chairman of the Planning Board was with him, OK, just so you're aware of that situation. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And in the application. MR. LIZEWSKI: I know he signed it and I was surprised. You know, that he would be signing an application for this kind of interpretation and not the Planning Board Chairman. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Orlowski signed the application. No, actually, no he didn't. Mr. MEMBER TORTORA: This isn't, let's get a little clarification on this because as Mr. Cardinale, I think ali the Board Members kind of plugged around it. What are we really looking at here? As far as I know, what we know we're looking at, correct me if I'm wrong, is this is an appeal. DR. LIZEWSKI: Absolutely. MEMBER TORTORA: By the Planning Board of the Building Code Enforcement Officer's Decision on whether or not his decision, of whether the Drossos is in fact a restaurant is accurate. They have asked us to overturn that decision. That's the first part of it. MR. LIZEWSKI: That's what you have to really decide. MEMBER TORTORA: That's I think that we will all seem to agree on. MR. LIZEWSKI: I think they have a right to do that. MEMBER TORTORA: on. The second part I won't even open my mouth DR. LIZEWSKI: OK, but I believe they have a right to do that. MEMBER TORTORA: Absolutely. DR. LIZEWSKI: I just would hope that you know, there's a lot, there's a lot of play in this decision. It's not just a simple Page 57 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals decision to be made because of the way our codes have been written and haven't been changed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Cardinale. That is exactly what I said to Mr. DR. LIZEWSKI: I understand that. I just want to make my feelings as representation in the business community we're very alarmed that these things are happening to us and it's becoming very difficult to do any kind of business in this town or any kind of improvement in this town because of the interference by the Planning Board in their decisions. I was in here this morning with Drossos, not with Drossos, with General Wayne. The man has spent $30,000 waiting four months to find if he can improve his kitchen because the Planning Board's involved and not the Building Department. So we're going through this in a very big way. Your determination will. mean an awful lot to this community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? MR. CARDINALE: I remember what I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mr. Cardinale. MR. CARDINALE: I had indicated, we both agreed that you have the right to interpret what it says on the books and I guess that's what you're trying to do here. I assume you're trying to interpret accessory use, principal use, and restaurant because that's all you have. What I was, I think, we all agree also that you cannot. interpret what doesn't exist on your statute clause; and I want to remind the Board of this, and that's why I think this whole thing is confusing and is odd for all of us. If we get approval here, of the Building Department, if you let that stand, if the Planning Board after site plan. Everything is going to relate, relates to approval for a restaurant with an accessory bar use. We're not getting a tavern approval. It's going to say "restaurant with accessory bar use" - not a tavern. !i So it brings to mind that what you have is a Building, a Planning Board that is suspicious on looking at the site plan that maybe there's more bar than restaurant as proposed which is ironic because they really don't care. They propose almost anything if you tell them what it is that you want to propose. But my point is that the Building Department and the Planning Board had a disagreement when they looked at the site plan. Ultimately, your approval is only going to be for a restaurant with accessory use. If they start using this as a tavern, they're going to be, they're going to receive a summons, if the law works the way it should work. They're going to get a Summons for using the premises in a manner not approved by the Town and then we can come back in front of the Justice Court appropriately and have this whole trial about whether it's being used as a tavern or being used as a restaurant. It's almost impossible for you to do this now. I think it is impossible for you to do it now because there's nothing on your code book that Page 58 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals indicates what criteria you're supposed to consider as to when this, whether this is or is not a restaurant/accessory use or a restaurant and a tavern. So, you don't have all the facts. You can't have all facts because they're not operating yet. The task you set up for yourself seems pretty impossible. What I'm suggesting is that in the ordinary course of things is like that case in Southampton, Attorney Tohill was arguing, the guy built an enormous house. The neighbor suspected it was going to be used as a hotel. Well ultimately they said, go ahead and build it. But if you use it as a hotel, we'll violate you. And, that's really where you really are here. So, I, I, and I wanted to, I wanted to run that by you know, to see if it made any sense. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What I think you might want to do and I very rarely ever direct you to do this, OK? As you know Mr. Cardinale you have been before us several times. We try and leave no stone unturned. Unfortunately you are appropriately correct on this one that there may be there may be some stones that we may not be able to turn over, OK. But in reference to your opinion regarding what is in the Code and what ~is not in the Code is an issue that you may want to discuss with Counsel, our Counsel. MR. CARDINALE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Prior to us making a decision because if there is a specific change on that we would like to know that going into a deliberation. MR. CARDINALE: You mean anything in addition to what I- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. You have told us that in your opinion that we can only interpret what's in the code. What's in the code, OK? MR. CARDINALE: restaUrant. Right, for accessory principal under definition of CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK, and no further than that, OK? I would really urge you to speak to counsel regarding that and let Counsel know because we would like to continue that aspect of it. MR. CARDINALE: OK, I'll talk to Frank tomorrow, thank you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Gregg. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Gregg. MR. CARDINALE: Gregg, not Frank. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Gregg, OK. I am not trying to stop anybody from speaking. I assure you if anybody would like to speak we at this time would like to discontinue this hearing by closing it. Yes, Mr. DiVillo? Page 59 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals JOHN DIVELLO (Sworn in): I do. John DiVillo. I just want to voice my opinion in support of the Drossos' application. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: are you tonight Sir? Thank you. Yes Sir, Mr. Lieblein, how MR. LIEBLEIN: Fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Swore Mr. Lieblein in. (Do you solemnly swear the information you're about to give us is the truth to the best of you ability?) MR. LIEBLEIN: I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR.~. LEIBLEIN: I would also like to voice my opinion that I would like to see you act favorably. I'm not sure what you have to vote on to be favorable. Whatever it is it's going to take so that they can move ahead as fellow business people want this town, I would like to state that I'm in favor of it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Anybody else? OK, Mr. Costello, how are you tonight? MR. COSTELLO: Very good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you solemnly swear that the informa- tion you're about to give us is the truth to the best of your ability? MR. COSTELLO: I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. COSTELLO: I just want to make one point that I've been before a few of the Boards before, and the time and delays I'm sure this~ Board does not lecture on, taking the adequate time to deliberate to come up with the proper evaluation. But you know, the cost involved, the delays, the climate, the economic climate changes, the jobs. If there are fishermen you ask for a delay many times for a procedure in government, there'd be no fish. They wouldn't get out there except in the winter time. If you ask the farmer and it has happened to me many times, as recent as last week. They tabled a motion so that they could speak with someone on some moot 'point. But the delay. If you told that to a farmer, come back next month, we'll render his decision. It hurts. I don't know financial status for this application or the individuals involved, but after having had adequate time deliberate, please, please, try to move along. Get some of these eases back to the people that's what we all the represent. I represent them, you represent them, we all represent people. Please. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Costello. Anybody else? Page 60 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. CARDINALE: I just want to make one other note. I want to have this Board to be aware that the Planning Board has declined. I was advised by the architect to process site plan pending your decision. So what will happen here, they'll have a delay whatever your decision is. Ironically we may accept, I'm not sure. Once you get the decision out, we need another month to get through site plan. We were unable to convince them to process the site plan on the premise that there is a true site plan. So I just want to reflect that on the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Is there any reason why I can't close this hearing at the Special Meeting next week? OK, so ~then this course between the Town Attorney and - MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a particular problem. I would like to state it. You know, everybody's here except the people who are supposed to be here, the two people that are the cause of this application. And Mr. Cardinale I'm sure you're a very intelligent man, but you seem like you're straining there. You're trying to find someway to explain your actions and you don't really, aren't the applicant; and it seems to me that it's difficult for these people to state their case when they can't even get a response from the actual applicant to their questions or perhaps even if he makes a statement perhaps Mr. Kassner would get up and explain himself or Mr. Orlowski. I mean I have enough information from the Building Inspector. I thought his interpretation, his decision was proper and I'm just a little perplexed as to the reason why we're not even really having the Planning Board weigh in on an application that they have caused. So I'm kind of wondering if we can't just expedite this a little bit and, you know, give these people a decision. I'll go down I don't care whatever it is, but they don't need to wait any longer. They acted on the Building Inspector. They wouldn't have needed Mr. Cardinale for the past two months. They would have been in there spending money. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to mention Mr. Dinizio in reference to that. I did have a discussion with Mr. Forrester today and he told me that he did have a conflict tonight. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not looking for Mr. Forrester. I'm looking mostly for the people that caused this application. They don't care to even be here. (People applauding). And, you know how I feel about these interpretations~ Jerry. You know we come across it all the time. I just think that, you know, to make them wait, you know another, whatever it's going to be for us to, it's not something that we should be doing. And again, it's up or down. At least they have a decision and then they can go where they need to go to get this done. But he doesn't need to talk to the Town Attorney. He's an attorney himself. I think he can, you know. He's a big boy. He can make the decision himself. He has his own interpretation and follow through on that. Unfortunately, two applicants who are very honest in their application to the Building Inspector got themselves into trouble. Page 61 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Anybody else? (None) OK, seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing and if there's anything that goes on we're having a meeting next week that we will, you know, I just want you to discuss that particular issue with our counsel, OK? Thank you all for your courtesy. It's a pleasure seeing you all and we'll have a decision in the future. I'll make a motion closing the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 62 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:54 P.M. - Application No. 4643 - JOHN MESLOH This is a request for a Variance, based upon the Building Inspector's October 14, 1998 Notice of Disapproval (for a Building Permit), Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, to construct a deck additionL with a front yard setback at less than 50 feet, at 2150 Arrowhead Lane, peconic, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-98-2-16.2. (Carryover by agent for applicant from the 1/21 hearing. ) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This hearing is a continuation of the last meeting will be held in abeyance - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Without a date. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Without a date. So, I'll offer that as a resolution. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 63 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:59 P.M. - Appl. No. 4644 - MARIA TRUPIA This is a request for a Variance based upon the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated November 20, 1998 (for a Building Permit), Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, for approval of an "as built" entry stoop addition with a side yard setback at less than the required 15 feet, at 1395 Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold; 1000-78-1-10.2.; a/k/a Lot 14 on the Map of Sleepy Hollow. (Carryover by applicant from the 1/21/99 hearing for attendance by current builder or other repr.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a eopy of the survey indicating the stoop. It is my understanding that the ramp leading to the stoop is not a part of this application and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I do see Mr. & Mrs. Bertani here and how are you tonight Sir? MR. BERTANI: Good evening. My name is John Bertani. I'm representing Maria Trupia who is not here. I'm here to clarify any questions'the Board would have. I want to give a little insight of what happened here. The project was started in 1993 and a survey was given to the Building Department in December of 93 showing the foundation and the concrete stoop. I was involved in 1997 to take over the project to complete their house, We reapplied for permits and inspeetion surveys given. The stoop has always been there since 1993. It all eame about when I filed for the CO on the house and it was discovered it encroached a 50 ft. setback. The house was always measured to the foundation and it was pieked up at that time. It is now 9-1/2 feet. It's approximately 68 sq. ft. per area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 38 sq. ft. So it exceeds the allowable 30 sq. ft. by MR, BERTANI: Right. And the handicapped ramp was attached to thisand that could go within 3 feet to the property line if we kept it tied to the building and ended up 4-1/2 ft. off the property line which gave it a little more room. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. BERTANI: anything else. If there's any questions I could try to explain CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Bertani? Mrs. Tortora any questions of Mr. MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? Page 64 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Did I understand you to say Mr. Bertani, that when the original Building Permit was applied for back in 93, that this stoop was on the plans that were - MR. BERTANI: Yes, the foundation was there. There's a concrete foundation under that because in order to cut costs we covered it with wood instead of doing it with stone and that's why there's a wood stoop there now instead of stone. But, that's basically a poured concrete stoop which is underneath there. Concrete walls are there the whole time. And, it shows on the foundation survey at that time. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: OK. Can I just ask you, the purpose of the size of the stoop I assume the ramp is to accommodate a wheel chair which of course I know. MR. BERTANI: Yes, Mrs. Trupia's mother is handicapped, she's in a wheel chair and that's why basically it's up there so you can turn the chair. There's a double door. It's a 6 foot door to get into the house because you need the entrance and also for the projection of weather. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No audience like to speak in favor? thank you Sir. questions. Anybody else in the OK, we'll see what develops. We MR. BERTANI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak against? McLaughlin, how are you tonight Sir? Mr. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I'm very good, thank you. I'm here this evening representing Nancy Deconcilis who owns the property immediately adjaeent to the applicants. I think if you take a look at the survey you can see that a very large structure was built on this property and it was built, the house itself right up to the 15 foot setback. I've looked through the Planning, I'm sorry, the Building Department files and indeed there have been surveys and plans that have been submitted, none all of which show the stoop. In faet, the Health Department approved survey I don't believe showed a stoop on it at all. And, I think that is where the problem developed in what was the Health Department approval on their survey. It looks to me from the survey that the stoop encroaches approximately 6 to 6-1/2 feet into the 15 yard setback. As you've spoken already, an allowable 30 sq. ft. stoop is possible as long as it doesn't come out more than 5 feet also from the wall of the building. I'm not sure how the stoop is measured for your purposes. Whether it includes the stairs from the stoop but, it appears to me to be substantially larger than 16 sq. ft. It looks to me if you include the stairs to be about 6-1/2 feet by about 17-1/2 Page 65 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals feet from the survey which would be over 100 sq. ft. of stoop and stairs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I answer your question Mr. McLaughlin, we very rarely do include those stairs, OK, and the ramp area is not affected in this. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I realize that the ramp is not even an issue before this Board this evening. Again, my client's position is simply if they wanted a stoop of this size, they clearly could have put this building further off the line and accommodated the stoop and that if you take a look at the criteria under the Town Law, 267 B as to what you should be looking at, you should be looking at the detriment to the adjoining property which we feel is substantial because it's to a very substantial degree taken away the side yard setback, could the benefit to the applicant be achieved by some other method.? I think clearly it could if there's decks all around this house and there could have been other ways of accommodating a wheel chair ramp into the house is the variance substantial. It's at least even according to their estimates double the allowable size and is it a self created difficulty and I think the answer to that is yes too, because again, the building proper was put right up to the setback line and if there was an indication that they were going to be adding a stoop of this size and not within the 30 foot limit that's allowed by the statute. Clearly they could have moved this building further off the line and gotten away with any problem like this. My client would have been here herself but, she is a, spends considerable time in Italy and is not presently in the country but she asked me to come this evening and express her views on this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, can I just ask you a question? We have a self imposed hardship, OK? What can we do to assist your client, apart from taking the stoop down? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't know. Perhaps some required screening next to it. Might do something so that at least it isn't as visible. Other than that I really don't have any suggestions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, do you want to contact her in reference to that? No way am I questioning your authority in any way, I assure you Mr. McLaughlin. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I have not discussed that issue with her at this point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I would hope to be able. Communications is a little difficult. But, I would hope to be able to communicate with her and get back to you by next week, or your next meeting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: next week maybe? OK. By the end of, by the middle of Page 66 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. MxLAUGHLIN: I, I will do my best. I'll send a fax over to her tomorrow and hope that she'll get back to me quickly and indicate in the fax that I would like her to do so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, that's great. MR. BERTANI: May I say something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely, Sir. MR. BERTANI: The Trustees, the people of the Board who placed the house where it is. We originally had the house, I didn't myself, but, the prior builder had the house placed much closer further up on the property and away from this property line. The Trustees made them move the house back to this location exactly. We didn't plan to put it there and that's not a, and we always had this stoop on it as far as the plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My understanding Mr. Bertani that you were not the original builder but you finished the house for Mrs. Tripia? MR. BERTANI: Yes, right, that's correct. was done in 93. So, I'm a little, you know. I came in 1997. This CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What was there when you took it over? Just the shell of the house? MR. BERTANI: Yes which we had to tear down to the first floor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, really. way down to the first floor? You had to tear it all the MR. BERTANI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why? MR. BERTANI: We reconstructed the house and completed it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. BERTANI: And all of these things like I said. Actually there was a larger deck that went through all the way down the side of it. Sure my client would be willing to do some sort of screening that would - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was my next question. MR. BERTANI: Yes, that wouldn't surely be a problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, MR. BERTANI: Thank you. Page 67 Hearing Transcripts February 23, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. McLaughlin? Thank you. So you'll get back to us MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes I will. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We thank you all and we will a, if no one else wants to speak we'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later and then we'll wait for a, is there any reason do you want to be communicated in reference to what Mr. McLaughlin has to say in any way? You have offered to do some screening so we will then take the bull by the horn if he says it's OK. MR. BERTANI: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't mean to be trite about this. I'm nOt trying in any way but, I just don't want to delay the hearing. There's no reason for it if you a -. MR. BERTANI: Well no, that's fine. Then we'd be more than happy to look into that and take care of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that alright with you Mr. McLaughlin? MR. McLAUGHLIN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you Sir. We thank you. Hearing no further comment we'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. End of Hearing. APPEALX3 BOARD MEMBERS qerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Homing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 Telephone (516) 765-1809 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: BUILDING DEPARTMENT PATIO HEIGHT CLARIFICATION This will confirm that by Board Resolution adopted February 23, 1999, the following shall be used to clarify the Zoning Code regarding allowable height for patios, replacing the lawn mower standards established by Building Inspectors: PATIO: The height shall be limited at zero inches, flush (level) with the ground at one end, and limited to a heiqht of 16 inches from ground level at the opposite end, with at least 50% of the entire structure built below grade. The patio would also be flat and level and meet safety requirements. Other present code restrictions are, of course, unchanged. Vote of the Board: Goehringer, Dinizio, Collins, Horning. Member Tortora abstained. ThiS Resolution was duly adopted (4-0, plus one abstention). Thank you. [ I~ECEiVED AND F!LE~