Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/20/1999 HEARINGPp. INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS HELD May 20, 1999 1 Appl. No. 4669-GERALDINE FEREND 10 Appl. No. 4685-VINCENT TORRE 18 Appl. No. 4686-ANDREA & STACEY PALIOURAS 25 Appl. No. 4687-PRISCILLA STEELE 27 Appl. No. 4688-MARILYN GRUMET 29 Appl. No. 4689-MERLON & ISABELLE WIGGIN 41 Appl. No. 4690-LOUISE RICHARDS 42 Appl. No. 4691-CELESTE THEOPHILOS 45 Appl. No. 4692-CHRISTOPHER & HEIDE MARIE GRATTAN 46 Appl. No. 4693-L. TRAPIDO 45 Appl. No. 4694-BARRY SHAPIRO 50 Appl. No. 4672-Douglas & Amy Rose 58 Appl. No. 4673- John (Hans) Lang 63 Appl. No. 4692- GRATTAN-Postponement 65 Appl. No. 4700-MICHAEL & GERALDINE ZUHOSKI 70 Appl. No. 4674-STEPHEN FRIEDMAN 76 Appl. No. 4695 -WILLIAM J. PRICE, JR. Transcript of Public Hearings May 20, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farre11 from Tape Recordings) 6:34 P.M. - Appl. No. 4669 - GERALDINE FEREND This is a request for a Lot Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26. regarding Lot #249, Amended Map A of Nassau Point Club Properties. This lot is substandard in size, and the merger determination was issued in a June 22, 1998 Notice of Disapproval under Article II, Section 100-25 for the reason that the lot has been merged with Nassau Point Club Lot #250 on or after June 1, 1983. Location of Property: 5125 and 5345 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcels 1000-111-14-1 and 2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey dated June 14, 1965, from Van Tuyl & Son indicating the approximate size of both lots 249 and 250 as indicated on this survey, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Olsen how are you tonight? It's been a long time we haven't seen you. MR. OLSEN: Fine. Can you hear me now? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We a, it is summertime and we just realized that the air conditioner is on and I guess we're all going to have to speak a little bit louder. MR. OLSEN: I don't know if this is on or not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's sounds like it. You might want to pull it over to the side. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, it's better. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's a little bit better. Thank you. MR. OLSEN: Good evening. My name is Gary Flannor Olsen. I'm an attorney having my offices at Main Road, Cutchogue and I'm representing the applicant Geraldine Ferend in connection with an Page 2 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals' application for a waiver of merger. The property in question are two lots located on Nassau Point and designated on the Nassau Point Map as lots number 249 and 250 in an R-40 Zone. Both of these lots were purchased by the applicant from two different owners. Lot #249 was purchased by the applicant from a Margarita Cashman on June 14, 1965, in Liber 5793, Page 539. Lot #250 was purchased by the applicant from a Charlotte Hooley on July 21, 1965, in liber 5793, Page 531 and copies of the Deeds I'll submit to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. OLSEN: I think I made six copies of each of these. Just as a side, Ms. Ferend who is here tonight is a long time Nassau Point resident. She a, actually her parents lived on Nassau Point had a summer house and as a child that's where she summered. So she is very familiar with Nassau Point and has a great love and feeling for Nassau Point. The applicant since' the date that she purchased these parcels has received two separate tax bills, one for each parcel. Lot #249, is designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Sec. 111, Blk. 14, Lot 2 and contains .62 acres. Lot #250, is designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Sec. 111, Blk. 14, Lot 1. It contains .59 acres according to the Assessor's Records and I,m submitting copies herewith of both tax bills. Due to the fact that both of these parcels are contiguous and in light of the new merger law the Southold Town Building Department have not approved each lot as a building lot. Thus, necessitating this application for a Waiver of Merger for the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. As you are aware the Nassau Point Subdivision Map was filed on August 16, 1922 as Map #156. When these parcels were purchased by Ms. Ferend they were both valid building parcels. Nassau Point was listed in Sec. 100-12 as one of the subdivisions accepted from the Southold Town Zoning Code as to lot area and width requirements and I'm submitted a copy of Section 100-12 for your records. Under Sec. 100-25 Subdivision 4, the new merger law states that any lot formerly listed in Sec. 100-12 was to be accepted from the merger law provided said lots are single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997. Unfortunately, these lots were not checked by that date, thus, necessitating this application before the Zoning Board. If they had been this would be an academic issue. As the Board is aware, they waived the merger and recognized the original lot line under Sec. 100-26 of the Southold Town Code. That section sets forth certain criteria to assist the Board in making its determination. The first criteria addresses the issue as to whether or not the waiver will result in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood. It is respectfully submitted that the density would not be significantly increased since the applicant is only seeking to reinstate the two building lots instead of the one merged lot. I have marked up a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map showing the Ferend parcels as well as other parcels in the area. Upon reviewing the Suffolk County Tax Map information it would appear that the Ferend parcels are the only two that are in common ownership with the exception of two other pieces which I have highlighted in blue on the Tax Map. I have highlighted the Ferend parcels in pink. All other parcels in Page 3 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals the area in yellow designating as to whether the parcels are improved or unimproved, and I'm submitting a copy of that marked up Tax Map for your file. CHAIRMAN GOVERNING: for. That's just what I was going to ask you MR. OLSEN: What's that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This. MR. OLSEN: I'm also submitting here with a list of all the parcels which I have marked in yellow setting forth the district, section, block and lot numbers of each, a notation as to whether they're improved or unimproved and the lot sizes. These are all the parcels that are marked in yellow. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. These are all yellow? MR. OLSEN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. OLSEN: The Board must also determine whether the waiver would reeognize a lot that is eonsistent with the size of lots in the neighborhood. A review of the Suffolk County Tax Map whieh I've just given to you, clearly shows that the Ferend lots are generally in keeping with the size and shapes of other lots in the area and in fact, of similar size and shape of most of the lots on Nassau Point. The two tax parcels directly to the north of the subjeet property, those parcels are designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as Distriet 1000, Sec. 111, Blk. 14, Lots 3 and 4 are similar size and shape to the applicant's parcels containing .66 acres and .63 aeres respectively. Tax parcel 1000-111-10-13.1 on the southwest side of Vanston Road, directly across from the applicant's property, is also of a similar size and shape. Tax parcel, 13.1 contains a single family residence. As an aside, that piece is owned by a Christine Hunt and I think somebody by the name of Babcock and I believe they did fax a letter to the Zoning Board. They did to my office saying that they're not in favor of this application but, their parcel is exactly the same area as the two pieces that are owned by Ms. Ferend. To the south side of the subject property are two other parcels, each containing a residence which are of similar size and shape to the applicant's individual lots. They're designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as ]000-18-1-1.4 and 1.3. Each of said parcels contains a house. Tax Lot 1.4 contains .63 acres according to the Assessor's office and lot 1.3 contains .5 acres according to the Assessor's office. The above information is being provided to this Board to demonstrate that the granting of a waiver would recognize lots that are consistent with the size of lots in the neighborhood. If you go through that sheet where I listed the size of all the parcels that are marked in yellow. They're some bigger, but they're also some smaller. The Ferend parcels tend to kind of fit right in the middle and are generally consistent with the size Page 4 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals and shape of other parcels on Nassau Point and particularly in that area. The next item the Board must consider is whether the waiver will avoid economic hardship. What I did was I had a Peter Kren who is a licensed appraiser go to the property, and appraise the parcels and determine the value of each parcel separately and what the parcels would be worth together and at this point I would like to have Mr. Kren make a presentation and submit his appraisal to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Kren would you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the information you're about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? MR. KREN: It is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And state your name. MR. KREN: My name is Peter Kren. I'm a licensed Real Estate Broker in Mattituck. I'm also an Appraiser. Gary asked me to do an appraiser on the two lots. I believe currently in the market that we have right now each lot is worth approximately $295,000. They are beautifully treed wooded lots on good protected boating water. That if these two lots were merged into one parcel I believe, they would probably be selling for $375,000 range. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the one lot? MR. KREN: Pardon? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the one lot? MR. KREN: For the one lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just before you leave, does anybody have any questions of this gentleman? Anyone? Thank you Sir. MR. KREN: I'd like to submit. (Mr. Kren submitted his Certificate of Appraisal and his report). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. MR. KREN: You're welcome. MR. OLSEN: Just for the record, Mr. Kren has submitted his appraisal. I h-ave additional copies here for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I can keep this? MR. OLSEN: Also, Mr. Kren's qualifications are set forth in the Appraisal. Accordingly, as you can see by his testimony and by the written appraisal, that's part of the record now, the granting of a merger would result and avoid an economic hardship to the applicant of approximately $215,000. As he pointed out both of these parcels are waterfront parcels, they're beautiful parcels, fronting on Page 5 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals Wunneweta Pond in a very desirable neighborhood. Finally, the natural details and character of the contours and slopes of the lot will not be significantly changed or altered by the granting of this Waiver Application nor will there be substantial filling of land affecting nearby environmental or flood areas. I also wish to bring to the Board's attention that it has granted favorable approval for Merger Applications for the Pavlak property in Mattituck, the Lagda property in Cutchogue, Joseph Meeley property on Stetting Road in Cutchogue and the Kildar property on Bitter Sweet Lane in Cutchogue. Actually I went to the Assessor's office today to see if there were any other applications for Waivers of Merger on Nassau Point. In Sec. 111 which is where this property is, but I was not able to find anything and actually as I've indicated to you, my research seems to indicate that it's only the Ferend property where there's common ownership of two vacant parcels. I would respectfully request that the Board favorably consider the Ferend application and apply the reasoning that was applied to the other applications recognizing of course that the individual fact patterns vary from file to file. For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that the Board grant this application for a waiver of merger. Ms. Ferend is also here if you have any questions that you'd like to ask her. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you leave us, we'll see if there's anything we'd like to grill you about, OK? Starting with Mr. Dinizio, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. You know how I feel about this already. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: originally? Do you know how much she paid for the lots MR. OLSEN: You really want to know back in 1965, $7,000 each. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Each? MR. OLSEN: Yes, there were two different sellers, two different contracts, I guess, that they were seven apiece. MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned Sir, that you alluded to the process by which they got merged. How, how, was the owner unaware of them being merged by the statute? MR. OLSEN: Well, she was getting separate tax bills. Quite frankly, she, she grew up on Nassau Point. I think one reason these parcel when she purchased them were maybe even by 1965 standards low, I don't know. I wasn't practicing in 65. But, her family or Ms. Ferend did own property south of these pieces. Is Page 6 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals that right? She also has one or two other parcels on Nassau Point where there are two pieces together but the tax map shows a dotted line and she only gets one tax bill for those parcels, where as this one she's always gotten two tax bills and two separate deeds. If they had been taken out of common ownership by January 1, of 97, we wouldn't even have to be here. MEMBER HORNING: Well, that's why I'm kind of asking why the owner did not do that? MR. OLSEN: I don't know. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not following your thinking on this statement. It's taken out of common ownership by 97. MR. OLSEN: Well, it's my understanding that Nassau Point properties were on the accepted list. MEMBER. TORTORA: The old accepted list? MR. OLSEN: The old accepted list and my reading of the Code indicates that they would have been approved the separate building parcels up to January 1, of 97. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm going to have to go back and read the Code. It's a little confusing. I thought it was 95 when it was developed. MR. OLSEN: I believe it's 100-25-4. book and I didn't. I was going to bring the Code CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have one. MEMBER TORTORA: I have it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: it? We have one inside. Oh, she has CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: as we speak. Mrs. Tortora is reviewing it here right MEMBER TORTORA: I'm looking at it right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very rarely do we do this, but a, it's so rare that we see you Mr. Olsen that a, we, I just want to mention that. MR. OLSEN: I believe there are some exceptions under 100-25 which was added on November 28, 1995, there were exceptions to the merger law. MEMBER TORTORA: But then they were taken out. Page 7 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. OLSEN: It says under C, "lots which are recognized under 100-24 and meet any of the following categories shall be exempt from the merger provision set forth the following, that it shall not be deemed merged by operation of this Chapter and then it goes down to C4, it says that the lot on the maps described for 100-12 to nonconforming lots has been held in single and separate ownership from January 1, 1997". CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does the Board have any interest in asking any questions of the applicant? Anybody? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. I guess not. develops throughout the hearing, we thank you Sir. We'll see what MR. OLSEN: Thank you. I think Ms. Ferend wants to speak. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? Oh, she does want to say something. MS. FEREND: I would just like to say one thing. People are wondering why I bought the lots. When I first came down here my father owned very large lots on Vanston Road and I loved the place and I proceeded over the years to buy lots to keep it wooded. So that if you studied the record you'll see that I have a lot on the corner and a lot on the way up. I didn't intend to sell the lots. Actually the only lot I sold was when a young man wrote to me and said, that he would like me to sell him a lot because he wanted to build a bedroom, because he wanted to extend his family and so I sold him the lot and he sent me a picture twelve months later and he said you did this. So I haven't really been wanting to sell the lots. I bought them to keep them wooded but when my father and step-mother died, and the property that we owned at the very end was sold. Not that I wanted it to be but, it was sold and that was in 78. I thought well, I'll keep these and it will make a nice investment for me down the line, never dreaming it would be this kind of an investment. But, it's a happy investment for me. I mean if you pay $7,000 for something and it increases in value, that's a nice thing to have happen and I'm very pleased with it. I'm 73, I'm retired, I would love to be able to some day retire on the premise of the lots. So basically that is the story of why I never sold the lots. Why I bought them in the first place and it's a kind of a piece of history. When I was a kid, I clammed on Wunneweta Pond. I knew every nook in clamming of the place and I wish that I live there now, but I don't and I just wanted to explain that to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just have to ask you a question which has absolutely nothing to do with this hearing, but, I grew very fond of I believe you aunt who was living in the house that was sold. Page 8 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MS. FEREND: Jessie. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, she was a very dear lady and we knew her very well. MS. FEREND: How could you know her? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I should say that I've been a Real Estate Broker since 1975 and I basically had sold real estate up until 1986 and have not since then, and myself, possibly Mr. Kren, I think he worked for another organization at the time and a very nice lady in Mattituck by the name of Peggy Killian grew to know your aunt and she was a dear, dear lady, I have to tell you and that it's a real pleasure to meet you because she had spoken about you many, many, many times, but I don't think I ever spoke to you on the phone or ever met you. MS. FEREND: No, it was a difficult time and I would come down on weekends but I worked and she lived there. Unfortunately, when we sold it she had been moved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: lady. Moved, yeah, but she was a dear, dear MS. FEREND: Oh, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And so are you. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes? MEMBER HORNING: Since we have the applicant here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you a question. Oh, I think Mr. Homing wants to ask MEMBER HORNING: Not to de, the labor of this point too much but, how is it that you were not aware that these lots were going to be merged? MS. FEREND: I can't say that I was not aware that they were going to be merged. I was aware but, it was the kind of thing I have two small lots on and they were merged and I got a single tax bill and these lots I got, I still got the original two tax bills and so I really didn't concentrate on it to be honest with you. I just, it was stupid. I could have very easily changed a title. I don't think it's that impossible to do, but I didn't and so I'm stuck with this now. That's the answer. MEMBER HORNING: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Yes ma'am. Just kindly use a, I need you to use the Page 9 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals mike. We're taking this down and it's going to make it more difficult. I apologize. Just state your name for the record. MRS. HIGGINS: We are Thomas and Anne Higgins and we are on the southern corner of lot 250 and we offer no objection to Ms. Ferend's request of what she wants to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against as indicated by the attorney we do have one letter in the file that the Board is aware of. Hearing no further comment we'll make a motion a, any questions of the Board? OK, seeing no questions, we'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Mr. Olsen we expect to have a Special Meeting on June 7th. That seems to be the night that we will if we do not deal with this application tonight, OK, and so we should have a decision thereafter. Again, a pleasure meeting you, nice meeting you Mr. Kren, have a good evening. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 10 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:00 P.M. - Appl. No. 4685 -VINCENT TORRE This is a request for a Variance under Zoning Code Chapter 100, Article III, Section 100-31C(2) based upon the October 20, 1998 Notice of Disapproval (updated January 27, 1999) regarding a Building Permit Application to convert accessory barn for retail sales in conjunction with applicant's Art Studio and Gallery disapproved for the reason that retail sales and a gallery for public viewing in the accessory building is not a permitted use in this A-C Zone. 100 Sound Avenue, Mattituck; 1000-120-3-1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have survey from Young & Young, dated October 27, 1986 indicating the wood frame house, the garage, the shed and wood frame barn and another shed and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Fitzgerald how are you Sir? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm fine, thank you. How are you Sir? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. What would you like to tell us? MR. FITZGERALD: I don't have anything to add to the material that was submitted with the application. I think all of the questions have been answered. I got a copy of the letters that the Board received from Mr. Orlowski for the Planning Board, and I would just comment that his, his comment that retail sales are not permitted in the A-C District and that's why we're here tonight. One other matter which may hear on this which is not included in the information that was provided, is the fact that the Torte wants to add a Jens nursery I guess, flower shop, garden shop are a little over a tenth of a mile from the proposed from the location of this proposed studio and that's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, the only comment that I have is that a, that the Notice of Disapproval reads, "the use for retail sales and gallery for public viewing in an accessory building is not permitted in the A-C Zone District" as you just mentioned. So it's not only the retail sales, it's the gallery for public viewing, OK. MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I, I'm not sure. I don't think that the application was necessarily worded that way. I think Mr. Torte is here and can probably speak to that more appropriately than I can, the question being, is it your intention that it be a gallery viewing, a public viewing as oppose I guess, as oppose to shop. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you give us an idea how much of the barn you intend to utilize Mr. Torte and all those things? MR. TORRE: Yes. Here is a floor plan which I drew up and it shows you that I'll probably be using not more than 20% of the entire building for the purpose and I'd like to clarify exactly what I'll be doing there. If I may just introduce myself. Page 11 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. TORRE: I'm Vincent Torte. My wife and I moved into the house in Mattituck just about a year and a half ago. I'm a retired book designer and graphic artist and in addition to which I've been painting over 55 years. My wife taught at the Fashion Institute of Technology. She taught art, drafting, drawing fashion illustration and also lectured. What I want to do in the barn is not strictly have what you might think as a gallery. It simply would be a place where I can show my paintings to people who might drive in when they see a sign that I'll put on the road with your permission and as far as the north road is concerned in the area that I'm in Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned the Harbes Farm stand which is' right across the road and about 600 feet east and Jens which is right across from Harbes so they are the nearest retail sales which goes on during the season as you know. Now, I must candidly admit that calling an artist a retail sales is a very far fetched concept. Any artist will tell you he's lucky if he sells three or four paintings a year. That's a very slow moving thing. People want to know you before they will buy so there would be a lot of hesitation on people's parts. Further more I would only open the gallery probably on Saturdays. During the week there would not be the kind of interest as far as visitors to the area is concerned. So, it would be essentially on Saturdays, possibly a little bit on Sundays, if the weather permits. If the weather doesn't permit I simply won't open the door to the barn. I have amble parking if that's a concern. The cars that stop would not even stop on the road. I have a very large area that they could come into and you would hardly notice that anyone is there. I could not possibly add to the traffic on the north road. That's already colossal and as a matter of fact, my whole idea is to profit from that traffic when the visitors come out on the weekends. Hopefully they'll notice my sign and take an interest and drive in and perhaps look at my paintings, and as far as strictly calling it retail that's as I said before, a very unusual concept to tell an artist about his painting. That is simply not the case. Now, yes? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: studio and an art gallery? What's the difference between an art MR. TORRE: Well the studio, the studio is simply where I do my work and that would not even be in the barn. There's a small chicken coupe is what it was that measures about 12 x 18 feet and I cleaned that out and fixed it up so I can work in there which is next to the barn. I don't usually like to have people see where I work because they ask too many questions and it takes up an awful lot of time. The barn which remains unaltered since I bought it. The only thing I ever did to it, was hang some trellis work where you have some large open areas and that's where I tack up my paintings and there would be about two dozen paintings on view at the most at any given time and then in the storage rooms I would have the paintings I've done throughout my life. Page 12 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only other comment that I have is, that the retail sales that occurs or does continue to occur during the glowing months at Harbes of course is an agricultural operation. As for the Jen's Farm stand of the Jen's Nursery that was the nature of a - MEMBER TORTORA: A problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, well it was, you can't say it's nonconforming, OK, but it was the nature of an action that occurred in the Justice of the Peace Court here, several years ago and by I believe Judge Price at the time and so that's been pretty much allowed to stay and of course unfortunately Mr. Jen has passed away last year which even makes things worse. I mean because now his daughter has to deal with that situation. But, so, I, I, in no way am i inhibiting what you are presenting before us, but, I'm saying to you that you really can't compare those two operations to your operation, OK? This is clearly a problem with zoning. That's where the problem lies and we'll see what the rest of the Board has to say. In no way am I trying to upset you in anyway. I'm just mentioning that that's the issue, as it stands. MR. TORRE: Yes. If I might just add that I literally have no neighbors except the lady who lives across the road. Our property which is 1.4 acres is completely surrounded by the Mr. Harbes Farm which is on to the east of us and behind us and there's an access road, then There's the Big E Farms Vineyard which is also very big, so, I mean I couldn't possibly be disturbing any neighbor if that were a case of issue. I simply haven't got any neighbors. The lady across the road we become good friends very quickly and I know she has no objection to that and I think there's no-one here tonight speaking against this proposal. So, I stand alone as far as that goes. I wouldn't be disturbing a single sole in Southold by having a few people drive in on Saturdays just to look at my paintings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. discuss anything with Mr. Torte? Mr. Horning would you like to MEMBER HORNING: Well there is a distinct difference between agricultural enterprises and even an art studio- MR. TORRE: Oh, yes. MEMBER HORNING: And something that you're proposing to do which is not allowed for by the zoning codes. I can't personally explain why the people who wrote the codes, wrote them the way they did. But, however, and the use is clearly not permitted in the code and the danger is not that if you're allowed to do this, your neighbors don't complain and such like that. The danger is, that someone else does the same thing and says, well you let this guy do that and someone else does it and pretty soon the conformity to the code doesn't exist anymore. Page 13 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. TORRE: Well yes, I understand that a, my property is already zoned for agriculture and I believe what, was called Home Industry Zone, or something to that effect. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Home Occupation. MR. TORRE: Home Occupation. In other words if we want to bake apple pies and sell them, we could do that. That means we could do something from the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can't sell. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You can't sell from the house. MEMBER DINIZIO: You can't sell apple pies. MEMBER TORTORA: You can't sell to the public. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You can't sell pies either. MR. TORRE: I'm, I'm just trying to find out what that all means. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can operate a business out of one room of your house, that's all that means. MR. TORRE: Oh, oh, I see, right, right. Well, ladies and gentlemen as you know, this is a very beautiful area and a lot of artists are attracted to it and of course they mostly go to the Hamptons. But, you would be discouraging artists to come here if you told them they have no way of selling their paintings because as you sell something, it' retail. Now how does an artist sell his work in Southold? Please tell me and I will do it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: thing I can suggest. You rent a store front. That's the only MR. TORRE: I rent a store front, well - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that the only thing I can suggest. MEMBER HORNING: My brother was an artist, he passed away in 92, but he was a very notable artist and he painted at home and he rented a gallery to show his work. MR. TORRE: Well I could not possibly afford to rent a store and do that. I have to just utilize what, what I have. I might add - MEMBER TORTORA: I think I can explain the difference. MR. TORRE: Ma'am I think I understand what you're all saying, but I'm trying to appeal to - MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Torte, I have to say that I don't think you can understand it. Page 14 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. TORRE: because - Well if you give a variance on what you're telling me CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: let her speak to you. Mrs. Tortora's husband is an artist, so MEMBER TORTORA: The differenee is simple. If someone wants to come over you're allowed to have a studio under Home Occupations in your home. If someone wants to come over to your home and see those paintings and purchase them, or condition you to purchase them, that's perfectly acceptable. You're not open to the public. It is not, when, when you object to the use of the word "retail", but in terms of our code, that means you are open to the public. That your, the product that you're producing is whether it's art or whatever it is, is open to the public. That is the use that's not permitted. The purpose of the code is to separate business uses from residential uses. The requirements are to protect the integrity of the Zoning Code. Now for example, you want to put out 12 or 13 paintings over the weekend. We cannot limit you if we grant a use variance for the land. We cannot condition it upon you putting out 12 paintings on Saturday during the hours of such and such. It would go with the land. Nor, could we say, you can't sell frames or mats, or pencils or any of the other things that are customary incidentals with a gallery. That is what is so difficult. You're asking for a very particular thing based on very particular needs. We don't have the ability to grant sueh a variance. We could grant a use variance to you for a business use if you can proof to this Board that for each and every permitted use with only agricultural district you cannot make a reasonable rate of return. That's the criteria among others. But that is the criteria and one of the things that I wanted to ask Mr. Fitzpatrick is, that criteria has not been addressed in here in all fairness to your client. This Board will look at the standards of the use variance in accordance with town law. I don't thing there's any question but that's what this is, unless somebody else on the Board thinks otherwise. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, no, no, I, I didn't get to that point yet but I thank you for mentioning it so far. You know, I just wanted to know if you wanted to have time to take a look at those. To present those areas. You know, we'll give them to you. We have them as a part of our standard form and you can review those and you can a, you know, you can eome back another night and see if you want to deal with those aspects. MR. FITZGERALD: With regard to the a, the a statement about showing that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return for each and every permitted use and the permitted uses are, owning a home or running a farm. Is that essentially correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It may be. I don't know. It's a - MEMBER TORTORA: In the A-C District. MR. FITZGERALD: Well, OK, there a one family detached dwelling, the following agricultural operation, including retail sales, some Page 15 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals local produce, buildings owned by the Town of Southold, wineries, those are the permitted uses. So, since Mr. Torte isn't in any of thOse businesses other businesses other than owning a private home, I did not address those because it did not say pool But, are you saying that it does? If so, I would appreciate a, a, further comments that would a, that you would help us in that regard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, let me get, cut to the chase here, OK? This Board since 1980, since I was appointed to this Board, probably granted 4 use variances, OK. There are strict standards that we have and it's, it's a pretty interesting demonstration done by individuals and that's what we're offering you. We're saying, if yot,~ want to address each and everyone of those areas and you want to come back and discuss that, other than what you just went through right now, you know we certainly will give you the opportunity to do so, OK. In all fairness to your applicant, to the, applicant and to your client, that's all we can really say at this point. You know, at this point. We understand, you know, be right there. We understand that a, you know, it presents a problem to him because it is expensive to rent you know, commercial property, there's no question about it. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean I would like to just state something because I saw the back and forth kind of your philosophy on how you, you know, think you should be able to use your property and how the town sees it. I suggest to you if Mr. Fitzgerald hasn't read that County Road 48 study yet, you go to the Clerk tomorrow and you purchase it. It will cost you $16 which is a shame and you read that Sir because you'll get a sense of what this town thinks about your property rights and then try to come back here with the same attitude that you did you'll see that this town has no tolerance for this, OK, that's not my opinion but, if you read that study that your tax dollars paid for you'll see that Sir and you know, perhaps think a little bit differently. My personal feelings you know, a couple of rooms and a barn where you can have a car or two pop up isn't a problem and the reason is you can have a dentist's office or a doctor's office in this area and have 15 cars an hour coming in and no-one can say anything. So, I mean I understand your point. These people are in my opinion exactly right if you read the code and I do suggest that you do read that. You'll get a sense of where this town is going and what the town's sense of fairness is to a property owner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Be aware that study has not been adopted, OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yet, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yet. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yet, although today is the last day for comment. MR. FITZGERALD: The, I'm sorry, the, what is it that your suggesting that we - Page 16 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I just suggest that you know you came here intentions you know, to fair or not fair we granted you a hearing so that you can state your ease for the use of this 3 small rooms and a barn as an art gallery. You came here in all fairness just to see if that could happen and I'm saying to you, that had you read that study I think that you would of had a different opinion as to whether or not you could have done this and what this town actually you know, what's to do to people. So, you know, it's just a suggestion. I suggest that you do, it's a interesting reading. I know it's boring but, you'll definitely get an education Sir and perhaps direct your energies in a different direction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just again reiterate that has not been adopted to this point. So we are, this is not a (change taped) I am very simply saying that we would like to afford you an opportunity for you to demonstrate anything that you want regarding those use variance criteria that Mrs. Tortora was alluding to. So it's your choice at this point. If you want to hold this over until June and you want to continue the procedure it's fine with us. If you want to stop at this point, it's OK, with us also. Ms. Collins is presently out of the country and will not be back until June, the June meeting which is June 24. Personally, in my particular opinion in these situations it's always good to have a full Board. So, a, it's up to you. I will continue the hearing and you give me an opinion. Why don't you talk about it between yourself and Mr. Torte and you know, let me know in five minutes which way you want to go. MR. FITZGERALD: Would you like that? Well I think we would like to continue it. MR. TORRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, OK, so that's what we will do. We will hold, we'll take any comments that anybody has tonight and then we'll hold it off until June 24. I have to tell you that if the calendar is burden, overburden at that time we may have to hold it off until the July meeting but we will do the best we can to get it on for you, OK. MR. FITZGERALD: OK, and a, well, OK, yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: for your presentation. You're welcome. Thank you Mr. Torte MR. TORRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision, I'm sorry, recessing the hearing until June 24th. MEMBER HORNING: Second. Page 17 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 18 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:23 P.M. - Appl. No. 4686 - ANDREA & STACEY PALIOURAS This is a request for a Variance under Article X, Section 100-102 based upon the October 20, 1998 Notice of Disapproval for a permit to use part of an existing dwelling, disapproved in this B Business Zone District for a Gift Shop for the reason that an additional use (for a gift shop) is proposed on an insufficient lot area of 51,400 sq. ft. (in conjunction with a principal dwelling use.) 32570 C.R. 48, Peconic; 1000-74-4-9. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey dated November 10, 1982, indicating 1.196 acres, a two story frame house fronting on C.R. 48, which appears to be the nature of this application, a shed and a one story frame cottage. We'll refer to it as a fronting on a private road and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. We are ready for you. MR. OLSEN: Good evening. My name is Gary Flannor Olsen. I'm an attorney having my law practice at Main Road, Cutchogue, N.Y., and I represent the applicants Andrea and Stacey Paliouras. Mr. & Mrs. Paliouras own property known as 235700 C.R. 48, Peconic, N.Y., designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Sec. 74, Blk. 4, Lot 9. This property is in the B Zone and is surrounded by other B Zone property. I have submitted a survey prepared by Robert Van Tuyl, amended August 20, 1986, showing that the area is 1.196 acres and I have computed the area to be 52,157 sq. ft. Mr. & Mrs. Paliouras made an application to the Southold Town Building Department to utilize part of a two story frame house as a gift shop which is a permitted use in a B Zone pursuant to Sec. 100-100 of the Zoning Code. They are presently residing in the house and have a preexisting Certificate of Occupancy dated January 6, 1987 pre-CO # Z-15170. To utilize the property for a one family dwelling their application to the Building Department was denied on the basis that the proposed gift shop is located ena lot in an existing nonconforming single family dwelling, the B District that has insufficient lot area for both uses. The Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department was based on the fact, that each use, i.e. that is the residential gift shop each need 30,000 sq. ft., for a total of 60,000 proposed uses. Accordingly, under today's code, the Paliouras' parcel is undersized for both uses by only 7,843 sq. ft., thus necessitating this application before the Zoning Board. As the Board is well aware that in considering whether or not an area variance should be granted, the Zoning Board must consider two basic things. One, the benefit to the applicants if the variance is granted and 2, the detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance were to be granted. In balancing the interest above stated, the Zoning Board must also consider five factors for an area variance. One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties if granted. It is respectfully submitted, that the granting of this minor area variance would in no way be a Page 19 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals detriment to nearby properties. This property is boarded on the north by C.R. 48, and on the west by a private road and a Mobile gas station and there is a driveway from the Mobile gas station that leads out on to this private side road. To the south, the property is boarded by the Long Island Railroad, and to the east by a sand and gravel operation. Also, between the south side of the Mobile gas station and the Long Island Railroad tracks is a shed building company. None of the nearby properties would be adversely affected if the Board were to grant this variance to permit a small gift shop in the applicant's residence. The next criteria which the Board must consider is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method other than an area variance. It is respectfully submitted that there is no other recourse to the applicant than to appeal to the Zoning Board. This property predates the Southold Town Zoning Code. More property can't be added to it. The residential use in a B District is a nonconforming use. If the property contains 60,000 sq. ft., the current Zoning Code would not require the making of this application to have the two uses. The next criteria is whether the area variance is substantial. As stated before, the applicant is only short in the overall area by 7,843 sq. ft., which I respectfully submit is not substantial. The Board must also consider whether the variance will have adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. As I have indicated this property is in and surrounded by a B District and accordingly would have no adverse effect or impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Lastly, the Board must determine if the applicant's difficulty was self created, which consideration shall only be relevant. It shall not preclude the granting of an area variance. Since this property is Zone Business and permits a gift shop use, the applicants would like to utilize part of their residence for business purposes and take advantage of the fact, that they're located in a Business Zone to operate their little gift shop. It is respectfully submitted, that the granting of this minimum area variance would in no way affect the character of the neighborhood and would not adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Thank you very much and my clients are here tonight if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: cottage is today? I need to ask you what the nature of the MR. OLSEN: The nature of the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Cottage. MR. OLSEN: The cottage? They just use it as storage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great, and what is the approximate square footage of the gift shop? You know, total square footage or percentage of the house? You don't have to give that to me right now if you don't have it. I mean, is it 500 square feet? Is it? MR. OLSEN: I believe I have a sketch of it. Page 20 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We just haven't calculated it. MR. OLSEN: Do you have one there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It appears George has. MEMBER HORNING: 13 x 25. MR. OLSEN: 13 x 25? MEMBER GEORGE: It looks that way. MR. OLSEN: Anybody have a calculator? MEMBER HORNING: That's one section and 18 x 25. 13 x 10 and 18 x 15. 135. MR. OLSEN: Actually I believe my clients would be willing to make the area of the gift shop either a little bigger or a little smaller if it's going to affect the decision of the Board. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 286 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have 286 sq. ft. Is that about right George? MEMBER DINIZIO: How much? MEMBER HORNING: 286. MEMBER DINIZIO: I've got 325. MEMBER HORNING: I've got 400 roughly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 400? MEMBER HORNING: Give or take. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 400 plus or minus? MEMBER HORNING: There are two areas. 13 times 10, 18 times 15. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we're calling it 400 at this point. If you calculate something different let us know. OK? MR. OLSEN: Alright. CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the applicant, Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZlO: No, not at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? And any questions of the attorney for Page 21 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Access to this, access to the gift shop? MR. OLSEN: They, they would obviously have to comply with access requirements and I did speak to Mrs. Paliouras and she's expecting to have to put in a ramp access for handicap access off the west side. There's a porch that goes into the property - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. OLSEN: Up on the west side on the porch where the ramp is. MEMBER TORTORA: vehicular access. addressed that but, I was speaking of MR. OLSEN: Oh, well, access, the most logical access would be coming down that private road that leads down to the side of their property because that's how they get into their property now, rather than off the north road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you don't object to any restrictions that are placed, that no access be placed from the north road? MR. OLSEN: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that what you were alluding to? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: scary. Mr. Homing? OK, sometimes we think alike. It's very MEMBER HORNING: And I was wondering about parking itself. How are you accommodating parking? MR. OLSEN: Well they have a great big piece of property and it's, that there's plenty of room for parking. I would imagine if we get the variance to do this then, the next step is to go to the Planning Board and they're going tell us what we have to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. OLSEN: It'd be nice if we didn't have to do that. There's a big circular driveway and I quite frankly can't see this attracting a tremendous amount of cars at the same time and hopefully they can just use what's there now. But, I, I, first we have to get passed the Zoning Board and then I guess we have to go the the Planning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. MR. OLSEN: Unless you can put something in your decision saying that we don't have to do that. Page 22 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We normally have a problem with that Mr. Olsen. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't think that's going to happen. MR. OLSEN: But don't you think that's a good idea? CHAIRMAN GOEHINGER: It's certainly a utop- MR. OLSEN: We're starting to think alike too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's certainly a utopian idea Sir. You're absolutely correct. MEMBER TORTORA: We just want a, as far as the - MR. OLSEN: $40,000 worth of drainage, probably. MEMBER TORTORA: As far as the actual square footage, you're proposing in the front of the building, it would be where the living room area is? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you come up here Mr. Paliouras. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, so we - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. PALIOURAS: I think where the living room and the dining room are now. Is that right? MEMBER TORTORA: Oh, it's the liv, living - MR. OLSEN: This is Mrs. Paliouras. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MEMBER TORTORA: Could you show us then? MRS. PALIOURAS: Mrs. Stacey Paliouras. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, why don't you come up here and show us on your sketch. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you actually indicate which area because it looks like here. (Everyone looking at Mrs. Tortora's map and discussing same.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you want the dining room also? Is that what the issue is? MRS. PALIOURAS: Yes, if it's a problem, we - Page 23 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: But where would you live? MRS. PALIOURAS: Upstairs and we have also a kitchen. We can close this area. We can use the kitchen and the upstairs MRS. TORTORA: No, we don't want to force you to do anything. Alright, if we can use this too, we'd be happy. We're just asking what it is you want to use so MRS. PALIOURAS: MEMBER TORTORA: we can determine. MRS. PALIOURAS: MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, these two, these two, yes. These two, OK, very good. we correct calling this the living room area? MRS. PALIOURAS: This is the living room but, room, we call it TV, I mean a - MEMBER TORTORA: A TV room? MRS. PALIOURAS: MEMBER TORTORA: MRS. PALIOURAS: MEMBER HORNING: 13 foot by 10 foot and 18 by 157 Is that correct? (Members discussing amongst themselves) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again, Mr. Olsen, if anything more, you know, plus or minus 400 sq. ft. we are. MR. OLSEN: What did you come to? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, is this, are there is a big I mean a piano room, I'm sorry. Just two rooms. OK, we'll call the smaller room on the - It's a little smaller than the living room. To your knowledge are these dimensions correct you calculate That's where 400 sq. ft., 10 x 13, 18 x 15. MR. OLSEN: own the dry cleaning place in Southold - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, OK. MR. OLSEN: Year round. something just to get them away from - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. OLSEN: Yeah. I'm sure you all know Mr. & Mrs. Paliouras. They since then and a, this is The dry cleaning. Page 24 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. OLSEN: Actually if you have any question about how they intention on using the gift shop, what they're going to sell or anything like that. There here to answer questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: they're welcome to sell. No, I'm sure whatever a gift shop sells, MR. OLSEN: That's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, it is a general business, you know a Business B Zone District. MR. OLSEN: It's a permitted use. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, yeah, sure, OK. further questions? Any other MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, a, wait, I would like to just point out one more thing and this is concerning the C.R. 48 thing again is that if that were to pass you know, you would have to buy more land in order to have this use. MR. OLSEN: That's not law now. MEMBER DINIZIO: into consideration. That's not law. I just want you to take that MR. OLSEN: That's why I want to ,get this done. MEMBEt~ TORTORA: Are you suggesting that there's some urgency to this? MR. Ol-.q~N: As a matter of fact, I'll call you about 10:00 o'clock CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why should you be different than anybody else Mr. Olsen? (laughing). OK, we just have to ask the series of questions that we're going to. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 25 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:40 P.M. - Appl. 4687 - PRISCILLA STEELE This is a request for a Lot Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26, regarding a substandard lot know as 275 Village Lane (west side), at Mattituck, N.Y.; situated approximately 122 feet north of the Main Road. The March 22, 1999 Notice of DisapProval states that the Zoning Code Article II, Section 100-25 merges this lot with an adjacent lot to the west (which fronts along the Main Road), iden!ified as 1000-114-06-03. The lot which is the subject of this Waiver request is identified on the County Tax Maps as 1000-114-6-5. Open hearing, and after receiving testimony if any from neighbors, possible Resolution to continue on June 24, 1999 at applicant's request, and Board's request for copy of 1968 Deed which originally created vacant lot (or any other info to be determined at this time.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to open it and I'm going to waive the reading of the legal notice and I'm going to ask if there's anybody here to discuss Priscilla Steele. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: She gave a letter. MR. O'BRIAN: What does it relate to? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we're going to postpone it until the next regularly scheduled meeting. MR. O'BRIAN: Well what does it pertain to? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: notice? Would you like me to read the legal MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, read it, will you. MR. O'BRIAN: Does it give you a synopsis of what it pertain to? MEMBER DINIZIO: NO, read it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I don't know if after I read it, that you will understand it but, I'll read it anyway. This is a request for a Lot Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26, regarding a substandard lot known as 275 Village Lane, west, in Mattituck, OK, situated in X,Y,Z, amount, and so on and so forth. MR. O'BRIAN: I didn't know the particular property owner that I'm here for and that's why I asked you for the name. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, what's your name Sir? MR. O'BRIAN: Bob O'Brian. Page 2~ Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: this hearing? Thank you. Are you here concerning MR. O'BRIAN: Concerning a variance on a berm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On a berm. No, that is a in East Marion I believe. OK, alright. MEMBER HORNING: Steele? Mr. Chairman, what are we doing with Ms. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are requesting a, we are accepting Mrs. Steele's request hopefully to postpone this to the next regularly scheduled meeting which is June 24th. I offer that as a resolution. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 27 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals ~:42 P.M. - Appli. No. 4688 - MARILYN GRUMET This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244, based upon the March 12, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for a permit to construct two decks with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks. Location of Property: Corner lot: east side of Beebe Drive and the south side of Wilson Road, Cutchogue; 103-9-4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey indicating the outlines of the property lines indicating the approximate distance to Beebe Drive and the approximate distance as proposed to the rear property line which is really the side property line and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Ma'am? MS. AMEND: Fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you state your name for the record? MS. AMEND: My name is Adelaide Amend. I represent Marilyn Grumet who is a teacher in Westchester and is very busy right at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: first? Would you just spell your name for us MS. AMEND: My name? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: yes. MS. AMEND: A M E N D. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, what would you like to tell us? MS. AMEND: Well what I'd like to tell you is that a, first of all I think your map shows that there was a deck in place at one time. The CO had the deck measured at 15 x 15. The survey originally had it at 16 x 16. So we used that 16 foot measurement that was the preexisting. It's also the size of the lumber . In the front, oh, and in the, I guess essentially from the CO we're asking for a foot. In the front we're actually it's planned to be a small entrance porch and there we're asking for one foot 8 inches. I think that's straight forward. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is. We'll see while you are there. lady? I couldn't agree with you more. Mr Dinizio, questions of this nice MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. Page 28 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're on a roll. Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wow, we are on a roll. OK, while you're standing there. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application other than this lady? Anybody like to speak against the application? OK, it looks like we should have a decision for you shortly and we appreciate your coming in. Have a lovely evening. Oh, the deck shall remain open, isn't that correct? MS. AMEND: The deck in the back is open. The poreh in front has an overhang and gables so it's half covered. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great, thank you. MS. AMEND: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 29 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:46 P.M. - Appl. No. 4689 - MERLON & ISABELLE WIGGIN This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-232B, based upon the January 21, 1999 Notice of Disapproval, for approval of total height of "as built" berm along/within front yards at 1094 Main Road, East Marion; 1000-31-11-13. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's a note on the left, Jerry. Six green cards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, yeah, Merlon we need 6 green cards. Do you have them for us? MR. WIGGIN: Green cards. I have only what I had. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While I go through this, would you just look for them and I have a copy of the survey penned or penciled in on the survey is the proposed berm area as it exists and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area and we will wait for one second. Good man, great, thank you very much. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Great, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. WIGGIN: I'd like to kind of tell you how I arrived at this situation. I originally had a Building Permit approved to build this berm dated back May 18, 1998. The berm was built in compliance with the Town Code. During the October Columbus Day Weekend, my wife and I were upstate New York, at a cabin on the lake about a mile from the nearest telephone and we received a notice that we had an emergency telephone call which kind of shook everybody up. Why wouid they call us for an emergency? The call was from Suffolk County Water Authority who said they wanted to take down the eastern portion of the berm so that they could use my front yard as a temporary drive for Truman's Path for the water main. With this respect I wish I had said no, but a, you know being a public minded citizen, I said, OK, but I want you to put it back the way it was. When we came back they had rebuilt the berm. They built all the same height. They did not have the corner lower than the rest of the berm. Finally in tracking down a representative of the Suffolk County Water Authority, he tried to contact the contractor back, but, the contractor left the job on the western Suffolk and it was too late to do anything about it. I had a choice then of trying to hirer another contractor, rebuild the ground berm through variance. The purpose of variance, as I think I'm correct in understanding is the visibility of people approaching the intersection of Truman's Path and the Main Road which is Route 25. I have a series of pictures showing taken from the of the driveway with as you approach the berm proceeding north on Truman's Path. You see that in no case does the height of the berm of the corner make any difference as far as the visibility to the Page 30 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals traffic approaching either east or west of Route 25. The berm is located over 32 feet back from the edge of the pavement of the highway and I had Peter Harris of the New York State Highway office go back and checked it for me and he said, the berm does not in any way interfere with visibility of traffic. To change the berm will not improve or help in any way. Also, as time went by, the, while I was waiting for the Suffolk County Water Authority to do something, the landscaper came, put the top soil on and soil the irrigation system. So, now I'm faced with a choice not to rebuild the berm but instead of requesting a variance not to do it as because the purpose of having it done will not improve help as far as visibility is concerned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How high is the berm? MR. WIGGIN: The berm is 4 feet high. That's, that's what he, that's the specified height in the Town Code. The corner, the Zoning requirements of the corner, 30 feet each direction being 2-1/2 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hm, bm, OK, and it's 4 feet all the way around? MR. WIGGIN: 4 feet all the way around. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright. I guess we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. Wiggin? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I just like to know Mr. Wiggin, if you can tell me a, you know, how do you come here? How does the Building Inspector get to your house to figure out this? MR. WIGGIN: I wondered about that and as I understand, the Building Inspector went to the neighbor across the street because while he was standing there he looked across the street according to the neighbor, and he said, that berm is not the way it was. I have to issue a Notice of Violation, that was according to my neighbor. MEMBER DINIZIO: So no-one complained about it, your berm? MR. WIGGIN: There was no complaint as far as I can see. MEMBER DINIZIO: I suppose you have to drive down the north road to get to this, right, you have to drive from the north road to Route 25 to a - MR. WIGGIN: True. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? Page 31 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: I have to you if I can read this saga. The only real concern I had here is that it's done, it's there, you said it's 32 feet back from Truman's Path from the Main Road? MR. WIGGIN: If you kind of look at the - MEMBER TORTORA: It looks like it's far back yard. I just can't - MR. WIGGIN: You get access kitchen number 5 you see - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't have any numbers on the picture. MR. WIGGIN: I'm sorry, the last picture of the , and you see the white line of the edge of the pavement, the pavement shoulder~ that distance back to the basic berms of 32 feet and you can see in the series of pictures before that as you drive north along Truman's Path that reducing that corner doesn't help ever as far as improved disability. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because the tree is in the way. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MR~ WIGGIN: Well, it doesn't, you look, when you look along the berm you look at the neighbor's front yard. You don't see the road. MEMBER DINIZIO: I can attest to the fact, that I think my son's friend home down Truman's Path all the time and my wife's LeBaron is very low to the ground. The tree is more hinderance. As a matter of fact, you have to go behind it if you back up further towards you know, back further into Truman's Path to see that way, then you would pull out. You still do not have interference by the berm at all. No, no, it's so far back. MR. WIGGIN: That's what I'm trying to make it, the tree is a potential if that tree is on state property. It use to be 4 trees there and then gradually died out there's only two left. MEMBER TORTORA: The only other question I had is, if I can just make the Suffolk County Water Authority go through just what your going through. MR. WIGGIN: What's your question again? MEMBER TORTORA: Why didn't you take some kind of action to make the Suffolk County Water Authority - MR. WIGGIN: No, it's a, their a pretty big organization. They have a lot of legal help and so forth and we seemed like actually nothing in trying to do that. I hope and simply when I get all done with this, I can send them a bill and submit to what I've been through. I'm not trying to take them to court if that is your question. Page 32 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Merlon, on picture number 3, right by the, just left of the mirror, what is that? Is that another berm? MR. WIGGIN: No, that's the, that's the remains of the, of the mulch that pulls on the ground. The work was stopped when the was started. So, it's still there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, that's going to be removed? MR. WIGGIN: That's going to be removed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Sir, is this a privacy issue with you? Is that why you built the berm? MR. WIGGIN: No, it was a noise issue. MEMBER HORNING: A noise issue. MR. WIGGIN: Since they repaved the Route 25, it's been a big difference as far as speed and traffic. Truck traffic particularly. MEMBER HORNING: And I thought I noticed some erosion already on that berm When I saw it today. You had landscape fabric on there that's already visible? MR. WIGGIN: Yeah, It's not the, erosion you see is on the portion that's not complete. I mean we didn't finish it because of the So, if we get the variance approved that will be corrected and the mulch will be applied and so That portion on the corner going south on Truman's Path has not been completed. MEMBER HORNING: And is it true as far as you know that the reason that you cited by the Building Department is only because of what the Suffolk County Water Authority did to that portion of the berm? MR~ WIGGIN: That's the only reason of this. It was built with the wall corner originally. MEMBER TORTORA: They happened to be in the neighborhood. MR. WIGGIN: They were in the neighborhood because they put a water mains down on Route 25. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I mean the Town happened to be in the neighborhood. MR. WIGGIN: Yes, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you Mr. Wiggin. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Alright, thank you. Is Page 33 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Go ahead Sir. Just state your name. MR. O'BRIEN: Bob O'Brien, Truman's Path. I'm one of the 22 house sold that lives on Truman's Path and I disagree with the gentleman. When you pull up to Truman's Path there's two obstructions. One is the trees, definitely and the berm when I'm sitting in my car I can't see over the berm which if you're aware of the Main Road at that intersection you have a curve and it's a very dangerous intersection to pull out. So what we use to do, peek before the trees and nose up because if you nose up too far you nose out until shoulder. I dor,~t believe there's 33 feet. Maybe from the center line of the road, but not from the shoulder to your berm. I made it at this point to check. Well, I don't know, as an engineer I have pretty good judgment in that regard and to me, it doesn't look like 33 feet. If it is, or it isn't, it doesn't matter, it's still an obstruetion to the site line. When you sit in your car you ean't see anything that comes around that bend. I'm not saying it's the main obstruction. Again, the trees are the main obstruction but we don't want the trees cut down. So why add to the condition plus the berm is planted with Rhododendrons. I'm not sure the Rhododendrons inerease the height also. And, if you took a ride up there you know pictures don't do it justice. You just have to just sit in your car, you can't see over the berm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, no, where the problem was when I went up was to, it started, ha, interestingly enough we've had a relatively dry spring. Unfortunately, I had to pick a day when it started to rain and so the visibility was hampered anyway. I'm going to go back and relook at it. MR. O'BRIEN: Was it foggy? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to .go back and relook at it. MR. O'BRIEN: Yeah, I double checked it like twice myself. I mean, I don't, I wouldn't have an objection except for the site business. That is a dangerous curve. I don't care how many times we came close to getting hit. We have 22 families that live on that road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what do you propose? MR. O'BRIEN: Either setback the berm further, or, lower the berm. Definitely take the Rhododendrons off the top which I would hate to see because I like the Rhododendrons to fill it out so you don't see the berm itself. I just like to have that site line just before the trees that you pull up and you have a second safety factor before you nose your car out into the shoulder lane, especially the bike lane there too yet. Bikes come down, motorcycles come down. It's just a dangerous intersection to begin with. Page 34 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any suggestion, not that you might give us in reference to a plan, in reference to what you're suggesting? MR. O'BRIEN: At this point, the only thing is to move the berm back which is a major deal. It's like rebuilding the berm at this point. I mean I've built berms myself on construction jobs so I know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you talking about? Well, how much, how much distance are MR. O'BRIEN: It's a shame since he has gone into a to start construction. I don't know if you need a permit for that. I mean, but I don't have no objections of them doing what they want with their property but if it effects safety, something should be done. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any distance back 'that you're referring to at this point? I'm just trying to - MR. O'BRIEN: It has to actually be studied. You have to have par for the ear and see where it really effects site line. There's a point at which the church blocks up the curve of the road. So, I would say if it were behind that site line. It's only a matter of feet. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER TORTORA: I would agree with you about the Rhododendrons. This is the Town Building Department's estimates of the heights. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Have you seen those? Have you seen the heights? MR. O'BRIEN: No, I haven't seen anything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, OK. MR. O'BRIEN: I only saw the notice on the front lawn the other day. That's why I'm here. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, this is why, yes it is important because we don't want, obviously we don't want any, create any dangerous corners. But, they estimated that on Truman's Path, they're talking about this 30 feet triangular area that it's 36 inches to 42 inches at the corner. Now, by code, he's allowed 30. So, you're only 12, he's only, at the corner he's only 12 inches over that and in going down Truman's Path - MR. O'BRIEN: at that point? Yeah, but does that address the curve in the road Page 35 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: He's only 6 inches over. That's what - MR. O'BRIEN: You know site lines address time reaction time on a vehicle. That's what site lines address, whether it's a vertical curve, horizontal curve and in this case we have a type horizontal curve because of the church, East Marion Church and it's reaction time, and the more you have reaction time the safer the section is. And, this is going to decrease reaction time really. MEMBER TORTORA: Well in other words, according to a, you know you're more than welcome to review the file but, what we have before us, Truman's Path, 30 feet you know, down south, south of the corner, he's only 6 inches over. At the corner he's 12 inches - MR. O'BRIEN: shoulder? Where is 30 feet, from site line road or from the BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It suppose to be from the property line. MR. O'BRIEN: I mean I never measured it but it doesn't look like 30 feet to me that's for sure. We're saying that this is 30 feet from the shoulder? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: here. No, we're looking at the numbers up MEMBER TORTORA: Well this is a map that was given to us by the Building Department. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't we give you a copy of that. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah. MR. O'BRIEN: I don't see it. berm is 30 feet back from here? You're saying the beginning of the BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: property line. The property line. No from the MR. O'BRIEN: reality. From the property line. I don't see it that way in MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, if we ask Mr. Wiggin to do something, we want to make sure that (a) we're not asking him to do more than he has to do and (b) that it would really solve the problem. Six inches - MR. O'BRIEN; Well I think a site visit would be marvelous if you really go take a look at it because it speaks for itself. CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, we've been there. I've been there. Page 36 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. O"BRIEN: get out there? Have you pulled up from Truman's Path and try to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well like I said to you, it was a bad day anyway and I got limited visibility because of the weather. MR. O"BRIEN: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I want to do it on a good day and then I'll come back on a bad day. MR. O'BRIEN: Alright, so then there'll be another site visit? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I'm going back. MR. O'BRIEN: Fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I'm going to do some measurements. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Take a low vehicle. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah. MR. O'BRIEN: If I could add just another thing. I had the State Highway come down just to review that and the site line that you're referring to low in the corner does not improve the site line. You'll probably realize that when you look again but, - MEMBER TORTORA: Would you have them send, could you have him send a letter verifying or you know, what you're telling us. MR. O'BRIEN: Sure I could. MEMBER TORTORA: That would be very good. MR. O'BRIEN: I think he would' do that and just so to reemphasizing the a, you have to proceed by the berm to see when you're coming from the property. I mean from the trees , it obstructs the property. MR. WIGGIN: Well I disagree, again, there's a double obstruction. There really is. There's a little space in between where you can see the road for an instance but, the berm presents a secondary obstruction and a, I don't see how it could be in the state guidelines. I mean, really. I've done a lot of highway work for the state. I was a contractor. I was an engineer. I can't possibly see how that could be a pass road state or why the state should even be involved. It's a side road. It's a privately owned road. So why would they even comment on it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it does front on a main highway maybe there's a reason why. I have no idea. Page 37 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman, is there any portion of the front berm, the berm that's along the main road, is there any portion of that, that is a that exceeds the height because of the obstructing vis59n from that corner, or is just the side? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yeah, it's just the front. MEMBER HORNING: It's the front also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah it says 4-1/2 feet. Well it's because it's, it's by 6 inches. MEMBER TORTORA: The code says you're suppose to be 2-1/2 feet - MEMBER HORNING: 30 inches. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 12 inches, Jerry. MEMBER HORNING: 30 inches. MEMBER TORTORA: 30 feet. MR. WIGGIN: You know if you're an RB, there's probably no obstruction, he's right. (Too many talking at one time). MR. O'BRIEN: It sounds good on paper but, in reality if you look at it, ii isn't, it really isn't. Please, please take a look. If there's an accident, that's all I ask. I mean if you go out there - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, yeah, we're going to do that. There, there may, there may be a - MR. O'BRIEN: Again, let me just say, the vehicle is also, I drive a Cammaroo I cannot see over the berm. If you're driving RVR that's 8 feet high, yeah you can see up the berm. It depends on the vehicle also, it has to be considered. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me get this straight here. You say that the berm Merlon is, 32 feet inside the property line, or 32 from the edge of the -? MR. WIGGIN: From the edge of the highway pavement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Highway, right, OK. MR. WIGGIN: the - That's why the white line is between the shoulder and CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: property line? Right and where is it from your actual MR. WIGGIN: The berm starts at my property line. Page 38 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At your property line, OK. MR. WIGGIN: highway. You see my property line is all the way back from the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, because the taking area is much bigger than what is actually shown in reference to pavement is what you're saying. MR. WIGGIN: What was that again? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The taking area of main state highway is actually much, much larger than what actually is paved? MR. WIGGIN: Yes, oh yes, much larger. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. In fact it says, yeah, as usual, it says, variable widths, so you wouldn't know. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The code is 30 inches for the first 30 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: From the corner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In the corner but, what about the straight line going across? I'm meaning from west to east, or east to west? What is the height different there in our code? MR. WIGGIN: That's, that's a 4 feet height. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 4 feet is OK, it's the first 30 feet from Truman's Path. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, right, OK. MR. O'BRIEN: Alright, again, I just ask the reaction time to take consideration, because of the curb, because the people racing for the ferry. You get three, four cars that will extra view between his berm and trees counts a lot, because as I said, once you get to the trees you actually nose down into the shoulder area. This is really dangerous, so - MR. WIGGIN: I have one more comment. If I'm willing to build the berm on Truman's Path it was 10-12 feet high and 6 feet wide because they've really grown regularly - MR. O'BRIEN: the hedge. Yeah, it's ragged, that's what we can see through CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let him, let him finish. Page 39 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. WIGGIN: And a, and that was really the limbs that were, you know, have the problem and so I can see why someone might object. In fact, I thought it would increase some visibility so when I decided on the berm we ripped all that hemlock hedge out and that was a, that made a major improvement in my estimation as far as visibility is concerned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I'd like to set a time because to be honest with you I'd like to meet possibly both of you out there. I have to go look at a road on Saturday morning about 9:30. I was wondering if I could meet somebody out there about quarter to ten. MR. O'BRIEN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Is that alright with you? MR. WIGGIN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: down. Merlon, yours is? MR. WIGGIN: 477-1875. Let me just take you telephone numbers CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 477-1875 and yours Sir? MR. O'BRIEN: 477-8437. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. Alright, so barring any major weather problems or anything like that, I shall be there. I can't guaranty you which vehicle I'll be in, but, can you make it Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll be there with my LeBaron. MR. WIGGIN: A quarter to ten Saturday morning? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, Saturday morning. I'm just going to a, I have to go over by Albertson's Marine and look at a road that was just resurfaced and I'll be there probably twenty after nine and I'll zip right out, so, anywhere from 9:30 to a quarter to ten, OK. We'll both there. Jim what collar is your LeBaron? MEMBER DINIZIO: White. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Red? MEMBER DINIZIO: White. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He'll be there in his white LaBaron. One really never knows which car I'm driving, so, I'll be there in something. MR. WIGGINS: Can't miss you. Thank you. MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you. Page 40 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Is there any reason, don't you think we should keep this open in case we have to do some modifications? MEMBER TORTORA: We can close it the night of the 7th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll leave it opened until the night of the 7th in case there's any modifications and then we'll close it. MEMBER HORNING: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll second that. All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 41 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals (changed tape - beginning missing) 8:15 P.M. - Appeal No. 4690 - LOUISE RICHARDS This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244 based upon the March 18, 1999 Notice of Disapproval, for permission to construct an addition which will have an insufficient front yard setback, in part, at 400 Marlene Lane, Mattituck; 1000-143-2-24. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244 (read legal notice). And we have a copy of a survey for a 10 ft. addition on the front yard area. MR. AND MRS. ALAN RICHARDS were present and confirmed that the "Ales" green card was not returned as yet. MR. RICHARDS: The Town allows me to have 40 ft., and the variance is five feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's see if there are any questions from Board Members. Member Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No question now. MEMBER TORTORA: any questions. Your neighbor has a one-story. I don't have MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have a question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is one-story. MR.'RICHARDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone wishing to speaking in favor of this application? Anyone wishing to speak against? (No response.) OK, I guess we will deal with it and we thank you Sir. MR. RICHARDS. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment I make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 42 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:13 P.M. - Appl. No. 4691 -CELESTE THEOPHILOS This is a request for a Variance Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A(1), based upon the April 1, 1999 Notice of Disapproval, for a permit to construct second-story addition with 4 ft. balcony and "as built" first floor deck (most of existing deck replaced a former porch), all located within 100 feet from the top of the L.I. Sound bluff at 20365 Soundview Avenue, Southold, N.Y.; 1000-51-4-9. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the approximate placement of the lower deck at approximately it appears to be 21 feet from the lip of the bluff and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area and I have a copy of an inspection report that we requested from the Soil and Water Conservation regarding the site. How are you tonight Sir? Can I ask you to state your name for the record. MR. DIAZ: I'm Joe Diaz and I'm representing Theophilos. all my green cards, the affidavits that you asked for. You got CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you're all legal. MR. DIAZ: So what else can I say? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: right? These decks are going to remain open, MR. DIAZ: That's going to remain open. the overhanging on the house and I'm putting a 4 foot deck over the top of the existing deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. DIAZ: The existing deck which was over what the last survey was so I have to have you read that into the variance also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. DIAZ: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Have you received our letter that we got from Soil & Water requesting - MR. DIAZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Does your property owner have any problem with any of those issues? MR. DIAZ: No, she's was very happy with it. we have all the drainage - Page 43 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I can't hear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, we need a little louder Mr. Diaz. We need you a little louder to say something. Just speak a little closer to it. MR. DIAZ: I was afraid I talked too loud. We have all the requirements as far as water drainage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. DIAZ: With the, except Town Water & Land Conservation. They report on that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. DIAZ: What else can I say. Do you want some pictures on what's going on next door? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We've seen it, OK. Alright, while you're standing there Mr. Dinizio any questions of Mr. Diaz? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just would like to enter into the record the final comments of Soil & Water. "The addition of the balcony type deck won't have any additional effect on the bluff. Adding several feet to the ground level of the deck also won't add any impact to the bluff face due to the grade being away from the bluff, and so long as the grade isn't changed." They also note that, "it is important that the lawn area be repaired and the down spouts be replaced into the dry well access points when construction is complete", and I don't believe you would have any objection to those conditions such as that. MR. DIAZ: No. MEMBER TORTORA: That's all I have, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: What's the date of that response? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We received it on May 7, 1999. MEMBER HORNING: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. DIAZ: Thank you. Page 44 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no further comment I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 45 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:25 P.M. - Appl. No. 4692 - CHRISTOPHER & HEIDE MARIE GRATTAN Nothing on tape but, notation on Agenda shows that this hearing has been canceled due to lack of notice by applicant and has been rescheduted to June 7th. Page 46 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:24 P.M. - Appl. No. 4693 - L. TRAPIDO This is a request for a Variance based upon the December l, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for a permit to construct an addition (deck and existing storage building) which will have a cumulative side yard total of less than 35 feet, at 205 Carrington Road, Cutchogue, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-111-11-27. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey by Anthony H. Lewandowsk, dated October 31, 1998, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight. MS. MESSIANO: Very well thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you state your name for the record. MS. MESSIANO: My name is Kathie Messiano and I'm appearing on behalf of Leonard and Shirley Trapido, the owners of the property. Mr. & Mrs. Trapido constructed this deck about 15 years ago. The notice wasn't clear enough but this is "as built" situation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MS. MESSIANO: And there is a section of the deck that encroaches on the required side yard by about 7-1/2 feet. I would like to note, for the record as well, that should the deck be dismantled, the side yard clearance does not conform to the current side yard requirements. We're still under by a foot or so. The Trapidos had constructed this deck it was quite ungraded property and the deck. only gives them some usable area in the back yard and they're requesting the variance for the deck that is too close to the property line. I believe that would be the northerly property line. The southerly property line would be part where it is but subject to a building permit that was issued I think in 1974, so this is the only area of the house that is constructed without a building permit and they're requesting a variance for that section. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: lady? OK, Mr. Homing any questions of this MEMBER HORNING: No Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: this time? Just the rear? What portion of the deck is opened at Page 47 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MS. MESSIANO: The rear portion of the deck is open. The side portion of the deck has two closet type structures on it. It's used for outdoor storage and it's that portion where those storage bins are that's not in conformance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, while you're standing I'll continue the hearing. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the applicatien? OK, thank you for coming in, we'll, hope to have a decision for you shortly. MS. MESSIANO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: all in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 48 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:28 P.M. - Appl. No. 4694 - BARRY SHAPIRO This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, based upon the March 17, 1999 Notice of Disapproval, for permission to construct deck which is proposed within 75 feet of existing bulkhead, at 625 Wood Lane, Peconic, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-86-6-7. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have received numerous pictures. I have a copy of a survey from Van Tuyl dated August 2, 1993, indicating the house, the concrete bulkhead and a private right-of-way that it's on and I have a sketch indicating the deck which is proposed along the front of the, actually the rear of the house which is a total of 21 feet. I apologize is 24 feet 8 inches, it's 21 feet deep and 8 feet on the opposite side and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I think we're ready Sir. Can you state your name for the record? MR. DIAZ: My name is Tony Diaz. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. DIAZ: Well basically what I would like to explain to you I think you've been out there to see it already. There's really not going to be any obstructions of any views from either neighbor. I believe you have copies from both neighbors of letters stating that they have no problems with it and it's not going to have any adverse affects to the soil or anything like that with chemicals or anything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, this deck is to remain open? MR. DIAZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. DIAZ: We have railings on two sides. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. If the Board is not so inclined to grant this deck as applied for are you willing to accept alternate relief? MR. DIAZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, you know what that means? MR. DIAZ: Yes, a little bit smaller. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good., OK, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio, Any questions of Mr. Diaz? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I would like to state though, I think it's the first time we've seen applications with a father and son team. Page 49 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. DIAZ: I'm louder than he is. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did want to say this Mr. Diaz. We appreciate some of the sketches you have in there. It's very well done. I appreciate that. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No, I don't have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I was going to ask you of your relation. While you're standing there, is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? OK, hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing making decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 50 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:30 - Appt. No. 4672 - DOUGLAS & AMY ROSE A Variance is requested under Article XXIV, Section 100-244, based upon the December 3, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which states that the proposed addition at less than the required 15 ft. side yard setback at 500 Maple Lane, Southold, N.Y.; 1000-64-01-20. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a hearing that was postponed from the last regular scheduled meeting - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, it's recalendared. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Recalendared, correct. Mr. Anderson how are you tonight? for a while. How are you doing? pardon me, that's We haven't seen you MR. ANDERSON: Fine, how are you guys doing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Very busy. MR. ANDERSON: I can see that from your Agenda. This is an application involving a proposed addition on a property that is approximately 31,000 sq. ft. and it lies in an R-40 Zone. The existing house as you can see by the survey is 13.8 and that would be the grandfather setback with respect to the side yard. So, what you have here is a situation that is preexisting nonconforming side yard setback that is grandfather by the code and as you know, you can expand along that line without having to be 15 feet off the property line and by (inaudible). The problem arises here and has to do with the, with the material layout of the site, the proximity to the side yard. What the Roses would like to do and (too much noise) to construct a bedroom and bathroom. The bedroom is 9 ft. 10" x 14 ft. 6", bathroom is 17-1/2 ft. x 8 ft. 3". It's a very stylish ranch and very well maintained property. The dwelling is about 1900 sq. ft. It also includes a bearing 5 ft. attached garage. You can see that it leads right off the asphalt driveway. And the purpose of it is a need of a bedroom to accommodate a growing family. Apparently the dwelling has two bedrooms. They just had their second child. So right now the young child is living with the Roses in their own bedroom so they need a second bedroom. There is also a great desire on the part of the Roses to maintain the character of the neighborhood essentially by maintaining the character of the house. I'm going to hand up a series of photos. I don't know whose been there and who hasn't. But, the first photo here and I have sets for everyone is would be I guess the northern side yard where the garage is located and you get an idea what the roof lines look like and what the house looks like and that is basically the sides and shape of the Roses seem to duplicate. If you look in the area where they wish to extend it's rather a simple box and this is the area of the house that they wish to go off of and so the addition if approved by this Board would Page 51 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals match the garage addition in size and scale and look right down to the trimming. So the two feet are needed for that purpose. Let me show you very quickly what the interior layout looks like and think you'll understand what the problem is. This is the west, the southern side yard addition and as you come through the hallway here, bear with me, you come to this hallway you have a bathroom on the left here. Bathroom in this location is necessary because of the way the house is plumbed. The septic system leads out in this direction so you couldn't very well take this and put it on the other end of the house. You'd still have a bathroom and you'd have a septic system that would be gravity fed. You'll note, that they've put windows here on the west side facing west and that is so obviously they'd get sufficient light in. The house does not have any central air conditioning as you know the breezes prevail from the west so it will provide a breeze through the house. So, you have basically a small bathroom. You have a small bedroom and you can even see where the bed would go right here between the two windows with adequate light and ventilation moving through. There's two small closets, existing bedroom behind them which is where one of the children would now sleep and then there's one other bedroom beyond that. So, we're talking about the ability of a family who add a bedroom because they need the room because it's a growing family. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The house is on a slab, is it not? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I believe it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, it sure looks like it. MR. ANDERSON: Also, I want you to understand that you really can't expand it upwards very easily. The architect in this house because I've been inside and there's sought of bolted ceiling, you have a very limited attic space if you will and there's no real way to build in the stairway that would be needed to do it and once you did that, the house, the appearance from the road and so forth would be very much degrading and our position is, if that were case, then that too would be contributed to a degradation of a very nice neighborhood and it's well maintained and so forth. The side yard that we speak of there is a well in there and as I mentioned in my application it is very well buffered along that line. I have a picture from that property looking over towards the house that will show you the kind of vegetation that in fact screens it and what you'll immediately realize is that this addition will not detract from the view of that neighbor. This is the neighbor's house here and the only comment I would make relative to that is that there's not a lot of windows, window space that faces out into the back yard. If you were to deny the two feet obviously we par for the architectural failure to get the house in, the functionality of what's planned inside the house. But, from a visual standpoint there would be no benefit in denying such a request and that's why we brought this application. Also, obviously I want you to understand that there was no impact that is foreseeable from the street side. the rear of the house which will not be visible Page 52 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals from the street. It's a technical glitch in that we are two feet closer to the side yard, that's why we're here because we got that Notice of Disapproval but I think it's my experience would, a lot of building applications what we would ca!l, minimal zoning relief when you turn this on vital variance,, minimal relief request. Now to the extent if this Board feels that additional buffering is desirable or request a condition by we'd certainly go along with that. I think the question of alternative relief is rather meaningless given the minimal relief that we're requesting that being literally two feet. What we're interested is seeing what if anything they have to say and let opportunity address those points CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you leave us Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dinizio any questions of Mr. Anderson? MEMBER DINIZIO: NO. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: for the additions? Did the applicant consider any other locations MR. ANDERSON: Well, as I said' before, going up is in fact the architectural material layout of it. So that was ruled out. The northern side yard is comprised of a garage. So to put a bedroom on the other side of the garage so that you would theoretically you would wake up in the morning, walk through the garage and get back into your house you thought was very practical and again I think if we were to put this addition in any other location what would result structurally, would be very much inferior and I think if we were made to do that, it would be like zoning working backwards in the opposite direction as intended to, that you would in fact the integrity would look the of the neighborhood In a neighborhood like this would so we ruled out those other possibilities. MEMBER HORNING: How about a minor shift of the two feet? this like a court yard area? Is MR. ANDERSON: Well again, the problem with that is that there are series of doors that lead out to the other side of the building .and we wouldn't construct an addition that jets out to locking the doors that you use to access the rear of the property. And again, done in this way what you wind up with is, a structure that is identical to the structure of the other lobe of the house from which I did in the pictures. So we felt that just to shift it over in that fashion would be impractical, detrimental to the property owner and again, would not serve any public purpose to the neighbors. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. Page 53 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Anderson. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes Ma'am. Would you kindly - MS. SMITH: We're the northern neighbors, Helen and Lawrence Smith and we approve. CHAIRMAN' GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes Sir. MR. GAMMON: approve too. I'm the western neighbor, I'm Bob Gammon and I CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anyone else? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes Ma'am could you state, I've got to ask you to use the mike. You're too far back. I apologize. MS. O'DONNELL: My name is Maureen O' Donnell and I'm of eourse the neighbor on the side of the variance. I'm opposed to it for several reasons. 1. That house as they mentioned is in a setback area already and the setback regulation that we're talking about is 15 feet. That's the minimal, so that's the smallest of all of the setbacks there are and you know 46 feet of your house is actually already in it. So, to put this further in I've been told that, I'm trying to get a copy of my survey because I just bought this house and I had call the lawyer that helped me with the closing and a mortgage broker that helped me with the closing and to get a copy of the survey and they told me that it would decrease my property value and make it harder for me to sell my property if there's a variance against it. I do think that it's going to change my view. This room is going to be built very close to I guess I haven't seen the pictures but you have a lot of pictures up there that are very old mature evergreens and they're going to have to be trimmed quite a bit. I think there's a possibility there could be damage and that obviously is going to influence my view. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are those evergreens on your property Mrs. O'Donnell? Are those evergreens on your property? MRS. O'DONNELL: Actually that's a good question. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You want to see them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah. MRS. O"DONNELL: Right up where the house (inaudible) I'm not sure because my property fans out from the back up to the front it gets wider. So they might actually be on the boarder. But, the bushes there are, there's my house. These bushes I guess I feel like my property is being encroached because these bushes were moved out and they're actually about 8 feet on my property line, on my property. Clearly they gave a walk area between the house and the bushes. But, they're really wide. They're like 8 feet by 70 feet. Page 54 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. O'DONNELL: And they were moved out to my property. So, I just feel like it's going to decrease my property value and it's going to change my view and I think that there is a reason why there's setbacks. You know when people come right up to the border people feel like their property is being encroached and they feel the need to enclose it with fences. They think they won't benefit from the factor if there are a lot of fences in this area and I think part of the way you encourage that, is, abiding by the setbacks. I don't think that t5 feet is a lot of space when you're talking about three quarters of an acre of property there's I'm not an architect. I understand why they want to do it. They want to match the other side of the house which is an existing garage. But I understand that they're actually building another garage so that's probably going to be part of the house. It's still they can do a lot of things on their property and that's within their rights. I just don't want it in the setback area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hm, bm. MRS. O'DONNELL: It's going to result in a 16 foot wall total that's 2 to 3 feet in the smallest setback. And actually I don't know this, but I guess I was thinking that although their house is on a 13. something line, a wouldn't the setback still be 15 feet? It's now building going forward? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINER: right now is 13.9. Well it is 15 but that's what they have MRS. O'DONNELL: Right but for this room they would have to but the regulation is 15 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, they have an estab, I mean it was established. That's an established setback. So, I would a, as to total, as to total side yards, I mean there is a cumulative total. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I mean if they extend it the same distance. If they expand it to make it longer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Yeah, so her question is, is it going to be 15 or is it going to be 13.97 BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: question is. That's right. That's what the CHAIRMAN question. question. it. GOEHRINGER: I don't know. I can't answer that I don't mean to be evasive but, I can't answer the I don't know how the Building Inspector would interpret MRS. O'DONNELL: What the setback now-is? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Page 55 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MRS. O'DONNELL: Isn't that interpret 15 feet - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It would be 15 feet based upon the size of the property. But, I don't know if the Building Inspector would take it to say that the house is already 13.9. That they can hold that 13.9 or nor not. MEMBER TORTORA: It's very difficult to judge by the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: By the disapproval. We can't .interpret it, we don't know. Yes, you can ask the Building Department that question. I would like to come down to your property on Saturday morning if it's not an imposition just to look at your side yard, if it's alpight with you. I plan on being in the area abut 9:15 if that's alright. If you see somebody stopped in front of your house and get out, it'll be me. Alright? MRS. O"DONNELL: I also just want to mention that I think there's' other ways to do it. I know that they want to match that but, I think any, you know their house is shaped like a U, and when you're in anyone of the rooms you really can't see the other rooms or the wall at the far end of any of the other rooms other than being on top of the house. You know you're not really going to see that it doesn't match exactly. The house was built a symmetrically and it's been a symmetric all this time and you know for it to be slightly a symmetric now obviously my seems to be that they could be Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: morning. Thank you. So I'll be down on Saturday MRS. O'DONNELL: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, anybody else like to speak against? MRS. SMITH: Sir, the house we live in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: don't mind. I, I need .you to use the mike if you BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: please? Can we have your name again MRS. SMITH: Helen Smith. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. MRS. SMITH: The house we live in on the north side, when my mother-in-law and father-in-law bought it, Mrs. Juice owned that property and she owned the two pieces. Doug Rose and Maureen's property. Mrs. Juice put on there and I gave Doug that letter that every house had to be back as far as our two houses are now. Maureens is not. Now she bought it presumably from somebody. How he got away with building that house that wasn't setback as far Page 56 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999~ - Board of Appeals as the rest of ours, I don't 'know how that happened. Now, Mrs. Juice's daughter is still alive and I'm sure she has her mother's paperwork. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only thing I can say to you if there are restrictions in a specific covenant in a deed sometimes the Building Department doesn't see those and maybe that's why the building permit was granted at that distance. That's the only think I can say. MRS. SMITH: That's probably what happened but on the other hand she has as much problem with that as giving him the extra feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: to wrap up here. OK. Mr. Anderson anything you'd like MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, just quickly. The two feet in question is the practice of the purchase land. To establish that fact is 13.8. Thc code on that the Board just asked, is 242 provides for the enlargement of a building with a preexisting nonconforming setback to occur by simple building permit provided you don't increase the decree of nonconforming. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. ANDERSON: So, the, what I hope the neighbor to the south realizes is that the two feet shouldn't be important because if you were to simply lop it off visually you would experience the very same thing that you would with the two feet and there would be nothing anyone could stop it. But, what you do wind up with if you do lop up the two feet, there's a structure that now doesn't function as it should. You wind up with a structure that's not designed as it should and our point is, is the Board can certainly deny the variance to that but you wind up with you actually detracts from where you put it. There can be no impact visual over the two feet because you can still extend back along that a, the side of the house. So, I think when you go out there and 'you see the, the vegetation, you see the buffer and you look at the house that you can see what two feet is and you look at the plans that we've given you I think it will all come together and I believe you'll render a fair and justice variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you also mention to the Roses that I will be there on Saturday morning. I will also go on their property and if they see someone there, please don't call the police. That really doesn't bother me, I have to tell you in my normal job but I just want you to be aware and if you just mention it to them. I realize it's a little early. I'm not going to appearing in any windows or anything but just a, I will be there just to look at the side yards again. Thank you. OK, hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision. We will not address this hearing until or the decision on this hearing until June 7th, bearing in mind that we will be doing a reinspection. We thank everybody comments. Page 57 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Who would like to second that? MEMBER DIN[ZIO: I will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 58 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 Board of Appeals 8:58 P.M. -ApplI. No. 4673 - JOHN (HANS) LANG A Variance is requested for a shed location in a front yard, under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.4, based upon a January 28, 1999 Notice of Disapproval. Location of Property: 190 Osseo Avenue, Southold, N.Y. 1000-87-3-20. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This was a recalendared from the last hearing. Would you have any objection if this shed deteriorated in the next ten to fifteen years, that we ask you to move a little closer to the interior? If this went, - MR. LANG: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHINRGER: No. You like it where it is? MR. LANG: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: asked me to ask you, so. OK. That was just a question somebody MR. LANG: Well, no, I have a vegetable garden and stuff you know on tile side of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I'll reflect that to someone who was a thought about it. OK, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of this gentleman? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, let me rephrase that question just a little bit. That OK? If We were inclined to grant alternative relief, would you accept it? MR. LANG: I'm sorry. MEMBER DINIZIO: We have, we have a thing that's called, alternative relief. That is we, we may not in the course of you know compromising back and forth, agree to exactly what you asked for. But, we may come to a compromise. Would you accept the compromise ? MR. LANG: A MEMBER DINIZIO: If you don't accept the compromise, then, we have no alternative but to either say yes, or no to this application. OK, it's either you get all of it, or you get none of it, or you get alternate relief if you accept alternate relief. MR. LANG: I don't understand it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I can't answer the question for you but, I hope I'm clear enough. Page 59 Hearing Transcripts May 9.0, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. LANG: Well, what is the compromise? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, the compromise is, let me just say that we don't know. The reason why we don't vote on these applications right here is because we don't know how everybody feels about them, OK, and for us to continue the process of agonizing over a decision tonight, it slows the process down, OK, and as you can see this hearing was scheduled for 8:20 and we're now at 5 minutes to 9, OK. We could have this thing go to 2:00 O'clock in the morning if we agonized on everyone. So, quite honestly, alright, we do it at a special meeting, alright and that's the process. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: problem. Explain to him if it's a real CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't know how everybody feels regarding tile actual placement of this storage building at this time, alright. MEMBER DINIZIO: Us, the Board Members. MS. : You mean you are bothered - MEMBER DINIZIO: The Board Members. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Us, this has nothing to do with you. I mean we'll take your information tonight and take all of the information and put it into a pot and then say - MS. : OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, this is what we feel. This is what we don't feel. We don't know as this point. It's all up in the air, alright? So when we say, well we, we really don't like it at 5.4 feet~ maybe we would like to have it at 10 feet. That was my entering statement and this gentleman, who is the applicant said to us, no, I really don't want alternate, he didn't say he didn't want alternate relief because that was the way it was positioned or presented, OK. He said that he has a vegetable garden and that was the reason why he has placed it in this location. Then Mr. Dinizio discussed the issue of alternate relief, OK? So, alternate relief is whatever we come up with that three members have as a figure sought of speak, alright? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can I add one other thing. Ct{AIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: If you don't take alternative relief and they deny it, you have to apply all over and start all over if you want something else. So, if you take alternative relief, you don't have to reapply. Page 60 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. LANG: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I knew that would to it. MR. LANG: The one before was there for the last 20 years. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, there was a shed before. MEMBER TORTORA: I see no problems here as far as I'm concerned with this application. MR. LANG: Thank you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There was a shed there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mr Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Does the applicant have two front yards? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Hm, bm. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: He has no rear yard actually. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so that's the question. Now the shed is placed on a slab or not? MR. LANG: No slab. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no slab, OK, and the approximate height of the shed? I didn't measure it when I was there. MR. LANG: 10. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good and what utility do you have in the shed at this time? MR. LANG: Utilities, tools - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, any electricity? MR. LANG: Oh, no, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nothing. Just a straight gardening shed and that's it? MR. LANG: That's it. Flower box. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, OK, alright while you're standing there is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Page 61 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals (One of the neighbors said, we're all here in favor) BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They're all the neighbors. Could we have your names for the record, please. MR. BOYLE: I'm Mr. & Mrs. John Boyle. We live at 8 Van Coff Avenue, Farmingdale, N.Y. We have a home across the street from Mr. Lang. 135 Osseo Avenue. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, thank you. MR. BOYLE: And we approve of the shed. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK. The next name. MS. ?? : Street, all year round. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The lady next to you? MS. SHERIDAN: Ms. Seridan. Avenue, year round. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Next door neighbor. OK, thank you. 270 Osseo ~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The lady and gentleman in front of a - MR. ALTMAN: Frank Altman, 2345 Minnehaha. It's a better looking shed than most of the sheds in the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This nice couple over here? MR. GLASSER: Steve Glasser, 1230 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good. MR. GLASSER: I live right across the street from them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Thank you very much. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The other street? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and nobody wants to speak againSt the shed, is that correct? OK, we thank you very much for coming in. We appreciate your cordial presentation. MR. LANG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Page 62 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 63 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals GRATTAN - Appl. No. 4692 - Postponement MEMBER HORNING: MEMBER TORTORA: When was Graton postponed to before ? Grattan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: that Special Meeting on - MEMBER TORTORA: We are? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: June 7th. hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: What was that? Grattan to a, we're going to have it at Yes, we're going to have a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We've got to close a hearing, we might as well have a hearing. MEMBER TORTORA: I didn't know we even opened it because I hadn't done any notices. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No we never opened Grattan. MEMBER TORTORA: We didn't? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, if I didn't, - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You're saying two things at one time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Didn't I take a vote to hold it at that point? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I'm going To take at this point - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, we need a resolution to do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll offer a resolution to hold it at that time. MEMBER DINIZlO: I thought we did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thought I did too. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, there was no resolution on it, so. He mentioned it, but it was not a resolution. Page 64 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: So, we're going to schedule a hearing - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, the night of the special meeting, June 7tho I apologize. MEMBER DINIZIO: Who, what is this? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Grattan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Grattan, three front yards. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There was no notice done by the applicant on that. It was defective, so. Who second that motion? MEMBER HORNING: I will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER.' All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 65 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 9:11 P.M. - Appl. No. 4700 -MICHAEL & GERALDINE ZUHOSKI This is a request for a Variance under Article III-A, Section 100-30A.4 for a permit to locate dwelling, placing the preexisting barn building in a side yard at 26481 Main Road, Cutchogue; 1000-109-2-13.6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (inaudible) a proposed dwelling basically, no it's not really in the center of the property. It's 50 feet from the right-of-way and 60 feet from the rear property line which is not really the rear which is a but we'll deal with that aspect and I have a copy of the County Suffolk Tax Map Indicating this and surrounding properties in the area and I have a very nice picture of the property. What would you like to tell us? MS. SANDERS: My name is Laurie Sanders. I'm the perspective buyer of the property of Mr. Zuhoski. We would like to build our home on this piece but, we were denied our building permit because of the barn that is located on the property. The barn has been there forever. The town record showed me the last survey they had was of 71 with the barn existing there. It's a flag lot that they subdivided back in 71 and they approved it again in 92 and Mr. Zuhoski bought it in 94 and the barn was never an issue. We would like to keep the barn. It added a character to the property for us. I would use it for storage, maintain it, you know, structurally it's in good condition. My husband is a carpenter so, he would keep it, you know, good condition of it and you can see it from the main road. So historically in Cutchgue it's a great look, you know, driving by. It's definitely not an eye sore and it would be a big expensive to take it down, but, I really love the barn. You know that's pretty much it. I really like to keep the barn and I just feel that it didn't conform then when the pieces were divided so I don't know why it wasn't you know, there wasn't a hearing then about the barn. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no dispute that you're going to use the barn for storage purposes, right? MRS. SANDERS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I have to tell you that the history of this parcel, Mr. & Mrs. Aselter who have owned this property and unfortunately are no longer with us, were not only personal friends of my family but a, and us,' and a, they were absolutely very lovely, lovely people, OK, and they used that barn for storage and so ~ understand the property total and I don't have a problem with it. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Tortora? Page 66 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. No problems. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. SANDERS: I would just like to point something else, if I may. They have .the right-of-way. I'll show you this map I received from the town. The right-of-way was originally, they tried to get two lots out of it. Can I take, can we take away this right-of-way? We have the property owner here. Cathy Sepko is with us and - MS. SEPKO: We own the property in the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. You own the Aselter house, right. MRS. SANDERS: And we'll share the driveway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean it was the former Aselter house, I'm sorry. MS. SEPKO: I think she's still there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MS. SEPKO: I think so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You think she's still there? Could be. MRS. SANDERS: So, we would just like to just share the driveway with her and use it you know, parking right here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I, I have absolutely no problem. MRS. SANDERS: For me there is no need for that right-of-way but this man and this vacant lot is using the right-of-way and if I have to pay and maintain that road and driveway and meanwhile he has access to the main road, can we have that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't answer that because - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The Planning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MRS. SANDERS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: them. The Planning Board did the subdivision. So you're going to have to go back to Page 67 Hearing Transcripts May-20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MRS.' SANDERS: So go back to then and - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: See Melissa. MRS. SANDERS: Go back to who? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Planning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Planning Board. MRS. SANDERS: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: they would have to recreate it. They created the right-of-way, so CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, originally it was a 5 lots subdivision which you're familiar with and then they combine the lot that you're buying into two lots, which may have been a four lots subdivision, right? MRS. SANDERS: OK, right. CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And a, so they created it, we didn't create it~ so we can't abandon it. MRS. SANDERS: Because you, I mean does he, have legal rights to use that, even though he's right off the main road? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: deed says. I can't, I don't, I don't know what his BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have to ask your attorney. MEMBER TORTORA: You have to see if there were restrictions that were filed, subdivision, or a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: aspect but it's a - We're not trying to blow you off on that MRS. SANDERS: I had a choice. No, I understand, I just thought I'd get use while MS. SEPKO: I was hoping she would too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright. We also note, realize that there's some time limits, that you want this decision as quickly as possible, so we will attempt to give it to you as quickly as possible. MRS. SANDERS: Great, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: speak in favor? Yes. OK. Is there anybody else would like to Page 68 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 Board of Appeals MS. SEPKO: I think the barn should stay. only as character to the real property, character to the mind. It adds character not but certainly it adds BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: please. Could I have your name again CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Cathy Sepko. MRS. SANDERS: I think it could resolve the issue of the right-of-way, but I guess we'll have to take that tomorrow. I'll go to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go to the Planning Board. MRS. SANDERS: To the Planning Board and talk to them about that because his property alone, have you been over there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MRS. SANDERS: He's got barracks next door to me. tent that he has, boats, and , what else in it. It's a hugh MEMBER TORTORA: That should go to the Building Department. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Department. Yes, that should go to the Building BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: She did. MRS. SANDERS: tie said he wasn't allowed, but then nobody did anything about it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, you're a contract vendee to buy this property, or you already purchased it? MRS. SANDERS: Building Permit. Yes, I already signed the contract subject to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. MRS. SANDERS: It expires soon. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: interest in this. OK. Did I ask if anybody else had any MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Saying, Cathy, Yes. Did I ask if anybody would like to speak against it? No, no hands, OK. Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Page 69 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 70 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 9:00 P.M. - Appl. No. 4674 - STEPHEN FRIEDMAN (Continuation from April 22, 1999 hearing). Variance for cumulative side yards for dwelling addition at 2140 Deep Hold Drive, Mattituck; 1000-123-04-4.1 CttAiRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a postponed hearing from the last regular scheduled meeting. How are you tonight Sir? MR. LUDLOW: I'm fine. How are you guys doing? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could he state his name. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, just state your name for the record. MR. LUDLOW: I'm Tom Ludlow. I say contractor. I'm acting on their behalf and then CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we noticed that a the a portion of the side yard that brings it down to that 4.6 is filled in, it's squared out to a certain decree? MR. LUDLOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: structure, is that correct? OK. That in that location is a one story CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, are there any other changes? MR. LUDLOW: No, that was it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions of Mr. Ludlow? Mrs. Tortora? I see you pondering. MEMBER TORTORA: No, they just put a, you just filled in the area of that addition on that one side that you talked about before. So that's what's new? MR. LUDLOW: Yeah, correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which actually ends up to be a bedroom? MR. LUDLOW: Yeah, the area now is two small bedrooms, and a mieroscopic bathroom and it's basically even with the addition. It's just one bedroom and a bathroom. MR. LUDLOW: Yeah, that's correct. Page 71 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing Mr. Ludlow. We thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? OK, would you come up. Hi, how are you tonight. MS. VILLIANO: Good, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: again if you would. Just state your name for the record MS. VILLANO: I'm Elaine Villano. I live on one side. I'm not opposed to the renovation per se but, I can oppose to the renovation the way it comes out closer to my property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. VILLANO: I took some pictures and I'd like to share it with the Board. You can keep those. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: your house? Thank you. Now this is off the side of MRS. VILLANO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. VILLANO: What also concerns me is it possible for the renovation at a later date in making that one story into a two story would certainly bring it a lot closer as you go up? I'm also concerned if there ever were a fire in even one of our houses. How much quicker one home would affect the other home. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You said, I don't mean to correct you only I apologize. MRS. VILLANO: That's alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Or break into your conversation is what I really did. You said your house was exactly 10 feet off the line? MRS. VILLANO: I believe so. I have a copy of my survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, could we see that for one second. MRS. VILLANO: Sure. This one is from several years back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, but this is the finish product, right? MRS. VILLANO: My survey? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. VILLANO: Yeah, I mean I have another story on there. one says one story. But, that's the out frame. This Page 72 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The foot- MRS. VILLANO: The footage is the same. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're talking the side that says Gibbs right ? MRS. VILLANO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because that shows 9 feet. MRS. VILLANO: OK, I thought it was 10 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Actually it's 9-1/2 feet. MRS. VILLANO: This extension is going to house a bedroom and of course that will bring it closer again to my property. My property perhaps has a walkway and I just hope in the future we're not going to be concerned about disputes over noise levels. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. VILLANO: And of course the possible resale value of the home. I know we're close already but you just never know how somebody may feel that we're I believe they're going to go up to 4 feet 6 inches. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. VILLANO: From the property line as it extends down. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can we keep this? MRS. VILLANO: Yes, you may. And I'm also concerned either way however you decide how it's going to effect the existing trees and my fence. I wouldn't want to have any disputes during this renovation either. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. OK. Any questions of Mrs. Villano? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, thank you very much. MRS. VILLANO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak in favor I guess? You sir? MR. FRIEDMAN: My name is Stephen Friedman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? Page 73 Hearing Transcripts May 20, :2999 - Board of Appeals MR. FRIEDMAN: I'm the owner. We've taken great lengths I think to make sure we maintain privacy between the properties. We are very close. We're very aware of that. We don't believe that moving the bedroom back the way we designed it will create a furtherance problems of privacy. We spent a considerable amount of money adding landscaping fees. In fact put $5,000 into new trees and the porch. Once again, to preserve the privacy and to dampen the noise. Certainly it has endurance but it has maintenance in continuing that if there's a problem with trees between our properties we would llke to make sure the trees are there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, the same question that occurred in the last hearing but probably a little bit different. Assuming we can't agree, OK, on this situation are you willing to accept alternate relief? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I believe in compromising. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and the second part of that story is, or. situation is, do you object to a restriction at that side of the house remain as one story? MR. FRIEDMAN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, any questions of Mr. Friedman? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: All I can say is that you should be looking at the pictures. Mrs. Villano does make a very compelling case for some privacy. MR. FRIEDMAN: If I may address that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. Mit. FRIEDMAN: The currently the way the house is set up, one of the bedrooms is a very, very tiny bedroom. You can fit in a queen size bed and that's about it, that's where I sleep. But, there is a window that looks back into the a, my neighbor's property and certainly it's true that if somebody comes in along the walkway and goes into the upper deck, you can see them and hear them and the way this has been redesigned, there will not be a window there, OK, so, I believe that the design will be comparable although it moves the house two feet closer. In fact, we've eliminated windows. As I said, we're, we're as interested in privacy as my neighbor. So, we've certainly taken enough steps needed to preserve that. I don't think, the fact of the matter is, the houses are very close already. I think that this redesign actually results in more privacy if nothing else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. Page 74 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George? Any other questions of Mr. Friedman? MEMBER HORNING: No, I was a, did Mrs. Villano tells us that her house was 10 feet from her - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey here. It appears to be 9 even. It says 9 plus or minus, but that's the survey. Mrs. Villano ? MRS. VILLANO: I just wanted to make mention that, Steve, when Barbara had sent me the plans - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You, you have to a - MRS. VILLANO: Oh, I'm sorry. When Mrs. Friedman faxed me what they were going to do, I believe that there was going to be three windows on that side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we have the a, why don't you take a look at the plan? MRS. VILLANO: Gladly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't see any window on that side. only see two: I see two right here. MRS. VILLANO: OK, she says and be replaced by I mean this is what she had said to me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: this side. I see two here. Here's the plan. I see no window on MRS. VILLANO: OK, because she had said, that's her notes, OK. And the other thing I just wanted to mention. The plans are great but I do understand that they did submit two or three other plans to the ZBA that would not encroach it. It wouldn't go further out because that's what stopped the meeting the last time was when you said to me, oh no, it's not coming closer to your home and I said, well Mrs. Friedman had said to me, it may come over 1, 2, maybe 3 feet and we had determined what it was, and it was 4 feet 8 inches I believe that would be coming over at some point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 4 feet 6 inches. 4 feet 6 inches, yeah. Yeah, well it's, it's interesting the way it comes out because it, ii holds the original side yard, the established side yard 4.8 but then you have the opening and then it cuts back, it seallops itself back, OK. Page 75 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's going out 4 foot 8 inches. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGE'R: Right, coming Out 4 foot 8 inches. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Right, that's what she said. MRS. VILLANO: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Ludlow, let's wrap it up. MR. LUDLOW: I know it's late and I can understand that side of .the house in making a variance decision but, the actual variance is for the other side of the house and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, but it really effects the same thing because your further exacerbating it and already established really undersized - MEMBER TORTORA: Post quarters. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Post quarters side yard. MR. LUDLOW: I can understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's was the purpose of asking your client about the alternate relief aspect because we really don't know how everybody feels about it and you know we will address it on the 7th of June if we don't do it tonight. MR. LUDLOW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any other further comment. OK, hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 76 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 - Board of Appeals 9:19 P.M. - Appl. No. 4695 - WILLIAM J. PRICE, JR. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244, based on the February 1, 1999 Notice of Disapproval, for a permit to locate new dwelling, a portion of which is proposed at less than 40 feet from the front property line at 100 Bay Road, Greenport, 1000-43-5-10. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating the highlighted area which is within the 40 feet, and it's closest point' is 5 feet to Bay Road and we'd like to ask Mr. Price if he has something he'd like to add to this. So nice to see you Sir. MR. PRICE: It's so nice to 'be back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How does it feel to be on the other side? MR. PRICE: Much more comfortable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: out there at certain times. Well I have to tell you, I'm glad I'm not MR. PRICE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah. MR. PRICE: I've been in both places. I understand. The only thing I'd like to add is, my neighbor Dick Roman is here and he has no opposition to this and if you drew a line from the corner of his house to the corner of the other house', you know, I'm behind your setback line. I didn't go out there. I'm not even sure that I really need this variance but I don't want to go out and get all of the surveys on all of the other properties around to get the average setback. So, it just, I'm trying to stay as close to within the a, regulations as I can. I got my DEC permit. If I had to, I couldn't come any close to any further out towards the, towards the water so I had to put the house where it is and that's why I'm here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. MR. PRICE: That's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: Explain why you couldn't go further back further towards Gardiners Bay? MR. PRICE: Because there are wetlands. Let me show you. You see that, these wetlands. I had to get a little variance from the DEC to put it where it was. That's why. MEMBER HORNING: OK, thank you. Page 77 Hearing Transcripts May 20, 1999 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, it's a 5 foot variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it's brother-in-law, just so you know, questions. family night again, they're we hit it again. I have no MR. PRICE: Anything else? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not a word. It doesn't appear to be anybody else that's going to object then, so therefore a, is there any- MR. ANDERSON: I'm here to support it, so you know. CHAIRMAN GOEItRINGER: Mr. Anderson is here to support it and a, is there anybody else that would like to support it or object it. Seeing no hands - MR. ROMAN: I'll weigh in for support. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Roman? Support, OK. And, your name is Mr. MR. ROMAN: Yeah. I'm living at 40 Bay Road. contiguous property to the left of Road. We're the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good. decision for you very shortly Judge. OK, we have to have a MR. PRICE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a pleasure. MR. PRICE: It's nice seeing you all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nice seeing you. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing _the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. End of Hearings.