Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/24/1999 HEARINGPg. INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS HELD June 24, 1999 1 Appl. No. 4685-VINCENT TORRE 2 Appl. No. 4687-PRISCILLA STEELE 4 Appl. No. 4708-LIEB CELLARS 16 Appl. No. 4696-GEORGE & EILEEN McGOUGH 20 Appl. No. 4697-FRED MILNER 26 Appl. No. 4703-MIKE MORRISON 35 Appl. No. 4702-DAN & MADELINE ABBOTT 47 Appl. No. 4707-NANCY WELLIN 52 Appl. No. 4704-JAMES HUNTER 55 Appl. No. 4705-RAYMOND MITCHELL 59 Appl. No. 4706-RICHARD BRIGGMANN 60 Appl. No. 4709-THOMAS LOSEE 63 Appl. No. 4711-CURTIS DAVIDS 64 Appl. No. 4698-WILLIAM LIEBLEIN & BUDD'S POND REALTY 71 Appl. No. 4712-HENRY & LINDA KOZEN 75 Appl. No. ~4662-PATRICIA RUSHIN & PAMELA MOTTLEY 83 Appl. No. 4699-LISA JEROME 91 Appl. No. 4710-JOSEPH FRAZZITTA Page 1 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals Transcript of Public Hearings June 24, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell and Jessica Boger from Tape Recordings) 6:35 P.M. - Appt. 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. Location of Property: 100' Sound Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y., Parcel ID 1000-12--3-1.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ~Recessed requested by Applicant' until July 22, 1999. I offer a Resolution recessing the .hearing, continuing the recess of the hearing u~til the next regularly scheduled meeting which is JulY 22nd. MEMBER.TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 2 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 6:38 P.M. - Appl. No. 4687 - PRISCILLA STEELE This is a request for a Lot Waiver under Chapter 100, Article II, Section 100-26, for a substandard (vacant) lot known as 275 Village Lane (west side) at Mattituck, N.Y., situated approximately 122 feet north of the Main Road, identified as Parcel 1000-114-6-5o This request is based upon an application for a Building Permit and the Building Department's March 22, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that Article II, Section 100-25 merged this lot with an adjacent house lot to the west referred to as 15405 Main Road, Mattituck, Parcel Noo 1000-114-06-03. MR. LARK: I'm a little late in the game because Mrs. Steele really was a little confused as to what was going on with the provisions of the Zoning Code. So, I thought I would write the' Board a letter setting forth all the requiremenns that they do in this lot merger area and give you a little history of the property and then giving you reasons for the waiver so if you've had a chance to look at that, I'll be perfectly willing to answer any questions and Mrs. Steele is here also this evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:~ I don'n have an~specific questions of you at this point. For the record, the lot essentially conforms to the neighborhood? MR. LARK: Yes, it does. CPLAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: subdivision now? OK, even though it wasn't part of the MR. LARK: Technically it was not part of the subdivision because as I pointed out in the letter it was acquired afterwards with Mr. Baxter and then curiously enough when he sold to the Hudson's he included the C & Rs, he obligated the lot to-the C & Rs of the subdivisions. I found that odd when I did the title search on it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Interesting. I think we'll start with Ms. Collins. Ms. Collins do you have any questions for Mr. Lark? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I've read the file and read Mr. Lark's letter and I don,t think any questions I might of had are unanswered. MR. LARK: I tried to cover all the bases so that you could understand it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, you did a great job. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNiNG: Access to a meet from Village Lane? 2 Page 3 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MR. LARK: To the lot in question, yes, because the access and the driveway to her house is on the Main Road, right adjacent to the School District. I know Mr. Goehringer is familiar with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will probably not entertain a decision. We'll probably have a Special Meeting next week. We just want you to be aware of that, MR. LARK: All right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: won't get to it. We have a fairly lengthy agenda and we probably MR. LARK: I saw that when I saw the agenda when I came in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ' We'll see what develops if anybody opposes it or whatever, i MR. LARK: OK. C~LAI~ GOEHRINGER: We thank you, nice to see you. Anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? This is Appeal No. 4687. Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 3 Page 4 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 6:45 P.M. - Appl. No. 4708 - LIEB CELLARS Variances are requested to extend the width of two buildings, creating more than 60 ft. of frontage. This request is based upon an application for a Building Permit and the Building Department's May 7, 1999 Notice of Disapproval, citing Article VIII, Section 100-83C(A). Location of property: 35 Cox Neck Lane, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel ID 1000-121-6-1. CPLAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a site plan produced by Samuels & Steelman indicating the buildings in question and the entire site plan of parcel and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Wickham how are you t©night? MS. WICKHAM: Fine, thank you. As it happens, my client is about to land in Islip in a few minutes so he cannot be with us this evening. He was quite upset by that. I guess the flight was delayed' by several hours. CHAIRMA/N GOEHRINGER: Do you want to wait? I mean we can recess. MS. WICKHAM: I don't think he'll be here until after eight. So, if we need him, we'll ask you for a recess but letVs get started and we'll see if we can get through it OK, but, I do apologize for his not being here. It was not what he expected. I have two basis on which to address the Board tonight on this matter. The first having to do with the issue before you, the size of the building is that the Section 100-83C of the Code which is the reason the Building Inspector sent us here provides that no single structure will have more than 60 linear feet of frontage on one street. I think the clear reading of the Code, is that that applies to one street. It does not say on any street. And, in that we have designed buildings which have 60 feet of frontage on one streetf I would maintain that we fall within the letter of the law and I would submit that technically a variance should not have been required by the Building Inspector. Whether that was the intention of the drafters of this Legislation or not, I don't know, but, clearly that.is how it was written and I would say that it would really be incumbent upon the Legislative body of this town to correct it if that is not what they intended. But, it is quite clear in the law, that they were talking about one street. That having been said, the Building Department perhaps in reading into the law the, what he presumed to be the intention of the draftsman, did ask us to come for a variance tonight in which we have presented several buildings which exceed the 60 foot length restriction on one side of the building. We are faced of course with that problem because we are a corner lot and the production building and from a storage building both exceed that 60 foot limitation on the Cox Neck Road side only. You will note, that the 60 foot width restriction has been complied with respect to the County Route 48 frontage. The reason that, let me start with the production building has been proposed at 130 feet length, is really Page 5 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board, of Appeals in order to properly accommodate the full wine production of this proposed project. Apparently the operating wineries in the area all have buildings well in excess of 3600 sq. ft. which would be the maximum permitted by a strict reading of the Code. The reason for the larger size is so that we can expect the production to occur from the point when the grapes are crushed until they are pul into the tanks and aged and produced to the point where they're ready to be transferred to a barrel within one physical building. If we were restricted to the 60 x 60 building they would have to physically transport the wine at some processed from one building to another and as you realize, wine is a very fragile commodity and the less moving of it, the better. So, it really was something that in consultation with experts in the winery field they thought was the minimum that they could accomplish with their object and permit in mind. The production building will consist of a small area of approximately 1,000 feet on the south end which will serve as the offices bathroom area and initially a 'small retail and tasting area. The bulk of the buildings 1700 sq. ft. will be accommodating the tank storage of the wine and that will be purely agricultural production as is defined in the Code. It will: 'be f~r a Long Island Winery purposes and it designed so that amble tanks can be accommodated with spacing in the aisles, keeping in mind, safety and the ability to maneuver and run the operation properly. The storage facility will accommodate two types of wine storage. One would be the barrel aging for that wine that will be accommodated within it and the second would be cases once the bottling is complete. If you will note, there is screening proposed for the project. Obviously that will have to be discussed with the Planning Board. For the Board's information, it does appear that there is a very well established arborvitae hedge already along the entire northern edge of this property. Apparently that was put up some time ago. There's also an existing natural woodland along the south end of the property. Some of the woodland will be able to be maintained. Some of it is that, I think it's called Atlantis that's grown up. It will have to come down, it is basically a shrub. But, there was an attempt at one time to have the architecEs design. buildings which complied with the 60 x 60 and after consultation with the wine people, it was determined that it just couldn't be done without having to physically take the product in and out of buildings and it would also of course have an incredibly large additional construction cost by having to build multiple buildings, plumbing and heating systems. So, keeping in mind, the setback considerations, the design considerations and the screen considerations. This zs what we would like to ask you to consider. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: all with this plan? OK, have you submitted to the Planning Board at MS. WICKHAM: No, we have not. CN_AI~ GOEHRINGER: You have not, OK. 5 Page 6 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: We just really finished the preliminary site plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right. As you are aware we have had a discussion, both you and I on the phone, regarding the present situation that exists on CR 48 and that is the - MS. WICKHAM: That would be the moratorium. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The moratorium yes, OK. Thank you for bringing that up. 'So based upon that discussion whatever culminates out of this hearing tonight, we will' hold in abeyance until such time that, the period time I should say that the moratorium is then extinguished. Is that the proper phrase? MS. WICKHAM: The period of time during which the moratorium conclusions are made from the decision, yes, we understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' Yes, OK. MS. WICKHAH: If I c~utd just add a couple of-things I'm sorry. I do want part of yeur Beard's attentien to a ceuple ef decisiens yeu rendered fairly recently in which yeu did agree to extend the width limitation. One is the Jimbe Realty preperty in Seutheld applicatien 4389 and the other is the Greenpert Riverhead Building and I'm serry I den't have that application number in frent of me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean Riverhead Building Supply? MS. WICKHAM: Riverhead Building Supply, yes. I also would like to note, that in the immediate vicinity of this property, we have several buildings that .also exceed the 60 ft. limitation. The property called Middle Road Shopping Center which I think we all know as the Wendy's Deli property is a building of 60 x 150 ft. The property immediately across the street which is Arco Drainage, or used to be the fencing place, it still is, is 96 ft. along Rt. 48. There is a building in back which is preexisting but that is 160 ft. in length. That is the length of the building, that's not the frontage. But, the frontage on Rt. 48 is 96 ft. and it's only about 25-30 ft. back from the road. This building would be back considerably from that. So, we would be certainly doing better I think than some of the other properties in the area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just to recap. You are going to submit to the Planning Board? Our discussion on the phone was that, you're going to deal with Health Department approval and you were going to continue with those during the period of time that we have this hiatus period, is that correct? Page 7 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MS. WtCKHAM: Yes, we're preparing a Health Department Application now. The Planning Board Application we will submit. I'm not clear on to what extent they will be able to review it - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MS. WICKHAM: Until your Board renders a decision I'm not going to be submitting an application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I mean certainly if the period of time of the moratorium is shortened, based upon a decision of the Town Board, I mean, then we're ready to go, we'll do that mutually, by consent we'll put it right back on again, if that situation changes. On the issue of the strict reading of the Code, as you know, we are not a Legislative Body. Did you want to carry that to the Legislative Body? MS. WICKHAM: Well you are a Board that is charged with interpretation of the language created by the Legislative Body and that was my fFrst ~oint is that I would ask that you df'rect the Building Inspector that a Notice of Disapproval not be required because we did not exceed the width requirement on both streets, only on one and that is all we need to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That certainly is an issue that we can deal with. You're absolutely correct. We'll start with Mr. Horning from the great state of Fishers Island. Mr. Horning how are you tonight? MEMBER HORNING: I'm fine. I don't have any questions at this time. I do know that it's subject to the Rt. 48 corridor moratorium. I'm not sure how far we can go on that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Just a couple qf things I want to be clear of what we have before us. We have the two buildings in question. Do we also have the future tasting building which was not on your recent Building Permit because it was disapproved? .Are you asking for anyth±ng from that because it - MS. WICKHAM: That would be the subject of a later application. That was really put there for information. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, so the future tasting building 60 x 40 is not part of this application or under consideration of this application? That's number one. Just a couple of points. You had mentioned that there are several buildings in the area. The North Fork Deli Complex. The back building behind Arco, Arco building. I would like to put it into the record, that all of those buildings were 7 Page 8 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals constructed and permitted prior to the Code Amendment. applicable in this application. It is MS. WICKHAM: Oh, that's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: Next step. Are you asking for an interpretation of the Code regarding 83.C as te whether er net a street refers te one street? MS. WICKHAM: That was my first request. MEHBER TORTORA: Se, it is - MS. WICKHAM: Yes, and if you decline to agree with my reasoning then I presented the alternative request for a variance. NrEHBER TORTORA: Te reverse, OK, for an interpretation of a variance? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that it? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: The land that would be north more or less of this property, is zoned Agricultural Conservation and I know that's marked on here, is that also true to the land to the west where there's sought of a nursery? I expect it is. MS. WICKHAM: Yeah, yes, I believe - MEMBER COLLINS: What I'm getting at Ms. Wickham is simply whether this parcel as it stands now, is~this is what you've got and this is what you can use under current zoning because it's zoned LB and you can put a winery there without 10 acres of vines. MS. WICKHAM: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And I just was really asking indirectly whether the adjacent land is all zoned Agricultural Conservation, so this parcel is the deal. MS. WICKHAM: The property immediately to the north and to the west is all one parcel. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. 8 Page 9 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of A4~peals MS. WICKHAM: My recollection of the Zoning Code, of the Zoning Map, says it does not include that parcel. I have to look again, but, I believe that entire 50 some acre piece is AC. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, OK, I would expect so. And let me just read this quickly. Your opening contention about how to read the Code. Is it fair to say, that you think the Code, there's this provision in the Code about a 60 foot frontage limitation really applies if you have a corner lot only to one side of the, only one of the two faces of the property on roads? That as along as you satisfy on one road, it doesn't really apply to the other. Is that how you're reading it? MS. WICKHAM: I'm reading it that way, yes, because it's, it's pretty clear that many of these zones, the LB Zones and the same provisions as in the General Business and I think that some of the lower zoning could also comply to a corner lot and that's why I think if it were to be clear, it would have said any street because there very frequently would be ;more than one street. MEMBt~R COLLINS: More than one. MS. WICKHAM: And so, I took it to mean, maybe they were just trying to limit that visual impact along the main highway and not the side street,, which is what we're doing. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. CHAI~JLN GOEHRINGER: One question back to Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: I noticed that the Permit construct a winery. We see a storage building. building. Is this a winery? Application is to We see a production MS. WICKHAM: The winery building is the Production Building, buts as you know with winery facilities,~storage is an intricate part of the production. In fact, from the time the grape comes out pressed, it's really storage. The Production Building is labeled as that because that's where the wine will initially be put and will be put into the large tanks for storage and development. The wine will then be further developed in the, what we call the storage building by the barrel aging and to some extent the case wine after it's bottled. But, it's all in the concept of a winery. MEMBER TORTORA: Would it be something, in other words for all practical purposes would it be similar to all of the other wineries that we see on the North Fork or would it be different? MS. WICKHAM: I'm not sure I understand the question. Will it be used for the processing and the storage of wine. That is what the other wineries do. 9 Page 10 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You .see Gail, it's interesting when, I'm just trying to, we of course had special exception provisions and most of us that the - I'm net the most linguistic person tonight. I apologize, it must of been the day or the heat or something in that nature, but, we of course no longer have those provisions, OK. So, the three people that are presently before you other than myself on the Board, were not necessarily part of that whole procedure when we started it, so, maybe what we should do is, go through where the production is being done now, so they can understand exactly how the process goes and they can understand the difference between production and storage. I mean I understand the difference, so maybe during this hiatus period we could tour one that the Liebs are dealing with now, you know in the production of their own wine. Then they would understand the process. MS. WICKHAM: If I might maybe clarify what you asked about. The definition of the Code which permits the use here in an LB Zone, requires it to be a Farm Winery Licensed under New York State Law. Farm Winery is really a term in the State Liquor ~uthority which I believe to some extent limits the gallon edges as opposed to a commercial winery which has a different definition and has to be 100% N.Y. grown grapes. The Code further limits that by requiring that the winery that we're dealing with here, make wine which is made primary from Long Island grapes. So, again that would' be the understanding that it would be Mr. Lieb's grapes. There may be some custom 'crushing done which is something all the other wineries do as well and the wineries must, interestingly enough have retail sales on site. That's a requirement of the Code in this particular zone. That's really the retail sale is almost incidental to this particular project. There really interested in the winery production. But it all, in any winery out here, you will have soup to nuts, if you will - including the storage facility. MEMBER TORTORA: looking at. I just want tq be clear in my mind what we were HRS. WICKHAM: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Lot of times we assume and then maybe two or three weeks later we say, gee it's not what we thought it was. MS. WICKHAM: The case storage and barrel storage is all part of the same process. MEMBER TORTORA: production? The retail sales will be take place in the MS. WICKHAM: In the winery, in the front winery building, yes. l0 Page 11 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: The Production Building? MS. WICKHAM: What they've called the Production Building. Yes I think that was the label the architect put on to indicate for the original initial production. MEMBER COLLINS: That's where the tanks will be and they're scenic. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well just to clear this up in a final sense. 'Basically, storage is p~oduction. MS. WtCKPLAM: It's part of production. CHAIN/VIAN GOEHRINGER: That's part of production. MS. WICKHAM: That'S right. CHAIR~Q~N GOEHRINGER:': Y~s, so, I'm just saying in general if - MS. WICKHAM: Wine people feel that production continues before the cork comes out. CHAIRPLAN GOEHRINGER: fr until the elbow is bent. OK, I think we've got it now. Ail right, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favo~ of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Sir? Surely, just state your name for the record. ~R. ANFRY: Yes. I'm Joel Anfry. I'm the neighbor of the first home to the west of the site on Sound Avenue. I also happen to be a Real Estate Attorney. Actually because you, Mr. Chairman, you posed the question in the sense of yes or no, for or against. There's no, I'm not necessarily against winery I'd like to ask a few questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: purposes. Most people usually come here for informational MR. ANFRY: I wonder if I could ask Ms. Wickham if it is Lieb Cellars view that this, the nature of the front, is it a necessity or is such item - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to propose the question to the Board, OK. It is essentially up to the attorney or the applicant to answer the question if they so desire to do so. MR. ANFRY: I would like to know for my application to know whether it is the view of the applicant that this production, that this Page 12 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals extensive building, is an absolute necessity for the production of the wine as against the economical gain continuous to the applicant. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. ANFRY: I also would like to know from the Board, I gather from the Board's comments, that the Board is likely to explore this further before a decision is made. I would like to point out to the Board, that in a number of vineyards on the North Fork, at this time production is in fact separated by separate buildings. It is not uncommon to universally done in Napa Sonoma, it's done in Bordeaux, it's done~ here in the North Fork. Storage has been maintained at least one. Bidwell for example, maintains storage at three different sites, so it doesn't strike me as a necessity that this be done. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ms. Wickham would you like to - MS. WICKHAM: I think I addressed that question he asked initially by saying that they did look at a 60 x 60 building. They felt it was difficult to accommodate what they needed, and so I would say it's really a necessity and as I indicated the cost of building separate buildings even if he could do it within separate buildings would be very, very much of a hardship. Since Mr. Lieb couldn't be here tonight, we asked Mr. Russell Hem to also be here as a live consultant, that he might be able to address that a little bit directly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horn, it's a pleasure to meet you. Could you raise your right hand please? Promise, I have the script down, I apologize. Do you solemnly swear that everything your about to tell us is the truth to the best of your knowledge. MR.: HERN: I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you MR. HERN: buildings. I will just simplify the drawings and specifying the CHAI~ GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. HERN: It was written as production building, storage building, production being liquid net in a wooden vessel or a bottle, tanks, etc. and then the second building with barrel storage and case goods storage as any other winery would be. The only difference I would think in comparison te every ether winery on the North Fork right new, is that the building is net adjacent to the property and that's why it took us so long en behalf of Mark Lieb here. It was viewed, he searched out a commercial site because the Code says that Page 13 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals it doesn't have to be adjacent to 10 feet of 8 acres of vines. The question I was a little bit unclear on as te the difference between the necessity of a winery or a convenience and on the Lieb's property right now they have 36 acres ef vines they planted out with the building of the house about three, four years ago, five years ago and new there is ne open area, they would have te take out vines. Hark had looked at another piece net tee long age, a year and a half ago that wasn't possible with the zoning, currently in place. It wasn't possible. He searched down a commercial site that was large enough, there's always restrictions, 20% lot coverage standpoint, so to be able te propose buildings ef 16, 17, 18,000 sq. ft. you need a relatively large commercial site. Se, this is a 3-1/2, 3.6 acre piece that is large enough, that fits let after the bulk density ef 20% te be able te de that. To put it in context with some other wineries, Pelligrini Vineyards, about 16,000 sq. ft., Macari Vineyard is currently get 15 and they're looking to expand with the building the next year or so.' I think Lenz is around 14-15,000 sq. ft. They recently put ena 7200 sq. ft. building. I believe the winery under censtrd~tien right new, Raphael is 29,000 sq. ft., se, in context te the size ef the 'vineyaPd, 8, 9, 10,000 paces, 15,000 paces production, I don't see that it's out ef context from the size efa let. I'm net clear if I answered the question fully. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. What I'm going to suggest here is, that we do have this period of time that we'll be holding this hearing in abeyance. I'm going te ask this fine gentleman that spoke up, that spoke just before you, te reduce it te writing se that for everybody's benefit, Hr. Lieb can answer it, so-on and se forth and then this way, you knew, I mean we're putting these people en the spot and it's understandable that you knew, they may or may net be able to answer the question at this time. I think you've done a great job. MR. HERN: Could I add one more thing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR. HERN: I think if it wasn't for the 60 foot variance even if it wasn't on a corner lot, it would be~ simplest to do, one building. Maybe it's 100 x 100, 100 x 120, but to at least conform with the 60 ft. on the one visible road, 48, it was broken up into being two buildings and they were separated far enough apart somewhat to minimize the impression from the road, the awkward nature of separating heating and plumbing from the different buildings is awkward. It's less of a problem when you're storing case goods somewhere. It is a problem to have two tank loads or two separate barrel cellars. That's - I doubt that there's really a winery out here that does that. You can warehouse things off site, a number of wineries do. There's a half a dozen wineries that warehousing their case goods not at their facility right now purely because of Page 14 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals size restraints, that they can't build largely because of their current building square footage they're allowed or economically they choose not to so that was some of the thinking behind the proposal of the buildings~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: gentlemen? Any questions of this gentleman, ladies and MEMBER COLLINS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. We thank you very much Sir. MS. WICKHAM: Mr. Chairman, I think I did understand gentleman's question. I think Mr. Hern answered it. the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OKo MS. WICKHAM: I think he answered it for you. interest of closing the hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~ I'm, yes, I'm - here in the MS. WICKHAM: Subject'of course if you want to take a tour of the winery and to get the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't close the hearing because of the Route 48 moratorium. I just wanted to hold it in recess. MS. WICKHAM: Yes, OK. CHAIRMAN. GOEHRINGER: And you know - MS. WICKHAM: You know that we don't have to keep coming back° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, no, OK, thank you. Hi, Mr. Foster how are you tonight? MR. FOSTER: I'm Artie Foster. I own the property right to the south, the Arco property and a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that the 96 foot building? MR. FOSTER: That's the one. How did you know that? MS. WICKHAM: I cased it off. MR. FOSTER: Oh, OK. MS. WICKHAM: It's not accurate, but, it's a - MR. FOSTER: It's 100 feet. I was just going to ask for a tax reduction if you were right. I really think that this wilt be a good thing for the neighborhood to tell you the truth. As you may Page 15 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals or may not know, I was voted the worst vista in town, so this can only help me. But, that property is woodland. It's been laying there for quite some time, there's some debris picking around it, constantly collecting papers and trash; it's blowing around from the shopping center and it'd be nice to see it cleaned up and a esthetically anybody that rides by the Lieb property on Oregon Road and Bridge Lane, it might give you a little refreshing thought about what this place is going to look like because they run real esthetically clean operation there and I would be real happy to have them across the street from me to be honest with you. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. OK, anybody else like to speak? This is a hearing that will be in recess for the period of the moratorium. We'd like to thank everybody, anybody like to reflect on this either by holding their questions until the last hearing or to reduce it in writing, we will accept them. We will send them along and so on and so forth. We thank everybody for their courtesy, hearing no further questions I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until, I'm sorry, pardon me, reserving£- recessing the hearing, and what did you say the date~f the moratorium is Over? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The moratorium is over September 7tho CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so that we will reconvene this hearing in the September calendar which is September 16th, so it'll be in recess until September 16th or if there is a change with the period of time in the moratorium. I offer that as a resolution ladies and gentlemen. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 16 - Hearing Transcripts June 24f 1999 .-Board of Appeals 6:55 P.M. - Appl. No. 4696 - GEORGE & EILEEN McGOUGH This is a request for a Variance under Chapter 100 (Zoning) to place an accessory garage in the front yard area at 4065 Orchard Street, Orient, N.Y., Parcel 1000-27-2-2o7, based upon an application for a Building Permit and a Building Inspector's February 26~ 1999 Notice of Disapproval, (#2 of 2) which states that Article III, Section 100-33 requires the proposed accessory garage be placed in the rear yardarea. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by John Metzger indicating the approximate placement of the proposed garage which is 14 x 42° This is an extensive parcel of property and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? Good evening Ma'am. You owe us some green cards. Thank you so much~ MS. THOMPSON: Seven of the nine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Seven of the nine. MS. THOMPSON: And photographs of the site and I have a site model too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, yes, why don't you bring it up, surely. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You just have to speak a little louder so we can hear you. MS. THOMPSON: I'm Elizabeth Thompson, the architect and I~d like to talk about some reasons why we like this garage in the front yard area. It's a primary residence of five acres, it's a very large lot and quite wide open to the weather, near the water and we're trying to create sort of a protected area where there can be a small lawn sort of between the buildings in there. It sought of protect on three sides. And, we think that the lot is so large and the building is set back so far from the road. In fact, you can see jUst under construction a house in that big site photo. It's up to the second floor which is above the height of the garage and you can just barely see it and it's set back so far that the orientation to the road is really lost by the time you get that far back. We also wanted a clear south facing reorientation to the garage because we're planning some photoable tapes~ solar cells to generate electricity on that route and with that wide open and due south as you can see from the plan. I suppose you got this fax letter also? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Is this the one from Mr. Haag? MS. THOMPSON: This is from Nora Conant. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Haago. No, I got a CC to Nora Conant, but it's from Page 17 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MS. THOMPSON: Oh, I'm sorry, yes, they wrote it together. And~ I have no objection to any of their requirements and that in fact is what we're planning to do anyway. We're planning to really disrupt the vegetation as little as possible which is why we're trying to just have one small protected area there. The rest will be as you see it in the photographs and as far as it being camouflaged I think it being set back 300 some feet from the road and set down at grade and the vegetation itself now is a good 8 feet high, so I just think it's already not visible and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, you're not entertaining any other vegetation other than what's on site? MS. THOMPSON: Right. They'll put in a few trees here and there on the perimeter. They'll add to it, they're not going to take anything away. Just to perhaps screen some of the existing houses, but we don't feel strongly one way or another. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~ So, you don't object to a restriction by the Board, that the natural vegetation remain in the south side of the garage so as to remain as a camouflage? --- MS. THOMPSON: Absolutely, no problem with that whatsoever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS. THOMPSON: And certainly no night lights or motion detectors are planned at all. I know that's a requirement. We had to approve an adjacent tennis court several months ago. We had the same - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Somehow I remember that. MEMBER COLLINS: We recall that. MS. THOMPSON: I wasn't here to that, but, the owners were notified of that to approve that also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What utility' will be in the garage, other than electricity? MS. THOMPSON: Just electricity. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and it will not be heated? MS. THOMPSON: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: questions? No, we'll start with Ms. Collins, any Page 18 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: I gather from the record that the plan originally put into the Building Department for a permit included a bath and some space like that in the garage and of course that was turned down because it suggested living space and then you said, you collectively said, in the application, that you were dropping that in any event. Has that changed the shape and size of the garage or is it still as it was planned? MS. THOMPSON: It's the same foot print. Actually the garage and the building have been reduced two feet you know to the right and the east face, that's marginal. The only other thing ~that~s dropped is actually the roof is droppede MEMBER COLLINS: MS. THOMPSON: high. MEMBER COLLINS: I guess that's what I was getting at. yOu can see from the model it's now only one story Oh, yes, I see. MS. THOMPSON: It was a story and a half before. MEMBER COLLINS: All right, therefore, there is no room now for that now upstairs apartment? MS. THOMPSON: That's right. There is just an open ceiling. They're going to hang some sails, some mast, and things like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So rare do we have a rendering with' us. is the actual height from grade to the ridge do you think? What MS. THOMPSON: It's about 10 feet to the edge, to the eve and another abo'ut 5 feet up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So about 157 MS. THOMPSON: It's about 15 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Can you explain to us, the rationale for desiring to have the garage other than in the front yard? MS. THOMPSON: I'm sorry - MEMBER COLLINS: It is. MS. THOMPSON: The garage at all, or in the front yard? Page 19 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: In the front yard. MS. THOMPSON: Well it's to get this southern orientation and we wanted a shorter driveway, did not have actually that extra pavement go all the way around the bUilding to the rear and it really has to do with the plan of how the buildings relate to one another at the entry way in creating a closed space that's a formal space. The garage is not what you think of as a regular garage. It's a white shingled cedar siding, a red cedar roof. It's'dressed up as much as the house and we think it's going to be a very attractive entrance. It has the barn doors for garage doors. We would just see it all as a whole plan that fits together in terms of the entry procession~. MR. HORNING: I guess I'm kind of referring to the idea that the house itself is set way back on the lot it seems and therefore then you reverse things and put the garage in front after you've moved the house way back. I'm asking for that rationale in doing that. MS. THOMPSON: Why to move the house? MEMBER HORNING: Way into the back of the lot and then move the garage to the front? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In other words, what Mr. Horning is saying, because that was an immediate question I forgot to ask, OK. The house is not centered on the lot. The house is put in a specific location. We don't have a topo in front of us, OK. The lot does appear to be relatively flat. MS. THOMPSON: It is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What do you think the rationale would be for putting it in this location? MS. THOMPSON: To be as far away from the adjacent houses as possible. There are four houses and they're all kind of set back. It's all five acre lots in the area and this is midway between, if .you drew an X sort of. through the other four quarters in those four houses, that house would be pretty much set in the middle right near the section. So, it's to have as much privacy as possible from the other houses from the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Thank you So much. It's very nice of you. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 20 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of A~peals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For everyone's benefit, there will probably be no decisions on any hearings tonight. We will have a special meeting next week° I did make that~announcement before. We have not set the meeting date but, we will set it by the end of this meeting. 7:05 P.M. - Appl. NOo 4697 - FRED MILNER This is a request for Variances under Zoning Code Article XXIV, Section 100-244 for: (1) .Proposed lot coverage in excess of 20% code limitation; (2) minimum side yard at less than 10 feet on one side; (3) total side yards at less than 25 for both sides; (4) minimum rear yard at less than 35 feet. This application is based on the Building Inspector"s April 6, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for approval of "as built~' deck additions and ~pool. (Building Permit #19877-Z was issued May 17, 1991 for a pool and certain deck areas.) Location of Property: 870 Bray Avenue, Laurel, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-126-1-15o CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the house itself and the specific accessory structures to include the pool and the decking and the storage building extension, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map in dictating this and surrounding properties in the area~ How are you tonight? MR. FRED MILNER: Fine and yourself? CHAIRMAN: Good thanks. What would you like to tell us Fred? MR. MILNER: I believe you want these first. CHAIRMAN: Yes, thanks. I almost got in trouble there. MR. MILNER: Basically, we're just asking for permission to keep what is alreadY existing, as you can see it's a non-conforming building lot, It's a tough lot for you to really do anything with. Pretty much what we did we tried to do in good taste in an area where we can keep an eye on everything. As you can see the deck on one side yard I kept parallel with the bilko door' which the town allowed me to previously relocate. It's just a tough yard to work with. CHAIRMAN: What exactly did you apply for in 1991, do you remember? MR. MILNER: I applied for, I've had numerous building permits on the house we've been renovating it basically since we've owned it. 1991 was probably the addition in the rear. I believe I applied for another one maybe 94 which was the second story and an addition to the front. The deck in the rear was pretty much pre-existing. I sat down in the Building Department and we determined that partial section in that deck was grade level, so it just didn't apply to the lot coverage, but after that we did install a pool. It was early summer, there was a brown tide I didn't want to take a chance letting my kids swim in the bay, so we installed a pool. We tried, like I said, it was a tough lot, so we tried to put it in 2O Page 21 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals the right spot. The shed, the town has no problem with, it's just the fact that I put some electric out there so I could power the pump through the pool. And other than that, there's a swing set in the backyard for the kids. Like I said, it's a really tough lot to work with as far as setbacks. CHAIRMAN: OK, Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: How is it you came to install the pool without a building permit? MR. MILNER: It was maybe 6,7, 8 years ago when it was early summer and I have 4 young children and there was a well there was a brown tide, so I was kind of concerned, I didn't want my kids swimming, but I wanted them to have an opportunity to swim, so we installed a poo]v That's basically how that happened. There really isn't many places where you can put that pool in the yard with the way the septic system is, I'd have to probably move my cesspool, you know dig trenches. It's just a very tough piece property to work with. MEMBER HORNING: It might be but people do require building permits to put in a pool, it's part of your problem. MR. MILNER: It is but the pool is built according to all building codes, it's bonded. There's a security gate coming in from the driveway. There's a security gate from the deck to the pool. There's a 3 ft. fence around it. It's an above ground pool with a 3 ft. gate above that. It's locked, everything has self-closing hinges on it. Everything is built to the NYS building code 100%. CHAIRMAN: So Fred, really the only thing you have that doesn't have a permit on it is the pool deck to the pool itself and the pool. Is that correct? MR. MILNER: Pretty much. Because of the fact that I brought power to the little shed out there. CHAIRMAN: But that's an underwriters issue. that's actually - i That's not an issue MR. MILNER: I believe I have an underwr£ter's on that. CHAIRMAN: I mean that's not an issue that's before us here. MR. MILNER: It was part of an issue in the paperwork. CHAIRMAN: Lot coverage. MR. MILNER: Basically it's the placement of the pool. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Also the deck's lot coverage. 21 Page 22 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MR. MILNER: The one deck in the back was considered grade level because I can push my lawn mower over ito MEMBER TORTORA: According to the notice of disapproval, you're in for lot coverage with a pool that's 27%° Also we need the variance on the southerly side yard, another variance on the side yard~ both sideyards~ Five variances in allo Just a small question, because I know the area, it is a small lot, I know the neighborhood~ and yes it is rough to do anything because of the size of the lots in that area. But you built the whole thing 9 years ago~ how did you get here today? MEMBER COLLINS: Because the house is for sale. MR. MILNER: We are in the process of building a new house and I was going for a variance, hopefully, to keep the house the way it is so that - the house is designed for a young couple with 2 or 3 young children, and hopefully, they'll get the enjoyment out of it that we did. Because we really did. And it is a tough piece of property. MEMBER COLLINS: It is. You have about 7,500 sqo ft., so you're options are kind of limited. CHAIRMAN: For the record, the majority of the variances we have, concern lots of this size or a little bit larger° I understand the plight that you're going through. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: IVd like to get into the record what I think can be clearly read from the paper, but I'd like to put' it in one place~ as I read the permits that were issued, we have the original house~ then in 1986, an addition was put on for which a CO was obtained in 1991 and then a building permit was obtained in 1991 to do some more addition work. When those jobs were done, the house was up to a lot coverage of 17 1/2%, and then there was the shed which was another. 1 1/4% so, you were up to 18.9 and that's a figure that the building inspector refers to in his denial 18.9%. You might think of that as the base from which we departed. It seems to me the problem here is the notwithstanding that it's a really small lots but Mr. Milner felt the need to put in a poolo I can see the need~ but the fact is he put in this pool with which it's decks not counting the deck that people seem to agree is at grade~ but the pool deck and some additional deck at the back of the house adds another 6 1/4% lot coverage, and that is just way over what this board thinks is appropriates and I~m really troubled. MR. MILNER: Excuse me, the deck in the back of the house and the~ shed was all pre-existing prior to the second building permit which I sat down in the building department and reviewed with the inspector. The pool I know I did - MEMBER COLLINS: The pool is also creating your setback problems because I think the buildTng department is interpreting this as all 22 Page 23 - Hearing TranscriPts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals part of the house because it's all connected and therefore you're setbacks on one side has to be for the building. I'm sorry, I'm tripping over my words. We've seen these Cases before and I just don't feel very happy about crowding and crowding a small lot and saying it's because we need it. I just want to get that in the record. MR. MILNER: If you happen to see some of the houses on the street we're on, there are actually houses that probably have a 3 ft. setback on the property line. My pool is 7 ft. My deck is 6 ft. I kept it in line with the bilko door. But that's only to make adequate access to get down to the basement where we originally had our washer and dryer, the house was so small at one time. Since then, we've moved upstairs. Everything was pretty much done out of necessity and need. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I guess what I'm saying is I think the zoning code is to try to keep neighborhoods from getting ever more cluttered. MR. MILNER: Everything was done in the best taste as possible. MEMBER COLLINS: I grant that, I just wanted to get my view on the record about how these numbers parse. CHAIRMAN: The only question I had was just to clear the issue up. May 21, 1991 CO reflects addition to existing one family dwelling. Was there a deck involved in that 19917 MR. MILNER: Department. That deck was pre-existing prior to that Building CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Prior to that,· OK. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman that CO that you're reading relates to work that was done under a 1986 Building Permit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Then I have the Building Permit for that. MR. MILNER: In 1986 the deck was built and amended to the existing. That permit in 1991 they were pre-existing, the pool wasn't but everything else was and that's when I did the second story and added on to the front of the ~ouse~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, yes, because the Building Permit on 5/17/91, says construct an addition, - MEMBER TORTORA; Deck addition. CHAIF~4AN GOEHRINGER: Deck addition rather and second floor. MEMBER COLLINS: No mention of the pool. 23 Page 24 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Second floor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To existing one family dwelling, OK, So, I guess the question is so that we can understand it is, what deck was dealt with in that 1991, you know, can you just point to it? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have a copy of it on file. MR. MILNER: It was all pre-existing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was all pre-existing? MR. MILNER: It was the way the Building Permit read. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Just point to it Fred so we got it, so we know just what exactly you're talking about. MR, MILNER: On the survey? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, yes. MR. MILNER: I~ll show you right on the survey. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well I think we have a copy. It's a copy right here. This is the 91 permit. That's the proposed deck · they were going to approve, 91. MR. MILNER: Can you go back to the first survey right here? This existing survey? This was existing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was existing, OK. MR. MILNER: I sat with Tom Fish. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: This whole area in here. MR.MILNER: He considered this grade leVel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Can I just circle that?' MR MILNER: Yes. and it was considered grade level so he did not consider that part of the 20% lot coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's all I'm trying to get down. MR. MILNER: And then this pool was done after that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, that pool and the deck - it relates to that. MR. MILNER: And that, yes. 24 Page 25 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And the side deck. MR. MILNER: That was pre-existing, that was all there. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's not on the survey though. MR. MILNER: That was all there prior to - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yeah, but it wasn't approved by the town. MR. MILNER: Well they knew about it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, it wasn't on the '86 survey. So it can't be pre-existing then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's what he's trying to get down so that everybody understands because we have to explain to Mr. Dinizio. MR. MILNER: Well '86 was when I did the first renovation and that's when that was put there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. MILNER: So, but the town never required me to re-survey, well actually I probably should have indicated that when I submitted it, so that might be a fault on myself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I'm just going to write it in "it's pre- existing." Any other questions of Mr. Milner, anybody? OK, we thank you so much. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 25 Page 26 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 7:15 P.M. - Appl. No. 4703 MIKE MORRISON. This is a request for a Variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.4 for permission to locate an accessory inground swimming pool in an area other than the required rear yard at 30100 Main Road, Cutchogue, N.Y., Parcel 1000-102-3-7. MR. MORRISON (submitted five sets of photos with copies of project survey and explained the location of each photo.) The pool is 130 feet from the Main Road .... Photo C depicts the dbstance from the Main Road. G, H and I on the west side of the property site° ...So by locating the pool at that site we not only are a distance from Main Road, but also we wouldn't be disturbing any neighborso Speaking on that subject of neighbors you'll see on the alternative sites the survey map and there depicted in photos marked 1, 2~ and 3, that packet, that's the rear of the barn, and photos roman numerals, I of 1 and roman numeral II, that's the eastern side of the barn. Those alternative sites would place the pool directly next to our neighbors and as being good neighbors and new residence of your lovely town here, we want to foster good neighborly relations and we've spoken with our neighbors and they're both the neighbors to the south of our property and the neighbor to the east of our property are both in favor of our proposed location. Similarly, that southern site, the site behind the barn, construction of the pool there would necessitate destrUction of our driveway and that's the only access we have on our property to a road. Now, an alternative driveway might be on to Main Road and as you can see on the survey map, a road curves there and I believe that that would create a danger not only a possible danger not only to ourselves but other motorists. So, south of the barn, putting the pool behind the barn, would not only be contiguous to our southern neighbor and possibly interfere with their quiet enjoyment, but also destroy our driveway and also environmentally there's a old growth tree that would have to be taken up, dug out if We could put the pool behind the barn and that tree not only provides shade but also beauty to three continuous properties, myself and my two neighbors and we would like to avoid having to destroy that tree as well. The alternative site on the eastern part of the property I don"t think that's feasible because not only also would it be right next to one of my neighbors and I would prefer not to possibly disrupt her part in doing .it, but also, our septic system is on that side of the property as well as the well and installation of the pool on that side would also require possible environmental concerns digging up the septic system, moving the well and so forth. Also, finally on the eastern location, the grade of the property is such, that I don't know if construction of the pool would be possible and just from the aesthetic reasons it's almost entirely shade all day because of the. house and the surrounding trees. So, if I may just to sum up~ the location of the proposed site that we have chosen for the pool, not only I think would afford privacy for us, but also not infringe on our surrounding neighbors, not only to contiguous neighbors but also our neighbors in the plush established neighborhood. As I said, in season anyone driving on Pequash Avenue will not be able 26 Page 27 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals to see into the pool and we're only using it seasonally, it's not heated, so when the leaves from the privet hedges are gone, the pool won't be in use. We're of course putting up the required fences of the code and that fence along from the house to the hedges will also upstruct any views of pedestrians or the vehicles on Main Road from looking into the pool, so I don'-t believe our proposed site would be disturbing pedestrians, vehicles or our neighbors and because of those other reasons that I articulate this evening, that are behind them, the site behind the barn and the site to the east of the barn, I think not, this is the best spot. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm juSt going to reserve the right on health, safety and welfare in .one second and I'm going to go to Ms. Collins and ask her if she'd like to start. MEMBER COLLINS: No, I visited the site. I lived on Pequash Avenue from 1980 until 1988 and I congratulate you on what you have done to the appearance of that corner. MR. MORRISON: Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I have no questions. MEMBER HORNING: I want to clarify here for my own piece of mind. You have two front yards legally, or one? MR. MORRISON: Well because we're a corner property, the area of our property that abuts Pequash Avenue I believe, is considered the front of the property although our front porch is on the Main Road portion of the property and that's what I've always considered the front of the property, but I believe, based on the town's interpretation that side of the property abutting Pequash is also considered the front. MEMBER HORNING: So, in fact, the reason that you need a variance is because you have a barn on the property? MR. M©RRISON: Yes Sir. As in fact, the notices that we posted to inform the neighborhood residents of this hearing tonight, listed the hearing for an application to install a pool in the front yard and when I saw that I was hoping the neighbors Wouldn't misunderstand that we want to put the pool directly in front of our front porch rather than - MEMBER HORNING: I mention that because I mean the survey is clear on this map but, it's not clear in the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval. 27 Page 28 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MR. MORRISON: Yes Sir, I understand that. It"s on the site° Our proposed site is on the rear side of the property. MEMBER HORNING: Thank youl MR. CHAIRMAN: The only concern I have apart from the purely aesthetic situation that it would probably be better on the east side is the fact, that I do have an ultimate concern about the vehicular traffic very simply going through the hedge and possibly going into the pool and attacking anybody that might be in its path or basically running over anybody that's in the path. I've been involved for 31-1/2 years as a fireman in the Hamlet in this town. I've been an EMT for approximately 9 years. I teach EMT for Suffolk County and I have to tell you that I have seen at least two or three in the last year, tragic accidents of which people were not hit in situations similar to this, OK. I may be reading too much into this, but my concern is, if the Board was to incline to grant something like this, I think it would be, it would behoove you to put a barrier up along that side. MR. MORRISON: Absolutely. That is our intention. Not only put up the fence up to code, but also more hedges so that we donut further disturb any visuals of our southern neighbors. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think it has to be more permanent than that, but, I'll discuss that later. We~li see how the hearing goes, OK? I just want you to be aware of that. MR. MORRISON: Sureo CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Yes? MR. TOM McCARTHY: Tom McCarthy, McCarthy Management. I'm going to have kind of a dual role in this application. I happen to have owned the property before Mr. Morrison purchased it and I purchased it along with several of my brothers and we bought it back from dilapidated condition that some folks may remember that it was in~ We have, we're very fortunate in meeting Mro Morrison and i like him owning the property and would like him to continue improve it to be a member of the community. As we know, it's a difficult property and one thing I'd like to point out is the fact that the pool is actually, there's a deck between the barn garage and house and they happen to be connected because of, there was a difficulty in looking back through the previous applications, the previous CO's, speaking with~ Mr. Richter and Mike from the Building Department and just about how we go about'applying for this permit and it actually took us several hours just to read into where it could go, what's possible, what sort of variance would be necessary and it's actually, I just want to point out that it is, if it was not a corner property, it would be in the rear yard behind the house which is the principal structure° The other structures that were added later which was the barn garage. They were added at a 28 Page 29 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals different time then the house was connected with a deck. So, I just want to point out that for the lack of Pequash which I know we can't overlook, but is behind principal dwelling, principal as it is in the house. As we were cleaning up the property, we had gotten some phone calls and some concerns from people who lived down Pequash. We made a mistake of piling up some debris when the town was coming to do cleanup in the fall, I believe it was and I personally made a mistake of putting it out on the corner of Pequash which we know is a very busy intersection and occasionally there's accidents and someone called and said, could you please take that pile out of there. I can't see to the east when we go to make a turn. We pulled it oUt of there and to that end if we were to locate the pool in another location, let's say behind the barn garage, I think it would necessitate moving the driveway into another location. If Mr. Morrison is to have guests it might even mean people parking on the street which would make it more difficult at the intersection of Pequash Avenue and I don't think we'd want to see another driveway, another access point just maybe another 100 or so feet east of Pequash. It's just to reconfirm what Mr. Morrison said after a lot of thought not only between himself and myself, but with the Building Department as well and that's how we came up with this location. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. McCarthy: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak? Yes Wa'am. Would you just state your name for the record please. MRS. SCHARADIN: My name is Margaret Scharadin. the east. I'm the neighbor on CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going to ask you to come up. here. just can't hear you we apologize. We MRS. SCHARADIN: I'm Margaret Scharadin. I'm the neighbor on the east, directly on'the east on the Main Road. I'm totally for it. I've seen the property for 40 years. It's a perfect place. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for coming down. Anybody else like to speak? Yes Ma'am. Ms. Doty, how are you tonight? MS. DOTY: Fine Mr. Goehringer. How are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, thank you~ MR. DOTY: I happen to live down Pequash Avenue which just so everybody knows on the survey it said, Fleets Neck Road, but everybody calls it .Pequash and I'm also the attorney for the Fleet Estate Property Owners Association, many of whom are here this evening plus there are some residents of Pequash also here. We're not opposed to the pool. We're just concerned about its location 29 Page 30 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals and particularly right next to a very busy and dangerous intersection° That's one of the primary roots in and out of Fleets Neck. One of two and that's the one that everybody uses, almost everybody uses. On a Saturday or a Sunday, it's worth your life getting out of there, particularly trying to take a left hand turn° Particularly in summer time. Many times as Ms. Collins probably remembers, there are four, five, six vehicles backed up there trying to get out° We have sanders across the way which we assume is not going to be busy when you're using your pool. We have a real estate office right across Pequash. That parking lot is very often full of cars, plus it's used as a pickup spot for people who are dropping off disabled adults, you know, the bus stops there and they get out and then right next to that there is an auto body shop which is probably located there because of the number of accidents that occur on Pequash. I was going to make a comment about ambulance chasing lawyers but I wont, and ambulance chasing body shops. They have a number of cars and trucks parked right there that cause vision problems for people getting out. Right down that side of Pequash, the eastern side of Pequash are overhead wires, electrical and telephone wires, one of which cuts diagonally across the back of the Morrison property° I don't know whether it's above the pool or not. But, we're concerned about that plus the telephone circuitry box is right there and there's at least once a week a telephone truck parked right by that box. What we're really concerned about is the health and safety of the people turning in and out of Pequash. We have a lot of people who take that turn way too fast° Young people, seniors and people in between~ We're concerned that they somehow will be distracted by noise or something like that in the pool and we'd like the Board to look. at a way that it might be possible to either move the pool into another location, perhaps behind the barn, away from Pequash which is just a, it's a dangerous, intersection and we're in and out of there. I'm in and.out of there six times a day. And, there is room on the eastern lot, that's actually .larger than the western lot. There's room in the back lot and we'd just like to get it away from butt up against Pequash basically is what we are asking for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora has a question for you. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the nexus between the pool and traffic and health and safety? MS. DOTY: Noise. It's people yelling, having fun in the pool, a beach ball flying out and people in and out, I'm serious, it happens. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm serious too. things in any yard regard - Aren't those normal usual MS. DOTY: No. 3O Page 31 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: They're not? People don't play in yards? Children don't play in yards? Children don't play in playgrounds? MS. DOTY: but you - Children do, children play in various other locations, MEMBER TORTORA: But it, I'm really having trouble jumping from bringing the nexus which you're asking, in other words, you're saying that this pool is somehow going to create noise and distraction. Therefore, they should move it. MS. DOTY: Well, people diving into the pool. People playing water polo in the pool for example, noises and yelling. Also the wires. I believe in Nassau County it couldn't be located so close to overhead wires. We had a telephone pole right across from Jeannie Kays about 2 years ago, top of which came off, the top 15 feet came off, dropped down. If it that had been over the pool, it would have dropped into the pool. Again, we don't have an objection to. the pool. We're concerned and we would like the Board to look at the possible ways to avoid the problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to say, that please don't take this in an inappropriate manner, OK. Some of your concerns are absolutely constructive. The penetration of hedges that I have alluded to when Mr. Morrison was here were basically heart attack victims, making turns or immediate heart attack victims. They were in the most unbelievable places that these cars ended up, OK, and I am in no way saying that that's going to happen here, all right? My concern is strictly health, safety and welfare and not necessarily noise. So, if Mr. Morrison was to garner my vote, he would only get it, OK, if he was to put some sort of device up so that if a car entered his bushes, it would not penetrate those bushes and end up in his swimming pool or killing a member of his family which in no way again in my, I'm not a superstitious person saying it's going to happen. I know Pequash Avenue. I have relatives on Pequash Avenue. I have to tell you that quite honestly I use Stillwater Ave. most of the time, particularly on a Saturday or a Sunday when I'm out on an inspection for the town and that is the absolute God's truth, all right? I don't know~ if everything you say that we can take it in perspective because I think some of it may be a little too much. But, in my opinion, but, I thank you for bringing it up because there are issues that are completely constructive in your presentation. Does anybody like to direct other questions to Ms. Doty before she sits down? George? ~ MEMBER HORNING: My question was similar to Lydia in respect I was in failing to make a direct connection between the placement of the pool and the rationale for not having it there based on some sort of increased congestion in an already busy intersection and I don't see that as an issue in this case myself. The iSsue for us, is the fact that the fellow has two front yards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well safety and weIfare. Page 32 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Right. Not that there's a busy intersection on the front yard that the pool is not going to be ono CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. MS. DOTY: Thank you. MR. HUNTINGTON: Chairman, may I - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ahead. Yes, can I go to Mr. Morrison first, Sir? Go MR. MORRISON: Just for your information, the depth of the pool is going to be 4-1/2 feet for the entire poole We're not having a deep end with diving boards or anything and as I indicated before, the front edge of the pool at the proposed site is, approximately 130 feet from that intersection of Pequash and Main Road~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a liner pool, right? MR. MORRISON: Yes Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. MORRISON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: record? Sir, would you kindly state your name for the MR. HUNTINGTON: I'm Ray Huntington and I just have, I'd like to ask a question and clarification and it goes a little bit beyond what Ms. Doty covered in terms of bricks in sand and that is an esthetic question because the hedge we're talking about you can't see through in the summer time and winter obviously easier. I wondered what Mr. Morrison planned in terms of esthetic treatment of the area and perhaps barriers for traffic as wello It might be incorporated. He mentions a fence which frankly I've seen a lot of fences I don't like. So, if we could find .out what treatments would be used there because this is the entrance to our community. There's an esthetic aspect to this. Everybody comes in and out passed this intersection. We're very happy that somebody has moved in and would undertake to take care of the place. But, still we don't want a carnival atmosphere at the entrance of Our community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Remember Mr. Huntington, he may or may not answer that question, so I don't know, OK? You're going to answer that question? MR. McCarthy: I'd like to answer that question just to respond to Ms. Doty's - 32 Page 33 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we also have another question in reference to a fence, so. MR. McCARTHY: What's anticipated is a 4 foot chain linked fence and if anyone had a question we're not allowed any obstructions at the corner. I believe it's according to New York State Law, Town Law, as a matter of fact, the Town Highway Department came at one point and cut the hedges down. I believe it was either 50 or 75 feet from the intersection in either direction to a, as nOt to block the vision of drivers coming out of Piquash Avenue. So, there's no intention of putting a fence in that location and I believe on the survey, the fence location came from somewhere along parallel, I'm sorry perpendicular to the side of the house to warp around to the pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I really hate speaking into a mike and I've been doing it all night because we had turned the air conditioner on but would you just check that mike and see if that's on .Tom, where not getting any pickup really and that's a shame. Thank yOU. ' MR. McCarthy: Additionally, on some of the other comments I don't think Mr. Morrison will be penalized or have a lesser bundle of rights because he's on a corner piece of property, be it a beach ball that goes out if he happens to have one on his property. If not, or someone else on his yard, I believe he ought to have the same bundle of rights to enjoy his property as anyone else in the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. MORRISON: May I say one thing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: up. Yes, one last thing and then we'll wrap it MR. MORRISON: I take great enjoyment and great pride in my new fountain, endeavors in gardening and as the Board Member indicated before, I have improved the aesthetics I believe of the property and I will continue to work on improving the aesthetics of the property. I don't think any of my neighbors have. to be concerned with the diminishment of the aesthetics of the property. Just to clarify of what Mr. McCarthy said, the intention of the fence of the barrier fence is going to be wood white picket with close pickets of 4" wide so one would not be able to look through the fence. The ~fence will be a perfect accompany of the property.· In fact, closely match the fence that is currently on the property in front of the wood deck between the barn and the house. It's not going to be chain linked. It's going to be white wood clapboard fence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:· Mr. Morrison, how many trees would have to come down if you placed that fence on the East side? 33 Page 34 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MRo MORRISON: The pool on the east side of the property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I meant the pool, pardon me, I"m sorry. MR. MORRISON: I believe that in one of the photos you see a giant tree. That would have to come down and I believe there's a tree next.to it that would also have to come downe CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: For clarification Mr. Chairman, didn't you say Sir, that your septic and well are on the east side of the house? MR. MORRISON: Yes they are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So they would have to be relocated? MR. MORRISON: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. OK, we thank everybody's courtesy. We thank Doty for representing the Fleets Neck Property Association and we will take this all to respective when making a decision. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORT~RA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 35 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 8:15 P.M. - Appt. No. 4702 - DAN & MADELINE ABBOTT This is a request for a Lot Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26 for a substandard vacant lot referred to as 355 Pine Place, East Marion, Map of Gardeners Bay Estates, N.Y., identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 37, Block 4, Lot 14. This request is based on an application for a Building Permit and the Building Department's February 11, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that Lots 14 and 15 in District 1000, Section 37, Block 4, have merged under Article II, Section 100- 25A, due to common ownership at any time since July 1, 1983. CTM Lot 15 is a house lot referred to as 435 Pine Place, East Marion, N.Y. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have two letters in the file that the Board is aware of. I have a copy of a survey indicating the house lot which is lot 144 and 143 or part of 143 and the nature of the application that is before us which is part of lot 143 and lot 142 which is lot 14 and the house being lot 15 on the Suffolk County Tax Map system and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard Sir? Just state your name for the record please. MR. BARNOSKY: Eugene R. Barnosky, attorney for the applicant, Dan Abbott and who is here before the Board this evening as well. The applicant, Dan Abbott purchased two legal building lots in Gardeners Bay Estates in 1953 and 1958. He purchased each building lot with his wife Madeline A. Abbott who passed away in 1998. The deeds from Gardeners Bay Estate were from Thornhill indicate quite clearly that these were separate building lots. Indeed there were deed restrictions each of the two tax lots before you that limited building on each of those two lots, to one single .family dwelling. Thus, in 1958, the Abbotts owned two perfectly legal building lots both under the Town Code and under the Plan of Development of Gardeners Bay Estates. By the expressed language of those deeds as I indicated, Gardeners Bay Company obviously contemplated that a dwelling would be erected on each of these two lots. At that time or anytime indeed until many years later when the town up zoned this neighborhood had the Abbotts by (A), built a house on the lot' before you, (B), conveyed it to someone else or (C), conveyed it to an entity or even one of them, controlled by them, I believe we would not be before you this evening. The lot is not an increase in density since it was always intended to remain a separate tax lot. A'waiver will not result in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood as shown on the County Tax Map and the Town Building Assessment P'arcel record. A waiver would recognize the exterior dimensions of a previously created lot line. The lots were created in 1927 by the filing of a subdivision map. I think most importantly to this Board and in reading your prior decisions, a waiver will recognize a lot that is consistent with the size of lots in the neighborhood. As set forth above, the deeds from Gardeners Estate Company itself, contemplated a dwelling on each of these 9,000 sq. ft. parcels. As will be demonstrated by our expert 35 Page 36 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals testimony which we will have in a moment, and the tax map which I've handed up to the Board, the Assessor's own records indicate that this proposal is more than consistent with the pattern of developments in the area. This is particularly true I believe with the installation of public water in this area which obviates many concerns with respect to cesspool and well water. As I indicated~ we have researched the Town Assessor's records, and in particular I've handed up to the Board, Section 37 on the Suffolk County Tax Map which is a modern version if you will of Section 2 of the Map of Gardeners Bay Estates filed in 1927 and just a cursory several hours of research, in the Assessor's office indicates~ that in this immediate vicinity, on this section of Gardeners Bay Estates alone, there are 52 lots, tax lots, of .29 acres or lesso Half of those~ well 25, not quite half, are on .21 acres or smaller° So, in the immediate vicinity you have 52 lots of similar size and 25 lots smaller than what we post. Of those 52 lots, 42 are already improved by single family dwellings and 10 including those before you this evening are vacant. So I think, this is a community that obviously has been built out. What we contemplate is totally consistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhoode Again, I'm turning over to my expert in a second but, in terms of criteria ordinance I believe that this would cause great economic hardship to Mr. Abbott who purchased this lot for a price in a legal building lot, including title and other documents indicating the deed stamps clearly indicate that this additional lot was purchased as a building lot with a price commensurate with a building lot. In fact, the price for the second lot in 1958 was 15 / 20% more than the price he paid in 1953 that obviously both were purchased as building lots. I think, in reviewing the legislative history of this merger and if you will waiver ordinance this is precisely the type of situation that this was meant to address and to give relief for homeowners who are wittingly at their property upzoned over the years, they were not aware at the time, they purchased in good faith as husband and wife lived, paid taxes~ paid separate tax bills on each of these lots for 30~ 40 years~ more than 40 years, and now are before you for this relief on this recent local law. Finally, before I turn it over for our experts my review of your previous decisions which I obtained all of them~ under freedom of information law of 1995 to date~ Statistics can be skewed in any way, but obviously the majority of these have been granted, more than a vast majority and I think under circumstances much less compelling than this. I think the criteria which this board has enunciated in those decisions we hit squarely at each and every one. With that I'd like to call Mr. Paul Heffernan to give some testimony to the Board if that's permissible. Thank you Mrs Chairman. Chairman: Are you going to ask him questions? Mr. Barnosky: Whatever style you like. Page 37 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals Chairman: That's fine. I just have to swear him in. You solemnly swear the information you're about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Mr. Heffernan: To my knowledge. Chairman: Mr. Barnosky: Mr. Heffernan: Mr. Barnosky: Mr. Heffernan: Thank you. Mr. Heffernan, what is your profession? Real estate broker. And where is your office? The north road in Southold. Mr. Barnosky: And for how long have you been a licensed real estate broker in the town of Southold? Mr. Heffernan: Mr. Barnosky: business? Mr. Heffernan: For 21 years. How long have you been involved in the real estate 25 years. Mr. Barnosky: Are you familiar with the premises owned by Mr. Dan Abbott on Pine Place Gardeners Bay Estates? Mr. Heffernan: Yes. Mr. Barnosky: And in fact were you asked to market these premises. Mr. Heffernan: Yes I was. When were you asked by Mr. Abbott to market these Mr. Barnosky: premises? Mr. Heffernan: Mr. Barnosky: consist of? Back in November. Could you describe briefly what these premises Mr. Heffernan: There's a house on one lot, lot 15, and a vacant lot on lot 14 Garden Spring Pond. Mr. Barnosky: Are you familiar with residential sales in the town of Southold, in particular, in East Marion and Gardeners Bay Estates? Mr. Heffernan: Yes I am. 37 Page 38 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals Mr. Barnosky: Were you engaged to market these premises we're asking for? Mr. Heffernan: Yes I was. Mr. Barnosky: How did you advise Mr. Abbott on the appropriate listing price? Mr. Heffernan: We put a price on of $495 for the house and the separate building lot. Mr. Barnosky: And the separate building lot? Mr. Heffernan: Yes. Mr. Barnosky: Were the premises then marketed as a separate lot? Mr. Heffernan: Well, we thought they were going to be, but then we learned that they had~merged. Mr. Barnosky: Had you done any research in the town prior to marketing the premises as to their status? Mr. Heffernan: Yes Mr. Barnosky: What was your conclusion? Mr. Heffernan: The building lot was a separate tax bill, paid taxes on, the lot lines are there. Mr. Barnosky: So initially you were prepared to market the premises based on the initial research of the town and your knowledge of the area as a 1 lot containing a house, and the other lot being an illegal vacant building lot. Is that correct? And did there come a time that you did not market them in that fashion? Mr. Heffernan: When we found out that the lots were merged. Mr. Barnosky: How did you find that out? Mr. Heffernan: We did some research. Mr. Barnosky: Mr. Heffernan if tax lot 14 is not granted this relief, and premises cannot be marketed tax lot 14 be a legal building lot, would the value of your overall sale be diminished? What value do you think the overall sales price of the entire package would be reduced if the waivers aren't granted? Mr. Heffernan: At least 100,000. Mr. Barnosky: Mr. Heffernan, I handed, up to the Chairman, a tax map section 37 which is in my view a modern recreation of Section 2 of Gardeners Bay Estates, I asked you to look at that. I want to 38 Page 39 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals ask you, do you think that the marketing of 9,200 sq. ft. vacant lot for a single family home purposes of this neighborhood is consistent with the sales of the neighbor~ Mr. Heffernan: Definitely. Mr. Barnosky: Do you think that the grant of this waiver, and ultimately the erection possibly of a single, family home on tax lot 14 would diminish the value of the adjoining premises. Mr. Heffernan: development. No. Especially now since we have city water in the Mr. Barnosky: I have nothing further. Chairman: Anyone have any question, the board either for the attorney for the applicant, or the expert witness who's a real estate broker? Mrs. Tortora. Mrs. Tortora: On the map that'you handed up - Chairman: Who's the question to? Mrs. Tortora: The attorney. On the map that you handed up you indicated improved lots and un-improved lots. The lots that you have not outlined are what? Mr. Barnosky: Well, the methodology of this research was we went to the Assessors Office to try to ascertain comparably sized lots in the immediate vicinity. Therefore we looked for lots on the Assessors computer that contain-.3 acres or less, so that's where we defined our research. So, all the lots of either color are .29 acres or less. I then also conferred with Ms. Kowalski prior to the application and she indicated that the board might be interested in how many had been developed and how many not been developed, so I segregated the blue are those improved by single family dwelling and I think the number I cited is 42 of the 52 lots less that .29 acres are already approved for single family dwelling and 10 including tax lot 14 before you this evening are unimproved. Mrs. Tortora: Do you have any way of knowing how many of these lots that are improved may or may not be merged with an adjoining lot? Mr. Barnosky: I do not have that information at my fingertips, I gues~ what one would have to do - Chairman: Could you get that information? Mrs. Tortora: What I'm getting at very simply is because I've gone this route before, one of the most difficult things about looking at these maps, is that when you point out a lot that's improved and then a lot that's unimproved, and you look at a segment of a Page 40 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals community unless you know which lots that are improved are single and separate and not merged with the adjoining lot, then how do you come to your statistics? Mr. Barnosky: Well in our aPplication, we had to submit a single and separate search from a title company which I was complaining because it was $250. We did not embark upon that for all 52 other lots. Mrs. Tortora: Not surprisingly. Mr. Barnosky: So I don't know the answer to your question. Could one, I'm trying to answer hypothetically, you could check the access's records on each of these lots, I'd be happy to do that, on each of the lots I've cited to you to see if there's adjoining lot. Would that be helpful to you? Mrs. Tortora: It's very difficult, we've tried to do it on our own, and in some cases when there are old subdivisions with old subdivision's lines, it is difficult to make broad generalities, how many lots are merged and what size. Mr. Barnosky: In my reading of the legislative history of this merger law, I'm a village attorney for 2 Suffolk County villages I shared with your town attorney the nightmare of both the merger and single and separate doctorate which is often a very tangled web indeed. Chairman: You could in fact list though, the names of all the people you have indicated in blue, and if they were merged with any other parcels that were contiguous. Mr. Barnosky: I'd be happy to go back to the Assessor's office and take all the blue ones and see if there's adjacent parcel with common ownership. Chairman: What do you want him to do on the green ones? Mrs. Tortora: It's very difficult you know as well as I do. Mr. Barnosky: Do you want me to go back to the Assessor's Office and on either improved or unimproved supply you with the name of the owner of any adjacent lot and then advise you as to whether any possible merger occurred. Mrs. Tortora: Anything that you could do to support contention that the lots are in fact similar in size. your Mr. Barnosky: My contention, though, goes through the criteria of your ordinance. I don't have it in front of me, but I've been reading your required decisions legislative issues, local law, and the statuette itself, is seems that one of the most important criteria which this board waives is the consistency of the proposed 40 Page 41 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals lot with the surrounding area. My point is regardless of how some of these were created and the history, both I and our expert have indicated to you that this proposed lot is consistent and would not have a detrimental impact upon property values in the area. This is a 1/4 race community. There's a few larger including our next door neighbor, but generally speaking this lot - there's many lots - I was walking around here a few hours ago on much smaller lots than what is proposed and much more difficult sites. Chairman: So you'll extrapolate that data for us? Mr. Barnosky: I'd be happy to. Chairman: Any other questions of the attorney or the real estate broker? Yes, George? Mr. Horning: He will tell us exactly what's going on with the property immediately to the west? Lydia kind of referenced it too - Mr. Barnosky: Tax lot 137 Mr. Horning: Yes. Mr. Barnosky: Tax lot 13 I believe is owned by Mr. Wortz. Mr. Wortz is an attorney and will need to speak for himself, but I believe it's a one single lot approved for a single family dwelling. Chairman: It's one lot. Mr. Barnosky: Right. Ms. Collins: The letter Mr. Barnosky that you prepared in the nature of making the case for the waiver, you touch very briefly on the question of topography on one of the criteria for waiver, one of the things that is supposed to be found in order to waive, is granting the waiver thereby creating a buildable lot will not result in - I can't remember the language - I can look it up, but it will not result in regrading filling of any substantial degree. I am assuredly not an engineer, but that lot looked pretty bumpy and wavy and uneven to me. I'd just like to get the applicants thinking on this. Mr. Barnosky: I was walking the property earlier this evening, I believe with the setbacks required under the local law that there is level building envelope more that 75 ft.~ back from the water further set back from the water than the present dwelling which will accommodate a small cape or ranch type dwelling to go lengthwise, in other words, the house would have to go similar to the existing house, if you look at the merger map, it would have to be something similar to that, and again participating perhaps some of Mr. Wortz's comments, we'd be certainly happy to set back enough so as not to impair in any way his views of the water. P~ge 42 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals Mrs. Collins: I just wanted to get your thinking into the record. Mr. Barnosky: Yes. There is some bumpiness there, and the other thing I just want to address, I received a letter from the chairman from which I responded on the issue of the elevations and wetlands when we filed this application you revised we should designate the extent of any wetlands we advise that the trustees of the town would perform this function for use I contacted the town trustees~ they indicated that they no longer performed this function, they suggested that we go to the DEC~ I went to the DEC~ they suggested that they no longer perform this function. Our surveyor does not either. Apparently there are subcontractors who, for an additional fee, can do this. The other piece of information I just want to give the board - do you have the merger map in front of you - do you have that document in front of you - can I just direct your attention to wood steps of the slope? The wood steps conslst of i0 steps each with an 8 inch rise so the distance from the top of the slope to the bottom of the slope at that point of the property is at least 6' 8" Board Secretary Kowalski: You mean, 'elevation isl' Mr. Barnosky: Correct. Chairman: OK, thank you. I just want to mention to the community of Gardeners Bay Estates that this is not a final hearing~ we are not trying to restrict you, but we do want to move along° I will at this time ask if anyone would like to speak in favor - anybody against? Sir? State your name for the record please. Mr. Wortz: My name is David Wortz and I'm the neighbor to the left~ I also bought my property from Ken Thornhill. Basically, Dan's a good neighbor, he's been a good neighbor of mine since I moved in, so I hate coming down here. But basically what he wants to do is put a house in-between mine and his, and if you've seen this property, I know there's no building envelope in any of the maps that I've seen. I came down this afternoon to see what the building envelope would be. If you go down 75' from the wetland grasses which are above where the water goes, it takes you more than halfway to the road, if you go 15 fto in, which I think you have to be 15 ft. off the road going north, I can't picture what this building envelope is going to be. There's no place for this house to go, and it also slopes, it's not just bumpy~ it slopes down from Dan's house about 15 or 20 degrees. Other than it being on stilts, or it would be dug, it's hard for me to imagine where this envelope is going to be. I'm a lawyer, but I~m not a real estate lawyer, and I can't figure out how to make any kind of building envelope fit in this space. So that's released in No. I think the letter that was sent to the Abbott's said '~I want to see the building envelope" and I don't think I have yet. I donut see how it can fit. The other thing is, I was concerned about this actually, this is a dead end. When I bought my house, because I 42 Page 43 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals plan to have a family, couple of kids, and the road goes down the middle of my property, there were 3 houses, Mary Seamen's and Dan's, it's pretty quiet. Now Tommy sold the property across the street from him there and I actually asked my broker when I bought the house, what's going to happen because there's also a piece of property right on the bay that's sort of in my front yard. He said, well that's going tough because there a whole wetlands issue, that would probably not sell, and that's turned out to be true, it's been a tough piece of property to sell, and he's been trying to sell it. He told me not to worry about this sort of tree slope which I had next to my house because it had merged, so I didn't. I guess as to the promises about what would happen on the property on the bay there was no guarantee, but here there was at least under the law at the time. In terms of No. 10 it says, of the submission from the Abbott's lawyers, there would be no economic impact on me, and I don't have an expert or an appraiser, but you just have to go there, frankly, to see that it will. If I sit in a chair in my yard, right now, I look at trees, instead I'm going to have a bungalow or a-frame right there in this little piece of property. There's no question, common sense will tell you that it's going to have an impact on my property value. Lastly, the homeowners have expressed some concern, and I don't have the data either, or even know how t° get it, but there's a letter from Frank Thorp or Roger Wengett concerned about if you grant this one, because we're pretty crowded in there, particularly on this dead end~ if you grant this one of course then how do you distinguish this one from the others that would have to be unmerged. I hope all of that is relevant to your considerations. Thank you. Chairman: Thank you. Could I just ask Mr. Barnosky, if you could indicate on the survey also where the high water mark is for the next hearing, or approximately, ask the surveyor to put it on. Mr. Barnosky: Again, Mr. Chairman we got that request so late in the game, if you insist upon it, yes - Chairman: Just ask him to write a line in it where he estimates the high water mark. That's all. Mr. Barnosky: The line will cost us a couple hundred dollars, but we'd be happy to do it for you. Chairman: At this juncture, yes sir, we're going to ask you to move this along so we ask you to be as quickly as possible. Mr. Frank Philip: I'm Frank Philip, I represent the Gardeners Bay Co. the original land developers, you're in receipt of my letter, my objections, my reason of objections, I just want to reiterate that this was treated by the company to Mr. Abbott as 1 piece of land billed as beach dues for 1, and subsequently by the Gardeners Bay Assoc. as 1 piece of land. If there's any question on the map, I have the map from 1927 I could show which pieces were or were not Page 44 - Hearing Trsnscripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appesls merged together. The letter indicates the change in philosophy of the company from 1927 to the 1950's. Chairman: Why don't you submit that map to us at the next hearing so we can compare it to the map that the attorney's going to submit, so that when we make the decision - Mr. Philip: It's a county map filed with the county in 1927. Chairman: Can you lend us that map at the next hearing? Mr. Philip: I have it right here, if you'd like me to submit it? Chairman: Just verify that it's the map and then we'll go from there. OK, if that,s all right with you Mr. Philip? Mr. Philip: That's OK. Chairman: Sir we're ready for you. Thank you. You just didn't see Mr. Philip raise his hand before you that's why. Mr. Arnold Blair: My name is Arnold Blair, I'm a property owner to the west of the Abbott property. The bay front property that Mr. Wortz referred to, and unfortunately, Mr. Wortz, even though you had hoped the property would not be developed, permits have been in place for more than 10 years on the property, so it is a buildable property. I would like to oppose this current application, Mr. Abbott. I would like to point out, for the board to consider, granting a exception to allow the 9,000 ft. lot to be developed, to me it goes against the spirit of everything that this town has done in the past number of years since the upzone to prevent this type of overcrowding. I'd like to point out that the lot that I own is over 2 acres. That's 250 feet of bay front property. I bought the lot in late 1980s and at the time I wanted to buy the lot, there was a gentleman prior to me who was under the contract to buy the lot and decided not to go forward with ito But, while he was under contract, he applied to the DEC for permission to subdivide the lot into two separate lots. The intention was for he and his brother or relative to build two bay front houses. When he decided not to buy the lot, I entered into contract with the hope that the application that he had made to the DEC was granted and in fact, it was subsequently granted after I enclosed on the lot~ We then applied to the town to then subdivide the lot into two and the town turned us down. We appealed to this very Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the ZBA turned us down. Now mind you we would have created~two lots, each of over an acre, each with 120 feet of bay front and we were turned down because this was going two small a lot for this community. We made the same arguments that Mr. Abbott is making. Oh, well this is a community of small quarter acre, half acre parcels, but, we were turned down, mind you those two acre lots with a 120 feet of bay front. I would take great exception to the Board granting such an exception to Mr~ Abbot when I have been turned down by this Board for building 44 Page 45 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals parcels four times the size of this. So, I just want to bring this to the Board's attention in terms, of the issue of Mr. Abbott not being aware that his lots have merged I say, hog wash, At the time there was plenty of publicity for all people who had homes, vacant lots, plenty of articles in the newspaPer. Mr. Abbott has been a resident of this area since the 1950s. No one could not have known the lots have merged and as pointed out by Mr. Thorpe, he has been paying taxes as one lot. So, I just don't think that the Board should be swayed by that argument. As far as no economic impact on neighboring properties, well, Mr. Wortz has pointed out that there is going to be an economic impact to his property and I would say the same, there's going to be impact on my property. You start granting additional lots on quarter acre parcels, it's absurd. The fact that this community Gardeners Bay was developed originally as four acre lots was the norm at the time, that the town has seemed fit to go to two acre zoning. There are certain legitimate exceptions to be made, to grant variances. I really don't think~ that this is one of those certain circumstances that warrant cramming another water front house on a four acre lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Blair. Yes, Mr. Barnosky? MR. BARNOSKY: First, just very quickly on three points that were made. First of all I don't know the names of the gentleman's application, but, it sounds like it was a subdivision. This~is not a subdivision. This is a specific ordinance dealing with lots legally created, were perfectly legal until the upzoning and involved a waiver of merger, totally different legal standard before the.Board with a specific ordinance. secondly, in terms of publicity, I assume you're referring to 1995 local law which there was considerable publicity. That publicity only stated those who were fortunate enough to be in the exempt Grandfather map. Those that had already been upzoned into a section to a Garden Bays Estates had no notice of that, had no opportunity to checkerboard to put one lot into the wife's name or with some other entity. This was a done deal whenever the town upzoned it and I doubt very much when the town upzoned this in I think the 70s or 80s, they gave as much notice. Certainly, I know for a fact, that Mr. Abbott was not aware of that. So, I just think that's not a completely sound argument and finally, this business about the beach rights, is really, I hate to say it, is a frivolous argument. The deeds from Gardiners Bay Company, clearly indicated, that these were both building lots. The fact that Gardiners Bay Company, in its wisdom, chose not to impose an additional $5 a year beach charge for Mr. Abbott's vacant building lot, was entirely their choice. If ~ ~Gardiners Bay Company wishes to recoup its $5 for the vacant lot for the past 30 years, we'll be happy to pay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Mr. Blair, quickly because~we're going to wrap this up, OK. MR. BLAIR: He addressed some of my comments. I'd like to reply. I'm not talking about anything in 1995. I've been a resident oUt Page 46 - Hearing'Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals here for many years and back in the 1980s there were numerous, numerous articles and notices in the newspaper that there was a deadline by which time you could put your lots in separate name of ownership if you wanted to. The fact that Mr. Abbott chose to ignore that at that time, is his fault. There was just lots and lots of publicity about it at that time and many people took advantage of it and many people ignored and anyway he had to know, thanks. MR. BARNOSKY: I would just like to say, that Mr. Thorpe agrees that this was 1927 Map of Gardiners Bay Estates. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll submit that too with the other, or do you want to submit it now? MRo BARNOSKY: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Barnoskyo Thank you. Yes, we have one question of you, MEMBER TORTORA: and 157 Could you tell me how much you paid for lot 14 MR. BARNOSKY: Excuse me. MEMBER TORTORA: The original purchase price of lot 14 and lot 157 MR. BARNOSKY: According to the IRS stamps on the Deed, they were $3500, $4,000 respectively° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we're going to ask some indulgence at this point since this hearing will continue° We are about 1 hour and 15 minutes down on the calendar and I apologize for this~ but, we're going to ask to recess this hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting at this pointo (People yelling, one more, just one more, please, please.) OK, 5 minutes~ let's go. One more question, one more statement, is that what? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: recessed. We'll have more cases, just this case is CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just this case is recessed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You misunderstood me, I'm sorry. Hearing no further comment and we appreciate it both from the applicant and from Gardiners Bay that we recess this to the next regularly. scheduled meeting which is July 22, 1999. Hearing no further comment, I'll make that motion. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We need a second on that motion, please. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Page 47 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 8:48 P.M. - Appl. No. 4707 - NANCY WELLIN. This is a request for a Lot Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26 for a vacant corner lot, substandard in size, which is referred to as 1145 Grand Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y., Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 107, Block 8, Lot 37. This request is based on an application for a Building Permit and the Building Department's April 29, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that Lots 32 and 37 in District 1000, Section 107, Block 8, have merged under ~Article II, Section 100-25A, due to common ownership at any time after July 1, 1983. CTM Lot 32 is a vacant corner lot, also substandard in size, referred to as 200 Brower Road, Mattituck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tonight Sir? Who would like to appear. How are you MR. MOONEY: Good evening. Can I hand it up? I have some information for the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MR. MOONEY: Eight or ten receipts. I have the original deed which merged these two lots. I have the deeds to the predecessor in title my client's mother in 1954 and 1952. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. MR. MOONEY: I have a lot waiver questionnaire. I have the current deeds to these two parcelS and I have a survey of lot 32, which shows a proposed dwelling, but there is nothing on it at present time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: for the record. Thank you, OK, would you just state your name MR. MOONEY: My name is Daniel Mooney. I'm an attorney. My office is at 11700 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y., and I represent the applicant, Nancy Wellin. My client inherited these two lots from her mother, who died approximately 1 year ago and at the time she inherited it them, she was under the impression it was more or less that it was single and separate lots and she had tried to sell them. Unfortunately, when the respective purchase was concluded, finally they were told that the lots had merged. If you are familiar with the area at all, you'll notice that all of the lots which are located on Mayflower Road where the small lot is located on the corner of Mayflower and Brower, all of the lots on that street are approximately the same size as the lot 32, which is approximately 18,000 sq. ft. All of the lots on that block have been developed into very nice neighborhood with houses appropriate for the lot size. With respect to the lots on a, lot 37 is located on the corner of~Brower and~ Wickham Grand Avenue. That lot also has been developed as well. There is one large lot to the north of this lot which has a house on it and across the street there are two lots across Brower to the south, there are two lots. Lot 34 47 Page 48 - Hearing Transcripts June 24; 1999 -Board of Appeals appears not to be developed. Lot 33, on the south side of Brower has been developed and there is a home on it. So that, by the Board granting a waiver to my client it would have no adverse impact on this neighborhood. The property is level, certainly there is a large enough area to put two building envelopes on these two lots and they would conform with the rest of the neighborhood. My client at the time, my client is an older lady who does not work. She was dependent upon the sale of these properties and other properties which we inherited in order to retire and at present is living in Florida and would like to be able to sell both of these lots in order to generate sufficient income for her old age. To do otherwise would create a hardship. The property has been in the family for many years. Her parents lived across the street on Grand Avenue and had a house off the creek and those are the reasons we would request that .the Board grant a waiver with respect to the lot size. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: any questions? While you're there Mr. Mooney, Mr. Horning MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora, any questions? MEMBER TORTORA: No I don't have any questionso CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to make sure I heard correctly what you said. The parents of your client, that's Mary Anna Smith and her husband lived in the immediate neighborhood? MR. MOONEY: They lived right across the street on the creek across Grand Avenue. MEMBER COLLINS:' investment? So they bought these two lots I presume as an MR. MOONEY: Yes at different times. In 1952 and 1954o MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, we have the, we have I guess some of the deeds. I think maybe you gave us one tonight that we didn't have~ So, they bought them, both of them were bought in Mrs. Smith's name and they stayed that way forever and ever? MR. MOONEY: That's correct. I don't know whether at the time they bought them for an investment or for their daughter. I just don't know that. MEMBER COLLINS: Well they. a long term, clearly. MR. MOONEY: For a long term they Page 49 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: And they just never paid attention to the title issue. MR. MOONEY: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. MR. MOONEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Mooney. Yes Ma'am, you'd like a clarification? MS. REITER: Yes I would. I was quite friendly with Mrs. Mary Anna Smith. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to state your name for the record. MS. REITER: It's Barbara Reiter and I live at 165 West View Drive, which also runs to Brower Road and I believe the property in question is bounded by Brower Road and Grand Avenue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And Mayflower. MS. REITER: It's that whole strip of - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a whole corner. MEMBER TORTORA: It's that L shape. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, three roads. MS. REITER: The reason why Mrs. Smith bought that was because she didn't want that property developed. She wanted it as would be with the lot next to me which is eight tenths of an acre and I think there might be some problem because depending upon what kind of structure somebody wanted to build on that land. Grand Avenue is a very busy street. Brower Road is very busy. If they had ingress and egress on Mayflower I don't think it would create a problem but I think with Brower and Grand Avenue you've got a hazardous situation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes Sir? State your name for the record please. MR. REEVES: My name is Richard Reeves and I am the proposed home owner of the house for the Building Permit that was denied at Lot 37, which is the lot at the corner of Grand and Brower. I would like to respond and say that we were planning on having the egress on the property on Mayflower as on Brower as opposed to Grand we. would agree that Grand is quite a busy road but I would tend to disagree with the traffic on Brower in that particular case. My wife and I are planning to move out here. We have some money invested in the property in the form of plans for the structure 49. Page 50 - Hearih~ Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals itself. Permits have been issued to the county, by the county, DEC I guess it is, Health Department, we a, since this process was involved, we had put up our other house for sale, had subsequently found a purchaser and went into contracted and subsequently we closed on that property. The fact that this has been held up first by the county and now by unforeseen circumstances series of what's proving to be quite a economic and .personal hardship on my wife and my family. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How far down would you say that's at least it's close to about 90 feet I would say the driveway is going to be from Grand Avenue, is that correct? MR. REEVES: Yes, the house is set back. MR. BOB REEVES: The house is back 50 feet and the driveway is - MR. REEVES: To the rear. MR. BOB REEVES: Like 25 feet from behind that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I'm just looking at the survey right now. I just need that gentleman's name~ Is that your father? MR. REEVES: Yes. MR. BOB REEVES: My name is Bob Reeves. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. BOB REEVES: I recently built a house around the corner from this property on the corner of Mayflower and West View Drive and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want to keep the family in the area? MR.BOB REEVES: Exactly and I was talking to most of the neighborso Unfortunately not Ms. Reiter, but, all of the neighbors I mentioned this to had a positive outlook for it and were quite pleased. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? MEMBER COLLINS: Could I ask Mr. Mooney a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: Both of the lots have under contract signs on them. Is that the case? MR. MOONEY: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: The smaller lot? 5O Page 51 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of A~peals MR. MOONEY: Both of the lots are under contract, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? For everybody's benefit again, because of the lateness of the hour I doubt seriously we'll be answering. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 52 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 9:05 P.M. - Appl. No. 4704 - JAMES HUNTER. This-is a request for a Variance to locate, an inground swimming pool in an area other than the required rear yard. This application is based upon an application for a Building Permit and the Building Department's. April 22, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which cites Article III, Section 100-33. Location of Property: 11227 Soundview Avenue, Southold, N.Yi, Parcel 1000-54-6-2.6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: James Hunter, is he present? How do you do Sir? Come up and use the mike if you would. How are you? What would you like to tell us Mr. Hunter? MR. HUNTER: Well basically what it is, is we hired a contractor from up west and at the time he assured us that permits were part of the deal and here we are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It seems we've been there before Sir. Weren't you the same gentleman we granted a garage a little while ago? MR. HUNTER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: It looks very nice. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It looks very nice. MR. HUNTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Actually your entire piece of property is magnificent. We'll start with Ms. Collins. Any questions of Mr. Hunter? MEMBER COLLINS: I wanted to follow up on what you just said because in the paper that constitutes your application, there"s only a very passing reference to what I think your point is, that a when the Building Permit was applied for, apparently it was denied but the contractor went ahead and put the pool in. I mean is that what happened? MR. HUNTER: That's exactly what happened. What was going on, I had a contractor building a garage, a detached garage on or about that time and I had to have a variance. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, yes we remember your garage. MR. HUNTER: So, I think he was denied, the pool company was denied the permit because of the variance going on at that time, I think. MEMBER COLLINS: I think the reason doesn't seem to be spelled out very well. I'm trying to get this in the record so we'll know what we're looking at. I believe the reason that the pool was denied a Building Permit, it' states, that it is required to be in the rear yard and it is not in the rear yard. As I read the survey and the 52 Page 53 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals way your property looks, I believe it's because the deck is connected to the house. The deck extends in effect the rear wall of the house and the pool is slightly ahead, part' of the pool is slightly forward, of the deck. It's not entirely behind the deck and that puts it I believe ahead of the rear property line. The denial doesn't spell it out but, that's how I read the problem. MR. HUNTER: So it's because it's in the wrong spot. MEMBER COLLINS: It's in the wrong spot by - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: In part, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: In part by, I didn't try to figure out by how many feet, but, I want to make sure that the Board is in agreement on what the problem is. MEMBER TORTORA: is wrong. In other words, half of it's right and half of it MR. HUNTER: So that's why he was denied the permit? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. I would say - MEMBER TORTORA: We think, we're guessing. MEMBER COLLINS: In terms of time Sir, I remember your garage very well because I had just come on the Board and we gave you the variance for the garage in January of 1998 and the application and then I think you got going on building it that spring. MR. HUNTER: That's right. MEMBER COLLINS: The.application for the Building Permit for the pool went in I think in April of 1998 and sometime in there it was denied and I guess then last summer or last fall your contractor put it in. Is that the time line from your perception? MR. HUNTER: Yes basically. MEMBER COLLINS: So the denial did not have anything to do with your garage. It has to do with the fact that the pool is not totally behind the rear line 'of the house because although it's behind the rear line of the house itself, that rear line is legally extended by the fact, that you.have a deck that goes out that is attached to the house. That's the issue. I personally don't think it's a big issue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You owe us four green cards. MR. HUNTER: You know I got back two of them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have them? Page 54 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MR. HUNTER: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you go home and get them? · MR. HUNTER: There at my office in Riverhead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You've got to bring them to us tomorrow~ Very important, OK. MR. HUNTER: OK. I did all that I was suppose to do, get return receipt requested. They may be there. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: This is part of the requirement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is part of the requirement. MR. HUNTER: Oh, I don't think I'll have a problem. CHAIg. MAN GOEHRINGER: We've got to have them. MR. HUNTER: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, so you're going to bring them into us tomorrow? MR. HUNTER: Bring them right here? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To our office. MR. HUNTER: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK? All right. The ladies are very, very, explicit abut this Mr. Hunter, I"m not kidding around. OK, thank you. Oh, wait we're not done with the hearing so we"ll see if anybody objects to your pool. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody else would like to speak against the application, OK. Seeing no hands I~ll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later,~ pending of course, Mr. Hunter's green cards° MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 55 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 9:09 P.M. - Appl. No. 4705 - RAYMOND MITCHELL. This is a request for a Variance to locate addition/alteration to the existing Single family dwelling with an insufficient front yard setback. This request is based upon an application for a Building Permit, and the Building Inspector's January 5,1999 Notice of Disapproval which cites Article XXIV, Section 100-244. Location of Property: 1875 Hiawathas Path, Southold, N.Y., Parcel 1000-78-3-60. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: like to tell us? Good evening Mr. Mitchell. What would you MR. MITCHELL: Basically what we're looking for is an easement on a front porch of our house I have some snapshots here of the house, it'll help. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, yes, that's the house I looked at. MR. MITCHELL: And basically, if you look at the shrubs in the front, the shrubs are 6 feet from the house. So, we're looking for the porch itself will be 8 feet from the house. So, I've got an addition of 2 feet added on to that. In our drawings we have, we' planned on relocating the sidewalk. So the sidewalk itself will now be towards the driveway. So any possibilities of cars blocking traffic or anything else like. that would tend to push people more to parking in the driveway than in front of the house. So we feel that there wouldn't be any problems with the neighbors. We've spoken to the neighbors, they like the idea and look forward to it. They look forward to the idea the house itself being upgraded. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, how far I didn't see any monuments in your front yard. Of course you're, you're - MR. MITCHELL: I think there buried behind trees. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know it indicates a 50 foot road, OK. road of course is not 50 feet. The MR. MITCHELL: No it's not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's probably 28 feet wide. MR. MITCHELL: That was just brOught to my attention. It was in fact an additional 12 feet of grass. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, because this is a substantial reduction in reference to what you're~requesting. MR. MITCHELL: Yes it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want to give us, would you put back for us the approximate placement of the monuments by either putting stakes in front of them so that I can get a better visual effect between now and next week? 55 Page 56 - Hearing Transcripts June 24f 1999 -Board of Appeals MR. MITCHELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I will go back and re-inspect this, OK. I had big time problems and I'm trying to understand exactly where the property line started and stopped at that point. MR. MITCHELL: Yeah, I believe the monuments in line. I did walk it one time and if you look at the lower steps on the sidewalk? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. MITCHELL: That's pretty much where the property line is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. MITCHELL: If you were to line up from monument to monument, that step is pretty much right on the property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you also measure from the center line of the road, 25 feet into your property and indicate that on it. MR. MITCHELL: From the center line of the road? OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Assuming the road is in the center. But that also. I don't mean that sarcastically. MR. MITCHELL: If I might also - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That will give you a good indication approximately where the property line start and stop. MR. MITCHELL: If I might also say, to the road itself, how do you want to There's a secondary road. Very little traffic comes down that road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll questiOns of Mr. Mitchell? MEMBER HORNING: Nothing. Mrs. Tortora? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? start with Mr. Horning, any MEMBER COLLINS: You probably don't know the answer but I'll ask it anyway. Do you have any idea how come it is that your house is really significant closer to the pave street than the others on your side of Hiawathas Path? MR. MITCHELL: I have no idea. I purchased the house 5 years ago. Page 57 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: OK, it's that's recent, obviously you don't know. MR. MITCHELL: Yeah, it is a concrete block house and if I could just pick it up and move it back I would, but, that would be impossible without bulldozing it down. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing, we thank you and you'll do that for us. I'll re-inspect and we'll deal with it next week. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes Sir. State your name for the record, please. MR. BRUMSFIELD: Peter Brumsfield, 1780 Hiawathas Path, across the street from Ray. Front porch is one of the reasons that I moved to Southold, so this is no big deal. If you're looking at the survey here, it looks like once the porch is beyond, your 23 to the road, I measured it, you have 35 feet from where the house is now to the road itself. So, you're still going to have 27 feet from the porch to the road which is still a lot. And, the reason the house is so close to the road was because Aunt Josie and Uncle Bob who built the house, were from Brooklyn and they wanted it as close to the road as they could. That was.the reason. MEMBER COLLINS: Well. MEMBERHORNING: MR. BRUMSFIELD: Sir, when you say to the road - 35 feet from the house to where the road is now. MEMBER HORNING: MR. BRUMSFIELD: To the pavement? To the pavement is what it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not the property line? MR. BRUMSFIELD: That's not the property line. The property line is listed on the' survey, but, it looks like it's very close there which it really won't be. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I know, that's the reason why it's - MR. BRUMSFIELD: Put the porch right on to the road, it'll still be 27 feet and'the lot itself is an oversized lot so it's not like, I know it's close to the road, but, it's, with the whole side of the lot, it's larger than most of the lots in that community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. BRUMSFIE~D: OK? Page 58 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. BRUMSFIELD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? I just want to ask you Mr. Mitchell~ you can answer me from your seat there. Assuming that the Board had an interest in granting this, you don't object to a restriction that the porch remain open? MR. MITCHELL: Not at all. As a matter of fact, that's what we were planning on doing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. MITCHELL: It will be an open porch. We don"t plan on closing it. MEMBER COLLINS: Excuse me Mr. Chairman, I think we want to be clear on this. As I understand the drawings, it's a roof porch, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: When you say open, you mean no - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean that part of the living area of the house. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, OK, I just wanted to - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not open to the sky. MR. MITCHELL: Right, out to the sides. It won't be heated, it won't be enclosed. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm a fuss breaker. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you° MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment, I~ll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER ~TORTORA: Seconde CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor~ Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 59 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 9:15 P.M. - Appl. No. 4706 - RICHARD BRIGGMANN. This is a request for a Variance for approval of "as built" foundation dated April 1,1999, under Building Permit #25602-Z which is located with a rear yard setback at less than the code requirement of 50 ft. This request is based upon inspections under Building Permit No. 25602- Z and the Building Department' s April 27, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which cites Article III, Section 100-30A.3. Location of Property,272 Breakwater Road, Mattituck, N.Y., Parcel 1000-113- 3-7.4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The builder is here or he's not here. here? He was outside. He was BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Whose the builder? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Bay Creek Builders. He must of left. OK, we'll run the hearing anyway. We have all looked at this property. I have absolutely no objection to this hearing. Thank you for checking. I appreciate it immensely. Maybe what will do, we'll recess it 20 minutes and see if he comes back. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: next hearing? Why don't you just skip it and go to the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, see I was supposed to skip it anyway. really don't think we have to deal with it to be honest with you. MEMBER COLLINS: Well I want to get something into the record on it anyway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll go with Losee then. 59 Page 60 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeats 9:17 P.M. - Appl. No. 4709 - THOMAS LOSEE. This is a request for a Variance for "as built" location of deck addition with a setback at leSs than 75 feet from the bulkhead. This request is based on an application for a Building Permit dated April 28, 1999, and the Building Department's May 4, 1999 Notice of Disapproval citing Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4Bo Location of Property: 7425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-118-4-2o CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you tonight? name for the record, please. Would you state your MS. MESSIANO: Yes, my name is Catherine Messiano and I am the agent for the Estate of Thomas Losee and the Estate is requesting a variance for the seaward 9 feet of the deck that's attached to the rear property and that places the deck 64 feet from the bulkhead. A change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood. The deck is not really visible from the front yardo The neighboring properties appear to be improved seaward of the low sea property. The lot coverage is about 7% so it's nowhere near the maximum lot coveragee The benefit can't really be achieved by any other method. To cut off that 9 feet of the deck would create something that was very cumbersome and probably unsafe because you'd be walking off the edge of deck before you knew it. Again, it's not substantial, we're just asking for relief for the seaward 9 feet of the deck. There's no adverse affect or impact on the physical environmental conditions. The bluff is stable~ The yard is well established. Taking up the deck would mean cultivation of larger lawn area, more fertilization, cultivation mowing, etc. and I feel that this is the minimum that"s necessary to preserve the character of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: permit? Ms. Messiano, was this deck built without a MS. MESSIANO: This deck was constructed as far as I know, 15 to 20 years ago by the owner of the property. I'll give you a little history. The owner of the property was an elderly gentleman who was handicapped and the deck is attached to the house by a ramp type structure and it enabled him to enjoy.the back yard of the property. It also had a narrow walkway constructed from the deck to the flag poles so you could get to the flag poles° Well that has since been removed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ThatVs the open area that we see that there's no grass in the picture? MS. MESSIANO: Correct. I have some photographs. These photographs also give you some idea that this propertY is less seaward than the neighboring properties. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. The other question is, if the Board was so inclined to grant this application, we would probably place a Page 61 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals restriction on it that the deck not be moved. to the sky. There's no objection to that? That it remain open MS. MESSIANO: No objection to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Ms. Collins, any questions? MEMBER COLLINS: Well I was going to raise that point. The deck is, you're right, it's a small variance you're looking for and the deck doesn't endanger the bluff. The deck is harmless. The house however, is being sold and - MS. MESSIANO: Correct. The closing took place on Monday. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, and the new owners may have views about the wonderful deck they'd like to have and it might be rather more ambitious than the Losee's deck and I think we want to sought of head that off at the past which would certainly include requiring that it remain open. I'd be inclined if possible to require that it not be elevated. It's essentially a grave now. MS. MESSIANO: I don't think elevating that deck would be feasible because it would raise you up above the window level and it would make it unsightly. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, fine, I didn't really study that.issue, but, I think that's my concern. MS. MESSIANO: The windows are very low so it would be unsightly t° have the deck up any higher than it is. MEMBER COLLINS: Ail right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora any questions? MEMBER TORTORA: I have absolutely no objections to this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Just a clarification. So the problem really came up because the house was in the process of being sold and you found out that a - MS. MESSIANO: Correct. When the house went into contract and the sellers had to produce COs, they found that there were problems. We have since cleared up some issues. There had been enclosure of the porch. We have obtained a pre-CO on the original part of the structure. So everything else has been made legal. We provided Fire Underwriter Certificates and drawings and so on. Chairman: I think we've finished. We'll see if anybody brings up anything else. Thank you for your presentations. Anybody else Page 62 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals that would like to speak in favor? Against? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion for the closing, reserving the decision until later. Member Tortora: Second. Chairman: Ail in favor. Aye. No I did not see Bay Creek Builders. I just want to point out to the board~ there is no reason for an applicant to show up if they don't want to. If you have specific questions. I have met with the Briggmanns, and I will try to answer for them. They are deeply in need of this application~ they have an open foundation there which I think is a great problem° Board Secretary Kowalski: until the end. Since there's nobody here, they can wait Chairman: Yes we will do that, but I'm just making a statement. I~m having a hearing for the Briggmanns tonight. This is a family which has an open foundation and has two small - they had this huge fence around it, I'm just making a statement. The next appeal is on behalf of Curt Davids. Curt~ how are you tonight? What would you like to tell us? 62 Page 63 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 8:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4711 Curtis Davids. A variance is requested under article XXIV, Section 100-244 to place deck addition with a setback at less than the required 35 feet from the rear property line, at 215 Green Hill Lane, Eastern Shores Lot 123, Gnpt., Parcel 1000-33-2-48. Mr. Davids: I'm renovating and enlarging the deck of the house that I bought three years ago. What I would like to do goes over the encroachment of the 35 ft. setback by about 7 ft. Chairman: I think when I met with you last Saturday, there was no - you have no intentions of enclosing this deck or anything - it's going to remain open. Mr. Davids: Totally open area. Chairman: Any questions of this applicant ladies and gentlemen? Mr. Davids: Some neighbors object. Chairman: Your neighbors object? Mr. Davids: Chairman: Mr. Davids: in. I have all my replies here. I need two cards. Did you get those back? One I still haven't gotten, and the other one I handed Member Horning: Nobody has spoken to you? Mr. Davids: No. Chairman: George, he has a very private rear yard. You have to walk around the house to see anything. It's completely enclosed on three sides. He has a storage building on one side, and when you're back there, there's nothing else you can see - for the record. Anybody else? Member Collins: Well I'd just like to say, Mr. Chairman, the reason there's nothing to be seen in the rear yard is because nothing's built on the rear lot that's on Moore's Lane. One day something would be built there. It would not behoove us to go granting a variance that would be substantial in a rear yard just because nobody happens to have built there yet. I don't think this one's substantial, but I feel like lecturing. Chairman: You're welcome to lecture, but I'm telling you I was in his rear yard regardless of no one has built on Lot 103, I did not see a house or anything on Lot 124 or Lot 122. That's what I'm saying. Page 64 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals Mr. Davids: There's two empty lots, one to my south, and one to the west. The one to the north is a. separate lot adjoining a parcel of property with a pool lot - so they're not going to build anything there. Member Collins: I understand. Chairman: Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody against? Hearing no further comment, I'd like to a motion closing the hearing reserving decision to later. All in favor. Aye. Thanks for coming in, we'll have a decision next week. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4698 WILLIAM LIEBLEIN AND BUDD'S POND REALTY° Variances are requested for lot area of 35,000+ - Sqo ft., lot depth of 100+ - fto, rear yard at less than 25 feet, landscape area at less than 20%, and building height at 36°5 feet in this M-II Marine Zone District. These requests are based upon an application for a building permit to construct boat storage building-facility and the Building Departments march 23, 1999 Notice of Disapproval reference Article XII, Sections 100-121 and 100-122. Location of Property: 62845 and 62945 Main Rd. Shld., NY; Parcels Nou 1000-56- 4-11 and 13.2 Chairman: Mr. Strang, how are you tonight? Mr. Garrett Strang: I've got the affidavit, the mailing, two green cards, and one unclaimed. Board Secretary Kowalski: both of them in one, OK. Is there another affidavit? You've got Chairman: How can you explain this piece of property to us so we can understand it to the best of our ability? ~' Mr. Strang: Well, the piece of property has, as preSently exists, has two single and separate lots which we've done title searches on and proved that they are separate lots. They both, presently, are substandard lots. My client wants to develop on the property~ and to do so he wants to put the two lots together which will create a lot that is still, by today's zone, on that particular parcel a substandard lot, obviously merging the two together will make it less nonconforming than it's. present use. I hope that answers your question with respect.to the property. Chairman: We haVe one minor Problem with the advertising. Board Secretary Kowalski: We just have' a question. There were four neighbors that needed to be notified, and there are only three listed here. Is there one owner that owned more than one parcel? Mr. Strang: The property immediately to the west of the parcel in question is also owned by a cooperation .that Mr° Lieblein is a party to. Page 65 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals BSK: To the west of 20? Mr. Strang: To the west between the property and the - BSK: What's the name of the corporation. Mr. Strang: Lieb Enterprises. BSK: And on the other side is Geherity. Geherity? Have you notified Mr. Strang: I believe so. BSK: And to the north? Mr. Strang: To the north is Long Island Rail Road. BSK: As long as the board will waive notice to the railroad. Chairman: How high is this structure? Mr. Strang: The proposed structure is going to have a 35 ft. front elevation on the building so we can get boats in the doors. In working through the planning board of New York review committee on this in a preliminary sense, they looked at it and discussed it, and then asked if there was something we could do to not just have a flat roof or shed roof, to add some gable appearance to the roof, which obviously raises the ridge On it and raises the ridge to the height shown on the sketch, 38 ft. But the'rear eve is down to 32 ft. so our average is the required 35 ft. Chairman: Just wait one second, let me ask this question. you to notice the LIRR. We need BSK: We do? I thought we were waiving it. Would you do me a favor and notice that? We've run into this similar problem with the transmission towers. Some of which are adjacent to the railroad in Mattituck. So, what we'll probably do is just wait for their letter back and then reconvene, so you're aware. Mr. Strang: OK, we'll get that out immediately. Chairman: Lydia has a question on building height. Member Tortora: How come the building height on' the Notice of Disapproval is proposed at 36.5, could you just give me exactly what it would be? Mr. Strang: The reason it says 36.5 is because the way the building department interpreted the building height is an average between ridge and eve, so our ridge is at 38, our eve is at 35 and 32, so they take the average of those three dimensions is 36.5. Page 66 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals Member Tortora: OK. Thank you. Chairman: Go ahead Garrett. Mr, Strang: As per your notice obviously we're looking for several things, one is the creation Of this lot which would be 35,000 sq. ft. which is not conforming. We've had discussions with the planning board on that, specifically with respect to the fact that would the creation of this nonconforming lot be considered a buildable lot since we presently have two nonconforming buildable lots. Their input to me is that yes, if this board is willing to recognize the 35,000 sq. fto, they'd be willing to recognize it as a buildable lot. I believe they sent the Zoning Board of Appeals a letter to that effect. I don't have a copy, but I was informed that they did send some correspondence over. That's the first issue. The second issue is speaking with the planning board~ we discussed egress and the light to the sight, and we discussed the possibility with the architectural review committee of how to litigate the imposed size of this building from the road and we discussed pushing it further back on the sight° We are proposing a 50 ft. setback from the front instead of the required 35~ I believe, which reduces the rear yard then to 10 ft. as opposed to the required 25 ft. So everything shifted back 15 feett The planning board felt, in their opinion, that was a viable option, and subject to this board's opinion and decision. The ideas have been discussed with respect to this with the fact that it backs up to the LIRR, and the fresh water wetlands behind the railroad, so it wasn't as if we were going to be imposing on a property owner since it is open behind there. In our opinion, it would not be any major impact visually to neighboring properties behind us if we reduce the rear yard to the 10 ft. dimensions° There is a reference on here that if we have less tkan mandated 20% landscaped area, although I think that may be misstated by the building department when they wrote up the disapproval because we actually have a required 75 ft. area from a recently property line to the building line that's mandated by the NYS DEC because there is wetlands to the east of our property~ and we also have the required side yard in the west side 25 ft. so, we've go~ 100ft. x 100ft. right there that although can't be landscaped because the DEC has their input as to what vegetation is allowed to be there, it's still an open area undeveloped, unbuildable, and it would be in excess of the 20% zoning. Chairman: How can we better understand what this building is going to look like? Mr. Strang: Well the building is going to be a metal structure essentially meant to house boats on a seasonal basis by that winter storage. There's an increasing demand that Mro Lieblein can attest to that his customers are investing large amounts of money in their boating - they don't want to keep them outside~ Presently this site is being used as outdoor boat storage, has been for years~ to Page 67 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals meet the needs of Mr. Liebleins clients, he wants to be able to put up a. structure that can store the boats indoors, it's going to be a typical metal building with sliding doors on the front, so that the boats can be slid in and slid out at the end and beginning of the season. Again, it's a marine type of building, very similar to what already exists in the neighboring areas. Chairman: Larry's Lighthouse. Marina has a similar type of situation on Peconic Bay Blvd. Can we assume that they were that type of building that are adjacent to this? Mr. Strang: Yes. Chairman: So, I could direct the board to look at those. closed doors once'they're closed, right Bill? They are Mr. William Lieblein: same exact thing. Behind our present building, it's almost the Chairman: 'That's what I'm saying, so I can send the board over there and let them look at that. Would you mention to your staff, if they show up, point out that building? Member Tortora: How about the Albertson's building which is only a couple hundred yards further west. Broadly speaking, you're talking about the same kind of a building, a large - Chairman: No. That's a building you actually driVe into. This is a building that the boat is placed on a forklift, on the outside of the building. Member Tortora: Yes, the Albertson building has depth. Mr. Lieblein: The building is 40 ft. deep, the boats can be placed in, then it is closed off. Chairman: Would you just direct the staff, Bill, so they could look. We're not going to conclude this because of the advertising, I think you know the process we've gone through over'the years. BSK: It's not the advertising, it's the notice. Chairman: I meant the notice. sorry, I apologize. He'll notify the LIRR also. I'm Mr. Strang: He will notifY, the LIRR. Chairman: Pardon me Garrett, go ahead. Mr~ Strang: Just for the board's information, we have applied to receive a permit from the town trustees. We will be making our application with the DEC, they will red flag the fresh water wetlands. There was a delay getting that, and the survey should Page 68 - Hearing Transcripts June 24~ 1999 -Board of Appeals outline exactly were the fresh water wetlands. We already met with the DOT, and they know exactly what they are looking for with respect to curving and permits~ Chairman: I have a propensity to go to these sights twice. I was to this sight quite early, I have not been back to the sight since. Has the sight been staked at all where the building is? We put in some rudimentary markers where for the purposes of the trustees. Mr. Lieblein: Five gallon orange jugs. Chairman: OK. Mr. Strang: Basically to show where the building footprint would be for the purposes. When the surveyor was there, I'm not sure he flagged the actual corners, I can ask him. Chairman: I was there 6 weeks ago. Mr. Strang: If so, they were only placed 4 weeks ago. Chairman: How far away from the wetland area is this building to be constructed? Mr. Strang: The freshwater wetlands are at the toe of the ballast on the north side of the railroad. You've got the width of the railroad right of way from the ballast to the property line which is probably about 60 ft. from the property line to the toe of the ballast, and then we're going to be 10 ft. back with the building of the property line, so we'll be approximately 70 feet from the edge of the wetlands. The railroad runs between wetlands and our property. Chairman: So there's no question that the building will be on specific upland area. Mr. Lieblein: Anything that runs off the roof of this building has to go through the gravel of the railroad bed it's on. Chairman: To the wetlands. Mr. Lieblein: into - To the north. 75 ft. east to where it goes down Member Collins: I don't have anything in the file addressing the ~standards of Town Law benefit to the applicant verses detriment to the community, the standard application that we give out. BSK: It's in our area variance standards, in the packet. Chairman: It's part of our application package, it should have been included. It's on the back of the application format. We still have another hearing to deal with~ so you can deal with that. Page 69 -. Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals Member Collins: Garrett, because there are a number of variances involved, Linda has a copy of the standards in the office. If you could address each one of the standards that.would be helpful. Mr. Strang: capacity. I wasn't aware that we overlooked that in the formal Chairman: That was one of the criteria that we used in reference to granting or not granting a variance. BSK: Page 2 of the form changed Garrett, and you may not have the new form. Mr. Strang: I can see you on that. BSK: Yes, anytime. Mr. Strang: In a nutshell, that is what we are proposing. If the board has any additional question, I'd be happy to answer them. Chairman: If you don't mind, I'm going to go back to the sight and, if I have any questions, Bill I'll come across the street and ask. I'm going to direct the board to go across the street where you are and to look at this building, and to go to Larry's Lighthouse to notice it there. Mr. Charles Witski: My name is Charlie Witski, I'm connected with Albertson Marina, I'm Bill's neighbor. The setback Bill's is asking for is a safety factor. When you move the boat in, you have to move it in straight, and you'll have to come off the road, he doesn't want to back out into the road. The land behind the building, we have a similar building we use for storage, it keeps the unsightly power boats out of sight for the public while in the barn. With the buildings being erected the way Bill is asking for them, he's going to be able to put boats inside, they will not be in site at all times. The property will still be open and he'll be able to use it. The public will not see as much and on the ground, on the . My customers are asking . Unfortunately not apply. He has . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. this juncture? Yes. Dr. Lizewski. Anybody else like to speak at MR. LIZEWSKI: I'd have'to say there's more than a two year wait on something like this. Technically, the business community has been set upon an alarm to realize that in trying to improve Lieblein's property the system that we have to go through is absolutely incredible. Other people in the community who wanted to improve their properties to make it more unsightly, and don't want to go through this. I hope that you'll approve this and hope that the realization that benefit becomes this town in taking these boats and putting them in an orderly manner and also increase the 69 Page 70 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals bUsiness in the area which is a marine business which we all want and need is requested for Mr. Lieblein. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Alright at this point hearing no further comment, yes, Mro Lieblein? MR. LIEBLEIN: So~ on July 22nd - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll conclude the hearing. MR. LIEBLEIN: Do we need to come down? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Only if you want to. I mean Garrett is going to because he's going to give us the information and I'm going to do another field inspection and the Board may come over and look at the other buildings, so on and so forth. MR. LIEBLEIN: Thank you° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Your welcome. Alright, is there anybody else would like to speak against this application? It may not be around the 22nd, OK? Seeing no hands I should say, I'll make a motion. It could be anything at this point. I apologize~ MEMBER TORTORA: July 22nd? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: I'll second that. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. - 70 Page 71 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 9:48 P.M. - Appl. No. 4712 - HENRY & LINDA KOZEN. Variances are requested under Article III, Section 100-33 for placement of an accessory storage building in a front yard area, and under Article III, Section 100-231 for placement of a fence along and within front yard areas at a height above the four ft. limitation. Location of PropertY: Corner of Theresa Drive and 1520 Donna Drive, Mattituck, N.Y.; a/k/a Lot #33 on the Map of Deep Hole Creek Estates; County Parcel ID# 1000-115-15-14. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: are you? Good evening Sir and Good evening Ma'am, how MRS. KOZEN: Fine thanks. How are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us Henry? MR. KOZEN: This is an application for a six foot fence behind our house which is considered front yard because there's a road behind the house and also a 12 x 12 shed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The shed is one story in nature? MR. KOZEN: Yes Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the fence is a 6 foot fence? MR. KOZEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How far off the property line is that approximately? MR. KOZEN: It's approximately 25 foot. The back of the fence is going to be 25 foot off the road at 11 foot inside the property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. 11 foot. MR. KOZEN: there. There is an existing tree line which is going to stay CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, could I just amend that question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: You said, the answer you just gave Sir, has to do with the setback of the fence from Theresa? MR. KOZEN: Yes, that's correct. Page 72 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: On the, your neighbor on Theresa, who has vegetable gardens abutting your land, on that side the fence will be pretty much on your property line? MR. KOZEN: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS:' You got a lot of shrubbery there' be trees, and bushes and - Will the fence MR. KOZEN: there now. line. I'm going to have to remove those blue spruce I have in They're going to have to be removed along that property MEMBER COLLINS: Along the property line of your neighbor? MR. KOZEN: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: You're going to take out the greenery? MR. KOZEN: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And put in the fence? MR. KOZEN: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And it'.s going to be right on the property line? MR. KOZEN: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Henry, where you indicate the storage building, how far is that going to be from your property line? Did you measure that? Or, how far will it be from the fence actually? MR. KOZEN: It'll be four foot inside the fence. of the shed. I mean the back CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, that will be 14 feet approximately from the property line? BOARD SECRETARY·KOWALSKI: 15. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 15. 14-15. OK, will the shed include any other utility than electric, or will it have electric? MR. KOZEN: No, it's going to match the house. It's going to have vinyl siding which will match the house and it's going to have the shingles on the roof to match the house and I'm putting a steel overhead boring. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and only electricity, or no electricity? 72 Page 73 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MR. FOZEN: No electricity. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No electricity, no anything? George any questions of this applicant? MEMBER HORNING: The tree lining. Was that on the adjacent property? Is that what you're telling us? MRS. KOZEN: It's ours. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's theirs. MEMBER HORNING: And why are you taking the trees down? MR. KOZEN: Well I'm taking them out on the Brochbank property. MEMBER HORNING: Pardon me. MR. KOZEN: Not on the road, on the Brochbank property. MEMBER HORNING: Why, that's what I'm asking? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because he's putting a fence in. going to go around. The fence is MEMBER HORNING: fence? The trees are on your property, but, you prefer a MR. KOZEN: That's correct. MEMBER HORNING: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I can't hear your answer. You've got to MEMBER COLLINS: You're mumbling. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Speak a little louder I can't hear you. MR. KOZEN: That's correct. The trees are on our property but, we're going to remove just that one section of trees. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER COLLINS: I wanted to come back to that because my only question when I looked at your property and looked at what you had in mind, I mean, it's a lot of fencing, and I said, well, from the road you really can't see it because there's a good shrub line and thinking of your adjacent neighbor, I thought, well, there's lots of shrubbery along that line, but, you're going to take it out. Is your neighbor aware of that plan? 73 Page 74 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MR. KOZEN: Yes he is Ma'am. actually no problem. We've talked about it and there's MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: getting to that. Yes, we need the green cards. I was just MRS. KOZEN: We did not receive a response from Zoumas Contracting Corp. Do you want these too? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, thank you. MR. KOZEN: Can I state for the record, that we did not receive a response from Zoumas Contracting, Lot #60? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Was there an affidavit? to give affidavits too to go with that? You were going MR. KOZEN: Yes, certifying? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: need a form? You have to sign an affidavit. Do you MR. KOZEN: Yes, I do. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you affidavit that you put the sign up. and everything. have that with you? The The day you put the sign up MR. KOZEN: Yes, it's notarized for the posting and the mailing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. You may have been in the audience Sir, but, we are not entertaining any decisions tonight. We'll deal with it 'next week and it makes it much easier at a special meeting and zip through it rather than stop the hearings so on and so forth but we do appreciate your coming in. We'll just see if anything else materializes throughout the hearing. Just don't leave until I finish. Is there anyone else would like to speak in. favor of this hearing? Anybody like to speak against the hearing? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 75 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 9:53 P.M. - Appl. No. 4662 - PATRICIA RUSHIN & PAMELA MOTTLEY. Variances are requested under Article III, Sections 100-32, 100-33, and Article X, Section 100-235A(2) based upon the December 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval in this pending subdivision project for: (a) Insufficient lot width for each proposed Parcel A and B, for one single family dwelling use on each parcel; (b) Insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel A; (c) Insufficient side yards for each proposed Parcels A and B; (d) Insufficient total side yards for each proposed Parcel A and B. (e) Proposed parcel B with "no safe and convenient access"; (f) Bathhouse structure on Parcel A. Location: 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, 1000-86-7-5 (currently 3.43+-A). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is Appeal No. 4662 which we've seen before. MS. MOORE: This is a continuation of a previous hearing. We have an extensive record before the Board and there was the recap when we were at the end of the last hearing. We had, before I start, I'm sorry, I apologize. Patrick Brennan the Architect is here, Patricia Rushin is here, Kim Mottley, I have to remember whose are and Mr. & Mrs. Varano is here. So everybody that I think could possibly be here is here today. So, if you have any questions all the persons are here. We sent that very lovely elaborate plan that was done by Patrick Brennan and that did take some time. I think I'm going to be much more specific with Patrick. But, that was really well done and it was - I sent it off to Mr. Varano for her review and we're here, we had it submitted to the Board. I have just one more document for the record and it's just for purposes of placing the structure with relationship to the Varano property. I had it, I'll give one to the Varanos. It's a reduced version. I asked Patrick to provide for me the - on one plan the Varano subdivision next to the Mottely/Rushin subdivision and where the structures are placed and how they relate to each other so that we could get for the record for your file how this property is going to be developed in comparison to the neighboring property and I think it just highlights the fact that the structures will have what we think will be little significance to the Varano property on or at least as we proceed. The Varano house that's the water front house which is developed is where the main house and the cottage are, they're adjacent to that property~ verses the other two properties that are situated one behind the other, the two parcels that remain vacant and subject to further development by the Varanos. So I have, this is just a photocopy that's reduced just to make it easier and then the actual plan that was done. One was faxed to me so I would know what it would look like. That really is all I have for you this evening. I don't want to delay, it's a late night and I know that if you have any questions everyone is here to answer. 75 Page 76 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to excuse me Pat. I don't know if it's because of the evening or what, but, let's just go over who is Mottley and who is Rushin~ MS. MOORE: Well actually you did not meet Patricia Rushin. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, which house is which? MS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I know them. I mean, I don~t think I met you before though, we didn't meet you? You were away or something. MS. RUSHIN: I was away. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct° MS, MOORE: The larger house it will be Patricia's. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MS. MOORE: And the smaller house is Pamela's. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Now with my discussion with Mrs. Varano, on the telephone, she indicated to me, that she reviewed your plan~ She also indicated to me, that she had a discussion with Ham, and Ham indicated that she could take out the entrance which is adjacent to Mrs. Varano's property whiCh is, OK. Now, has that discussion emanated or with you? No, that's my question~ MS. MOORE: Yes, that is my understanding that the two talked while they were out in Southold. That after reviewing the plan, her main concern was just continuing the privacy they've enjoyed and that really the only feature of the cottage that concerned her was a door that was on that side of the property line which was my understanding that that door is so they can use the bathroom from the outside, right? I mean that's a direct entrance to the bathroom. But, if that was certainly something that the could work out and they could live with. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I didn't catch that. MS. MOORE: They could live with it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I assume your applicants have no objection to the Board placing a restriction that these, that this screening will be continuously maintained? MS. MOORE: Yes, the screening right now is natural vegetated screening and it's for the most, just from my memory of the property, it's natural on your side and on their side, it's very 76 Page 77 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals natural because it's undeveloped. So, it's something that they would prefer to keep it, they worked a mutually agreeable, I think that they both have interest in maintaining the privacy. They've always communicated nicely with each other. So, whether it's to place a condition on it at this point, I think that they can live as neighbors and work out their screening without being formalistic about what it will be. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's fine. But, remember we're not dealing specifically with just these people. We're talking subsequent owners, Mrs. Varano may live here for many, many years. This is of her concern and that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to weigh all the means, OK. MS. MOORE: Sure, the balancing affect. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The balancing affect, OK, so a - MS. MOORE: The natural screening that's there now, is there any problem with - absolutely. MS. : No hassle, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it OK with you Mrs. Varano? MRS. VARANO: I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you're saying. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not sure I'm understanding it either. Why don't you come over here and use this mike. We have a landscaping plan which is in front of us, which shows some natural, some added. I am concerned with the added. I am saying that we want that continuously maintained if the Board is so inclined to grant this application. MS. MOORE: Yes, the only concern I have is, as far as the arborvitae that grow, you know I think there was a suggestion of putting three or four arborvitae. That's what they are? Patrick, you were the one who - MR. BRENNAN: I have them written on the plan. MS. MOORE: Oh, you have them written? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just state your name for the record, if you will. MR. BRENNAN: My name is Patrick Brennan. I believe on the landscape plan itself, there are some of the plant species listed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to refer to this? MS. MOORE: Do you need it? 77 Page 78 - Hearing Transcripts June 24f 1999 -Board of Appeals MR. BRENNAN: I don't have a referral. MS. MOORE: It's a very good - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Based upon my discussion with Mrs. Varano while they're looking for that, that was of course something I believe we had discussed. MRS. VARANO: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct, right? I'm just trying to keep everything on the straight and narrow here so that we understand exactly where we're going. MRS. VARANO: Everything you stated is a, that's our also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: use this so we get - Right. Do you want to come up here and just MS. RUSHIN: No, you had said, that you had a discussion with Mrs° Varano I wonder if you'll share with us what that was? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Rushin I had a discussion with her approximately a week ago on the telephone which I indicated to her, that I wanted to go back to her property and look at both of your properties from her property. In doing so, I wanted to compare that with the landscaping plan. I appreciate you bringing this gentleman with you tonight because he can answer any questions that we may have and it was at that time that those two issues only those two issues were of, actually three issues. One that I could go back on Mrs. Varano's property since we didn't have an application, before us, the issue of the side door~ which Mrs~ Varano had a question about and the issue of Continuously maintaining the screening? in ~between Pamela's property and Mrs. Varano. If you .don't mind me calling you ladies by your first name. Those were the three issues that was you know, a quick five minute call and was that not the case? MRS. VARANO: Yes. MR. BRENNAN: Perhaps I can clarify that. I think I misspoke. The landscape plan does indicate what the species of the proposed plantings are. The intent was to mix deciduous and evergreen plantings so that there'd be year round screening and we thought that it could be an accommodation of red cedar, bay berry~ peach plum, high bush blue berry, all native plants that are native to the area, residuals. But, the specifics of the quantity and exact location - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes by seeing, Patrick, again if you don't mind me calling you by your first name, by .seeing the outline on the front sheet of this landscape plan indicating somewhat new bushes to be placed in there or whatever type of greenery it is~ I 78 Page 79 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals had assumed that those were new. So, that's what caused me and the Members of the Board that had this concern to say that you know, we want it continuously maintained. It only makes sense. They're probably very expensive to put in. We would want them to be continuously maintained. Which would mean that they would have to be watered and tended to. MR.. BRENNAN: Being native plants they will be easy to maintain. They will not require extensive sprinkling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ' Right, whatever it is. I mean if you conceivably were to put black pine in and they were attacked by a disease, this nice lady would probably want them replaced and that would be the nature of our - MS. MOORE: I just asked Pam, who would be the one in charge of this property, and she has no problem with that. MS. RUSHIN: I understand that we are all desirOus of privacy screening and Patrick has indicated that you know, whatever grows there. Pam has put in some olives that work very, very well and we put in some other things that didn't do so well because the salt spray that you have a problem with too, you know, they go down the tubes. Yes, we're going to maintain that. There's a whole line along there which you must have seen of which the Vararno side is very heavily wooded right now and that is obviously their option Go do as they choose as they go down the pipe as we do too. I guess what I'm saying is, that we would maintain screening but, where is my question - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're primarily concerned with the house where the construction of the cottage is going to be. MS. RUSHIN: Where the cottage currently exists. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And where'the reconstruction is going to. MS. RUSHIN: And we're the reconstruction is on that 50-40 feet whatever it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, probably 75. MS. RUSHIN: OK. (inaudible) from a footage standpoint. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. VARANO: I have just one question if I may CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MRS. VARANO: I'm not much for, I mean I don't Understand one tree from another, just the basics, not all of these. Are these high 79 Page 80 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals growing trees, low growing? Are they wide? you already chose them you know the plan - You know being that MRS. MOORE: He made some suggestions. MR. BRENNAN: I'm not a plant expert, but the trees were picked because they're native and some were deciduous. For the height, like a red cedar is a taller more slender tree which would be, could be the ones that are closest to the cottage are represented as circular trees for the and bay berry and peach plum are lower spreading plants. A good combination at denser coverage lower and the taller which would provide th~ screening. High bush blue berry I'm not sure. MRS. VARANO: I'm just trying to get a picture of this. what I'm saying. That's CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you give us a list so that we can submit it to this nice lady. MRo BRENNAN: OK. MS. MOORE: Well we can photocopy it if you wanto CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good° MEMBER COLLINS: The machine is off. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pat, the machine is off so why don~t you just submit it to Mrs. Varano tomorrow. MS. MOORE: What we could make is suggestions because right now, our property is not really that clear. It's pretty natural in it's vegetation. Their property is undeveloped completely. Sod there really is, if you plant species now it might be that they'll be dead by the time we - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't want them planted~ planted after the building is done. We want them MS. MOORE: property? this kind - OK, is there going to be any impact on their tree I don't want you to have to clear your land. Put in CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We would hope that after her reconstruction is complete, excuse me for referring to you as a her thing, and as soon as her reconstruction is done, OK, that these be planted and be continuously maintained so as to create a buffer between the two parcels of property. Is that correct? MRS. VARANO: That's correct. MS. MOORE: In general terms, OK. 8O Page 81 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In general terms, that's all, OK and that if these two nice ladies decide to sell this property in years to come would continue as a , which we sincerely hope they don't that that restriction on at least the one property. Again, this is all predicated on the Board granting, so that's where we're at. MS. MOTTLEY: I just want to say how much we've already done. I am Pam. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, right, we remember you. MS. MOTTLEY: I want to say how much I've already done just because I love to have greenery and privacy between the two properties. We have a very unfortunate example two houses away from us where somebody just strip mined that place and left it naked and none of us, none of us, would want anything like that to happen. My concern is holding me accountable for putting in trees and shrubbery that are indicated at this point, rather than at a point when I can see better what's going on. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We want you to do it at a point when you can see what to do. MS. MOTTLEY: So I would hate to have you say, you can have two of these and one of these and hear that kind of thing when in fact something better - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No-one is ~orcing you to do at this junction, no-one. Secondly, when you have heavy machinery in there working on this building, no-one would, that's the reason why I hate to go from a planting or a tree to a driveway. That's why we never require driveways to be repaved until after the construction is done. MS. MOTTLEY:' So what we'll provide is not a guarantee species that is going to be there. Is that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know, that's up to Mrs. - MS. MOORE: Is that alright? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that alright with you Mrs. Varano? MRS. VARANO: Yeah, I'm just trying to get an overlook. But, you're trying to get an idea I want to see your train of thoughts sought of speak. I want to see if we can help and if your train of thought is agreeable to what I would be comfortable with, that's fine with me. I don't want Ms. Rushin to plant a whole bunch of trees · MS. MOTTLEY: No, so, there would be trees with height and then trees with depth and - Page 82 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MRS. VARANO: Correct, that's right. MS. MOTTLEY: Wherever it's going to be appropriate. MRS. VARANO: Without a doubt. MS. MOTTLEY: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, that was a discross between Pam and Mrs. Varano. OK, I think we've arrived, yes. MRS. VARANO: I'm sorry, I also want to go back to the side door. I'm not sure how it was left. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going to remove it. MRS. VARANO: Thank you. I wasn't sure when you finished here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was my understanding. OK, anything else? Mrs. Moore? MS. MOORE: No, no, unless you have questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no questions. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Res°lution~ 82 Page 83 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 8:45p.m. Appl. No. 4699 - Lisa Jerome (Hart's Hardware). Variances are requested under Article X, Section 100-102 to locate a proposed addition with reduced rear and front yard setbacks, and under Article X, Section 100-103C for a structure (addition) at more than sixty linear feet of frontage in this General Business Zone District. This request is based upon an application for a building permit and the Building Department' s April 5, 1999 Notice of Disapproval. Location of Property: 50000 Main Road (Hardware Store) and Jockey Creek Drive, Southold, NY; CTM Parcel 1000-70-5- 6.2. Mrs. Moore: You have the Hart's Hardware application before you. As part of the application packet, I'm going to link this to the . standards · Because it' s late, I 'm not going to reiterate everything that's been written. I'm going to highlight some of the points. To begin with, the crux of our application from the Building Department on the notice of disapproval - we started there. Because the existing building, the Hart' s Hardware building, is 68.6 ft. and you know my feelings for the Riverhead Building Supply application as far as what this 60 ft. rule does and how poorly it was drafted and conceived, I know the intentions were good, but when it comes to drafting codes, you really don't learn of it's problems until you go to apply it and we know from a couple of examples, including this one, that a 60 ft. rule just doesn't make sense particularly on the Main Road. This parcel has a road frontage of 200 ft. The existing building's already 68.6, so we're already at the 60 ft. rule - beyond that. The suggestion that I made to Mr. Goodale, who's here this evening, was to try to address that 60 ft. rule and the intentions of the 60 ft. rule which I have a copy of the transcript of the public hearing on that law when it was adopted, that the intention was to apply to str~p shopping centers on the North Road, and just kind of left in without much eloquence to apply everywhere, regardless of the size of the property, the width of the property, really making no sense in many cases, and unfortunately catching many existing businesses in a difficult position. What we did to start off, trying to address that 60 ft. rule is to set back the proposed addition 5 ft. off of the front property line so as to break the view and with respect to the lineal feet, depending on how you look at it, is a 60 ft. - if there were 2 separate buildings, if we were to take and put 1 ft. or whatever, we need a variance between buildings, I'm sure, but you'd have 1 ft. between the buildings, and now you wouldn't have the 60 ft. rule. Would it make any sense, no, would it for businesses you don't separate the buildings when you have 1 use, again that 60 ft. rule was intended for strip shopping centers, not for single use buildings. So right off the bat it doesn't make sense in this case. As far as other variances that may or may not be Used, I read the code and I look at~ the survey, and I see right off the bat that I believe the Building Department interpreted the rear yard as the yard that is adjacent to Mrs. Hart, I believe that to be the side yard, and therefore no variance would be required require - the required side yard is 25 ft. and at it's closest point. The 83 Page 84 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 'rear yard is actually to the tie line, it's an unusually shaped parcel with 5 sides, the rear yard being Jockey Creek, so I don't believe that a variance is required either for rear or for side yards. We asked Joe Ingegno taking the building departments interpretation and looking at what is the closest point that's why .the drawing is such that is shows area of 427 Sqo ft~ is the area of nonconformity because of the building department's interpretation which is the side yard, but again, I disagree and I hope you will as wel]o Alsos Mr. Goodale is here. There is some flexibility on the portion of the building that is actually behind -how to describe it- I have a drawing. The 25 fto outs which is the crux of the 60 ft. problem, is an area that is really important to Hart's Hardware. The existing building is a conglomeration of 1940's construction, maybe 1950's construction~ and just to go inside it, it's amazing to me when it was plotted~ how big it actually is when square footage calculations. Because when you go inside, it's a maze of little boxes, and that's the way it was constructed since the 50's. The doorway, there's something that shows as a wood block. There's a large opening there, and that would be the logical location for the expansion of the building, and that's why it's located there, and that's why that area~s so important. When it comes to the area that is right behind what is called the cellar entrances it's a square box~ there"s some flexibility there because that would be phased. I suggested to Mr~ Goodale, well listen, it's expensive, it's time consuming~ we're going to have all the same expenses 10 years down the line~ 5 years down the line, you decide business is great, the economy is still blooming, knock on wood for all of uss and really, we should expand again. Let's create a box that allows for phase construction so that the variance runs with the land, it stays there and then he builds as the need arises° But as I said~ what he really - the most important part of this whole building was the extension towards Jockey Creek Drive, that"s the area that the building logically flows, it's going to be his retail area for the display area. The rear portion of that box is going to be for sto~age~ so we can discuss some modifications to t~is~~ but when it comes to that area, that is a very important part of this application~ and when it comes to the area variances and the Standards~ the balancing weighs in favor of the applicant that that is something that he needs for the operation of this business~ It's nice to see Dr. Liezuski here because know he speaks v~ry aggressively towards the rights of~ the i~nesses, a~d to the gr~a~ extent, there is some frustration that' e~ : ' ' ° ~ ' ~ s h~ard that ex~st~ng businesses a~e confronted with restrictions~ not just from zoning. From the NYS building code the ADA, when it comes to building or remo~eling~ Page 85 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals legislation that we've imposed on them. This-is an example of that and we hope you'll take it into consideration when you're considering the variance applications. Chairman: I hate to bring this issue up at this late hour, but it's our understanding, you may know I have a case with the Planning Board is that correct? Ms. Moore: Actually that was before I was involved with the case. I think that Mr. Goodale met with the Planning Board work session. You didn't go there? Chairman: Would you do us a favor and go to their work session, and show them the plan, and get us some positive feedback. Let me rephrase that, get us some feedback. Ms. Moore: I have no problem with that. It's one of those catch 22's where the Building Department says, before you go anywhere, you've got to the Zoning Board. So you get us first. Chairman: OK. Ms. Moore: Well, that's no problem. Is there a~ything else? Well I say it's no problem. Chairman: This is a one story structure right? Ms..Moore: It's presently a one story structure, I think the second floor is not a habitable area. Chairman: It's only storage right? Ms. Moore: Yes. So, really what you see there is limited space in the retail needs and display area. Chairman: What's the time limits? What do you think the situation is? When you can go down and discuss this with a work session? Ms. Moore: I can be there on Monday I mean when they meet. I think they begin their summer hours, the summer public hearing is at 5:30. I have another meeting here with - at 6:30 - Gazalatere. Member Tortora: I think that's 6:00, Pat. Ms. Moore: ~I can be there on Monday, th'at's not a problem~ have the drawing, that's not it. We Chairman: I think the basic issue is, certainly we'd love to see the Planning Board waive site plans, there's no question about it. We could complete the process, complete the hearing, get everything done, but let's see how they deal with the whole issue and go from there. Yes Lydia? 85 Page 86 - Hearing Transcripts June 24~ 1999 -Board of Appeals Member Tortora: I just have a couple of questions. The phased process that you're talking about° What area? Is the dimension on the - Ms. Moore: It's just easier - it's 25 x 40. I~m going to go back to your original plano We originally had East End Drafting draw this up, but the problem was that they were using an old VanTyle survey, so things weren't matching Upo We ultimately took the drawing and gave it to Joe Ingegno and had him do really everything on the survey. This is not to scale, but it gives you an idea of the box and then behind the building, the box here being the retail, behind it the storage, that's why I say it's not to scale~ What we did is we boxed it. That's when we found out that's it's really like this - it just didn't make sense so - Chairman: Why don't you just give us an A and B plan and show it to us. You know the one that Mr. Goodale needs, and then the B plan which would be the entire procedure, and give us the square footage and the sizes of both. Right Lydia? We realize this is a preliminary hearing. Member Tortora: It's not clear to me whether you want what"s before us or you're saying well, it's OK, we'll settle for something elseo Ms. MoOre: What I always try to explain to clients that when you come to the board, you try not to be too rigid because there will be things that come up and applicants that will have different opinions on it. I.e. the previous application where we had a neighbor that had a problem, and we tried to work it out. I don"t know if anybody has a problem here~ His neighbors, the existing businesses are all very supportive. What Mr. Goodale needs is the 25 ft. out and 40 ft. back. OK, so 25 x 40. That's what he needs° Beyond that, you know, that would be phase 2o Member Tortora: What you have before us - Ms. Moore: Is larger than that. Chairman: Would you do me a favor please and pose that the same way to the Planning Board when you meet with? So we know exactly where we're going with this. Member Tortora: Give us a copy of the plan with the bare minimum of what you need, or what you need. But if the plan that I have is not necessarily what you need, then it'S'- Chairman: Well, that's what they want, but they realize they might not get that. Ms. Moore: message. No, I won't give you that Lydia, please, I get your Page 87 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of ApPeals Ms. Moore: SecOndly, I don't agree with you about the side yard. That is the rear yard. The variance isn't that great on it, but it is the rear yard. That's my opinion, for the record. Member Collins: I had planned to bring up the question.of which is the side yard and which is the rear yard, and I think the Building Department recently kind of reiterated to us what I believe makes sense, which is when you have a corner lot, and you have some nonconforming setbacks that they would choose as the rear yard and the side yard a layout that minimizes the amount of nonconformity, and that would, I think, leave you with the east yard being the rear yard and the south yard being the side yard. Ms. Moore: What I understand you just said is that if they're trying to reduce the nonconformity, then you're looking at the largest dimension, to be the rear yard. Which is why I thought the Jockey Creek to be the rear yard. Member Collins: Where are you measuring the Jockey Creek yard from? Ms. Moore: From the expansion because we've got existing. take the point of the north. If.you Member Collins: I'm not sure we really want to belabor this - Ms. Moore: We're here for one variance, so when someone tells me we need five, fine. Member Collins: While we're still looking at.this plan, going back to your statement about staged development or step wise. What I heard you say is that what is really necessary now is a 25 ft. extension and a 40 ft. depth. The way I read that, that is the outside dimension of what's drawn here, extending the building 25 ft. towards Jockey Creek Drive and carrying that all the way back to the existing rear building line. And I don't see any steps in that, that looks like the end - Chairman: They are leaving a big hole in the middle of it. Ms. Moore: That's where the sanitary system is. That's not a logical place to start because now you have to replace the whole sanitary system. Chairman: George, do you have a question? Let's get it done. Member Horning: For the reasons that you requested the variance, number 1 statement,.no undesirable change will be produced. Second paragraph you're stating "the proposed addition has been set back 5 ft. off the existing building. Did you try to comply with the intent of Article 10 Section 100-103 which breaks.the linear ft. What are you trying to tell us? 87 Page 88 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals Ms. Moore: Actually, I'm writing what I~m telling youa But I think it makes sense if you look at it. Here's the front property line. What the code talks about is lineal ft. 60 ft. of lineal ft. We push the building back like 5 ft. So you don't have a visual extension of the existing building, it's not a straight building out, it's a breaking up, as if you had 2 buildings, so that visually, it looks like you're trying less mass. Member Horning: You're cited for having more than 60 fto Chairman: Yes. Do you think you're going to have these maps and everything done by the end of July? Ms. Moore: The maps are done. Chairman: I mean the presentation to the planning board and all the rest of the - Ms. Moore: What date? Chairman: July 22. This is going to be a massive hearing. If you think this hearing tonight is massive, wait until you see July 22. Ms. Moore: If you have other questions, you can ask them and I can bring them with me or I can respond to you in writing whatever~ because really the only questions, as far as I can understand~ are break this up into 2 phase. If I can ask Joe Ingengo who's usually very good. Highlight phase one, phase two. Member Tortora: I'm just asking if that"s what you want us to consider° You brought it up. Ms. Moore: Yes. I did because they are not ready to build Phase 2. Correct. But Phase 1 is very important° Chairman: So, I'll recess the hearing until July 22. Ms. Moore: What's your deadline if we can"t get the drawings, I don't want to waste your time so I can let you know. Chairman: tell you. I would much rather put it on for August. have to Mrs. Moore: What's the date? Board Secretary Kowalski: The 20th° Dr. Lizewsk~: One of the things that the ZBA can do, and it's their responsibility to do, is to interpret some of these laws that are put in place. That 60 ft. law definitely was done at a time when we were reviewing the Rt. 48 study, and it was definitely done with the intention of limiting the kind of buildings that are allowed and the kind of lots that in fact limited business. 88 Page 89 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals Chairman: That's correct. Dr. Lizewski: It's now being applied to other lots, I was wondering, when you do these things, I know it's more work for you, could you set some precedents possibly by interpreting the law, like you can do. Member Collins: Someone should ask us. Dr. L±zewski: Well you have the power to do that. If you set that down for future references by the Planning Board and the Building Department will make these determinations, maybe you wouldn't get - Member Tortora: If you requested an interpretation of this 60 ft. rule, we would advertise it for a public hearing and along with that, and yes you would have an interpretation. Dr. Lizewski: You do have the power to do that. Board Secretary Kowalski: Yes. They've done it before. Ms. Moore: The only problem with that is that you're asking an applicant to one pay $150 for you guys to make an - Member Tortora: Me? Ms. Moore: Yes you guys, like you keep the money, I know. You're asking an applicant 'to pay another $150, to make an application whether it's jointly with part of the other application, I think you can do it as a matter of course when you're making decisions because you do that anyway when you're reviewing it. Chairman: We can't do it. Member Tortora: There has been quite a few court cases - Ms. Moore: Well if you waive the fee I'll ask. Member Tortora: You cannot render an interpretation without a hearing and a hearing requires notices of contents. Member Horning: Would the applicant under that scenario have specify a particular zone? Board Secretary Kowalski: Yes. Chairman: We can do it in any business zone. Ms. Moore: It doesn't come up so often because honestly, not that many businesses expand to that degree. You have unusual examples, Riverhead Building Supply is one of mine, and you have this one, but I don't know other applications - 89 Page 90 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of A4~peals Chairman: But this one just happens to have the frontage to have the ability to expand. BSK: Everything is going on the record. Member Collins: Except the record is going to be impenetrable. Chairman: I need a motion, goodnight Bill, to recess it untill the August meeting. Member Horning: I'll make such a motion. Chairman: All in favor say aye. Anybody's welcome to open the next hearing, I have to run out for a minute, or we can hold. 90 Page 91 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals 10:38 P.M. - Appl. No. 4710 - JOSEPH FRAZZITTA. A Variance is requested under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B to locate a proposed accessory building at less than the code requirement of 75 feet from the bulkhead, and at less than the 40 ft. setback condition provided under Zoning Board of Appeals Appl. No. 4570 dated June 23, 1998. Location of Property: 1420 Inlet Way, Southold~ N.Y., CTM Parcel 1000-92-1-6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ready. Joseph Frazzitta, Appeal No. 4710, we're MS. MOORE: I'm going to get your attention. I'm going to amend the application. Mr. & Mrs. Frazzitta are here. Mr. Frazzitta came by my office today- BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I can't hear, I'm sorry. over Pat please? Could you start MS. MOORE: Mr. & 'Mrs. Frazzitta are here, the last two people. What I'm going to do is amend the application. It's really not a significant amendment. What I discovered today when I showed Mr. & Mrs. Frazzitta the drawing that was done by Warren Sandbach, that was submitted to the Board. Mr. Sandbach had inadvertently turned the gazebo around and put the pop out towards the water. The pop out actually is going towards the land so that the setback will be no closer than 25 feet. I know-that was a question. I think I was somewhere along the line - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. MS. MOORE: I was asked. I actually called Mr. Sandbach. Unfortunately he's very ill and actually called me from the hospital, so I hope he's alright, but obviously there was nothing he could do for us and as it turns out it's not necessary. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you have a new map for us? MS. MOORE: Well, I have the existing map that I just cut off the circle and you have the one and only original that we had. So, it is the same setback. It's 25. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What do you have for us tonight? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So that removed, not wrong? removing from that end of the structure. You're MS. MOORE: other side. Well it's removed. It's reversed. It's wrong because it's on the MEMBER TORTORA: So it's reversed? MS. MOORE: It's reversed, yes. It's the same design. Page 92 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: It's the identical structure? MS. MOORE: It's identical structure, but, there's encroachment beyond the 25 feet. no further CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's farther~away from the bulk. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, I marked it on here. MS. MOORE: What we did is, the standards that we have to consider are, you're well aware of all the standards. I've written them out. Arguments with respect to all of the standards. But, to be, what we tried to do is, we looked around the area. I got an aerial photographs of the area of the Frazzitta home which I'm going to submit for the record and I didn't write on the map but when I submit the next document, it will all make sense because where the properties fall. So, I'd like to submit that for the record and the aerial that shows the development of all the properties in that area. We then took, we took the tax map and Mr. Frazzitta was kind enough to go and take some photographs, specifically of properties that are developed at much more intensive~ with much more intensity than what he's asking for. He's asking for 200 + sq. ft. gazebo. It's open, unheated, it's an elaborate structure what you would buy in North Fork Wood Design, just a nice one. North Fork Wood Design is very nice. Certainly there structure is very nice~ But~ this is where he actually customized, custom made and placed on the, on his property on the slope. The slope as you're, for those of you who have gone to take a look at the property, the property is bulkheaded and then there is a very vegetated slope that's man made. It was done by the property owner and then there is a very small area of grass and then the house. What they would like to do is, place the gazebo at the edge of the where the grass and the vegetated slope begins. It's over to the side so it doesn't impact the view and is placed on pilings you can see from the building plans. It's not pilings, it's stilts. It's not really - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pilings. MS. MOORE: I don't think it's pilings like you build a house. MR. FRAZZATTA: Either, or. MS. MOORE: Oh, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, see the difference between pilings are the same exact thing. The only difference is we have driven pilings or undriven pilings. MS. MOORE: Oh, OK, this is an undriven piling then. Thank you. haven't built one in a long time. What we also, what we did is a, we have, I have here the tax map with photographs or some photographs of the area. There is parcel #1, which is right on the corner. The house is very, right on the bulkhead and then parcel 92 Page 93 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals ~2, which is just a six houses away from Frazzitta is a decking, a sizable decking, I'm not very good with dimensions but what do you think, 30x 20 Dash? MR. DASH: A good guess. MS. MOORE: Yeah, 30 x 20 decking that actually sits on top of, again, these are all man made slopes, so, I have that for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you're talking 21 feet, you're talking 21 feet from - MS. MOORE: 25 not 21. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Whatever it is. bulkhead. Is that correct? 25 from the most landward MS. MOORE: There's only one bulkhead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there a second phase - MR. FRAZZITTA: Well the main bulkhead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, and then there's a second? Isn't there a secondary from what I remember? MR. FRAZZITTA: There's a secondary retaining wall. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, but the 20, 25 feet, Mr.Frazzitta is measured from the main bulkhead? MR. FRAZZITTA: The main. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: NOt the retaining wall, no, you're right. MS. MOORE: Mr. Frazzitta also took photographs of properties actually in my area it turns out. I know everybody's house here that's listed. These show structures, it's common place out in Southold to have accessory structures close to the water whether it's deck or little boathouses, gazebos, I know the Walkers very well. The Walkers have a beautiful cabana and I have several photographs that depict some other structures. MEMBER TORTORA: Don't you have photos of his property? MS. MOORE:. Photos of his property. Do I have photos of your property? Do you have photographs of your property? MR. FRAZZITTA: No. 93 Page 94 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MS. MOORE: No, we didn't take them, but, I'd be happy to provide them to you. Can we get some photographs? Unless, can you just go out and take a look, Lydia? One property with a big deck on it, looks similar. But actually their slope is much more vegetated, it's thicker. It also happens that you heard an application last year, Chadparo CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MS. MOORE: That was an extensive application. It's just in that same neighborhood and I had done for the Chadpar application only in that case it was a house setback from the bluff, from the bulkhead. Here it's just a minor, a small accessory structure but, I had done the research of all the homes in along the bay and the setbacks of the homes to the bulkhead and on an average they were about 30 feet, 25 feet and I have the.whole list of property owners and the setbacks of the main structure of the house. If you see from the aerial, the aerial shows how the Frazzitta house is actually placed further away than both houses next to them. You have a house and then you have, he has his deck. But, the actual house is further back. The property that's to the east, a family, they have, rather than have a slope, a vegetated slope, they just filled it in and put grass to the bulkhead. So they have a large grassy area where as Mr. Frazzitta and Mrs. Frazzitta have the slope. I know that you're familiar with the cases on area variances. I had been doing some, I had done some research. I~ll submit it for your records. You're certainly, you're familiar, I know it was brought to your attention at another hearing. Baker-v- Brownly, which is a Shelter Island case and got a great deal of attention from the Second Depart. dealing with a patio and whether or not a patio was something that the Zoning Board felt that the applicant really needed or and the Appellate Division said it's not it's balancing the interest of the applicant and what the Board thinks you need and what you don~t need is not important~ It's what the applicant really wants and it sounds really obnoxious but that's the way the law reads now. The amendments to Town Law, 267B, balancing weigh, needs and truths and balancing. Here you really don't have anyone concerned about this other than the Frazzittas and the town imposing or regulating setbacks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to give us a copy of that? MS. MOORE: I'm going to give you the whole thing. What I did was~ it's done in such a way, that I didn't know which application I was going to use it for so I had it for the Frazzitta applications Rushin-Mottley, but, the law is the same, it's just cases that factually seem to fall in line one over the other. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MS. MOORE: Do you have any questions? Page 95 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board Of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a problem and Mrs. Tortora is going to bring it up and I'm not sure we've resolved it at this point and it's, it's not an issue, you know, it's an issue that's real but, to this degree I don't know what's going to happen, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: The issue is really simple. The issue is that you're proposing a 14 x 20 foot gazebo deck, approximately 25 feet from the bulkhead. A year ago, this Board reviewed an application for 14 x 20 foot gazebo deck with a proposed setback of 26 feet from the bulkhead. We heard the case and the Board voted to deny that application and it granted alternate relief. Here we are, a year later, with essentially the identical application before us. The material facts of the case don't appear to have changed. MS. MOORE: Sounds like you're reading from a decision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, she really isn't. MS. MOORE: Oh, alright. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not. MS. MOORE: No, no, a decision prewritten, OK. MEMBER TORTORA~ No, I've listen carefully and I haven't heard anything that wasn't discussed a year ago and I'm wondering why this isn't in fact a case of Res Judicata. MS. MOORE: OK, well to begin with the 267B, what use to be reapplications or rehearings - MEMBER TORTORA: Rehearings. MS. MOORE: Rehearings is no longer the case. I don't, the Board is not precluded from having hearings if I remember the way the statute reads. That provision was taken out of Town Law because there was a recognition that if you want to come back over and over and talk about it, there's no, until you say stop, there's no prohibition in the law to do that. There's really no as you say Res Judicata it's not. The Town Law was changed. In 1994 that provision was taken out. MEMBER TORTORA: The provision for a rehearing is very much part of 1999 Town Law and it requires a unanimous vote of the Board to do so. You didn't ask for a rehearing. You asked for a new hearing. MS. MOORE: Well when I went back to look at the file because I came into this later in the game. I looked through the file and I looked through the transcript and the transcript was not very clear as to what exactly the application had been. The drawings, there were no drawings submitted, no survey, the Sandbach drawing was only submitted after the fact. So, I don't know that that was made a part of your application and deliberation when your deliberations 95 Page 96 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals were made. when I - It was clear in the file that that was submitted. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well it's clear in the record what the evidence was and what the contractor submitted. It was entirely clear. Whether you question what he submitted is something different is what you're saying. MS. MOORE: No, what I'm saying is, when I went through the-file~ looked for some kind of a map that would tell me where it was to be placed. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well everything is there that was submitted to the Board Pat, that's the file. MEMBER TORTORA: This is like going back a year and you know the evidence was waived and when I saw this file I asked Linda did Pat asked for a rehearing? She said no, Pat asked for a new hearing. MS. MOORE: Because I looked through and the map, you have the original one, when it's dated and so on. The date seemed to be after the hearing so I didn't know - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have it here. MS. MOORE: Pardon me. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have the old file here. MS. MOORE: No, I know, I looked through the old file. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: whole record. So that's the record though, that's the MEMBER TORTORA: gazebo deck - But there is no, in other words Pat, 14 x 20 foot MS. MOORE: Well it's not a deck, it's a gazebo.to start with° There was no deck. MEMBER COLLINS: Alright, alright, it's a gazebo. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, it's the same thing that's called on this application, a constructed deck with a gazebo. It's the exact same verbiage. It's the same thing. It's one, the placement of one foot difference. Now, this form that where having tonight I'm listening and I'm saying, is this, has this case been heard, and I say, yes it has, in my opinion. MS. MOORE: Well, OK, I don't, honestly I could not tell from the record that Mr. Daly, I think it was Daly? MEMBER COLLINS: Daly. Page 97 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Joel. MS. MOORE: Daly, OK. What, that, that, Mr. Daly had submitted sufficient evidence, given the information that the Sandbach drawings were actually made a part of the record. When I looked through to see dates and times to see what had been submitted, it looked like there were some deficiencies in the record because in fact, you were sure exactly where the deck was. At least my understanding was - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, wait, it's not insufficient is in the record, it's insufficient - MS. MOORE: Pardon me, Linda I'm sorry. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The whole record is there. It's the whole record, but what you're saying, is Mr. Daly didn't give enough i~formation. Is that what you're saying? MS. MOORE: Yes, that's what I'm saying. MEMBER TORTORA: But again, and I will read from Town Law now of property you know cannot cure deficiencies in the proof in a subsequent application or again attempt to persuade a Board to grant relief which prexisting has been denied. That is Res Judicatao In other words, the fact that insufficient evidence wasn't submitted even a year ago or that we didn't do this or that. MS..MOORE:. Can you tell me from your record from the last hearing whether there was an application that stated a certain setback because the setback from the record that I reviewed from that file I could not tell what the original application requested and I couldn't 'tell that there was drawing that had been submitted. I think it was all done very - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The only thing that I want to say is, this is not a review of the prior application, OK, and that's not why we're here tonight. MS. MOORE: No, that's what I'm saying. You're on the new application because the old application wasn't clear that the application was made at least in the way we submitted it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: ruled on last year. Yes, the Board's aware of what they MEMBER COLLINS: I mean I have, let me break in, sorry. I have the benefit of having enough room, I keep my files. I throw away all the extraneous stuff and I keep the hard, so I came to this late because I was on vacation and I got only, I got the old file yesterday and I laid them side by side and according to my notes, the hearing on the 1st of June last year when Mr. Daly appeared to 97 Page 98 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals represent the applicants, he was not particularly well equipped at the hearing and certainly the drawings that we looked at of the building itself were according to the stamp on it, received by us on the 22nd, two-three weeks after the hearing° MS. MOORE: After the hearing? MEMBER COLLINS: But before our decision making and my notes say, on the 6th we said, we need more detail, he said he would get it and so we didn't close the hearing then~ we waited for the input. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well it closed to verbal° MEMBER COLLINS: Well it was closed to verbal° At any rate I think according to my file, the material we had at the time we made our decision was certainly adequate or we wouldn't have made the decision. But, the bottom line which is what Mrs. Tortora is pointing out is, that if you look at this which we've looked at a year ago and we look at the drawing now~ give or take that foot which may just be a Building Department slip, 25 feet or 26 feet, I think the applications are identical for the identical building and the identical spot and that's the question she was raising. I felt that way when I looked at the file~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you Pat that I don~t necessarily agree with this but, I~m leaving it up to the Town Attorney and that's it. He's on vacation this week and in no way am I not supporting my Board and no way am I, these people are delightful people. I know that they want this thing and we'll leave it up to the Town .Attorney and make a decision if it's Res Judicata or not. MEMBER TORTORA: I think it's a Board Decision. MEMBER HORNING: year ago. Well Mr. Chairman, I do see our decision from a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I d~n't mean that issue. I"m saying one second George. I don~t mean that issue. I'm saying that I think we will seek legal counsel prior to making the decision~ MEMBER HORNING:. I understand what you said. I'm going to reiterate somewhat more simply what my colleagues are saying alsoo I mean I see our decision from a year ago where we were ruling on an application that they wanted 26 feet from the bulkhead and we ruled that 40 feet was, what we deemed to be adequate or sufficient and this one is for 25~feet given plus or minus° $o~ you're asking for even more of a variance than what was denied before really and but other than the one foot difference, everything is exactly the same and I agree with my colleagues that we already dealt with that issue° We already made a ruling. We made a decision that"s very clear and fair. Page 99 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: consider this. Well the Chairman wants the Town Attorney to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I feel badly because and I'll read this into the record because I met with the Frazzittas after the decision and Mr. & Mrs. Frazzitta did tell me that they were going to make a subsequent application and I very simply this never dawned on me. I apologize, sincerely and so let's see what the Town Attorney thinks. MS. MOORE: Well the question of the issue is whether or not we can reapplyo I mean we pouched this as a new application. If you want us to modify and how do apply for a gazebo other than by the way you want to make it. You know where you want to put it'. Under the new Article 78 on whether or not it was reasonable for you to place it at 40 feet when the applicant asked it at 25 feet. We're asking that the application be considered and whether or not you consider it a new application or your legal opinion to say you've got to reopen, or you've got to decide as a Board whether it is the same application you have to agree to rehear it. The issue remains the same. They're coming to you and asking for a gazebo on their property and I think I've shown you that it is a relatively insignificant structure that they just weren't they did not get legal advice in time to tell them to sue because there wouldn't have been really a basis for a denial based on all the cases and the character of the area and the standards that have to be met. MEMBER HORNING: They weren't denied the gazebo. MS. MOORE: On a simple gazebo it seems to me that a lawsuit is really kind of silly either way. A new application makes much more sense, so. MEMBER HORNING: They weren't denied their request. MS. MOORE: Oh, they were. They were denied their request and given alternative relief. That's what you did. MEMBER HORNING: And they were denied their opportunity to build a gazebo is what I'm saying. It was compromised by esthetic and moved. MS. MOORE: Well unfortunately the applicant wasn't there to be able to discuss a compromise solution. The Board has - MEMBER HORNING: He was not at the hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, Joel wasn't. MEMBER HORNING: Just the builder. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just the builder. 99 Page 100 - Hearing Transcripts Jun~ 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: OK. Did we carry it over? MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, we thought we left it open for him to get additional information to us and a lot of things too. MEMBER COLLINS: That's what my notes say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so where do we go from here ladies and gentleman? Do we close the hearing or do we recess it? MEMBER TORTORA: This hearing is, is - BOARD SECRETARY KoWALSKI: The hearing is not closed as of right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, I mean do we close it. MEMBER TORTORA; We can close this hearing. MS. MOORE: Well I think if you're going to ask for legal opinion~ I think they're entitled to have an opinion responded to so BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can you provide a case law? MS. MOORE: Well I mean I have to go on and do the research~ MEMBER COLLINS: said. Sure, she hasn't heard what the Town Attorney BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: applicant usually right? Yes, but the burden is really on the MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, we have to at this point in life~ we have to make a decision on whether the principal of Res Judicata or it isn't. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Pat is saying that she doesn't want it closed though. Right Pat? MS. MOORE: be - Well I think that you're making a decision that may not MEMBER TORTORA: Are you following me? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I'm following you, sure. MS. MOORE: Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know whether~ off the top of my head I can't tell you. I don't know what the changes in law have resulted in decisions after 94~ so, because I mean I've done lots, all the cases I give you regarding area variances I have, every time I read a case now I have to look at~ is it after 94 or before 94 because after 94 the standards were completely different. 100 Page 101 - Hearing Transcripts June 24, 1999 -Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, RECEIVED AND FILED BY ~ SOUTH( TOWN CL~ to ant consider this question of the standing this appea~. You that? ~ Town Clerk ToT CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah. MEMBER COLLINS: And therefore it Would be inappropriate for us to push for a decision. MEMBER HORNING: InapPropriate is what you're saying. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Inappropriate. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm inclined to say that it shouldn't be closed and we should not make a Board decision on our view about Res Judicata when our Chairman wants our Town Attorney's opinion. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We probably won't have the Town Attorney's opinion until the end of July because he's away and - MEMBER TORTORA: Are you kidding? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: July 6th. Will postpone this along with the other July hearings. We have no other choice. MS. MOORE: And in the meantime I'll also do the research. ' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is an issue that baffles me because as I said, I don't try and set anybody up and I certainly wouldn't do so, therefore, we'll recess it to July 22nd along with the other 22. We apologize, I apologize. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: who seconded his motion? OK, who made the motion? Jerry did and MEMBER COLLINS: I will. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank'you. Is everybody in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. End of Hearing. 101