Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/22/1999 HEARINGPg. INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS HELD July 22, 1999 1 Appl. No. 4698-WILLIAM LIEBLEIN & BUDD'S POND REALTY 7 Appl. No. 4727-ANTHONY PAWLOWSKI 1i Appl. No. 4714-ROBERT & JOYCE BARRY 16 Appl. No. 4713-F. & L. MARKHAM 19 Appl. No. 4719-GREGORY MICHELIS 22 Appl. No. 4716-STANLEY RUTKOWSKI 26 Appl. No. 4717-ANTHONY & CHERYL SCALFANI 31 Appl. No. 4718-JAMES RYAN, Tenant 38 Appl. No. 4721-W. & K. VON EIFF 45 Appl. No. 4719-JOSEPH & GLORIA YACCARINO 47 Appl. No. 4702-DAN & MADELINE ABBOTT 58 Appl. No. 4722-CHRIS & DENISE HATTON 63 Appl. No. 4674-STEPHEN FRIEDMANN 70 Appl. No. 4685-VINCENT TORRE 72 Appl. No. 4707-LIEB CELLARS 76 Appl. ~No. 4723-SOUTHAMPTON LUMBER 86 Appl. No. 4724-JOEL & MAXINE HIRSCH 87 Appl. No. 4726-T. ANGELL 89 Appl. No. 4710-JOSEPH FRAZZITTA Transcript of Public Hearings July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board iof Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 5:55 P.M. REALTY - Appl. No. 4698 - WILLIAM LIEBLEIN & BUDD'S POND (Continued hearing from 6/24). Variances for'lot size, proposed rear yard setback and building height at 62845 and 62945 Main Road, Southold; 1000-56-4-11 and 13.2. Zone: M-II Marine District. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: to continue for us? I would assume Mr. Strang that you're going MR. STRANG: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. STRANG: I believe the issues that were raised at the last a conclusions at the last hearing, your address and satisfaction was more with respect to notification of the MTA and part of the application form completed satisfactorily and I guess at this point we're available to answer any questions that~ the Board may have in its continuance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, are you familiar with the most recent letter that we got from John Q. Adams? MR. STRANG: Yes, I did receive a copy of that and reviewed it and many of the issues that were brought up in that letter I can relate to although I'm not certain that the gentleman that wrote the letter is fully aware of the history and the nature of this property in question since he makes.reference to merging it with a third lot which is in separate, single and ownership and completely different from that of Budd's Pond Realty or of the other smaller lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which one?N Which lot is that, do you know? MR. STRANG: There's a lot to the west. I think he's referring to 10.1. That's under, the ownership of Port of Egypt Enterprises, ( ) Corporation. So, you 'know that concern. He also makes you know, reference to the fact that he's approaching, he's seems to be approaching as if these lots are not buildable. We're trying to make them buildable and as they exist presently as single and separate lots, they are recognized as buildable lots in tact under the zoning. So, we are in fact making an effort trying to make the two extremely non-conforming lots somewhat less non-conforming by merging together. July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the end result of remaining Boards that you have to go through to get permits on this assuming the Board grants this application? MR. STRANG: OK, we have at this point in time we've been to the Trustees who has granted a permit. We have an application pending before the New York State DEC. We have Planning Board of course to deal with the site plan review. We've already had preliminary conferences and meetings with them and show them our preliminary site plan which is the one that is in front of you. And, they have voiced minimal concerns with respect to the location of trees and then the curb cuts have been addressed by the DOT, so we have, and that shows on the most recent plan that we've submitted to you are the curb locations discussed by the DOT and we'll make a formal application to them as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Has there been any other staking of the building other than the 55 gallon drums that Mr. Lieblein mentioned? MR. STRANG: I don't believe so. MR. LIEBLEIN: No, because nobody asked me for them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would just, is there a possibility Bill, that you could do something this weekend? Just put a couple of stakes in? MR. LIEBLEIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going to be starting a deliberation process on this next week, OK, and I don't know what it is, if it's the boats that clutter my objectivity of looking at it, or, whatever the case might be, I apologize. This is Mr. Lieblein speaking. Do you want to use the mike? MR. LIEBLEIN: Yes. The property to the west which is sought of from where'our sign is and there are some boats between there and the Sea Shell and it goes a little further east from ~that signe We had to make that property a part of the property on the south side to satisfy the Health Department when we got the permit to put the swimming pool in. The Health Department gave us authorizatlon to put a septic system in for the bath house. Their concern was that well if we sold the property across the street there would be no sewage for the restaurant because we knew that we couldn't very well do that and we would be cutting our throat. We can't build anything on that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're talking about that 10.1 which is - MR. LIEBLEIN: The 10.1 could never be built on. So effectively if we hadn't had to do that, the Health Department said, well we're going to merge this so now we want 30% of the whole thing and it would of made a slightly longer building except we 2 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting wouldn't have put it on top of the cesspool because you couldn't possibly do that. At this point we've already got a covenant on our property today. That piece has to stay with Port of Egypt Enterprises. The owners of Enterprises includes my brother, my ex-wife and my children, and so, that's all one piece. The pieces that we're talking about now, Budd's Pond and the smaller piece belong to my ex-wife and our ideas to put it together so we can put a little bigger building and as Garrett said, it wouldn't, it would be less non-conforming. We're planning to put a rack storage building there primarily for winter storage of boats. Yet, we might have some sitting there. The ones that aren't being used we'll leave across the street. We're not particularly anxious to cross the street anymore than we have to. However, we have been doing that for 30 years without a problem. We just wait until the break in the traffic and then we cross the street. We don't stop traffic and start driving and hold traffic up. So, there isn't going to be anymore traffic across the highway than the~e already is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you sit down, is there any question of Mr. Lieblien by any bf the Board Members? Yes, Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: The new boat storage building, what is the benefit to your having that building? You know, what is the primary benefit to you? MR. LIEBLEIN: I'm going to back up just a little bit. We bought this property in 83 or 2, I can't remember when, with the thought that at some point we would outgrow our inside storage. We have a very big demand for inside storage from the customers who are buying these more expensive boats and we've just filled up in the existing building that we have. Our business has grown back then. We probably had 10 to 12 employees. We now have about 25 employees. Our payroll, I checked with my bookkeeper, our payroll will probably exceed a million dollars. Most of my employees live in this town. So, what this is going to do is, it's going to make it possible for me to provide services to the customers I have that they're asking for. When we purchased that property, it was right during the height of the boom and I probably paid more than I should have but, we invested $95,000 in the one piece. The other one we bought back in 73 or 4 and it was like $5,000. So, we paid substantially more for this so that we would be able to cover ourselves for future use. The time has come when our customers are asking for services that we can't provide to all of them. So, the benefit is it's going to be better for my customers. Yes, there'll be a monetary benefit to us to get some return on the investment we made a long, long time ago. Whether it's going to allow me to hire even more employees or not~ I'm not sure but I probably will. MEMBER TORTORA: So the primary benefit is for storage and to service your customers. MR. LIEBLEIN: Exactly. 3 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER TORTORA: The neighborhood that it's located in. I know these may seem like lame questions but, is it a commercial area? Is it a res-Ldential area? Could you describe the neighborhood? MR. LIEBLEIN: In my area? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. LIEBLEIN: Well it's Zoned Marine II from Willow Point which is where Willow Point ends and Albertson Marine starts. Both sides of the highway have been designated Marine II all the way down to the bridge and across to the Goldsmith's property. So everything from the railroad tracks to the water has been zoned as Marine II and the theory is to keep, concentrate the Marine as in a couple of specific areas as opposed to going up at north Creekway and say opening up a virgin area for that. The property behind the tracks if you, when you come to look at it, if you walk to the railroad tracks and look to the north of the property in this, in his letter there's a wetlands marsh starting a little beyond the tracks and the closest point is probably 100 feet to the trees and then at some points it's as much as 50. And, all the way through there is the Power Company right-of-way. So, no house is going to be built I wouldn't think. You'd have to stay 75 feet back from, I have to stay 75 feet from the wetlands, so I would assume anybody building in there would. So any house is going to have to be 75 feet into the woods, so they're going to be a good, I would say, two to three hundred feet away from this building. The total linear footage from the Sea Shell to the west to the east end of our property is 650 feet. That is the 10.1 property and the other. So, we're looking to put up a 250 foot building and we've got 650 feet of frontage and this is the only thing will be able to do because this is the limit and we can't put anything on the other side. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any more questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for explaining that. MR. LIEBLEIN: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Garrett anything else? I'm just going to continue with the hearing, alright? MR. STRANG: Yeah, no I don't think I have anything else to add unless the Board has any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll see what develops. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? In favor? OK, please use the mike Sir. State your name for the record. MR. SCHROEDER: Robert Schroeder. I'm a resident of Greenporto I have lived here my whole life. I could probably go back to 30 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting years ago when my father bought a boat from Bill's father. It was a small mariner at the time. It was nice to see Bill's yard .grow over the years and I'm familiar with the property across the street, I've done work for Bill. To me I'm in favor of the project. I don't see how it couldn't go through. It would be a benefit to have the boats stored inside versus outside storage that you have right now. It would be more attractive I'm sure as the people pass by in vehicles and that's pretty much it. I just, again, I'm very familiar with that property and with all the stuff you have across the street and it's really not much a, there's no houses in the area outside of one house I believe that's between Bill's property or on the other side of Sea Shell I guess. I would have to say I'm in favor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Sir? MR. CICHANOWICZ: I'm Dave Cichanowicz, a resident of Southold. Again, I've known Bill Lieblein for quite a long time, an upstanding citizen of the community. I know what he does is first class and I'm all for what he's going to do here and I think it will enhance the area instead of take away especially with having boats stored inside instead of out. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? Good evening Sir, how are you? MR. MULLEN: Dick Mullen. I've been a friend of Bill for 30-40 years. He runs a fine business, a nice and clean place, an asset to this town, he employees a lot of people, good payroll and I think you should approve this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Yes Sir, how are you tonight? MR. BAGSHAW: My name is Harvey Bagshaw. I live in Mattituck. Mr. Lieblien's proposal here seems to be the most logical thing he can do with that piece of property. I couldn't picture anything else you could do with it or want to do with it and it will compliment not only the area but the business. Definitely it will improve the site from the railroad tracks. So, I'm all for it and I think we should speed this along and get him going. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes Sir? MR. NICKLES: I'm John S. Nickles, Jr. from Southoldo I'm in the real estate business and we've had one little piece of property for sale there and it's in that same zone just west of the Sea Shell. The owner of that property is unfortunate that he doesn't have also another little piece of property that he might be able to do something with it. But, he's been trying to sell it for years and he's gotten to a point where, well, if I can't sell it to one of these Mariners whose going to use it, there's really no other use for it so, I think I'm going to give it away to charity. So, I think what Mr. Lieblein is doing is well 5 July 22;1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting within the use for the current zoning and if you don't allow him. to use it in that fashion, it's probably just going to be a waste piece of land. So, I'm in favor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else, pro or con? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:. All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for ResolUtion. 6 July 22,1999 Southold Town BOard of Appeals, Regular Meeting 6:10 P.M. -Appl. No. 4727 STANLEY PAWLOWSKI This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100- 30A.3, Bulk Schedule, based upon a Notice of Disapproval with regard to lot coverage in excess of code limitation for a proposed accessory storage building at 1785 Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue. Parcel 1000-102-7-4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating a tennis court I believe was approved by this Board. The present house that is placed on the property and the proposed shed which is on this location apProximately 12 x 30 which is framed at this time. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Are you ready Sir? Would you state your name for the record. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Stan Pawlowski. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; How are you, Mr. Pawlowski? like to tell us? What would you MR. PAWLOWSKI: Well I'm here for a lot coverage variance. I applied, my paper work and stuff like this and I guess I'm awaiting your decision and if you have any questions. I also have a letter from about 10 of the 14 homes that are in the area that approve of it and do not mind its location. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. (Letters submitted) Can you tell the lot coverage if this was granted, it is 22.35%? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes, just slightly less than 22.35%. The tennis court itself winds up to be 6785 sq. ft. It's not a building, it's a flat piece, actually it's a glorified driveway. It doesn't block wind, it doesn't block sun, you can't see it from the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the purpose of the building? MR. PAWLOWSKI: The purpose of the building is to store lawn mowers and my own personal equipment, fishing equipment, boating equipment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would be the total utility that would be in the building? Anything more than electricity? MR. PAWLOWSKI: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MR. PAWLOWSKI: I have water to a spigot outside. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: building on the site? OK. Was there ever another storage 7 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes, there was, but that's since gone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's not coming back? MR. PAWLOWSKI: No, that's not coming back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you going to access this building? Are you going to access it through your own property? How are you going to do it? MR. PAWLOWSKI: I can access it through my own property. I can cut a couple of trees away. Presently I was, there's Park and Recreation just north of me which I maintain. I cut the lawn, I planted blUe spruce, I put wood chips down in front to make it look pleasing to the neighborhood. As you can see from the photographs, I tried to put it in the most unobtrusive position on the property and need be I sometimes went in that direction on park and recreation. It's being farmed now and since I maintain it, I figured I could use a little of it, but if you decide not to, I have a way of getting to it myself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. questions of this applicant, Sir? Any MEMBER DINIZIO: Jerry. No, you know how I feel about tennis courts, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: storage building. This isn't a tennis court. This I is a MEMBER DINIZIO: of lot coverage. in anyway? MR. PAWLOWSKI: MEMBER DINIZIO: MR. PAWLOWSKI: MEMBER DINIZIO; MR. PAWLOWSKI: MEMBER DINIZIO: Well you're talking about tennis courts as part I assume you're not going to heat this building No, I'm not going to heat it at all. Just have a light in there, a light switch° Possibly a light, yes. OK, and the water is on the outside? From the outside. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Just towards the time sequence. Buildiqg Permit Application - MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. There was a 8 July 22, 1999. Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER COLLINS: That was denied but the building is framed. mean, how did that come to be? MR. PAWLOWSKI: I thought everything. I put it up and I started it. I figured all it was a simple little lot coverage, which I didn't know at the time. I applied for the permit. I thought I would be able to get it. It was my property. I started it. I spoke with Scott Russell when he showed up at the property, and he told me to stop and I said, should I take it down? He said, no leave it the way it is. MEMBER COLLINS: So you started it sort of assuming that getting a Building Permit wasn't going to be an issue. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Well the permit was in place and then I started it figuring I was going to get it. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Figuring I was going to get the permit to do it. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, You assumed, that's what I'm saying. I just wanted to get the record straigh% that you assumed that the permit was not an issue and you got the job started and then you discovered the permit was an issue. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: That's all I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. TOrtora? MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. We appreciate your presentation and just sit tight for a minute, OK. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Sir? JOHN SULLIVAN: My name is John Sullivan. I think maybe you covered some of it. You know, with the garage door located on the north side of the building and with the principal location of the building on the subject property. The question I have is, how do you get the equipment in and out of the building without transgressing on someone else's property? That's the only question I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Do you have an objection to this using his own property to go in and out of this building? man MR. SULLIVAN: Not his own property, no. 9 July. 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll 'ask him that question. you. Anything else, Mr. Sullivan. Thank MR. SULLIVAN: If it's someone else's property I do have objection. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. You don't have a particular objection .to the storage building itself? MR. SULTAN: To a degree I have. To a degree it's facing Crown Land Lane right on the edge of the front yard and I'm looking at it. That's the objection I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Pawlowski? Anything you'd like to say regarding that MR. PAWLOWSKI: Well, Members of.the Board, I said I would take some trees, move them and access 'it through my own property. No problem without endangering any of - as you see with the photographs I supplied, I will maintain that look to the community. We have a very nice, fine community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a beautiful subdivision, it really is. MR. PAWLOWSKI: The fact that you may see it now is because the Douglas fir fir, within a year and a half you wouldn't see it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, very good. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion decision until later. Anybody else like to speak? closing hearing reserving MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution 10 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 6:2'0 P.M. - Appl. No. 4714 - ROBERT & JOYCE BARRY This is a request for a Variance under Article III-A, Section 100-30A.4 based upon a Notice of Disapproval issued June 7, 1999 for the proposed location of a new detached two car garage in an area other than the required rear yard. Location of Property: 875 West Cove Road, Cutchogue, New York, Parcel 1000-111-3-18. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey and indicates the proposed garage and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area which also includes the house so on and so forth. Can you tell us what is substantially different from when we dealt with you the last time? MRS. BARRY: We reduced the size of 'the garage from a 2-1/2 two story garage to a two car garage, one story. We took off the back-of the second story. We also reduced the size of the .. proposed deck that we have a permit for. We more or less cut it in half. It was originally at least 21 x 28 and we reduced to 18 x 16 to accommodate the garage. We still found it very close to the back of the house and felt that we could still use a little more easement up front and allow us to put a smaller garage in to have a little bit of space in the back yard for family activities. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, I guess we'll start with Mr. Horning. Mr. Horning, any questions of Mr. & Mrs. Barry? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I'll wait a moment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Well I think perhaps we're muttering. Mrs. Tortora and I are muttering along the same lines. Why don't we ask Jim and then we'll come back to this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, then we'll go back to Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I don't mean to sound mysterious. When your application arrived and I had a chance to read it which was after it had been advertised, it seemed to me that it looked like the same garage we were looking at in the spring which we said you should build further back from the road because you remember the whole discussion closeness to the road, how the Zoning Code rUles about that and how it looks in the neighborhood and that 11 July 22,1999 Southold. Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting was why the Chairman asked you, what is different about this application and I think what you said, that this application is different from what we dealt with in the spring because the garage is a different size. Is that one, are you saying that? MRS. BARRY: No, what we tried to do when we worked out with what we felt we had last time. We had 2-1/2 car garage with an upstairs and realized how large it was and we figured, OK, let's down size the garage, we'll cut the deck in half, we tried to fit everything in but was still very, very tight. Because of the problems that we had when we ran into the boulders and we were excavating we had now set the house back another 30 feet than we originally had planned and it just, it just - MEMBER COLLINS: Could I just follow that up. MRS. BARRY: Go ahead. MEMBER COLLINS: The business about the boulders upsetting your building plans. Do I understand correctly, that originally you wanted the house to be further that way? MRS. BARRY: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: then - Further towards where the steep slope is and MRS. BARRY: Right, we should have been able to move the house up a little towards the front of the property. MEMBER COLLINS: It would be to the west. MRS. BARRY: Because we have 77 feet now from the street. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, OK, that was the original plan and indeed when you were before us in the Spring, the survey drawings of your property with the house drawn in on the drawings showed the house in the place where you originally wanted to put it, not where you did put it. It shows it with the enormous with the 50 foot setback from your west property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And now it's 77. MEMBER COLLINS: And now it's 77 feet. And I think, I just want to get this straight. I think the boulder problem that you're mentioning, you encountered when it came time to pour the foundations and build the house. Now, when we looked at your case in the Spring, the house existed. It had been built~ the foundation, the house was fully framed. MRS. BARRY: time. Yeah, but I think I had an updated survey at that 12 July 22, 1999 - Southold Town Boa~ of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER COLLINS: Well, we've gone back though our records, at least I've gone back to the records, and I found there was indeed a foundation survey in the Spring record showing the house where indeed is. The garage was not on that one and I think we're feeling, I at least am feeling somewhat sympathetic here because towards hearing this case. You see at a simple level we might say, we've heard the case. You know, you can't bring it again. I don't think we're saying that because I at least in looking at your survey in the Spring was looking at a garage drawn on a survey that showed the house where it wasn't and implied therefore there was a lot more room than there was. I mean obviously I went to the property and I looked at the house but I didn't have my measuring stick. I was working from the survey. Is that where you come out Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I think that's where I come out and I think at this question if the Chairman would like to offer a motion to rehear it I'd be happy to second it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll offer the motion. MEMBER TORTORA: I'll second it. MEMBER COLLINS: That's to rehear - MEMBER TORTORA: To rehear this case. MEMBER COLLINS: number? Hear this case. We hear it under the new CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yep, because it's after the ( ). MEMBER COLLINS: OK, let's take a vote. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll make the motion to rehear. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? MEMBER COLLINS: This is sought of procedural stuff but we also want to get the record straight as to what we're looking at. What's new and what's not new. MRS. BARRY: It's also staked out I think along the fence line so you know exactly where the orange mark is where we were permitted to have it. The blue mark is where the survey is showing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we are definitely dealing with a map that reads, the survey that reads 5/24/99. Is that what we're talking about 28 feet at its farthest point, 22 feet at its~ closest point and 10 feet from your neighbor's closest property line? 13 MRS. BARRY: July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting I'll give you this one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Thanks, that's it, yes, and again, we're only talking utility of electricity. There's no second story? MRS. BARRY: No second story. MR. BARRY: spigot. No second story. There might be water just for a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: that nature? OK. No bathroom facilities, nothing in MRS. BARRY: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and did I ask you this question, what the approximate height to the ridge was? MRS. BARRY: I have a set of the blue prints here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not sure it shows that but. MRS. BARRY: ActUally if I have a scale ruler I can tell you which I don't think I have. MEMBER COLLINS: You should.be able to tell from these elevation drawings if you have a magnifying glass. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you wouldn't mind, just call us tomorrow with it. You don't have to give it to us now, that's all. MRS. BARRY: Yeah, I'll scale it out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I appreciate that, OK? of the Barrys before they sit down? Any other questions MEMBER TORTORA: Well, the primary question of course is 22 feet the furthest from north west road that you can go and if so, why? MRS. BARRY: The question is - MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, you've come back essentially asking for the same setbacks that you originally asked for and just explain to us real clear why it's not possible to place it any further back from the road? MRS.'BARRY: OK. To just because of how far back the hOuse is actually set to allow us to have a family recreation center or a place for the'kids to play or maybe put in a pool later on. This just gives us that much more room. I think it's more attractive number 2 than having this garage in the middle of my back yard and not allow a, if you walk out back of the house you literally will be on top of the garage. It just, I don't know if you can July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting ,, tell by the survey but, where that dotted line is, that's actually the street. This is a very undefined curve from here. So this is, even though it's 22 feet to that corner line, between that and that dotted line is land. It's not street. So, it's not really actually coming out 22 feet. I mean in your street coming out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, it's 22 feet at its closest point to the property line. MEMBER TORTORA: So, the primary purpose is really to enable you to have the, to enjoy the benefit of a customary and usual back yard area? MRS. BARRY: Right, it's not an overly large piece of property which we knew is a little bit less than a half acre. MEMBER TORTORA: And it's a very unusual shape. :I know we dealt in fact with it the last time. I know we dealt with it in trying to describe it in the decision. Thank you', that's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? 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. 15 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 6:30 P.M. - Appl. No. 4713 F. & L. MARKHAM The Boulevard Group, Inc. Applicants request Variances under Articie XXIV, Section t00-244 based upon a Notice of Disapproval issued March 15, 1999 for the proposed location of a new addition to dwelling with an easterly side yard at less than the existing eight feet and combined side yards at less than 25 feet. Location: 875 Mason Drive, Cutchogue, New York, 1000-104-5-37. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the approximate placement of what this applicant is looking for and a cOpy of the Suffolk County Tax Map. How are you tonight 'Sir? Could you state your name for the record? MR. LEHNERT: Inc. Robert Lehnert, representing the Boulevard Group, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Do you have a better survey than I have in the file regarding the setback on this? MR. LEHNERT: Yeah. (Discussion between Member Collins, Board Secretary Kowalski and the Chairman about the survey.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I'll give you that back. What would you like to tell us Sir? Thank you. MR. LEHNERT: Our application basically is to enlarge the eastern portion of the existing house built on the corner and along with that we're looking to renovate the entire inside of the hOuse, so we're trying to make it one job. The existing house is located on the east side of the site, placement doesn't allow us to go outside the line of the existing house anywhere. The problem was created by the previous owners, not the present owners and due to the nature of the house we feel the front addition is the only way to add space because we're looking for master bedroom space in that area. The application is in character of the existing neighborhoods, scaling addition is in character of the existing residence and in order to complete the proposed addition the section of the addition that we're asking relief from is 19 sq. ft. of the proposed addition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. questions of this gentleman? Any MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to confirm what you said which is from the point of the exterior of the house the expansion is basically simply squaring off that corner. 16 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MR. LEHNERT: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: There's a lot of other work that you're going to do but, it doesn't involve going into a second story - MR. LEHNERT: No. MEMBER COLLINS: Because you gave us elevations. MR. LEHNERT: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I sought of want the record to show that. I'm asking all 'of this to make sure that what we're being asked for is that corner and the small change in the setback and not more than that - MR. LEHNERT: The plans you have in front of you, if there approved are going to go right to the Building Department for a permit. MEMBER COLLINS: It was, I'll be honest, in your Building Permit Application, the estimated cost of the project was quite large and I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. That it wasn't going to turn into a castle. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, if we approve this we will not see you back here? MR. LEHNERT: Not for this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't mean that sarcastically. Mrs. To~tora? MEMBER TORTORA: Is it correct that the total variance that you're requesting is 3 inches? Is that correct? MR. LEHNERT: Yeah, that's it. MEMBER TORTORA: I have no questions now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Nothing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank your Mr. Lehnert. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. I doubt seriously if we're going to have too much of other developments, 'OK. Don't leave thoughI until we close it. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. 17 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 6:35 P.M. - Appl. No. 4715 - GREGORY MICHELIS Applicant is requesting Variances under Article III, Section 100- 33, based upon two June 8, 1999 Notices of Disapproval for a proposed in-ground pool with deck is requested in a side yard rather than the required rear yard and under Article XXIII, Section 100-231, for a proposed accessory tennis court with fencing at a height greater than four (4) feet in a front yard area. Location of Property: 430 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic,.New York; Parcel 1000-68-3-13. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey. I personally have seen the site, actually personally got stuck at the site and I don't have any questions at this point. Let's see what Mr. Fischetti has to say. How are you tonight Sir? MR. FISCHETTI: Good evening Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. . I'm Joseph Fischetti, Professional Engineer, representing Gregory Michelis who is requesting variances on the property for a side yard variance, not a side yard but a disapproval that we had for constructing a swimming pool in the side yard instead of the rear yard and a request for a tennis court fencing, a height greater than 4 feet which we're requesting, attempting. Mr. Michelis had purchased this property in 1986. It was originally constructed in 1977 and his family has gotten bigger and grandchildren and we wish to get more utilization of the property and as you see we have an existing Building Permit to do some renovations on the house which are under construction right now and Mr. Michelis would like to have a swimming pool and a tennis court. Because of the confines of the house being on the bluff and the coastal is on erosion lines we really have no other place except those front yards and we're requesting that variance. We've been in discussion with the neighbors. I understand that you've gotten some letter from Mrs. a - CHAIRMAIN GOEHRINGER: Schoenfeld MR. FISCHETTI:' Schoenfeld. Yes,: we've been in discussion with her and the other neighbors and we will be able to discuss that this evening if there are any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I just want to mention to you, that I did speak to a contractor last night and when I got stuck up there I forgot all about the swimming pool. In fact, it was a blatantly hot day, morning, and one Saturday, about two weeks ago and a I just to say I got out, I mean I had a cellular phone and everything. It wasn't a problem, OK, but I forgot to look at the swimming pooI so when I spoke to the contractor last night, I said to him, you know I never looked at the swimming pool but I, I didn't even remem, I just thought, didn't think about it. So, I, I, apologize to the contractor who evidently wants to build the swimming pool, so, that was one issue that came about. The question I have is,. what do you entertain in reference to the neighbors in reference to appeasing them for their? 19 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MR. FISCHETTI: Well, I, I, but we had been in discussion with the neighbor, Mrs. Schoenfeld, and we were in agreement with her on the construction of the a, for the installation of the landscaping on the westerly side~ I have a layout here which was for 36 arborvitae° There was a discussion as to what type of tree. It was evergreen and we would like to install arborvitae° There was also, she wanted 8 tol0 feet. When we discussed this with our landscapers, or Mr. Michelis discussed this with the landscapers, 8 feet was probably available and 6 to 8 feet was what they talked about. When we get to 8 to 10 feet they may not be available for this fall and I know she wants them installed immediately so we're representing you know, 6 to 8 feet tall only because they're more available and we know that we can get 36 of them and the layout of 36 trees at 5 foot spacing, would actually block that whole side and I have a layout here just to show you, you know, to have it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Thank you. MR. FISCHETTI: As to the opposite side or the east side, there really isn't any discussion there. I think there's enough buffer between that house on that side and there's really no request for buffering the swimming pool which is on the east side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright, we'll start with Mr° Horningo Any questions of Mr. Fischett±? MEMBER HORNING: No, not really. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MSo Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Just to get a slightly better picture of how that easterly side yard with the pool is going to looko I was there yesterday, and although I was driving a little four wheel drive jeep it shows not to go up to where the pool is being built. Your drawing shows a timber CCA wall running parallel to the easterly property line and making it an acute angle coming back towards the house and the pool is in behind it and your drawing is marked top of that wall 44 inches, or, is that 44 feet elevation? MR. FISCHETTI: It's 44 inches, feet elevation. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, so the 'top of that wall is flushed with the highest level of the ground grade and then as the ground drops the wall stays at that level. MR. FISCHETTI: That's correct. 2O July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER COLLINS: I was just trying to picture how. So, what the neighbor to the east is going to encounter by virtue of the pool being in the side yard is a wall that will be at the most about 4 feet high. Is that correct? MR. FISCHETTI: 4 feet, that's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you know exactly Mr. Fischetti, how far the swimming pool is from the top of the bluff? I know it's within that building envelope area. It's nothing you have to give to me right now but, we would - MR. FISCHETTI: I can scale. I have some scale but, I can - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you scale it please and just let us know.- Not, not no, you just give us a you know, tomorrow, but, definitely before Wednesday so that we have it if you wouldn't mind. Is that going to be a liner pool? MR. FISCHETTI: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nothing, OK. I think that will do it. MR. FISCHETTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 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 the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 21 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 6:43 P.M. -Appl. No. 4716 - STANLEY RUTKOWSKI This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100- 33, based upon a June 8,1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that the proposed accessory building is requested in a front yard rather than the required rear yard. Location of Property: 5705 Main Road, East Marion, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-35-2-16.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the proposed storage building (inaudible) private right-of-way. How are you tonight Sir? MR. RUTKOWSKI: Very good Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you Mr. Rutkowski? MR. RUTKOWSKI: My name is Stanley Rutkowski, East Marion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a pleasure to meet you. MR. RUTKOWSKI: I just want to leave some pictures I'll be able to explain as I go along. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. RUTKOWSKI: I'm going to read from the letter that I sent to the landowners. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great, no problem. MR. RUTKOWSKI: This is a' letter that I sent to the surrounding landowners. Dear Neighbor and Property Owners and in this case Board Members. Enclosed< please find the official Notice of Public Hearings before the Southold Town Board of Appeals. Regarding my request for a Variance of a Disapproval with regard to an accessory building, this shed is to be 12 x 24 foot to replace a building of 6 x 10 foot of ( ) vintage.~ The shed is meant to increase the area of storage space for garden tools and equipment, lawnmower, rototiiler, garden hoses, etcetera, enjoining the garden area itself. Also, it is designed to improve the overall appearance cosmetically of the ungraded 2 acre parcel as I am required by Southold Town to have. The Notice of. Disapproval states that the proposed replacement shed is in the front yard area rather than the required rear yard. The positioning of the replacement shed is virtually in the same location as the (changing of tape inaudible) boundary which to the Building Department (inaudible) my front yard disregarding the fact that my front yard faces to the South on State Highway Route 25. The proposed shed and the shed to be replaced are 72 feet East of the beforementioned right-of-way. 51 feet South of my Northern Boundary, 66 feet to the rear of my home, and approximately 160.41 feet to the North of ROute 25. My entire Route 25 frontage is 385.63 feet. The front yard designation for the rear of my property is very misleading to the general 22 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting public and myself. There's 25 foot right-of-way is what access to the pumping station for public water to the rear of my property. Now formerly owned by the Village of Greenport. The pumps beforementioned, have been closed down for several years and a right-of-way that's seldom used and then only for service and maintenance to the idle pumps. Why then should I service right-of-way effectively replacement of the shed on my property? The original which had existed to my knowledge for well over 70 years. Addendum, in speaking with the Southold Town Attorney, Gregory Yakaboski, he found nothing in their Code Book and guide describing a right-of-way other than a right-of-way line used as a base for measurements. Funk & Wagners Standard College Dictionary describes right-of-way, as the right of a person to pass over the land of another. Also, the path of a piece of land over which passage is made. Road is described as an open way for public passage especially from one city, town or village to another, a highway. Road then would be more easily accepted as a reason for affecting my .boarder property, but, certainly not a right-of-way which consists of heavily overgrown trees and bushes~ It is Southold Town that requires me to have a minimum of two acres. Now I ask that you allow me to use it to my advantage and cosmetically for the good of the community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rutkowski, is there going to be any utilities in the building? Anything other than electricity? MR. RUTKOWSKI: There's nothing. There had been nothing. Ed Forester told me to go ahead and take the shed down because I had lights on the tree. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I mean the proposed shed. The new shed. MR. RUTKOWSKI: I'm hoping to take electricity to it and possibly water to the outside of the building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. This is a one story building, right? MR. RUTKOWSKI: Right. It's 10 feet high, it's 12 x 24. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. Rutkowski? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MR. RUTKOWSKI: I just want to - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, go ahead. 23 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MR. RUTKOWSKI: I just want to emphasize that the right-of-way that you see in the picture there, if you've see it at all, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes we did~ MR. RUTKOWSKI: Is a, at the front the entrance to it is the closest wheel track to my boarder is 27 feet beyond my boarder and it's suppose to be only 25 foot right-of-way. So they've gone around all of the overgrown bushes and trees. I had to take it down at my own cost, a tree belonging to the Village of Greenport, a double tree, it cost me $500 to take those two trees down and trim around lt. That belonged to the Village of Greenporto I couldn't get them to take it down. They just didn't look good. I was just tired of looking at it. It was just grown bushes and if you see wear and tear on the roadway itself at the entrance that's because the a employees of the ~slands End Golf Club. Legally or illegally I_wonder if that road doesn't pickup and then turn around in back of the Snack Bar property and going on to the balance of the golf course? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. RUTKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora, any questions? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, wait a minute Mr. Rutkowski. MEMBER TORTORA: I apologize. I did not have an opportunity to see the property. I have read through the file and everything so bear with me.just a minute. On your survey, where is your house located? MR. RUTKOWSKI: My house is located at - MEMBER TORTORA: Is located on the same two acre parcel? MR. RUTKOWSKI: Yes it is. MEMBER TORTORA: gave us? Oh, it is, OK. Is it located on the survey you CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, it says house. MEMBER COLLINS: "H" "O". MEMBER TORTORA: Oh, OK. MR. RUTKOWSKI: On the official survey, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, that's all I want to know. 24 July 22, 1999 ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MR. RUTKOWSKI: Anyone else? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning, questions? MEMBER HORNING: Is your backyard agricultural use or, or? area, is that largely MR. RUTKOWSKI: This is our old farmhouse. I was virtually born in a potato field. We had 10 acres there but in recent years, well 1987, we sold off the rear 8 acres for development by a John Resin, from Huntington. He made it a subdivision 2 acre plots, four of them back there. But that is the old holders. We want to describe it potato ground. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. MEMBER HORNING: Alright, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think that'll do it but, don't leave until we close the hearing. Anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands we'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 25 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 6:50 P.M. - 4717 - ANTHONY & CHERYL SCLAFANI This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100- 3iA(i), based upon an April 29, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that the proposed renovation for family quarters in an accessory building would be a second dwelling~ Section 100- 3iA(i) provides for "one family detached dwellings not to exceed one dwelling on each lot.~' Location of Property: 790 Ruch Lane, Southold, N.Y., Parcel 1000-52-2-29o CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the present one family dwelling and the concrete block garage and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding' properties in the area. MSo Doty are your read? MS. DOTY: Yes Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How~are you.tonight? MS. DOTY: Good. How are you? If I may approach please° The Affidavit of Posting, the Affidavit of Mailing. I'm sorry t didn't get it in earlier. The cards were missing, one card back and I took the liberty of marking up the survey here and providing you with photographs which are numbered from the place that they were taken. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great, so we don't have to inspect? MS. DOTY: Well if you wish to you can. Unfortunately the photographs of the existing bathroom are not that clear (inaudible), but the bathroom was put in When~ the garage was built. My clients are here, Anthony & Cheryl Scalfani and the application says Mr. Scalfani just retired. Actually he just retired from 30 years of Pacific Union Police Officer and he and ~ his wife are moving out to Southold as permanent residence° They bought this little house on a little lot that's very hard to keep that as a garage and they're seeking a Variance and it's very limited variance in that he is thinking to provide family quarters for his 87 year old mother who has medical problems that are addressed in the application but I'm not going to go into at this hearing. They have no real alternative° They've not been able to find living quarters for her. It's a very tight real estate market out here. You can't find anything to rent and you can't find adequate quarters for her to a, house to buy and plus with her infirmities, they want to keep her close by. They don~t want to change what they have. They could add a bathroom to the house, but that would enlarge the house on the first floor and probably create some problem issues. They don't really want to put a second floor on. They could, but, they don't want to~ What they're proposing here is, keep the house the way it is and make renovations of the garage in order to provide living quarters for the elderly Mrs° Scalfanio The garage is 720 sqo ft. which is larger than some house out here in Southold and in fact, it's larger than the original house that was on the 26 JUly 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting property which was only 586 sq. ft. when it was first built. They don't want to change the outside of the garage at all. They intend to keep the garage for appearance so that it still looks like a garage and the proposed temporary changes here, they will discontinue to use when Mrs. Scalfani vacates the premises. We've had no objections from any of the neighbors. In fact, Caroline Higgins called me today to say that she had no objection and I suggested she called the Board. I'm not sure she did. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: so you can see it, OK. There's a message, it's right on there CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK. MS. DOTY: So in summarY, we're looking to provide quarters for an elderly infirmed woman and try to do it in the least obtrusive, least apparent and least permanent manner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well as you know this isn't normally done and in the 19 years that I've been on the Board we did it once. Actually we did it I guess twice. Once in Orient and once in Southold. I don't think that anybody is - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me the pictures so I can pass it down. I'm just asking Lydia for MEMBER TORTORA: Oh, I'm sorry. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think anyone who is on this Board declined either one of those situations that occurred. I was barely on this Board when the one in Orient was dealt with. I think I was a freshman of approximately a half a year at that time. So, I will have to apprise the Board of this particular situation and that's all I can pretty much tell you at this point and we'll start with Mr. Horning. any questions of Ms. Doty? MEMBER HORNING: I'm curious if the applicant has made any consideration for making some sought of an attachment to that house that Would go directly to the garage and make it into one unit? MS. DOTY; Well we had talked about that, but, that would be a permanent alteration and also, if you were to look at the photographs it would block the entire view of. the pond back there, Arshamomque Pond. If they were to do some kind of extension it would have to be to Code, meaning insulated you know, fully to Code because it's too long. It would have to be a room. We had considered it, but, you block the neighbors and everybody else from the view of the pond and it would be permanent. MEMBER HORNING: Well you're talking about permanent renovations? 27 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MS. DOTY: Permanent temporary renovations in that we would discontinue it and perhaps even remove the walls. MEMBER HORNING: I don't think this Boards in a position to consider temporary arrangements, are we Mro Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we have in the past. You know we haven't recently. We haven't at least not in the past five to seven years we haven't. I don't know what the situation was in Southold, or how long ago that decision was made, buto MEMBER TORTORA: About a year ago. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, it's been renewed, but - MEMBER DINIZIO: 91. MS. DOTY: There's one in 1991. MEMBER DINIZIO: 91 Pizzarrelli. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pizzarelli, yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: library. There was also Chat Paar for a MS. DOTY: Then there was one in 1980. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Chat Paar. MEMBER TORTORA: That's right. MEMBER HORNING: Ms. Doty my final question. The applicant is willing to put this in writing their intent to vacate this upon the mother, mother-in-law no longer living there? MS. DOTY: Yes. The application is based on that. MEMBER TORTORA: I've got to admit I'm very sympathetic to this for personal reasons. I also have an elderly mother but, I also know that there are many other people in this town who have parents that they're trying to care for and we are in a terrible housing market here and housing is very rough. It's very rough on a lot of us and I don't believe that the Building Inspector's interpretation that this is a second dwelling is accurate. believe this is what you're saying. You're looking for a place to put your elderly and infirmed mother while she's sick. If you're willing to covent that, if you're willing to agree to covenence and restrictions that would be a part of this application, I have no objection to it. I think that there is a way to do it. I think that we can do this in a manner that puts a restriction on the variance whether it is a temporary guest 28 July 22, 1999 Sou[hold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting quarters or whatever. We do have the power to put such restrictions and time restrictions with it. I think we do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only thing that concerns me Ms. Doty is the kitchen aspect. Is there really a need for an additional kitchen since the house is so close next door? I mean a full fledge kitchen. MS. DOTY: A full fledge kitchen, no, I don't think it really is. But~ kitchens aren't a great importance to me anyway. Sorry about that. (Laughter) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was just going to say, you frequent some of the restaurants that I frequent and I think that's - MS. DOTY: And one of them is known as my kitchen. (Laughter) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see the availability of sleeping quarters. I see the availability of heat. I see the availability of all the nuances that you know, possibly a washer and a dryer, you know. But, I really don't see the need for a kitchen but that's just my opinion and we'll go on to Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: My sentiments track Mrs. Tortora's directly~ It's a sympathetic problem. We know the problem exists and as long as it's not going to turn into a long term guest house, I feel sympathetic. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Would you be oppose to having, say, a five year limit on the a - MS. DOTY: A renewal for five years. I mean, you know, assuming she still there in five years, the need is still going to be there. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, if she cooks for herself, she may go a little further than that. I mean I'm just looking at the Pizzarelli and I think we did that there. You have no objection to that? MS. DOTY: Yes I have a copy of that decision and I think, yeah, if it's renewable you know, we can come back and say, we still need it, there still is a need and of course if the need is discontinued prior to five years, it's discontinued MEMBER DINIZIO: Good, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. MS. DOT¥: OK. 29 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS. DOTY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody 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 the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS' Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. ¸30 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board ofAppeals, Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. - Appl. No. 4718 JAMES RYAN, Tenant, (Owner: Alan Cardinale). This is a request for a Special Exception under Article IX, Section 100-9lB(il) to establish take out restaurant use in existing building k/a 50 Love Lane, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-140-3-42.2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the floor plan. We know what building it's presently being proposed in and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Sir, would you state your name for the record. MR. RYAN: Jim Ryan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do Mr. Ryan? Would you want to tell us what you want to do over there in Mattituck. MR. RYAN: I just want to establish a gourmet coffee and ice cream shop. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Speak up a little more please. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We can't hear you. MR. RYAN: I would just like to establish a gourmet coffee and ice cream shop. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How big is that entire area there? MR. RYAN: About roughly 1100 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that was the former what building? MR. RYAN: The optical building? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, what was that particular portion of the act around that building, do you know? MR. RYAN: The corner of Love Lane and Main Road? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, you don't know was in there? MR. RYAN: No, I haven't known anybody there. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It was retail glassware. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is the entire store. piece, that entire? MR. RYAN: Just the corner. That entire 31 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just the corner itself, OK. Do you know what portion of that 1100 sq. ft. actually represents the corner of that building? MR. RYAN: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. questions of Mr. Ryan? George. We'll start with Mr. Horning. Any I don't want to put you on the spot MEMBER HORNING: You say it's being subdivided the building. What other use is going to go on in the rest of the building? MR. RYAN: Upstairs I know there is a tenant and to be a the tenancy next to me right now is vacant. I'm going to have use of the' basement for storage, storage for paper goods for the products that I want to serve and for the coffee itself and ice cream. It,s. basically just going to be refrigerators, has appliances, microwave, a couple of coffee grinders with coffee machines and a three compartment sink and we'll enhance it. MEMBER HORNING: that? This is in the 1100 foot area or adjacent to MR. RYAN: It's in the 100 foot area. MEMBER HORNING: And people come in and sit down also? MR. RYAN: There will be couches and coffee tables and a seating of 16 seats. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How many couches, do you know? Any guess? MR. RYAN:~A lets see, about 4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Tell us a little bit about your business. Rudy's Gourmet, Coffee and Ice Cream Bar. Tell us what that is. Tell us who you are. What you do. MR. RYAN: Well, I'm a, right now in the Commodity Business, basically with coffee trading with a company in Ozone Park, Dallas Bergs Coffee. This is sought of an extension of that and basically what' we do is just supply coffee products to most of the tri-state area,'other restaurants such as this. This is I'm just going on my own for the first time in ,a walk-in location. As far as just trying to make an establishment where the cOmmunity can go to and I've already reached down to North Fork Children's Services to try and intergrade something with children and all the products I'm going to serve that will be donated to go back towards the community and the kids and give them something to do, not to turn into an area where kids will hang out because it's right near a high school. Not to give kids a 32 July 22, 1999 ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting ¢ place to hang out and cause trouble for kids to come to and have some constructive thing for them to do and have them in there sought of an authority to be there every chance for them and to the products served like tea shirts, coffee mugs, when there sold, percentage of that will go back towards the North Fork Community Service so that they can set up or we can set up together some type of summer programs, winter programs, giving the kids something to do constructively through that manual. MEMBER TORTORA: What do you, what do you sell? In other words, gourmet coffee. If I come in there am I going to have you know, coffee in a china cup or, a, I'll be a customer. Let me come in and tell me what's going to happen. MR. RYAN: If you're an early morning rush hour customer, you'll come in and grab a paper, you'll be able to help yourself with the variety different types of coffee, come over to the bar and pay fox that and plus pick out maybe a muffin, donut, any type of pastry and then walk out the door or you might be a business person in the area who'll stop in for lunch and then you're suppose to sit down wa%ch TV, have a cup of coffee with a few friends. MEMBER TORTORA: Where does the ice cream bars come in? MR. RYAN: Well the ice cream bar is based another something to attract the younger kids, families. Accounts usually come in, lets see the post office is right there. Families come in, they usually have their kids with them and the ice cream is something for them like an add on for them to help bring in the family aspect. MEMBER TORTORA: Is this, is this, do you think of yourself as a restaurant, or like a coffee shop? MR. RYAN: A coffee shop. MEMBER TORTORA: I guess I'm having trouble with the word, "take out restaurant" here. I didn't think that - MR. RYAN: I think it was - MEMBER TORTORA: I guess I'm having trouble in visioning you as a being a, you know I read through the application kind of clearly, and I said, well let me hear what you have to say but, you kind of said it like a just a regular ordinary coffee shop to me or whatever, but a - MR. RYAN: Not like a deli situation. MRS. TORTORA: Not a take-out restaurant. MR. RYAN: Cafe weekend. 33 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER COLLINS: It is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you say the percentage of take- out would be in restaurants that you service of this particular fashion? MR. RYAN: The only thing I serve is paper goods so anything that is served can betaken out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of that. But in restaurants that you service what would you say the percentage of take-out would be? MR. RYAN: About 60% CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 60%, 40% in, 60% out. MEMBER TORTORA: In most of the other areas where you are, are yoU~'Called restaurants or, what are you called? ~MR. RYAN: Cafes, coffee bars. MEMBER TORTORA: Cafes or coffee bars. Is this the first place you've been in that they call you a restaurant? MR. RYAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you repeat that, I couldn't hear that. MR. RYAN: Yes, that's the first time I've been, I'm not serving hot food except that we have muffins or cake or something to that effect. MEMBER TORTORA: But all of your other locations you're either known as a coffee bar or a cafe? MR. RYAN: We are a wholesale distributor of coffee. So, what we do is distribute coffee gourmet coffee products of them. We import from different countries around the world ( ) and then we ship it out from there to the various cafes throughout the tri-state area. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You got it? MEMBER TORTORA: Oh, yeah. MR. RYAN: Is that OK? MEMBER TORTORA: That's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? 34 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER COLLINS: .Well I understand Mrs. Tortora's problem. I guess the only alternative thing you could call it if you were in a benevolent mood in the Building Department would be a retail store. Retail store is a clearly permitted use. But they didn't and so here we are. Right? MEMBER TORTORA: We don't have to be here. MEMBER COLLINS: I would like to ask you a question Mr. Ryan, you know, I think you know you're here because your use having been characterized as a take-out restaurant is subject to what the law calls a Special Exception which means it's a permitted use but you have to come and get blessed to indicate that-you have a, that your particular variation on the use is not going to sought of offend the neighborhood one way or another. And, a really key thing in the list of requirements is adequate parking as I suspect you know you're going to have to talk to the Planning Board about parking. But, I think we need to have a -handle .on what, how You scope the parking situation. I'm fully familiar with the corner and the buildings and it seems to me the parking that's east of the actual octagon is pretty much reserved for the Stype Realty offices. Is that the case or do you think your, where .do you think your customers are going to find adequate parking I guess what I'm asking? MR. RYAN: There are signs posted in the parking lot. parking. Octagon MEMBER COLLINS: So, what'S reserved for the Octagon building is available for your customers? MR. RYAN: Yes, yes, in that parking lot. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. I mean I realize there's a great deal of parking across Love Lane behind the shops and going up towards the Episcopal Church. MR. RYAN: east. Even in that parking lot it goes back well to the MEMBER COLLINS: for. Yes it does. It just all looks sought of spoken MR. RYAN: No, no there are signs posted - MEMBER COLLINS; So you feel comfortable that you have adequate parking within a short distance. MR. RYAN: Yes I do. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? 35 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER DINIZIO: There use to be a computer st~re. I bought my first one. -I guess a, you know it's unfortunate and probably fortunate that you did give you know as a restaurant as oppose to retail sales because it is a Special Exception because we can grant those variations. I think that you are going to own this and not the Dallas Company. MR. RYAN: Correct° MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean you're going to be living there or you're going to run this in some way that importers have absolutely nothing to do with the ownership of this other than you gain some experience of coffee and now you want to apply your training in the retail 'sale, is that correct? MR RYAN: Yes correct. And, as far as Dallas, they'll be supplying me directly. MEMBER DINIZIO: But I mean, that's not like a chain store for Dallas, it's produCe? MR. RYAN: Righto 36 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, I thought that the conversation there was getting to a point where maybe this was a chain store, but it's not. MR. RYAN: I was just trying to explain where my experience came. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just hope I don't have to disqualify myself because I'm a lover of gourmet coffee. OK, we thank you very much Mr. Ryan, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing, we hope to have a decision for you next week and a have a good evening. Don't leave until we close the hearing. 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 the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 37 July22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 7:12 P.M..- Appl. No. 47 21 - W. & K. Yon Elff (Owners: W. & $. Franken) With respect to property known as 74605 Min Road, Greenport: 1000-45-4-5.1. B General Business Zone District, requesting: Appl. No. 4720 for a Special Exception under Article X¢ Section 100-101B (5) for a single family dwelling in an existing building; and Appl. No. 4721 for a Variance under Article X, Section 100- 102, Bulk Schedule, to allow dwelling use in connection with a permitted use on this 23,396+- sq. ft. parcel, based upon a Notice of Disapproval dated June 14, 1999 which states: "Proposed project is in a B Zone, one family dwelling use requested as pre-existing nonconforming that has lost its status ...... pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 100-241Gi~ which ~,states: ...Whenever a nonconforming use of a building or premises has been discontinued for a period of more than two (2) years or has been changed to a higher classification or to a conforming use, anything in this Article to the contrary notwithstanding¢ the nonconforming use of such building or premises shall no longer be permitted unless a variance therefor shall have been granted by the Board of Appeals. One family dwelling use is currently a Special Exception use in the B Zone (Section 10Q-101B-5). Pursuant to Article X, Section 100-102, Bulk Schedule requires 30,000 sq. ft. per business use, one family dwelling use, listed as N/A." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: i have a copy of the survey indicating this, I have the pictures of the interior of the house which basically are drawings and pictures, floor plan I should say and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Olsen we are ready when you are. MR. OLSEN: Good evening, my name is Gary Flannor Olsen. Z'm an attorney having my offices at Main Road in Cutchogue. Z represent William Yon Eiff and his wife Kristin, who are presently under contract with Wilhelm Franken and Silke, that's SILKE Franken to purchase property k/a 74605 Main Road¢ Greenport, designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Sec. 45, Blk. 4, Lot 5.1. Mr. & Mrs. Von Eiff are seeking to utilize the subject premises and their residence to operate a sign manufacturing company. This property is located in a B Zone and at one time the building on the.property utilized as a pre- existing nonconforming residence whiCh haS been lost due to the fact that residential use was discontinued for a period of more than two years. Under Southold Town Zoning Code, Sec. 100-101B- 15, a one family dwelling use is currently permitted in a B Zone as a Special Exception which is the purpose of this hearing. Also, Mr. & Mrs. Von Eiff are seeking an area variance due to the fact that the residential use requires 30,000 sq. ft. and the 38 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting business use also requires 30,000 sq. ft. pursuant to Article X, Sec. 100-102 and the Bulk Schedule. The total area of this property is 0.5371 acres and is 40 linear less than the required 60,000 sq. ft. The Southold Town Building D~partment issued a pre-existing Certificate of Occupancy on May 16, 1986, #Z14403 indicating that this property has insufficient total area, insufficient front yard and side yard setbacks and a nonconforming dwelling facility. The Southold Town Building Department also on June 5, 1986, issued a Certificate of Occupancy, #Zl1481 to close a patio addition to an existing one family dwelling. That Certificate of Occupancy was issued pursuant to Building Permit No. 14936Z. Copies of both the pre- existing Certificate of Occupancy and the Certificate of Occupancy f.or the patio enclosure I'll submit to you now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. OLSEN: I have also submitted for the record, copies of the layout of both the residential side of the building which is the west side and the shop side which is the east side of the building which my clients would utilize for their sign company. Also, Mr. Von Eiff has taken photographs of the exterior and interior of the building in question which I have also submitted for your record when I submitted the variance and special applications and it's all contained in this little package here. As you can see the west side of the building is configured strictly as a residence. The first floor containing a living room, kitchen, laundry and a den with a staircase going to the second floor which contains three bedrooms, a large closet and a bathroom. The east side of the building is one large area referred to as a shop on the diagram. This property was formally a gas station which has since then been abandoned. I understand that Mr. & Mrs. Huber utilized the property from 1970 to 1986 as a residence and plumbing business. I'm submitting an affidavit from a George and Madeline Huber, dated June 18, 1986, setting forth their use of the property and I'm also submitting a letter of abandonment of the fuel tanks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. OLSEN: I would first like to address the issue of a Special Exception for the residential use of the existing building in a B Zone. As stated before, the code does permit a residential use in a B Zone by Special Exception. In considering whether Special Exception should be granted, the code sets for certain factors for the Board to consider. Before the approval shall be given, the Board of Appeals shall determine: (1) That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or properties in the adjacent use districts; (2) That the use shall not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district; '(3) That the safety, th~ health, the welfare, the comfort, the convenience of the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (4) That the use will be in harmony with 39 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting and promote the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Code; (5) In making such determination, the Board of Appeals shall also give consideration among other things to (a) the character of the existing and probably development uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for the location of any such permitted uses; (b) the conservation of property values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses of the land; (c) the effect that the location of the proposed use may have upon the creation or undue increase of vehicular traffic congestion on public streets or highways; (d) the availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply and facilities for the discharge of sewage that may be caused or created by a result of the use; (e) whether the use or the materials incidental there to produce there by give off obnoxious gases odors~ smoke or soot; (f) where the usual cause disturbing admission of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibrations of noise; (g) whether the operations pursuant to the use will cause undue interference for the orderly enjoyment by the public by parking or recreational facilities; (h) the necessity of voluminous service space for purposes of off-street parking; (I) whether the hazard to life, limb or property because of fire flood erosion or paddock may be created by reason of or as a result of the use; (j) whether the use or the structures to be used will cause an overcrowding of the land; (k) whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and (1) whether the use to be operated is unreasonable near to a church, school or recreational area or other place of public assembly. To the east of this property is the Sunrise Bus ~Company. To the west is a vacant business parcel owned by Mr. Franken who we are purchasing our piece from. To the north is Morse Park, to the south is Rt. 25° Directly across from the property on the south side of Rt. 25, is property utilized by the Sunrise Bus Company and the Empire Gas Station. In reviewing the standards which the Board must consider~ which I've just reviewed with you, I think it's obvious that this property meets the test of all of these standards set forth in the code whiCh the Board should take into consideration to grant a Special exception, permit a residential use in a B Zone~ The fact of the matter is that this property already contains a structure that has been used for residential purposes. As stated before, the residential use was a nonconforming use. Under today's code, the code does permit a residential use in a B Zone by Special Exception. for the Board to grant a Special Exception for residential purposes will in no way adverse the effect the safety, health, welfare, or comfort for the order of the town and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. In addressing that portion of the application, seeking an area variance to have two uses in a Business Zone each requiring 30,000 sq. fto, for a total of 60,000 sq. ft. I would li~e to make the following comments. In determining whether an area varianCe should be granted, the Zoning Board must Consider five tors. (1) Whether an undesirable change will be' produced in character of the neighborhood, detriment to neairby property if granted; (2) Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method; (3) Whether the Variance is 40 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board ~ Appeals, Regular Meeting substantial;-(4) Whether the variance will have an adverse impact or effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood and (5) Whether the alleged difficulty was self created, which consideration shall be relevant to the Zoning Board decision but shall not preclude the granting of an area variance. I believe that they're reasonable reflection on these standards as applied to this case clearly demonstrates that to grant the requested area variance would not be prohibited by any of the five mentioned standards. This property is a pre-existing parcel which contains 0.53761 acres and is surrounded by other business parcels. It is a well kept parcel with well kept structures, that is ideally suited for the applicants' intended use for both their family to reside on the property and to use a portion of the existing building for their sign company. It is respectfully submitted that in no way would the granting of a variance adversely affect the safety, health or welfare or the order of the town and the granting of the variance would be in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Code. I urge the Board to give favorable conSideration to this application. Mr. & Mrs. Von Eiff are present tonight if you have any questions of them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I only want to discuss with them what outside area is of this property would be utilized for the sign business? How do you do? MR. VON EIFF: Hi, how are you? The only parts that we would use would be the inside of the building. You see there's a pre-paved garage in the picture. Behind that is actually what they call a Quonset hut, and it's really nice. That's where we would do all of our work. MRS. VON EIFF: family. The outside back yard would be strictly for our MR. VON EIFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the basic signs situation would be just advertising for the sign business and that would be it. So there would be no signs. No other types of implement put outside at all. MRS. VON EIFF: Just the sign for the business. MR. VON EIFF: Yes, just the sign for the business, that's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. of these nice people? Questions MEMBER DINIZIO: More of a comment I guess and the Olsen people I like to comment to. You realize that this is a business piece of property that you-'re going to be moving into? MR. VON EIFF: Yes. 41 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER DINIZIO: And I want to get this on the record that it's going to be noisy there. You've got a gas station across, you've got buses, you've got a, certainly the buses all hours of the day. I don't know when the gas station you know starts up and noises necessarily and I'm just concerned~ that you know given the residency in this area becomes an· excuse for some other business on this property not to have what they want because we've given a residence. I want you to be aware that this is business, OK, it's going to be noisy and I have absolutely no objection whatsoever. I live in Greenport~ I've lived there all my life and I'd love to this being used. I love to drive by here and see some cars and it would set the fact that it really does. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: time. That's about the most you've said in a long MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, well I, I, really don't want this applicant coming back you know, two years when a guy wants to put a gas station next door and saying, I can't bear to have that gasser coming at 11:00 o'clock at night keeping my kids up. MRS. VON EIFF: aware of that. buses going by, We've been down there at all times and we're We've been in the bedrooms, you know, with the because they're always going by, so. MEMBER DINIZIO; Yes they are. MRS. VON EIFF: Our kids have been there, one is only 8 months so he really doesn't notice, but, you know, the 4 year old he knows where he wants to be living, he's fine with that and we plan to just put up a small fence in the back yard so that the back yard is to portion block so that you know that's not an issue. MR. VON EIFF: I mean we did consider the noise. That was something but I really didn't have much of a problem with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, indeed we have had an applicatiOn relating to building a gas station directly next door. I ~think it's sought of in abeyance, but, it's on the public record so you presume you know about it. Just one question, there's a free standing garage in the back yard, way down towards the back of the property. Is that being used, will you use as a garage or as part of the business? MR. VON EIFF: Just a garage for lawnmower and tools. MEMBER COLLINS: That's my only~question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're on Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any questions. 42 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Perhaps you spoke to your advocate, could they bring the Board up to date for historic record here the of a, the current use a, his affidavit that people were living there up to 1986. Tell us what is gone on with that property since. MR. VON EIFF: Actually not too much. From 86 it changed hands once and then it changed to Mr. Franken and he's actually the one who did a lot of work there, cleaning it up, putting the nice garage doors in. But, it did stay vacant so we have been in there cleaning up and everything. Everything works fine. It was vacant from basically that time until present. There may have been some other previous owner who owned it in between 86 back in the 90s. There may have been someone but I don't know what they did in there. MEMBER HORNING: Any business uses since 19867 MR. VON EIFF: We had heard something about a - MR. VON EIFF: Like an electrical contractor. plumber contractor. Mr. Huber was a MR. OLSEN: That affidavit that I submitted to you from the Hubers~ I believe was given to Mr. Franken when he bought to reinforce the fact that at least when he sold to Mr. Franken, that the nonconforming use had been lost. That was the purpose of it. I ordered that affidavit but, I was not involved in that. MEMBER HORNING: But no-one has been living there since 1986, is that what you're telling us? MR. VON EIFF: I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What ever was there, was very limited. There's no question about it because it was almost non visible from the street. OccasiOnally on a saturday you'd see a car there. 'But, that's all I ever heard. MR. VON EIFF: immaculate. This building both inside and outside is CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's immaculate. MRS. VON EIFF: The owner now, Mr. Franken has done a lot of work to it. It's good for us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much. If anything else develops we appreciate you're coming, so just don't leave until we close the hearing, OK? MR. & Mrs. VON EIFF: Thank you. 43~ July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 7:34 P.M. - Appl. No. 4719 - JOSEPH & GLORIA YACCARINO This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100- 33, based upon a Notice of Disapproval dated May 24, 1999 (and Building Permit application dated March 31, 1999) to construct a proposed accessory shed in an area other than the required rear yard. Location of Property: 21605 Main Road, Cutchogue, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-108-3-11. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (inaudible changed tape) indicating a proposed shed of 10 x 14, 11 feet from a right-of-way and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, 'how are you? MR. YACCARINO: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are the applicant? MR. YACCARINO: Yes, Joseph Yaccarino, my wife Gloria. That we're homeowners of 21605 Main Road, Cutchogue. We want to put a shed on a, actually we're a corner property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. YACCARINO: It was recorded that it was a right-of-way, now it's a road. We did originally have an old garage there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I remember it. MR. YACCARINO: Which we had to take down. It was really that bad. We added an extension on the house. We wanted to put the shed the way we have it on the survey here. But, we can't put it in the back because of the sloping property. It's a large hill going up, so we'd like to put it to the right of the house there you can see it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, about 11 feet from your property line? MR. YACCARINO: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.. Is there any utility that's going to be placed in this Mr. Yaccarino? MR. YACCARINO: No, no utilities at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it's a one story? MR. YACCARINO: One story, 9 foot high, 10 x 14 shed. It's really, you can't see it from another home that's there though, it's a farm across the street besides and large arborvitae trees on'the right, it's kind of hidden. 45 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. OK, we'll start with Mr. Horning, any question of these nice people. MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GoEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: problem. No, no, I went and looked at it and I see the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're on a roll here. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Nothing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wow, this is unbelievable. It must be because I said the word break. ~ (joking and laughing amongst themselves). While your standing there, is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I' 11 make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. We hope to have a decision for you next week and appreciate your coming in. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just need a motion for a 5 minute break. MEMBER DINIZIO: So moved. July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 7:44 P. M. - Appl. No. 4702 - DAN & MADELINE ABBOTT (Continued from 6/24/99)Lot Waiver. 435 Pine Place, Gardeners Bay Estates, East Marion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir, how are you? MR. BARNOSKY: Good evening Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you state your name for the record. MR. BARNOSKY: Eugene Ro Barnosky, law firm of Lamb & Barnosky. Broadhollow Road, Melville, N. Y. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How was your trip out? MR. BARNOSKY:~ A little wet, a little slow, a little fog. May I proceed Mr. Chairman? Since we were last here on June 24, I tried to address a number of questions raised by the Board at 'the last hearing. I submitted two letters dated July 10 and July 20. My letter dated July 10, I submitted at the Board's request, a revised map showing the high water mark and the surveyor added that to the unmerger map and as I indicated in my letter, the area below the high water mark is slight indeed, secondly, one of the Members of the Board asked me to~ look into the common ownership of lots that I sited on my re-submission as the character of the neighborhood of being a .29 acres or less. As I recorded in my letter, there's one lot unapproved that does have similar circumstances. There are 3 others with common ownership as I indicated. I think the circumstances are quite different. I think that demonstrates 2 things, one that this is a fairly well developed community, secondly, the size of the proposed lot is consistent with the pattern of development, and thirdly, they're not an avalanche of applications behind this one. Finally~ my letter dated July 20 to the Clerk to the Board asking for additional information I submitted, as I indicated, a performer building envelope, I did that, as I indicated, with ruler and surveyor scale showing approximate building envelope. We also received a copy of a letter from Gardeners Bay Estates Homeowners Association reversing their prior objections to the application, and voicing their support of the application, and finally I address there was a gentleman who addressed the Board the last time, siting an application of which I was unaware of. I believe the reasons set forth in my letter, the Board has received my letter? Chairman: Yes. Mr. Barnosky: I believe the circumstances are distinguishable. That was a subdivision application involving much different issues, waivers, lands under water, environmental concerns, etcetera. I don't think that decision is relevant to alter this application. I attempted to address the Board's questions as best I could. If there are other questions, my client is here 47 July 22, 1999 ,~; Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting again this evening. We would be delighted to address any questions you may have. Chairman: I don't want to read too much into this, but what do you think the reason for the reversal of the association was? Mr. Barnosky: I believe that they did not realize in their first deliberation, as I demonstrated, I think, beyond ( ) as the original conveyances to Mr. and Mrs. Abbott were 2 distinct building lots. I do not believe the Gardeners Bay Association was aware that each of those conveyances, now tax lots 14 and 15 contain a specific limitation on each of those lots, saying on each of those lots, only one home. Obviously demonstrating that it was contemplated that there would be one home on each. But, the prices were marketable prices for building lots at that time, not for a vacant lot as a mere amenity for addition to a lot, and I think they were unaware of that and I think when they realized those.:facts and also. realized some of the other lots in the area have been developed indeed were much smaller lots. They thought that Mr. Abbott's application was consistent with the pattern of development. Chairman: The only other final thing is that in reference to the footprint area On the lot that's before us of coursed or the parcel or part of the parcel that's before us. That 75 foot mark of course, is not drawn at it's closest point, therefore, variances would be required. I'm just mentioning this to you. Either from this Board or the Town Trustee's, if this footprint was to be so dealt with in a future building situation° Mr. Barnosky: Of course, we'll do whatever is required. I again, I did not know, I'm not a surveyor, I did not.know the proper way of drawing that line. Chairman: Just so you know. Mr. Dinizio, any question? Board Member Dinizio: No. Chairman: Miss Collins? Board Member Collins: No, thank you. Chairman: Mrs. Tortora? Board Member Tortora: No. Chairman: Mr. Horningo Board Member Homing: Neither. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you sir, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Against? Sir, would you state your name for the record please. 48 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting Mr. David Wirtz: I'm David Wirtz. I'm the next-door neighbor. I have to actually, I don't know if it's appropriate or not. I really have more questions than answers because this isn't what I do, I don't know how this works. But as I understood it, the 75 ft. is a DEC thing, not a Town thing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Town. I don't know what the DEC is. -Mr. Wirtz: I was under the impression, I guess I'm wrong, it was DEC. I think it's 75 ft. from the tidal wetlands and not where the water goes. Is that right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's based upon the interpretation of the surveyor and how the surveyor has drawn the map and how the Building Inspector looks at that map and determines the placement of that house. I cannot tell you specifically if it's from wetlands or it's from high water mark. Normally, the norm we use is high water mark. A nebulous figure usually are born. An illusionary figure sometimes tends to be wetlands because we don't know if it's a wetland or it's not a wetland so therefore we waive jurisdiction to the Trustees who establish that it's a wetland or it's not a wetland. MR. WIRTZ: Well wetland means there's green stuff growing with the tide - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That does not necessarily mean it's a wetland. MR. WIRTZ: So I have to find out, there's green above, not - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's probably eel grass. MR. WIRTZ: Yes, eel grass above the high water mark. Another thing is, I thought it's 55 feet from the shortest point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that was an issue I just raised. MR, WIRTZ: So that puts the house, in other words, it's got to be, in other words you've got to have a variance on top of a variance? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a waiver. This is not a variance. MR. WIRTZ: This would be a waiver, but that would have to be a variance on top of a waiver. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. WIRTZ: OK. We later measured it at 50 absolute farthest point. 49 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, well they usually do that. They take a perpendicular line and just go in all three, four directions and that's it. MR. WIRTZ: I guess my concern is basically from what I can see, an 800 sq. ft. house, I guess you can make two floors. My issue is, I just don't want a shack there° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I just don't want you to read too much into this, OK, at this point. I mean we haven't gotten to that point. You know, we don't know if the waiver is going to be granted or not. So, I mean lets not read too much into it at this point. What I'm saying to you is, I have no idea how this Board is going to vote. But, at the same time, the input if the Board does vote favorably will be an issue that will be dealt with at another hearing. You know, so, let's wait until our hearing occurs. MR. WIRTZ: In other words that's to say on footage you mean? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Yeah, sure, maybe your variance required it, for them to build this. You know, it may be a hearing before the Trustees or. it may be a hearing before us. MR. WIRTZ: So if it has to be, why would you grant a some kind of stop me, I can't do this but, why would you grant a thing that requires something you know, that doesn't work if you grant ito In other word if you need a variance on top of the waiver, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can grant a waiver and say no further variances will be granted, OK, and I can tell you that no matter how you grant it, and the uniqueness of real estate in general, there is a great possibility that the person will come back anyway, alright. And, there's a great possibility that we may have to entertain that application, alrighto So, we don't normally do that anymore because as no piece of property is flat, no piece of property seems to be perfectly 100 x 100, OK. So, I'm just saying to you, I didn't mean to raise the issue to cause you a problem tonight. I merely raised the issue because of what I had seen. MR. WIRTZ: Well I'm beginning to think I need, honestly I need a lawyer. I'm a lawyer but, I, I'm beginning to get the sense I need a lawyer. I was told, my neighbors told me there's DEC issues, I'm really in the dark. The other thing, I'd like to just say about Mr. Barnosky keeps saying, will have no effect on my property values and if it's~a decent house maybe not, I mean a little bit because I have a nice tree lined lot next to my house. It slopes about 20 degrees by the way as I look at this waiver, you're not supposed to be able to dig in or build up, so this, I don't know if you've been at the lot, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Definitely. 50 July 22, 1999 Southotd Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MR. WIRTZ: It's quite a slope to put a house on without digging in or building up, especially on this particular piece, but, you can't possibly dig. I guess I should, what I'd like, I don't know if this, if I can do this, but an opportunity to get an appraisal of the effect on my property. I'm not so much oppose to having a house, just a dumb house, if you know what I mean, because I mean it's going to be kind of an 800 sq. ft. sought of a shack thing that's not going to be a good thing for my property values. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I personally have no problems granting you the period of time for you to get an appraisal. I just want to say to you that we would certainly want to see that appraisal and we may even want to question the appraisal, after we see the appraisal. MR.: WIRTZ: OK, well being - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: we'll see later. I, I, don't know how the Board feels but MR. WIRTZ: OK, because when I first saw this I thought this was not really a close call but it's beginning to feel to me like maybe it's a close call. It serves the Homeowners Association. I'd like to find out, I mean the last time I was here, they were worried about traffic and impact on the pond. What happened to that? You know I mean I wasn't there at the meeting when this happened and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think that was basically my question, my question to counsel, OK. And, I have to tell you that I work with 57 attorneys. They all have their own special expertise. So, in reference to your specific situation I can understand, and I can identify with your problem. So, that's what you're requesting at this time? MR. WIRTZ: Well I'd like if you've done the site visit, I'd like a chance to see if it really would have no, if this kind of house would have no effect on my property value, that's what they're alleging and I guess the other question I have is, one of the rationale seems to be here is economic hardship for my neighbors. In terms of his plan for a nest egg. Now, does that raise an issue about his overall financial picture? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I really can't answer that question. somebody on the Board wants to answer it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well the attorney can answer it. If MR. WIRTZ: I seem to be saying, that unless this is granted, which is really going to hUrt him and can't, he can't afford it, that's what paragraph 7 seems to be saying and that hard luck, I mean Dan's been my neighbor for a long time. So, if that's an 51 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting - appropriate rationale here then it seems as if, let's see what their financials really are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean if counsel wants to answer that question that's fine. MR. BARNOSKY: I don't believe that the definition of economic hardship was established with Zoning Board cases has anything to do with the personal finances of the applicant. It rather has - MR. WIRTZ: Well that's what it says on his application. MR. BARNOFSKY: It rather has to do with the circumstances of the application and the impact upon the approval or denial of the application on the applicant. I mean I believe that Donald Trump has probably obtained variances in New York City, has he not? So I mean that is not the standard as to why on case law to that effect. If I Lmay just address one other point. You know this business about the, I didn't see anything candidly on merger, or waiver of merger ordinance to require this proforma building envelope. I just didn't see it. You asked for it. I was pleased to provide it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, and I apologize. set you up by mentioning it. I wasn't trying to MR. BARNOFSKY: No, no, I understand that. What I want to make clear to the Board and then perhaps work in confirm or deny to Mr. Wirtz is I think the business of a building envelope, the type of house, etcetera, is 'premature. That is not what is before this Board. What is before this Board is whether the merger which occurred to this formerly perfectly legal, legal building lot, Should be waived under the criteria set forth in the statute, a local law adopted by the Board of Trustees in 1995. That is all that is before this Board. As if, and when, an application is submitted for a Building Permit and if that application for a Building Permit is denied, because it does not conform with all the scriptures of setback, height, distance, DEC, etcetera, then an actual site plan will be developed, an application will be presented to this Board. That's not the issue before this Board. So, I think Mr. Wirtz's concerns about this size house, this house where it's going to be'situated is premature° All that's before this Board issue is should the building lot which the Abbotts purchased be restored to its prior legal status. MR. WIRTZ: My only issue is, is it really at this .point, a building lot considering what's happened since it was bought as a building lot? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we haven't arrived at that point. Right now you are asking for a specific time to get an appraisal done which I have absolutely no objection to and we'll see how the Board feels about that at the end of the processing. Anybody 52 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board ~ Appeals, Regular Meeting , else would like to speak against this application? Does anybody on the Board have an objection to Mr. Wirtz's appraisal? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no objection. I'ii give you time in one second to counter that. MR. WIRTZ: OK, thank you Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail we're doing very simply is polling, the Board. This is a gentleman that lives next door, he's a next door neighbor, he very simply wants to have an appraisal done at his own cost. MEMBER DINIZIO: I think it's inappropriate. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who do you want to ask? MEMBER TORTORA: applicant. I just would like to address the attorney to the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright, Mr. Barnosky. MR. BARNOSKY: I just want to say, that on the issue of the appraisal, I think that goes hand in hand with the issue to the site plan, the building envelope, what type of house, where it's going to be situated, what kind of grade, etcetera. I have no objection. I wish to show Mr. Wirtz every courtesy in terms of submitting additional information. I know Mr. Wirtz professionally. But, if the appraisal is going to be well, a two story house with an 800 foot footprint, 850 sq. ft. footprint, will have a deleterious affect on his colonial whatever style house I don't think that gives the Board any information because you don't know what the applicant is going to come in with on a building permit application. If he wants to put an appraisal of any house next door will have a deleterious affect on his property, that's fine, but, I don't think that's what an appraiser is going to say. So, I'm not sure about the relevance of impact for a type of house at this time and the other thing if I may, I just hope, again, I wish to extend every courtesy I would consent any brief adjournment for the purpose of Mr. Wirtz submitting additional information but, you know, we hope to have this application finalized to take advantage of course the market of this lot, the tail end of this selling season and that is something of some importance to us with Mr. Abbott's personal situation. Thank you. MR. WIRTZ: I just don't think you can have it both ways. You can't say it has no economic impact on me in your submission and then not let me respond to that. Maybe if the Board would say - 53 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regulal: Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have no contest with me Mr. Wirtz. MEMBER COLLINS: Chairman. Well, he's got contest with me, well on Mr. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no objection to that either. I mean you can voice your opinion. This is a democracy and that's it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, can I comment on that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure comment. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean I agree with the lawyer's assertion that this is well before any variance hearing or size of house hearing. This is to basically reverse the decision that the Town Board made concerning all undersize lots and adjoining lots in the town, and you know, we have to look at it in that respect and whether-or not it's a buildable lot is something that's going to take precedence or take, being taken care of by the Building InsPector when they file a Building Permit and for us to you know, make a decision without the disapproval of the Building Inspector, in my opinion this case was way before what we should be doing. We're just looking or saying present some evidence I think quite compelling in that even their own neighbor, you know, their Association has agreed that you know, when these two lots were sold, to whoever, they Were two building lots and not more than one house could be built on either. To me, that's pretty strong evidence that he people within this whole neighborhood, you know, fully intended to see a house at some point in time on that lot and you know, I'll speak candidly anything that would hold that up in my opinion, is just you know, someone trying to delay, it for some, whatever reason. We're in July, these people need to sell this, people stop coming out in September, I think you know, we shouldn't be holding it up for that. That's another time, another date, we should be making decisions on this next Wednesday and let t'his customer, this person .go on about his business. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, sorry. MEMBER COLLINS: Are you asking Mrs. Tortora for a Motion? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I was not asking Mrs., I asked her if she wanted to question someone? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes I do. I wanted to question the attorney for the applicant. I just wanted to ask him a question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Tortora. The attorney for the applicant Sir, Mrs. 54 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board ofAppeals, Regular Meeting. MEMBER TORTORA: We, we've been kind of tossing around the word, economic hardship and you expressed you know, familiarity with Zoning Law on that respect and I'm sure you're familiar with economic hardship in Zoning Law is very often defined in terms of how much you've paid for a parcel and at the time you originally purchased it. Is that meaning correct? MR. BARNOSKY: Well to a certain degree but, also and I introduced expert testimony of a real estate appraiser and Realtor in the area that of course my clients would suffer a six figure diminution in value if this application is denied. Now, if you're asking me if'someone had the foresight to buy as many waterfront lots as they could have in 1953, at the prices that I cited to you indicated on the stamps on the tax deed, sure, but, you know, in 1953 you could buy a Volkswagen for $6,000. So I mean, how do you judge you know a return of on investments over 50 years. MEMBER TORTORA: I wasn't asking that. I was asking, if the term economic hardship in Zoning Law had very much to do with the amount of money that you purchased a parcel from and what the parcel is worth today. That was the question. MR. BAROSKY: Yes, it does. MEMBER TORTORA: That was all I was asking. MR. BARNOSKY: I think among other factors, you're quite right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I greatly admire your ability to get people to compromise and I think that's a key to what this Board does. But, in this case it seems to me that what we're asking to look at when someone requests a waiver of merger is what will happen to the lot, to the neighborhood density, we're asked to consider economic hardship, I have no idea what that means. I must say personally I think if I thought I had two building lots and it turns out I've only got one per se, that's hardship, but that's just my personal view. I do think that Mr. Wirtz's desire to submit data regarding his. economic impacts on him of a waiver is inappropriate and it is not material that I think would affect my views on this. I will say, that my views on this are largely affected by the lumpy nature of the lot and the difficulty of finding a building envelope in that lot that would not require a lot of change in the contour. I haven't made up my mind. I'm just saying that's one thing that bothers me. But I certainly do not want to put this proceeding off in order for a neighbor to give us material that I don't think we have any business taking into account in a formal sense. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well there was a statement made at one time and this Board person walked out the front door. This person had a heart attack on the front lawn on a piece of property in Nassau 55 July 22, 1999 · Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting Point and he said, you don't get nothing for nothing. OK, the purpose of this and the counsel has mentioned that this property will be marketed. It is going to have an effect upon the neighborhood regardless of what counsel says for the applicant or what the next door neighbor says. The next door neighbor wants to have an appraisal done at his own cost I have absolutely no objection to that and at this particular point, I am going, to suggest that I'm going to make a motion that we recess it approximately one meeting for the ability to have the next door neighbor to do so. MEMBER HORNING:. I'll second. BOARD SECRETARY KowALSKI: one meeting please. Would you please define approximately CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That we will reconvene this hearing for the September hearing, OK, if we do not receive it within an appropriate time in August, OK, and the appropriate time in August as you know, is two weeks before the advertising date and date is I believe August 18. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, August 18, so are you - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; That's right so two weeks before that OK, is 14 days before that, it would have to be received by August 4th, OK. If we don't receive it by August 4th, then it is on for September calendar, which I have no objection to either. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: hearing or are we not? So are you recessing to another CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are recessing it to the September date because you know we're not - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Which is September 16th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: recessing it. Which is September 16th, that is why I'm BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: with it. So the August 18th has nothing to do CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well no, I'm just telling you that it can't be done by that time. BOARD .SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I know, that's why I'm asking for clarifiCation of the date. Thank you. The resolution reads it's recessed to September 16th. MEMBER HORNING; We're expecting that the neighbor will get some sort of appraisal of the effects of the unmerging of the neighboring property. 56 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MEMBER HORNING: Not the effects of having the house there but' the effect of unmerging the parcels. MEMBER DINIZIO: That isn't what he asked for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm telling you, I don't care of the appraisal reads. It depends upon what this applicant. He's paying for it, I'm not, OK, and that's the story. MEMBER HORNING: I also support the idea of getting an appraisal. I'll second that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Member Collins: votes? Do you want to record that you got 2 negative Chairman: Yes. We will reconvene on Sept. 16. We apologize for the timeliness. Thank you for your courtesy everybody and we'll see you back in September God willing. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Chairman: Just one quick announcement. Mr. Torre has indicated to me that he has to leave. Mr. Torre we would expect you please safely drive to Mattituck and come back here. We expect to be here. Mr. Torre: I'll do that. Chairman: Do that because there's no reason to rush. hope you'd be back by 9:30. We would Mr. Torre: Yes. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 57 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 7:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4722 - CHRIS AND DENISE HATTON - Gary Flanner Olsen, Esq. This is a request by the aPplicants-owners of the existing single-family dwelling for approval of an Accessory Apartment, by Special Exception as provided under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A(B1), and Article III, Section 100-31(B13) as an accessory to their principal residence at 430 Grigonis Path, Southold, New York; County Parcel No. 1000-70-3-8; also identified as Lot #8 on the Map of Harvest Home Estates, Section I. Chairman: Special Exception for an accessory apartment which did pre-exist t~his recent sale. I have a copy of the survey and a copy of the tax map indicating the surrounding properties in the area. Who is representing them? Mr. Olsen how are you, again? Twice in the same night. What luck. Mr. Olsen: Good evening. My name is Gary Flanner Olsen. IVm an attorney-at-law, having my law office on the Main Rdo in Cutchogue. I represent the applicant Reverend Chris Hatton in connection with this application for a Special Exception for an accessory apartment for property that he owns at 430 Grigonis Path, Southold. The Zoning Board of Appeals under Appeal No. 4149 granted an application to a Mark Vusaneth for a Special Exception for an accessory apartment involving this house and property in February of 1993. I have copies of that decision here. Reverend Hatton and his wife Denise Hatton purchased the subject property from Mr. and Mrs. Busanich on June 15, 1998. The reason this application is necessary for a new Special Exception is because Section 100-31 13K of the Southold Town Planning Code states that the Special Exception for an accessory apartment shall terminate upon the transfer of title by the owner, thus necessitating a similar application by the new owner° Under Section 100-31 of the Southold Town Zoning Code Subdivision 13 a series of requirements for accessory apartments are set forth. 1. The accessory apartment should be located in the principal building. This accessory apartment is the same as it existed for Mr. and Mrs. Busanich and is located in the principal building and not .in an accessory building on the property° Reverend and Mrs. Hatton occupy one of the dwelling as their principal residence on a year-round basis° The other dwelling unit is occupied by a tenant, also on a year-round basis. The tenant is the same tenant that occupied the house when it was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Busanich and she is a senior citizen that does not have an automobile. She is the only tenant that has occupied the accessory apartment. The Reverend and~.Mrso Hatton are a young couple, and the accessory apartment not only provides extra income to the Hattons, but also provides a comfortable apartment for Carmelo Bossano, a senior citizen. The reason I'm mentioning the youth and the Senior Citizen aspect is that it is my understudying that in adopting the accessory apartment law, the Town Board was intending to encourage proliferation of affordable housing for young people and senior citizens on a 58 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board ofAppeals, Regular Meeting fixed income. The existing one-family dwelling contains not less than 1,600 sq. ft. of livable floor area which is another requirement of the code. The accessory apartment does not contain less than 450 sq. ft. of livable floor area which is also another requirement of the code. The accessory apartment does not exceed 40% of the livable floor area of the existing dwelling unit. The total square footage of this building is 2,800 sq. ft. The accessory apartment is on 'the first floor and contains 8,064 sq. ft. The main space in the building is utilized by Reverend and Mrs. Hatton as their residence and Reverend Hatton's study. The total area utilized by Reverend and Mrs. Hatton is 1,736 sq. ft. which includes 1400 sq. ft. on the second floor and 336 sq. ft. on the first floor. I'm submitting a sketch of the floor space of both areas. 40% of the total square footage of the building is 1,120 sq. ft. The accessory apartment 1,064 sq. ft. This is the floor plan of both areas. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. OLSEN: The applicants can and will provide a minimum of three off-street parking places which is required by the code althoUgh as I mentioned before, the current.tenant does not have an automobile and doesn't drive. The applicant understands that there can be no more than one accessory apartment on this property. The accessory apartment meets the requirements of the dwelling unit as defined under Section 100-13 and the Southold Town Building Department issued an up-dated Certificate of Occupancy dated March 28, 1993, number Z-22214 for a one family dwelling with accessory apartment as per the Zoning Board of Appeals decision under File No. 4149. Said Certificate of Occupancy up-dated Certificate of Occupancy No. Z-7172 dated August 13, 1976 and a copy of the up-dated Certificate is being submitted for your records. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. OLSEN: The exterior entry to the accessory apartment maintains the exterior appearance of a one family dwelling and I'm submitting herewith a photograph of the front of the house for your file. This is the photograph. I think a neighbor took this as a picture of their first home. So, I made photocopies. If you don't need this, I think he'd like to have this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No problem. Thank you. MR. OLSEN: Reverend Hatton obtained a Building Permit to remove the garage door and install a door and window in the existing opening. The Building Permit is number 25443Z and was issued on December 28, 1998 and I'm submitting a copy of that Building Permit for your records. And that former garage area is now being used as his study. No alterations need to be made to the eXisting building since both the principal residence and the accessory apartment were in existence when Reverend and Mrs. 59 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting Hatton purchased the property from Mr. & Mrs. Busanich. As I indicated in the beginning of my presentation, the Certificate of Compliance terminated when Mr. & Mrs. Busanich transferred title to Reverend and Mrs. Hatton. It is the transfer of title that is necessitating the application to reinstate the accessory apartment for the new owner. All the conversion was done subject to the approval of the Southold Town Building Department as evidenced by the up-dated Certificate of Occupancy~ number Z- 22214 for a one family residence for the accessory apartment that was issued to Busanich. The subject house was built and received a valid Certificate of Occupancy prior to January 1~ 1984 and that is evidenced by the Certificate of Occupancy number Z-7172 dated August 13, 1976. Under the Code as you're aware, in order to obtain an accessory apartment use the house has to be up prior to January 1, of 84. Lastly~ this building is not being used as a Bed and Breakfast facility which would be contrary to the code° Reverend Hatton has received written letters from neighbors indicating that they do not have any objection bo his ~application and I'm submitting copies of the letters for your file. The letters are signed by Eleanor Skwara and Antone Skwara, Jro~ Klaro Lekich, Alfred H. Goldsmith, Robert Van Bourgandine, Scott Ro Foglia. It is respectfully submitted that to continue the formerly approved accessory apartment will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or properties in adjacent use districts. The Board has previously determined that the use will not adversely affect the safety~ welfare, comfort and convenience or order of the town and that the use will be in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Code. For all of these reasons~ it is respectfully requested that the Board give favorable approval to this application and I'll submit the letters from the neighborso CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Olsen~ MR. OLSEN: Reverend Hatton is here if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know Reverend Hatton personally. I don't have any specific questions but, we'll see if anybody else does. Mr. Horning any questions of the attorney or the good Reverend? MEMBER HORNING: I'm a little confused. The former garage area that you say is now the Reverend's study, is that the area called the den and bath? MR. OLSEN: That's right. He's using that for his family use. MEMBER HORNING: The entire section (inaudible) MR. OLSEN: I would say yes. MEMBER HORNING: Access that through that do~r that's shown in the photo? 60 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board ~ Appeals, Regular Meeting MR. OLSEN: Yes. The Building Permit was for purposes of eliminating the garage door and putting in that new door and a window. MEMBER HORNING: And then the accessory apartment has a separate entrance in the front of the house and the upstairs as shown on the photo goes up a flight of stairs to the access? MR. OLSEN: Yes, but it's always been that way. MEMBER HORNING: Right, OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Olsen did you say, that the Hattons intend, in fact, to comply with the requirements for off-street parking that goes with accessory apartments? MR. OLSEN: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I mean I realize you made the point that the current tenant has no car and I suppose that makes it seem - MR. OLSEN: The code requires three parking spaces. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, that's what I'm getting at. MR. OLSEN: We have, I guess two now and he's planning on putting one more in on the right-hand side of property as you face the property. There's plenty of room to do it. MEMBER COLLINS: I know, I know, there's plenty of room. I just wanted to find out whether that was what you had said, that they were going to do that. MR. OLSEN: Yes, that's what I had said. MEMBER COLLINS: So I gather that the reason that this apartment complies with that requirement in the list that the apartment take up less than half of the total house, I mean that's what it translates to. It says the apartment shall be no more than 40% of the livable square footage in the dwelling. The thing that makes that work I gather is, that there's the study and other property downstairs that's not part of the apartment. Is that how that works out? MR. OLSEN: That's right. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. 61 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. We thank you Mr. Olsen. MR. OLSEN: Just as a comment, it's too bad that the code isn't changed so that you don't lose the accessory apartment use just by transfer and that would prevent your calendar of being cluttered up by this type of thing. I'll be honest with you I didn't ( ) The issue came up after the closing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI. 12 years (transfer). It's the first one we've had in about MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Olsen, our clutter comes from two front yards. · ~ MR. OLSEN: Well, you corrected the one with the having accessory buildings in the front yard on waterfront property. That helped. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, I know what the problem is tonight Mr. Olseno You always.,presented cases from over there. MR. OLSEN: I always had very good luck over there and I happen to be left'handed so maybe my luck will turn from this side. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 62 July 22, 1999 Southold. Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 8:23 PoM. - 'Appl. No. 4674 (Continued Hearing from 6/24/99) STEPHEN FRIEDMANN This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon the January 8, 1999 Notice 'of Disapproval which states that the proposed addition/alteration to an existing dwelling is less than 25 feet for total combined side yards at 2140 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-123-4-4.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Changed tape) How are you tonight, Sir? MR. LUDLOW: I'm fine, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. MR. LUDLOW: My name is Tom Ludlow and I'm the Agent for the Friedmanns and their contractor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, there's nothing you wanted to add. I know this hearing was brought at the request of the next door neighbor. So, we will see what he has to say. MR. LUDLOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and we'll discuss it before we close the hearing and go from there, OK? MR. LUDLOW: Sounds like a good game plan. MR. PALMER: the east. Good evening. I'm Tom Palmer. I'm the neighbor to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: like to tell us? How you doing Mr. Palmer? What would you MR. PALMER: I've got a few things I'd like to state. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR. PALMER: First of all. We do not object to the renovation as a whole. But, we do object to the encroachment to the east. I believe the following facts have brought my objections. First off, to start off with, Mrs. Villano, whose the property owner to the west. Mrs. Villano several years ago, did a two story renovation. It was dOne quite tastefully. It was quite functional and this is the key point. Mrs. Villano's renovation was done on the existing footprint of the original cottage. Ten years ago, 1988, I also did a renovation. I managed to do a renovation without any encroachment to the east or to the west. So, it can be done. But, I'm moving right along. I.t was mentioned in the previous minutes that they must have the three rooms across the back on the water side. Well, if you look at the existing survey, there is three rooms. Obviously there not of the grand size they might wish, but, this was existing the day they bought the house, they were aware of it at the time. I mean 63 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board ofAppeals, Regular Meeting we all have a grand plan but, it's possible their grand plan is too large for this lot. That's my opinion° If you look at the existing survey, you can check the north east corner, that is existing there to the road, there is 100 feet. Look, obviously this is the meat and potatoes of this lot. Like was stated in other meetings it's not all 100 x 100 sq. ft. properties. This renovation could run forward to the north of the road, possibly without even a variance here. They would of complied with a 50 foot setback off the road. Main points, Noise on the water. Noise on the water transmits of a totally different level than inland. That's just a given. You bring a structure of this size closer to me it's a given on noise level has to increase, tn turn my privacy decreases. The amount of glass that is brought into the structure on the east side now is 30% more than what was existing as the original cottage. Grant you they have to raise the structure to meet with the new flow codes because they're on the water. The height of the structure is tremendoUs° This .thing is going to be like a drive-in movie screen. You bring this thing closer to my property line, you're encroaching upon noise and encroaching upon my privacy. I spent a lot of money on screening, a lot, a lot of shrubs. It totally negates this. The first floor windows tower over my leaning cypresses. The second story, is not even close° The height of this building as stated is a two story structure. Well, if it's so important that these rooms go back towards the water, why is then, that the second story of this structure has one room upstairs overlooking the water? The second story is only on the east side of the property. Why didn't we use the entire upstairs? In conclusion, I think it's demonstrated that the renovation can be done on the existing footprints. Both neighbors on either side did do this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak against the application? Mrs. Villano how are you tonight? MRS. VILLANO: Very good Mr. Goehringer. I just want to say I reviewed the file, and it appears that my prior statements are in that file and they stand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just don't know how we can restrict the amount of stories. I understand your situation with your discussion on the footprint issue. But I just don't know how - I understand the flood plan issue also and I understand how blatantly difficult that is for next door neighbors to deal with in reference to the lowest floor area. But, we'll deal with it, that's all I can tell you. Mr. Ludlow anything you can counter before we close the hearing?.. MR. LUDLOW: Well, only just to get back to the first hearing. What we're asking for is such a minuscule amount of relief on the east side there, because of the angle of the building that we're talking about, a corner of the kitchen and I just don't see that there's a whole lot of difference° 64 Chairman: July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting What is the figure? MR. LUDLOW: The sq. ft. figure? Chairman: Square foot and lineal foot. MR. LUDLOW: Well, there's some of the side yards which is the problem and the side yard on Mr. Palmer's side is, with the new construction, is 15 ft. CHAIRMAN: What is it existing now? MR. LUDLOW: 19 1/2 I believe. MR. PALMER: The subfactor is 21. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead Mr. Ludlow. MR. LUDLOW: The sq. footage is something like 36 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know why I don't have a picture of that. Any Board Members have any questions or anything? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to just ask about the applicant. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The what? MEMBER DINIZIO: This gentlemen here. I'd like to take it that you wouldn't have any objection to this if you didn't need a variance? MR. PALMER: Oh, no. The point is the lot is the lot. Like we stated, there's 100xl00 sq. ft. lot, the rooms would be perfectly symmetrical, and everybody would be a happy camper. The lot is set up that it's 200 ft. across. There seems to be no attempt to go towards the street which is the meat and potato of the lot. It's stating it's a second story addition. The only second story is on the eastern side of the property. If square footage to obtain more square footage was the issue here, but, why did we go across the entire top of the house? Why didn't we go to the north? We could have secured all of that. We can build a lot of sq. footage out towards the north, We can get more waterview if we go upstairs, there's one room upstairs on this entire structure, from the top' floor. It appears that it's a wish list that's not wish, wish, wish, and we're going to get, get, get. Noise is the main problem, privacy is - I treasure my privacy, and it is going to affect that. Will property values be effected? That's .a possibility, but it's the noise and it's definitely the privacy. This thing's going to tower over me, and the closer you bring it to me, it's like a drive-in movie screen it's encroaching on me. There's other ways to acquire square footage without encroaching. I did it and Mrs. Villano did it and it can be done. 65 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER DINIZIO: For you, I just want to ask this question and I'd like it just answered. You would not oppose in putting a second story on? You would just oppose to the fact that it goes closer to your house? MR. PALMER: It's going to be dloser because of the noise 'and you're going to lose privacy. That's the main event. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're aware that we can't tell him not to put up a second story? MR. PALMER: Oh, no, no, the second story is absolutely no problem. The only problem I have is the encroachment to the east. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's it's coming closer to you. MR. PALMER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, thank you, that's all I have. Chairman: .Mr. Ludlow, what is the loweSt floor elevation? MR. LUDLOW: The lowest floor elevation? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, above grade? MR. LUDLOW: On the plans as proposed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. LUDLOW: Well, I think 8 ft. above sea level. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, yeah. But, you are not putting any, there are no pilings on this. This is a straight forward foundation right? MR. LUDLOW: Correct, we're just going to add about 2 blocks to the foundation. CHAIRMAN: So what's the approximate height of the house then to the mean roof? MR. LUDLOW: I couldn't answer that. CHAIRMAN: Could you get that information for us? MR. LUDLOW: I sure could. MEMBER DINIZIO: Could I ask a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. 66 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board ofAppeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean is there any compelling reason why you feel you need this variance? In other words, that you couldn't go to the north and couldn't go - MR. LUDLOW: Well I mean an architect designed the house for the Friedmann's, so I couldn't speak on their behalf. CHAIRMAN: You're just the builder, right? MR. LUDLOW: Yeah, just a builder caught in between. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: that word. I didn't mean that in anything less than MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, I understand that but I mean you know, there are cesspools in the way, there, you know. MR. LUDLOW: Well, you know, I think it was, what had actually happened it was designed and wasn't realized the combination you know, the two side yards. We didn't think a variance was going to come, was going to be necessary and we basically made the decision and tried for a variance you know after coming this far because it seemed like such a small amount and I told them I said, I didn't think it would be a problem getting one. MEMBER DINIZIO: How much money do you figure they spent on plans? MR. LUDLOW: I don't know but, I'm sure it's $5 to $10,000. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: There's been a lot of discussion about the height of this and we understand that you have to meet flood thing but base floor elevation with the blocks will come up to be about 9 feet? Is that right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: grade. 9 feet above sea level, but not above MEMBER TORTORA: 9 feet above. MR. LUDLOW: 8 above sea level. MEMBER TORTORA: Not 9? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MR. LUDLOW: It'll be you know, 2 feet above the existing grade. MEMBER TORTORA: I really understand your neighbors' concern and the reason I understand this, is because I've seen a house show up to meet'the requirements that the coastal erosion has of the law, and it's like that old cartoon in the city, where you see 67 July 22, 1999 ~,~ Southold TOwn Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting ,~ these huge skyscrapers with this little house next to it left and that's really the effect, and when we look at these things we're suppose to look at the benefit to the applicant verses the detriment to the community, and also, if you have an alternative way, and in this case you haven't convince me, that there's not an alternative way to do it and you certainly haven't convince me that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the neighborhood,, and I'm kind of being real blunt with you because we've been around with this one for quite a while and I really haven't seen any willingness or desire to compromise. So, I kind of think you need to compromise or give me at least, some reason why there is no alternative way that you can have your addition. MR. LUDLOW:~ Well, what is there to compromise when you're asking for such a small amount? You know, I mean - MEMBER TORTORA: It's the overall effect of what your asking for and the overall effect~I can see what the overall effect is going to be. MR. LUDLOW: What did you have in mind? MEMBER TORTORA: YOu're at almoSt a zero if 4.6 on the other side. I saw the photographs at the last hearing. On the other side of the property, you're at a 21 foot setback, now, you're going to 15 on this unusual piece of property. But, I just don~t see a, you don't have other choices that would require a variance. And, that's one of the things that by law, we're suppose to look at. This was my thoughts. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: back Sir? Thank you Mr. Ludlow. Question in the MR. FRIEDMANN: Yes, my name is Stephen Friedmann. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I knew you looked familiar Mr. Friedmann. MR. FRIEDMANN: I guess we originally began plans to put the foundation. We wanted to stay on the footprint and as things~ developed we came up with plans that actually were a little larger. But, one of the big concerns that we've had, is privacy and we're very close to our neighbor Elaine. juSt a few feet away from her house and as I indicated at the last hearing, you know, my bedroom kind of looks out unto the window. It looks out unto her porch. It's only a few feet away. On the other side of our house, we have windows looking from my bathroom, looking right into Mro Palmer's bedroom. So, when we redesigned this little house, we came up with a scheme that we believe grants significant privacy to Elaine and Tommy because the way the windows are placed, certainly on the Viltano's side of the structure, there are very few windows and likewise if you move the windows in such a way, there may be more window space but, we believe that there's more privacy. But, there's also there are in fact, the upstairs is a bedroom, a bath and a Work lofto 68 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting There's tubes, I think, my understanding. We are very concern about privacy. We've spent several thousand dollars upon evergreens. We've put in 10 foot, 12 foot evergreens, the length of the property between Villanos and our house and we believe that this building, currently we have a.very small modest cottage. We believe that this addition will in fact increase the value of both the Villano's property and Palmer's property. I believe the house that we're building is about the same height as the Villano's house. At this point, that house towers over my house which is 'fine. I could basically build - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Friedmann, of course as yo6 know, we have two options. We have an option to deny the variance. We have an option for alternate relief. So, I believe we've discussed this with you to some degree. You have told us that correct me if I'm wrong, sometimes after about 36 hearings, they all kind of mell into one here, that, yes, you would consider alternate relief and we will deal with that aspect of it OK and we go from there and we do appreciate your talking to us again. MR. FRIEDMANN: I do have some pictures by the way if I can - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Sure, bring them up. MR. FRIEDMANN: The rooms are marked in back. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision and we will get to this starting deliberation of this next Wednesday, hopefully. We appreciate everybody's courtesy and safe home. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 69 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 8:23 P.M. - Appl. No. 4685 - VINCENT TORRE (Continued from 5/20/99) This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100- 244B, based upon the January 8, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that the proposed addition/alteration to an existing dwelling is less than 25 feet for total combined side yards at 2140 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck~ Parcel 1000-123-4-4.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Torre would you believe just as you walked in we were just concluding this hearing. So, you're right on and so, we'll reopen the Torre hearing and I'll make a brief statement to you. We are not without feeling in reference to your request before us. This is my opinion. I~m making a generalization for the Board and this is my opinion. We are not without feeling in ~eference to your request of your application. But, it's just, there's an inability to grant it and that'.s the problem, OK, based upon the code as it exist then. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's a use variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's a use variance. I don't know if you've come here to deal with those aspects tonight. You're certainly welcome to. But, I just wanted to make a generalization known. MR. TORRE: Yes, well, Mr. Goehringer and ladies and gentlemen, I received this. I really opened this only today. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand, so, you need time to digest it? MR. TORRE: Yes and I'll tell you when Mr. Fritzgerald who was here with me a feWweeks ago, told me on the phone that he had a previouS engagement and couldn't possibly be here tonight. My own lawyer is out of the state and I really feel I can't really represent myself in this matter and I ask for your kind indulgence to give me a postponement so I can appear with Mro Fritzgerald, my lawyer, at or one or both. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: September 16th? MR. TORRE: That would be fine with me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that alright with you? MEMBER TORTORA: Not August? Nothing in August? MR. TORRE: Well August would be fine. I'll leave it up to you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: August 18th? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I think September would be better. 7O July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If it's alright with you, I would really like to make it September. MEMBER TORTORA: Alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're just so crowded in this calendar. MR. TORRE: September would be fine. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We'll give you September 16th. MR. TORRRE: September 16th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Anybody here that wants to talks about this hearing? Seeing no hands, September 16th it is. I'll make a motion recessing this to September 16th. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 71 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 8:45 P.M. - Appl. No. 4708 -LIEB CELLARS This is a request for an interpretation under Article VIII, Section 100-83C which states: A project shall be divided into separate structures so that no single structure shall have more than sixty (60) linear feet of frontage on one (1) street° Applicant proposes to construct a winery on this corner lot with two road frontages (at intersection with Middle Road a/k/a/ C.R.48) and requests the Board to interpret whether or not the proposed winery building is required to have sixty (60) linear feet of frontage on one (1) street or on two road frontages~ as determined by the Building Department's May 7~ 1999 NotiCe of· Disapproval. Site Address: 35 Cox Neck Lane, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-121-6-1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Wickham would you like to start off? MS. WICKHAM: .Good evening.:.~.~We would like you to determine the meaning of the provision of the Limited Business Code that says: a project shall be divided into separate structures so that no single structure shall have more than 60 linear feet of frontage on one street. It says on one street, not on any street, not on all streets, but on one street and we would like to submit to you that the application that we have made meets the 60 foot setback on CR 48 and that's sufficient to meet the one street with requirement of the code without necessity for examining the width in particular on the other street. The language of that section which I've just read is clear, it's unambiguous and I don't know that it's subject to interpretation. Your Board does have the power to determine meaning and in doing that it must use what is actually written in the code if it is clear. It has to be strictly construed. Anderson on Zoning which is probably the preeminent treatise in this area has a number of different citations and a number of cases and I'd just like to quote some of the provisions from that treatise. "It is a long established rule that when a Zoning Agency's interpretation of a zoning resolution is contrary to the plain meaning of the statute." The court's will not enforce that Agency's conflicting application. If the rule .is clear it has to be applied, because if you decide otherwise and create another meaning it will not be enforced. The cardinal rule really is, that Zoning Regulations being a derogation of the common law must be strictly construed against the municipality which is an active and seeks to enforce them. Any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the property owner. Is there any Zoning Regulation in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed against the municipality. What that mean is that the Zoning Ordinance restricts the use of the land in an area where conduct was originally not subject to restriction so that when you're deciding what a Zoning Ordinance says, you can only go as far as what the Zoning Board actually says. You can't go beyond what it says. When you're deciding a variance, there's a difference. There you're actually deciding that someone can go beyond what the Zoning Board Ordinance says and give them some 72 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board ~ Appeals, Regular Meeting freedom to vary it. We're not asking for a variance in this particular situation. We're asking what does the code say and does the code say, he can, cannot do it? And, the code says, he's limited to one sixty foot width on one street. It's say width on one street, not on every street and you can't make it, the Building Inspector can't make it more than one street because that's not what it says. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, any questions from any Board Members of counsel? No, OK. Anybody in the audience while the counsel is standing would like to speak? Would like to discuss this issue? OK. MEMBER COLLINS: Well yes, we can't have this silent. I gather Ms. Wickham that your not going to present any arguments about Legislative intent? I mean you are urging us to read the Code literally? MS. WICKHAM: I'm urging you to read the Code literally and say, that really extraneous material is not a factor because there's no leeway for what it says. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. MS. WICKHAM: If we want to look at, you know, what were they trying to accomplish and what were they trying to do, obviously they were trying to make the Route 48 corridor look nice and avoid ugly. And, I think that's what everybody understood with what's happening and therefore they wanted to see minimal frontage on at least one street. You need a narrow or deeper building. If you go with that idea then why all of a sudden would you be restricted to a smaller building on a corner lot? It doesn't make sense. So, even if you could go beyond the language of the statute, I think you'd be looking at a disparity between a corner lot and a regular lot. The object was to present one to one side, a narrow building and a corner lot should not be required to have a smaller building unless there's a setback or some other restriction. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. MS. WICKHAM: If I could just a. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MS. WICKHAM: I wrote a letter to you. I don't know the date of itrbut, I just want to emphasize that if you refer to it in your record, that the CR 48 moratorium does not prohibit you as I read it from making a decision that the Building Inspector made a mistake in determining that a variance was required and being what the law says, that precludes you from issuing an approval Special Exception variance site plan building permit subdivision permit. We're not asking for those. 73 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think we can clear .that up right now. Ms. Collins will mention it. MEMBER COLLINS: Ms. Wickham, at our special meeting, which occurred after the last hearing, which was a public meeting but the public tends not to come, we discussed that point whether to proceed on this and we've agreed that I would go talk to the ToWn Attorney and I first read the moratorium and I agree with you entirely that the moratorium does not prohibit our deciding the queStion you're asking us to decide and the Town Attorney agrees~ so, I think that's not something you need to be c'oncerned about. MS. WICKHAM: I also as a matter of course would like to submit Affidavit of Posting and the Affidavit, I mean the receipts on the certified mail, all of which was returned except one didn't come back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mr. Lieb you were not with us the last time. Is there'something you would like to say? So nice to see you. How's your summer going? MR. LIEB: Nice to see you and the panel again. We've been down this road before, a different spot, a different zone and I'd like just to say that you know, we made the decision rather than to fight to look at a different.piece of property. We've looked at about a half dozen different pieces of property. We went to the Planning Board and gave them a choice and they liked this piece the best and sat with Gail and we really went over the law and felt it was pretty specific about you know, one road, 60 feet. And, you know, I'm glad it was agreed upon that we don't have to wait for the moratorium again because I'd like to get a decision pretty quickly because there's a lot of other things I have to do besides obviously coming to the panel here tonight. So, I would appreciate that and as you and I have spoken just as everybody else, we've been assured that it will not be a simple matter of building that will be put up there. It's something that will loOk nice so again, I'd like to thank everybody for listening but I'd like to have a decision rather quickly so I can move on to the second stage which is go back to the Planning Board. And~ I'm also here to answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any other questions Speechless again, have a lovgly evening. of Mr. Lieb? MR. LIEB: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to. speak in favor? Any concerns regarding this interpretation? ~iSeeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? 74 Motion July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 75 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 8:53 P.M. - Appl. No. 4723 - SOUTHAMPTON LUMBER This is a requeSt for a Variance under Article XXtV, Section 100- 242G, in applicant's request for a lumberyard use which was disapproved January 12, 1999 for the following reason: "Whenever a nonconforming use of a building or premises has been discontinued for a period of more than two (2) years or has been changed to a higher classification or to a conforming user nothing in this Article to the contrary notwithstanding~ the nonconforming use of such building or premises shall no longer be permitted unless a variance therefor shall have been granted by the Board of Appeals." Location of Property: 13650 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-114-11-24.3. Zone District: Hamlet Business. CHkIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the site plan. We are aware of the site plan. We had an application prior to this one and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area and a letter that was just received by Donielle Cardinale. I believe we are ready counsel. MR. STEPHEN HAM: Stephen Ham, for the applicant, 45 Hampton Road, Southampton, N.Y. I have the. affidavit of posting and mailing and also a Memorandum of Law basically, Facts, Fact Witnesses. As you know, our prior application waS treated more or less as an interpretation of the ordinance and this application we intend to present evidence that would justify your granting of a use variance and as you know the standards that we have to meet for that, are for each and every permitted use in the district we must show that we can't realize a reasonable return that has to be supported by confident evidence we have to show some decree of neatness and that the variance will not alter .the character of the neighborhood and that the hardship was not self created. I have Merrill Becker, the President of Southampton Lumber who will give you some facts concerning the listing primarily and I also have Andrew Stype who is a Real Estate expert here who will give you some facts concerning reasonable return in the neighborhood and some other factors. I just want to set this up a little bit by addressing those standards. As you know, or, as in my opinion at least, in reverse order in terms of difficulty. The hardship here, I'll take them in reverse order. There is no issue here. I think you'll agree it's self created hardship. The problem has arisen because of the change in zone and the fact that your Board deemed and the Building Department and your Board deemed that we had discontinued our pre-existing use. All of that, those factors are beyond our control. In terms of the character of the neighborhood, Mr. Stype will speak to that but, I think you have to agree that you have a scene that will not change. You have buildings on site already. The property had been used as a lumber yard for many, many, many years, whether by Southampton Lumber or it's predecessor, Reeve Lumber up until 1993 when 76 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting Southampton Lumber ceased its building materials operations, and since then has been winding up its affairs. In terms of uniqueness, the cases under that particular standard do not require that we be the only parcel with this sort of problem. However, we believe we are unique in this case. Here you have a fairly large parcel, 1.8 acres in this Hamlet Business Zone, which are primarily smaller parcels. But, the key factor here which makes us unique, and there are many cases the New York Courts have interpreted addressing this issue. You have a case where you have buildings on the property already. We are not one of several lots, vacant lots that have the same problem and we're asking for some special dispensation here. We have a real problem here which in that we have quite an investment in large buildings which are not suitable to the Hamlet Business Zone. As far as the reasonable return is concerned, I will give you some numbers just to set this out. Mr. Stype will address them as well. In the Memorandum I just handed you there is an affidavit attached which indicates that Southampton Lumber paid $551,000 for this property in the early 1980s. I mentioned in that Memorandum that for many years up until last or until May, the assessed value of this property, that is the value on which our taxes have been based has been $19,000. Applying the Town's equalization rate which is used for Commercial and other properties of 2.9% that would indicate that the town felt this property had a value of about $655,000. Since we were denied in our prior application, I worked out a settlement with the Assessors to reduce the assessment to $13,000 but, that would still indicate a value of about $450,000 at the current equalization rate. The next number I'll give you is the number $430,000. That is the contract price between Southampton Lumber and Speonk Lumber. The condition to that contract and forgive me for being repgtitious but this is a new hearing. That contract is contingent upon our ability to deliver to the purchaser, a current Certificate of Occupancy which covers the use that we're applying for here a building material storage and sale use. So, needless to say, the $430,000 figure may be high if your not inclined to bring that relief. I have some and Mr. Stype will speak to this to some extent too-. Attached to my Memorandum are some estimates of cost of removal of various aspects of the (coughing) to this property and that bottom line was about $230,000 and I say that the cases in this area and I ask you to the extent that you're going to focus on cases on in your interpretation, you look at those where there are buildings on property. That is the fact pattern here and I really would like you to keep that in mind. Mr. Stype will speak to some dollar and cents issues which are critical to our burden here but, there are other factors which go toward reasonable return which the courts ~h'ave addressed and 1, Mr. Becker will speak to you in a few minutes and that is the listing history of this property had we made an effort to sell it for what it is without a variance. He will tell you with whom it has been listed, various offers that have been made and so forth. That is an issue that the courts have looked at. Finally, just as a general proposition, we just ask you to be practical about this. I drove by there 77 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting tonight, I drove through Mattituck, the Business District, came upon the Southampton Lumber property. You have some huge buildings there° They pre-exist, they're there. What does common sense tell you, the use should be for that property?' Should it be a small ~etail store, or a large yard use? Keep that in mind when you consider what it would cost for somebody to actually put a permitted use on that property. Would those buildings have any utility to them or, would they have to remove them and start from scratch? And again, I've done some research which is reflected in my Memorandum and, that is an issue which the boards will look at; is what it would take to get this property to where it really could be used for the permitted use° So I think I would like to have Mr. Becker speak first and he will speak to our listing history of this property because I want that to be part of the record as well as some of the numbers that Mr. Stype will give you. If you have any questions of me~ I'd be happy to answer them during the course of .the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask him a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, wait a minute Mr. Dinizio has a question for you Mr. Ham. MEMBER DINIZIO: The $550,000 that you paid for in 1983 - MR. HAM: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Was that an on going business at the time? MR. HAM: Yes° MEMBER DINIZIO: There were customers involved with that place? MR. HAM: Oh, no, as I point out or as Mr. Osborne, look at the Affidavit in Exhibit A, $550,000 was real estate only. There was other consideration in addition to that for inventory, good will and so forth. I think the total consideration was well over $800,000. The real estate was $550,000. I even have the deeds here where you can work backwards using the Transfer Tax to prove that, but, it's in Mr. Osborne's affidavit. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. MR. HAM: It's real estate only. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. MR. HAM: Good point though. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: Mr~ Becker you have to raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the information you're about to give us is the truth to the best bf your knowledge? 78 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MR. BECKER: Yes, I do. My name is Merrill Becker. I'm President of the Southampton Lumber Company and the first thing is a listing on the property. The business in the late 80s went south so to speak. We immediately closed the yard and then we listed it with the local Realtors. Local Realtors were, Stype Realty, Celic Realty, Tom McCarthy Management and also, Albertson Century 21. All that time it was listed I did have inquiries from Bob Celic. They were low offers. The highest offer I received was $325,000. The company had been asking $525,000 for the property. We had Mr. Stype reappraise it and we changed the price to $475,000. All the Realtors were made known of that fact and we've been actively since the time that we closed the doors we've been actively trying to sell the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions of this gentleman? Anybody? MEMBERS: No. MR. BECKER: I might want to mention that there was an ultimate payment a little bit higher once they knew we had (inaudible). One of the Realtors had made' an offer of, through his client, made an offer of $325,000. As soon as it was known that there was a contract with Speonk Lumber, the broker came back with an offer of $425,000 and I had informed him that we had already signed a contract with Speonk and as soon as it was learned that the petition we had was denied, the same person called back and offered us $375,000. The same person but a different offer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. HAM: May I just to clarify on that. We have no idea what conditions or anything would be involved with that offer but, I just wanted to clarify that it did come up a little bit as it usually does with real estate when an offer has been made and then exactly as I predicted in my letter, opposing the hope, the reopening the hearing in April, he dropped that offer as soon as he found we were denied. So, we don't consider it a particularly serious offer. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Mr. Ham, question by - MEMBER TORTORA: This offer? Mr. Ham was the offer for a lumber company? MR. HAM: The offer, no it was not - MEMBER TORTORA: The offer that was pulled back and then. MR. HAM: We think that he intended to use it for some storage or something. Is that right, Merrill? MR. BECKER: I have no idea what he, you know he intended. 79 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Existing, whatever it was, it was existing. MR. HAM: It was vague. Well, we'll go into who it is if we have to. MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a question then on that. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, because we talked about this. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, because are you saying then, that someone who wouldn't put a lumber company in there offered you more money than for a lumber company? MR. HAM: No, no, no. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well this person that offered you the money then, ~was it a lumber company? MR. HAM: They raised their offer. No, it was not a lumber company. They did raise their, they had been around $325 as Mr. Becker stated.~ When interest was shown by Speonk and when we signed the contract, he came back with a bigger number. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, which, how much was that? MR. HAM: $425. MEMBER DINIZIO: He valued that property at that amount if - MEMBER COLLINS: That's not what he said, he said $375. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, he came down to $375. MR. HAM: And then he came down to $375. We don't consider this serious. We have no idea what conditions. For all we know, as Mr. Stype will say, he will want to use it as we've had other offerors for maybe not for a lumber yard, for another use that would require a use variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Those were "As Is" offers though? MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, I mean - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To your knowledge? MEMBER DINIZIO: He may of not purchased - ~ ~ MR. HAM: They were suppose to be envelopes. They were not reduced to, to even to a point where (changing tape) MEMBER DINIZIO: I just question why you would introduce that if that offer were so high. If you, number one, didn't have you know an idea of what would be put in there because if someone offers 8O July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting you that kind of money, and he could put in the uses that are intended for that piece of property, then, doesn't that go against your a - MR. HAM: I'm, I'm in the interest of being truthful is why I introduced that. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I'm assuming you're telling us the truth. I have no question about that but, you know, in telling us the truth if what you're saying, that isn't that the value, is the value of that property as use that is permitted? Doesn't that go contrary to your argument? MR. HAM: Well if somebody were serious, would seriously pay that kind of money for it, but, this was something that was, somebody who was low balling us and then came up and down. We have no idea that was a serious offer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, but just clear, (tape) those were "As Is" oifers as the property stood right then and there. Is that the question? I mean is that a yes answer to that I mean? I mean I'm not trying to put you in a - MR. HAM: I was not the, it was not made to me, I don't know. But~ we discussed it - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But I mean, they weren't looking? they weren't signing a contract subject to, right? MR. HAM: They weren't signing, I mean we never got down to the nitty gritty. There are always conditions on these offers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, I understand. MR. HAM: So I, no, I - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not trying to put you in a position, Steve, I just wanted to - MR. HAM: No, I wanted to make that, put that on record, buts it wasn't a serious offer. I wanted to clarify that because I pointed that out in my Memorandum as one of the facts and that's (tape keeps dying down) serious offer because this person has been, had been around and would be likely that there would be conditions to it, but it never reached a serious stage. I'll have Mr. Stype speak. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, thank you~ Mr. Stype, although it's really not necessary because you've testified before us, we'll ask you anyway. Do you solemnly swear that the information you're about to give us- is the truth to the best of your knowledge? MR. STYPE: I do. 81 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. STYPE: Thank you very much. I'm Andrew Stype owner of Andrew Stype Realty in Mattituck. We do real estate sales, real estate appraisals and have since 1964. I have an office on the Main Road in Mattituck, we're approximately 500 feet to the west of Southampton Lumber. Back in the days when the lumber yard was owned by the Reeve Lumber Company, I had bought a lot of lumber there like everybody else did and a lot of paint and other hardware. I also know the property very well. I have been through there many, many times and I had appraised the property back in 1994 and at that time we had a value up to $500~000~ Our office had an open listing on the property back in 1995 for $525. We've had interested parties over the years. We've advertised the properties. We advertise the properties in the New York Times, the Newsday, the local papers. We also had a sign on the property too. So, we did a lot of advertising for it and I also know the other brokers did too. We had a potential interested party whose a woodworking firm but he was hoping to lease the property and they weren't interested in having a lease on the property. The other purchaser we had is a local boat dealer and he was looking to expand his operation but the only problem there too of course was that he would have to have a use variance to have his ~business. But, he did a lot of work anyway and he went through the property perhaps six, seven times. He added up a lot of different costs° He had received the cost of demolition of $130,000 and he felt renovation costs for him were up to $500,000. He had hoped to renovate each of the buildings on the property. There's up to three buildings there basically° They're older buildings but they're large, older warehouse buildings. Total square feet is approximately 20,000 sq. ft~ That's a lot of building. He estimated that the overall cost if you count how much you would have to pay for the property~ was up to one million dollars. After he added this up he walked into my office and said, Andy, I just can't afford this. It's just way too expensive for me and I have to back out and I said, fine. We had this played over, and over again. We had other people, have looked at the property, they had to look at you know~ the condition of the property, what they have to do to get it up to what they wanted. It was just an awfully expensive cost. It's hard to realize the return here because we looked through at the other uses now under Hamlet Business. It is impossible to have a residential use on the property because of the actual cost to have to purchase the property and to have to renovate all the building. What do you do with the warehouse kind of building? It isn't very good for residential use. If you look for boarding house uses, it's all the same thing there too. It's almost impossible to have that or else it would be in B with this kind of building because you look at a building that really just a shell and used for storage. Offices, office, there's not a lot of demand for office space right now in the North Fork° The area Office rents may be as high as $18 a sq. ft. but, only in the B Business Zone areas. There is an office building which is to the 82 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting west of Mattituck it's at the west end. They have been getting about $18 a sq. ft. The Hamlet Business areas you're really look at a rent which is anywhere from $10 to $12 a sq. ft. on the average. You may find some which are like a little bit higher and others a little bit lower. The banks are the same things. The banks are notorious for buying a cheap properties if they buy it. They're not going to buy something that you have to put a lot of money into. Retail stores, now there's a possibility, but, the only problem is again, to spend the kind of money you have to get it up. There is a possibility to have an anchor store there but, anchor stores have to have other stores to have to make it go. And, I don't see anchor stores coming into an area where they're the only building. There have to be around 18, 30 buildings to have to make a go of it. The restaurant the same thing. As you run down the whole list, you come to bake shops, art, personal service, custom workshop, the bus stations, all the stuff, it's impossible to have that kind of business there. It's just too expensive.~ You just can't afford it. Second standards. Hardship doesn't apply to a large portion of a neighborhood. Most of the other buildings in a Hamlet Business area, are smaller one occupant type of buildings. Almost are all either owner occupied or very small businesses. There's only just a few in the area that have actually more than one occupant. I would say if I had to estimate .percentage, I would have to say up to 95% of all the buildings are one occupant use. The third standard is average use variance won't alter the character of the neighborhood. Subject's buildings have been there for many, many years. The former Reeve Lumber business had a positive effect on the area. It's a well run business. There was not a problem of extra traffic, and it was in better condition than what it is now. That is the largest problem now, is that-as of now, the building is a real eye sore and, if you let it be like this, it's going to start to deteriorate to a point, where you can either have a fire hazard, or, vandalism damage, and it just isn't safe. It's obvious that it has, you know as we wind this up here, that the intended purpose of all these .buildings is to have lumber yard building contracting yard but, it has to be something that can offer a large type of business. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ham? Any questions of Mr. Stype? Mr. MR. HAM: Just on that other issue. I think that the listing history of this property over five years is not some last second offer when we already are in contract is what you should focus on, on that point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: call, anybody? Who is the next person you're going to MR. HAM: No, I have nobody. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No-one, OK. We thank you. 83 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MR. HAM: We do have the proposed owner here if you need to ask him any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you know, the one question I did have. Does this include any right-of-way out to New Suffolk Avenue, or is it, is the basic property, the property is basically as it stands, there are no - MR. HAM: The contract is just a sale as it stands. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As it stands, thank you. Any questions of counsel, ladies and gentlemen? No? OK. We thank you. We appreciate the brevity and we'll see if anybody else would like to speak in favor? Yes ma'am. Would you kindly state your name for the record. MS. KAY ZEGEL: Sure. My name is Kay Zegel. I'm the Director of the Mattituck-Laurel Library. The library as you probably knows borders the east side of the lumber yard property, and the library is currently looking at an expansion projecto We've been working on it for several years actually and it's coming to fruition hopefully this fall. And, a long, long time ago, I wrote a letter on behalf of the Board of Trustees to Mr. Becker, just making inquiries about whether Southampton Lumber would entertain a notion of donating some of the land that borders the property to the library, and we have a driveway that's very busy and it would be lovely to widen that driveway, and now in light of our building expansion that becomes a little more pressing. The reply we got from Southampton Lumber was that they felt it would probably inhibit, be detrimental to the sale of the · property and we could accept that and see that they were struggling to sell it. However, when I got wind of someone else in the wings that was interested in purchasing I got on the phone and called Mr. Smith of Speonk Lumber and he, was very, very, cordial and I wasn't expecting that and pretty much said to me, that he was very interested in being a good neighbor, being a good member of the community and he would very definitely entertain the notion of giving a piece of the property to the library, a donation, and I was shocked and happy and reported that to my Board. This was long before any controversy concerning the business, the zoning of property. So, I guess this being my first hearing, I've been hearing about benefit to the community, and I guess, that's what I'm speaking about is the benefit to the community. Certainly, anyone who uses the Mattituck Library would realize the benefit to the library to have that driveway widened. And, also, a much more objective note, I've been with the library for about nine years and when I first came to the library the lumber yard was operational and being a library next door to a lumber yard I have to say, that I couldn't object to anything that went on. I couldn't object to the noise level, or activity or traffic, it all seemed very fine and dandy at the time and I just thought I'd let you know. 84 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes Sir? How are you tonight Ed? State your name for the record. MR. SIEGMAN: I'm Ed S~egman. I'm a resident of Mattituck. When I moved out here 20 years ago, that lumber yard was operating. Many of us used that lumber yard for lumber supply and many other supplies that they sold, paint and a lot of things that they had in hardware. You never heard any complaints about it being a lumber yard. When I started to read in the 'paper, that there was some discrepancy over whether they were going to permit it to be a lumber yard again, I couldn't understand why that was happening because if you go across the street from where they are and just up the road a little, you've got a company up there that sells, that .rents equipment and you've got trucks, leased trucks standing out in front of that business all the time. Right across the street from that you have a garden shop that's got all kinds of concrete ornaments, some statutes that are in and out of there that they-sell and all supplies for the garden. Right behind this lumber yard property, there's a gravel and sand and gravel business that's fenced off. I thought, why would they object to a lumber yard, when you have all those other types of supplies for the home in that area. I would suggest, that you ought to go ahead and give these people an opportunity to operate. Let me tell you one of the main selfish reasons I'm interested in it. As you well know, I represent the Mattituck Seniors. We are getting hit with a 9-1/2% increase for the school building this year. The town keeps putting up referendums in reference to a million and two million dollars to buy the development rights of a property. I think, and we think, that when you have a legitimate company that's willing to come in here and supply the area with the materials that that area needs, you ought to help those citizens out. That part of the tax money would be paid by industry instead of being paid by the property owner and we hopefully wish that you will go ahead and give them the opportunity to open. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thanks Mr. Siegman. Anybody else? Anybody else like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 85 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of,Appeals, Regular Meeting 9:28 P.M. - Appl. No. 4724 - JOEL & MAXINE HIRSCH Contract Vendees (Owner: Baraterama Corp., by Sheldon Hills). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a mutual consent of a to adjourn this to the next regular scheduled meeting. So, I will do so. I will open the hearing and very simply recess it to August 18th and I offer that ladies and gentlemen as a resolution. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 86 July 22,1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting 9:39 P.M. - Appl. No. 4726 - T. ANGELL This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, based upon the June 9, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for a proposed deck addition for the reason that the deck is proposed at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead at 305 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport; Parcel 1000-35-4-28.25, a/k/a as Lot 10, Map of Fordham Acres, Section One. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a gentleman that wants to build a deck at the rear of his property and who is here representing you? How are you Sir? MR. JUST: Good evening. I'm Glen Just of J.M.O. Environmental Consulting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. JUST: I've only appeared before your Board once. I normally just represent clients with wetlands issues in front of the Trustees and DEC and such. This particular case, Mr. Angell's home is located 60 feet from an existing bulkhead and he wishes to put a low profile deck extension behind his house and a free form fish pool. It'll be located about 44 feet' from the bulkhead. We had gone to the DEC and obtained a letter for non jurisdiction because the bulkhead predates the law and at last night's Board of Trustees meeting they did grant us a waiver for thins action along the recommendation by the CCA for approval. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The pool is approximately 8 feet? MR. JUST: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I know I mentioned that to him. I met him personally at the house when I looked at it and I know the deck is opened and a meaning open to the sky. MR. JUST: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And did he say what kind of construction that was going to be? Did he say it was wood? MR. JUST: Timber on grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Any questions of Mr. Just ladies and gentlemen? MEMBER COLLINS: I have a question that's not actually related to the deck which is before us and I don't really have a basis for asking it, but, I'm going to ask it anyway. In the Trustees' Notice of Hearings, whether it was last night I don't know, had to do indicating that he's going to put up a 10 x 10 shed? MR. JUST: Yes. 87 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER COLLINS: And now under new improved Southold Town Code you don't need a Building Permit for a 10 x 10 shed and therefore its location doesn't come sought of to the Notice of the Building Department and the code says, you're still suppose to comply with the Zoning Code even though you don't need a Building Permit. Well, yes, I'm sure people are going to comply right and 'left. I'm just curious where the shed's going? MR. JUST: There's no shed, it was an error by Diane downstairs. MEMBER COLLINS: Laughing, I'm sorry, I delivered my little (laughing). MR. JUST: God's honest truth, I ran out, I put the poster on the sign in front of Mr. Angell's house. Mr. Angell called up and said, where the hell is the shed coming from? So I go back and changed the Poster, picked up a new one (inaudible) MEMBER COLLINS: I see, OK, when I drove by the house I should of read the poster, OK, excuse me, because I mean, this is going to happen and I'm just kind of wanted to surface it and let everybody think, hm, about it. MR. JUST: You're right, we picked up on it. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would anybody like to speak? Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 88 July 22,1999 ~Southold Town Board ~ Appeals, Regular Meeting 9:43 P.M. - Appl. No. 4710 - JOSEPH FRAZZITTA (Continued hearing from 6/24/99) Proposed accessory building at less than 75 feet from bulkhead at 1420 Inlet Way, Southold. Possible determination "res judicata'' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is one that has been ongoing and do you want to say something on the outset? OK, we're going to let Ms. Collins take over. MEMBER COLLINS: The Board has thought about this and come to the following conclusion that after the Frazzitta's application, the current one, number 4710 was received and advertised for a hearing. The Board on studying the file, concluded at least Board Members concluded that the facts of this application were identical to the facts to the application we had dealt with just a year ago and the Board Members sought of mentioned this to each other and we mentioned it to you at the counsel at the last meeting and the Board has briefly consulted counsel to make sure that we are properly interpreting the term res judicata and we believe that we are and the Board Members have come to the conclusion that this current application 4710, is indeed barred by res judicata because we read the facts as identical. Meanwhile of course you had sent us a - MS. MOORE: I was going to say, did you read my letter? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. Meanwhile counsel, we received your letter which goes to the topic of rehearing and which you discussed length in the letter and we certainly have read it and we recognize and no, indeed, we've read N. Y. Town Law ourselves, that we have the authority to rehear provided we unanimously vote to do so and we look on your letter to us as a request that we consider rehearing and therefore I will for the sake of determining the Board's position will make the motion to rehear the Frazzitta matter which we heard previously and decided. I make that motion in order to get a vote, not because I~ will vote for it. MEMBER HORNING: I second the motion for the same purposes. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman do you want to take a vote or shall I, since I'm talking? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can take the vote. MEMBER COLLINS: I'll take the vote, sure. Those in favor of rehearing the Frazzitta application, opposed? MEMBERS: Aye. MEMBER COLLINS: I believe it was an unanimous no, but you would need an unanimous yes. So, I think counsel, but, that's where we're at. 89 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No rehearing. MS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Sorry, it's so late. MS. MOORE: That's OK. I was working at the office. I guess I'll get that in writing? Will I get the determination in writing? MEMBER COLLINS: What will we do? I would think it would be- BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, I'll just send a letter to you confirming that a rehearing was not held and therefore there's, that's the end of it. Just that no rehearing was held. There was no motion to rehear. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes there was. There was a motion to rehear it. MEMBER DINIZIO: No the motion to rehear was defeated. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I mean there was a motion to rehear but, the resolution was defeated. Thank you, that's what I meant. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's OK. MS. MOORE: I just want my client to know, because he has choices to make about what he want's to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of course. MS. MOORE: Are you going to get to Rushin Mottley by any chance since I'm here at this hour? Did you get my letter? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Thank God they saved it. MS. MOORE: What? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank God the place didn't burn down to the ground. MEMBER COLLINS: Talk about a moot issue. MS. MOORE: No, we still have to deal with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are relatively prepared to make decision but, I don't know if it's going to happen tonight. I don't want you to leave here that we make one. I don't know, OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you 'want to ask the Board Members? 90 July 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals, Regular Meeting MEMBER COLLINS: Why don't we, I personally am very much against making any decisions that require real thought after we had hearings. My brain is mush. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it'lt be. I mean it could or could not happen. We're going to go down these and then we could get to the Agenda and whatever. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We're meeting Wednesday night. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going to meet Wednesday. MEMBER COLLINS: We'll do it next week. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we're going to do it Wednesday. MS. MOORE: You're meeting next week? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Next Wednesday. Is there anything left on the Agenda? OK, let's do the whole. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Nothing left. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: want to second? No, we have to approve the minutes. I offer those as a resolution. Anybody Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. End of Hearing. Prepared by Lucy Farrell RECEIVED AND FILED BY r~ SOUTk~OLD TOWN CLERK DATE Town Clerk, Town of Soutkold 91