Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/27/2001 HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD FEBRUARY 27, 2001 Present were: Chairman Goehringer Member Dinizio Member Tortora Member Collins Member Homing Secretary Kowalski (no present between 6:40 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.) .PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4917 - Robert H. Chilton. "Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-239.4B based on the Building Department's December 26, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing a dwelling at less than 75 feet trom the existing bulkhead. Location: 1165 Blue Marin Drive, Southold; 57-1-13. The Chairman opened the hearing at 6:40 p.m. and asked if someone is present to speak regarding this application. ANTHONY B. TOHILL, ESQ: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. My name is Anthony Tohill. I am the attorney for the applicant. Linda has received the records directly from Robert Chilton, who is the applicant presently here this evening - this Affidavit of Posting and the Affidavit of Mailing and I trust that they are in good form. This is an application under 239.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 100 of the Town Code, and a variance trom the 75ft. setback requirement trom a bulkhead. The application specifically is to build a house at 50 feet trom the bulkhead, so it would be a 25 ft. variance to the 75 ft. standard. . The applicant at my urging has spoken with the next door neighbor to the west. There is really only one neighbor to the whole project, and it's that neighbor. And they have together agreed that the applicant, Mi. Chilton, would increase the setback from 50 feet to 60 feet, diminishing the variance trom 25 feet to 15 feet. I don't think either one wanted to go further to the road, closer to the road, because you would throw the way the houses line up along there, out of whack. It's pretty apparent when one stands on Blue Marin and Albacore that there should be some space along side the street, and so this would satisfY that requirement. The property is in the R40 District. The property is 21,000 in change and is undersized. It does qualifY as preexisting, nonconforming, single-and-separate. It's been owned by the applicant in his name only since September 14, 1979. The adjacent lot No. 35 is owned since the same day by the applicant and his wife, Blanche L. Chilton. Both were bought on the same day and they continue to be owned in the same manner. The property to the west, which is Levison, was bought around the exact same time, so the whole street trom Albacore to the water has always for the last 20 years and at least 20 years prior to the adoption ofthe Code, Section 100-24 of the Town on January 10, 1989 has been owned single and separately, so therefore, if one were to reduce the variance to 15 feet, then one would Page 2 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals , -' come closer to the street on Blue Marlin Drive, and one would reach the edge of that dotted line on the John Ehlers survey which shows the preexisting nonconfonning setback 40 feet, and it does qualifY as of right under 100-244 of the Town Code for a 40 ft. setback. If that happens, it widens ever so slightty the west side yard, now at 24 feet it would become something greater than 24 feet but because this all happened within the last few days, we don't how much greater but that's something that obviously would presumably increase that number. We have Suffolk County Health Department approval as of September 8, 2000. We have Trustees' approval as of November 21,2000. That Trustees' approval was for 50 feet ITom the bulkhead, and there is a condition within that approval that there be a 20 ft. low turf buffer for the first 20 feet coming back from the bulkhead. We would, of course, comply with that requirement. I did check with the Trustees and there is no impact on that approval as a result of the Town Board's approval of Local Law #17, changing the jurisdiction of the Trustees to 100 ft. There is a DEC No Jurisdiction letter which is part oJ your file. That was issued on September 26th and we cleared that as well. You have a letter delivered, I think, today in your file ITom Mr. Levison. We did and we thank you for sending it to us, received a copy of that ITom you. We do not agree to the conditions that are set forth in that letter and would ask that the application or the hearing not be adjourned to deal with those. And the reason I am saying that is that the neighbor after saying he wants us to move it back to 60 feet which we had agreed, and thought that settled the matter, now he wants a view shed, an easement of view over the entirety of the area of those 60 feet to the point where he wants you to impose conditions so as not to obstruct the view of the canal, and that would mean that we would prohibit not just structures which is under the zoning ordinance in Chapter 100 within your jurisdiction, but also he wants you to obstruct plant life. I think that actually means plants that might grow on their own. Plants that are there because of God or a seagull. And something called inert materials. I suspect that that might be an umbrella so that if one is sitting out their in the summer having an ice tea under an umbrella and the neighbor comes by and says, you're obstructing my view of the water, welcome to the world of full employment of attorneys; something that all of us, I think, are sadly familiar with. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Interestingly enough, Mr. Tohill, we had an application of that nature. And the applicant confonned. MR. TOHILL: How did it play out? CHAIRMAN: It played out in this particular manner. He wanted a variance in proximity to the bulkhead and very simply there were trees in logistic positions that were inhibiting neighbor's views, and he agreed to move those trees. MR. TOHILL: Well, we don't want to get involved in something we are - that's just a full employment opportunity for lawyers, a full dispute opportunity for neighbors. If we move the house back 60 feet, we want to be governed by the Town zoning and State building code and if a plant grows there, God bless the plant. And if somebody sits out there under an umbrella, God bless them. We have been neighbors with the Levisons Page 3 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals since 1979. That's a long time, 22 years. And we've never had a problem with them, and we don't expect ever to have a problem with them. When we do plant a little lot, when the house is built. So we don't want conditions that this Board (a) has no license or jurisdiction under the Code to impose, and (b) doesn't want to impose. I don't think you really want to be in the business of regulating storage, for example. So we would ask that everybody just pass on those and stay with the statutory standards. The question, first one would be, does this produce an undesirable change? It's the last of the vacant lots in that whole section of that subdivision. Somebody is going to build a house there. The 60 ft. setback is 80% of the ordinance requirement of 75 feet. It would not appear to be different from anything else happening in the neighborhood. Everybody seems to push as close to the water on each side of the street as possible. This will actually come a little bit more landward because of Section 100-239.4, which is ok. Is there a feasible 'alternative? Interestingly there would have been had we stayed with the 50 ft. front yard because we could have moved cl9serto the front yard, but if you reduce it to 40 feet there really is no feasible alternative except to create another variance requirement, which I don't think yott':V~nt us to do and we don't want to do. The variance is not substantial. It's a 20% variance, 15 feet to 75 feet. There is clearly no environmental harm as a result, the Trustees and DEC have each spoken as well as the Health Department. And it's not self-imposed. The depth of this lot is exactly the depth of the lot as a result of the original subdivision and the bulkheading and the street frame the lot. The bottom line is really expressed in the application and those words couldn't be articulated better. The character of the neighborhood is best served by placing that house not entirely on top of the street, 75 feet from the bulkhead because it will be completely out of character with everything in the neighborhood. It's best served by placing it right where it is. And we can do that we would be completely satisfied. I am here to answer any questions. Mr. Chilton is here to answer any questions. ¡ ~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just wondering how you got to be number one on the docket tonight Gokingly). MR. TOHILL: I thought the same thing on the way out here. CHAIRMAN: After only hearing complaints of being #37 at other times being last. MR. TOHILL: How wonderful to be number one, too. CHAIRMAN: I have no objection to this application. We'll start with Mr. D, do you have any questions of Mr. Tohill? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, no. You are going to move it back to 60 instead of 50 and you're happy with that. MR. TOHILL: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: And the letter I think kind of speaks for itself any way. Page 4 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Well, when I looked at the property, I said I think another 10 feet is probably do-able. And you've said 10 feet is do-able. Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: What would the distance be to the tront yard area then? MR. TOHILL: Forty feet. Exactly what the ordinance requires. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly 40? MR. TOHILL: Yes. 100-244 allows it to go down to 40. And it's, and thank God the house was lined up parallel to the street. If you think through that for a second, if it had 11Dt been lined up parallel wW;J. the DEC, Health Department and Trustees you would have to go back through everybo~¥.. . But it worked out. MEMBER TORTORA: And the 60 feet is to the inside edge ofthe bulkhead? MR. TOHILL: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Is it a one story or two story house? MR. TOHILL: It has not been determined. MR. CHILTON: Right. MR. TOHILL: Not yet. It depends on how strong Mr. Chilton's legs feel. MEMBER TORTORA: I have no further questions. MEMBER HORNING: I'll pass. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He passes. We thank you very much. We'll see what develops. Please don't leave. Is there somebody else that would like to speak in favor of this application. Anybody like to speak against the application? (No response). I think we are on a roll. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MR. TOHILL: Thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Have a lovely evening. End of hearing. Please see Minutes for Resolution. * * * Page 5 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals 6:46 p.m. Appl. No. 4908 - Chester Ciaglo, Jr. Variance for deck addition, based on Building Department's November 10, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. Proposed deck places existing accessory building in the side yard at 1825 Main Bayview Road, Southold; 70-8-54. The Chairman opened the hearing and asked if Mr. Ciaglo was present. CHESTER CIAGLO, JR: Good evening. How are you doing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything you would like to say regarding your Notice of Disapproval which I find very interesting in the respect that - I've always found these Notices of Disapproval interesting. Did you want to comme~t~(JP.that, Ms. Collins? MEMBEÆ;ÇOLLINS: No, I thol!;ght you were just being very cryptic. CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't mean to be evasive, sort of speak. MEMBER COLLINS: Of course, excuse me, I hadn't read my notes. I apologize. Right. This is the presto-chango case. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you want to say in defense before we ask the Board Members if they have anything they would like to ask? MR. CIAGLO: No. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Mr. Homing, do you have anything? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Ok. Just to get it on the record what you are requesting. That the deck will actually create part of the garage to be in the rear yard. So we have seen that happen before. When you put up a structure, and another structure automatically comes along so that's what, I think the Chainnan was saying. That we are sympathetic towards it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No. No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Have you enjoyed your lessons in government? Page 6 - Transcript of Hearings February 27, 2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. CIAGLO: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I hope you'll ( ) further in life. -No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN: We will hopefully have a decision for you around the 15th of March. That was when our next regularly scheduled meeting is when we make decisions just so you are aware of it. MEMBER TORTORA: Maybe we could make it now. - MEMBER COLLINS: I don't think there is any hurt. MEMBER HORNING: If I 1:I!:ay ask the applicant another question - what is the feasibility of moving the garage to the backyard? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think he means thousands. Do you mean thousands? MR. CIAGLO: Yes, thousands. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just continue with the hearing first. We'll let you sit down, if there is anything else that occurs but don't leave until I close the hearing, ok? Thank you. Is there anybody else in favor of the application? Anyone like to speak against the applicant? (None) Ok, I'll make a motion closing the hearing. End of hearing. Please see Minutes for Resolution. Following the close of the hearing, the Board deliberated and rendered a decision. Please see Minutes for Resolution offered by Member Tortora. * * * 6:51 p.m. Appl. No. 4911 - Manor Grove Corp. and Wayne and Mary Olivia Mott. Variance for dwelling proposed with a rear yard setback at less than 35 feet, based on the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval issued October 31,2000. DAVID WORTHINGTON OLSEN, ESQ.: Good evening. My name is David Worthington Olsen, and I am an attorney having offices at Main Road in Cutchogue. I Page 7 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals ¡ I ~ am representing Wayne and Mary Olivia Mott, the contract vendees of property located at 1380 at East Gillette Drive, East Marion; Tax Map No. 1000-38-3-26. This application before the Board of Appeals is for a rear yard variance, to set a proposed dwelling at 18 feet from the rear-property line instead of the required distance of the zoning code of 35 feet. This is a small lot having an area of 11,219.729 sq. ft. It has frontage on East Gillette Drive of 140.05 feet, a depth on the south side of 81.45 feet and a depth on north side of 79.73 feet. Under the present zoning code the house requires a front yard setback of 35 feet, and a rear yard of 35 feet total and 70 feet, which would give proposed house only 9.73 feet in width. The proposed house location meets the proposed front yard of35 feet and complies with the side yard requirements under the Code. However, the proposed rear yard is 18 feet and not 35 feet, thus necessitating this variance application. The propose§!Z~idth of the house is 26 feèf. -the proposed hûuse location and rear yard of 18 feet will be similar to the rear yard of thr house imm£;q}at~~y adjoining the property to the south designated as Tax Map 1000-38...3-25. This neighboring lot obtained a rear~ yard variance of 18 feet after a hearing date of August 2000, Appeal 4835. The applicants were William and Gloria Bertodatti. I respectfully request the Board apply the same reasoning in the Mott application as it did in the Bertodatti approval. It is respectfully submitted that one, granting the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. This application will meet all other setback requirements. The house is only 26 feet in depth and the. proposed house will be consistent with other houses in the neighborhood, specifically the house directly adjacent which this Board approved for a variance for a setback of 18 feet in the rear yard in August. Two, the benefits sought cannot be achieved by some other feasible method other than the area variance. As previously mentioned, in order to conform with the front and rear yard setback requirements that allow for a house of only 9.73 feet in depth, which isn't practical. This house is only 26 feet deep and substantially fits the lot. Three, the area variance is not substantial. Again it is the exact same variance, which was granted to the neighbor next door. Four, the proposed variance will not have any adverse affect or impact on the physical condition in the neighborhood. The proposed construction is consistent to other houses in the area of similar substandard size. I am aware that there was a letter written to the Board of Appeals by Robert Kenney who is President of Police Point Construction, which owns the property directly behind the subject lot facing on Gillette Drive, Lot 1000-38-3-13. This variance was in opposition to the granting of the Mott application. However, in response to Mr. Kenney's letter, I would point out that in order to build on his lot as indicated as he planned to do, it would appear that he would also need to apply for a rear yard variance since is lot is of the same configuration as the Mott lot. For all the above reasons we respectfully ask that the Board grant the variances. Thank you. And I'm here to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN: That case that you mentioned Mr. Olson was exactly the same as this one? I was going to ask the Board, we didn't modifY front yard in any of those did we? ' MEMBER COLLINS: No, I wrote the Bertadotti decision, so I have my notes on it. In this case, we have a drawing of a conceptual house, 60 x 26. Not an actual house with Page 8 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals ¡ - driveways and cantilevers and what not, but I take 26 to be the intended total depth of the house whether its built on a slightly shallower foundation with cantilevers which seems to be what Mr. DiNicola does down there. But 26 is the house and my notes say the Bemadotti house was 24, but I think that doesn't take in these little cantilevers and actually we gave Bemadotti a slightly shallower rear yard variance than is being asked for here. MEMBER TORTORA: I think the variance DAVID WORTHINGTON OLSEN, ESQ.: There were cantilevers on the front and the back of the house. MEMBER COLLINS: Which each added two feet to the foundation. MEMBER TORTORA: Well it was actually 20 feet to the foundation. MEMBER COLLINS: And 18 to the back of the house. And in this case, I think they're contemplating a slightly greater, they're contemplating 18 to the house and 20 to the foundation probably. I'm sorry, I burst saying gee I have clear notes on this, and now I'm confused. To me the cases look identical. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the question I have is in all of these situations, because as you know and Mr. Olsen just mentioned, we have a lot of these come before us. Do you want to start to encroach into the front yard area by 2 feet and make it an even 20, or do you want to leave it at 18? MEMBER TORTORA: You mean, one thought I had because what you're saying is true, you've got 35, which meet the code in the front, but you've got 18 in the rear. Is this a two-story house or a one-story house? DAVID WORTHINGTON OLSEN, ESQ.: I believe it will be a ranch, a one-story. MEMBER TORTORA: It will be a one-story. DAVID WORTHINGTON OLSEN, ESQ.: I'm not sure though. CHAIRMAN: It really doesn't make a difference. MEMBER COLLINS: It says two bedrooms; these are small houses down there. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, there are a lot of these and one ofthe thoughts I did have is 18 feet no back yard, it really, you're on top of your neighbor and my own personal thoughts on this were to do 30 in the front and 23 in the rear. It would give you a little more breathing room and it would also give your neighbor a little more breathing room. Page 9 ~ Transcript of Hearings February 27, 2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals We're only talking 5 feet, but those 5 feet, when you're talking 18 feet we're not even talking DAVID WORTHINGTON OLSEN, ESQ.: Well it's the exact same as the neighbor next door. MEMBER TORTORA: I know but there was no opposition. The neighbor is very sensitive to his privacy and the variance you are requesting is from 18 to 35 feet. That's the variance. That's the bottom line. Its substantial; and I realize you have a very small lot, but you also have a neighbor so what I'm saying is can we compromise? DAVID WORTHINGTON OLSEN, ESQ.: You're talking about the neighbor to the rear? ~<..~: .t.,~ MEMBER TORTORA: He's concerned about the variance. . DAVID WORTHINGTON OLSEN, ESQ.: He's got the same problem as we do. MEMBER TORTORA: I know. We're looking for a compromise. DAVID WORTHINGTON OLSEN, ESQ.: Esthetically it wouldn't look right having this house five feet in front of the neighboring house. CHAIRMAN: That's why I was referring to two. I was only referring to two. But let me just say this, this is a very unique situation Mr. Olsen, that's why I raised it. I didn't raise it because you're here or whatever the case might be. Because eventually you're going to end up with an established setback in the community just as you just said. If we created 35 for the other person, the established setback in that immediate vicinity now is then going to be 35. If we started thinking about this and say well maybe 32, maybe 33, whatever the case might be, it makes a big difference when a person wants to put a deck on the back or whatever they want to do with their property in the rear. DAVID WORTHINGTON OLSEN, ESQ.: There's no room for a deck. CHAIRMAN: Well don't ever say that, because we don't even get involved in that situation. So I think if you give us some flexibility in a couple of feet one way or another, we'll play around with it and see. DAVID WORTHINGTON OLSEN, ESQ.: I would just like to point out that the front yard setback is exactly 35 feet, so in order to move it that way then we would need a variance in the front yard. CHAIRMAN: Yes. And the issue is can we deal with that without advertising for it, and that's the whole issue at this point. Page 10 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: We've done that. CHAIRMAN: We've done it before. What I'm saying-to you is we'll come up with a total package, one way or another. But, one way or another a couple of feet I think won't make any difference and it would not affect the neighbor one or two feet one way or another. Five is a significant, I think. But, we'll deal with it on that basis when we deliberate if it's all right with you. We thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: Can I get something on the record? .":. CHAIRMAN: Oh yes, surely. Anybody that wants to talk. MEMBER COLLINS: I would Jyst like to get on the record we talked about deck. In the Bemadotti hearings we said, do not come back asking for a deck. And I think that should go on the record in this hearing. I also think that fÌom the point of view, these are very shallow lots. Anybody who lives on them knows that he has virtually no backyard. I grew up on a 60 x 100 lot, which I thought was just enormous. My personal view is that the streetscape is important and thus far we seem to be making people hold to the 35-foot front setback and I think that's good in a neighborhood like that. People park cars in the driveway. And I personally am of the mind that we should treat this one like Bemadotti and I just wanted to say that on the record. MEMBER HORNING: I'll concur with Lora on that. CHAIRMAN: Jim, any other questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: Any questions fÌom anyone? Okay. So we may be back to 35,· you never know. I was only raising the issue. Thank you sir. Please don't leave until we close the hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? No response. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * 6:58 p.m. Appl. No. 4896 - STEPHEN SCHOTT. CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is on behalf of Stephen Schott; it's Appeal No. 4896. Good evening sir how are you? What would you like to tell us? STEPHEN SCHOTT: I would like to build a deck. I have a gigantic lot, but its long and very narrow. Fortunately, I'm putting my garage in the side yard, which used to be in the backyard. I guess that's just about the whole story. I I I '1 I .~ I Page 11 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: The house right now is 34 feet 2 inches to the rear property line? STEPHEN SCHOTT: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN: The house right now is 34 feet 2 inches to the property line? STEPHEN SCHOTT: The proposed deck will be 34 feet. CHAIRMAN: Oh the proposed deck would be okay, good. I thought it looked kind of. STEPHEN SCHOTT: The house is on more than that and the garage is even closer than the proposed deck is. ,- CHAIRMAN: This is an open deck? STEPHEN SCHOTT: Yes it is. CHAIRMAN: Of 16 x 18 x 21. MEMBER COLLINS: 21 feet deep. CHAIRMAN: Oh I understand, it doesn't go back all the way to the other, that's interesting. Good. Mr. Homing any questions ofthe applicant? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. . CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: The survey shows a fair distance rrom the back of the garage to the rear property line. I only viewed the land from the road, I didn't go walk into your backyard but, it appears there's some kind of extension on the rear of the garage and that goes right up to the brush line. But is your property line on back in that brush? STEPHEN SCHOTT: It's behind that. There's a piece offence that's on one side of the garage just strictly to keep the garage rrom being. MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to get a sense of the depth of the property. So it goes well past the tree line? STEPHEN SCHOTT: Yes, it dQes. Page 12 - Transcript of Hearings February 27, 2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN: We thank you. Don't leave please; we're just going to continue with the hearing. Any decision tonight will not be rendered until approximately March 15th, because we have a rather long calendar and that's when our next regularly scheduled Special Meeting is. We thank you sir. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes sir? Good evening, state your name for the record? STEPEHN LAGOWSKI: My name is Stephen Lagowski, Mr. Schott's neighbor. I live across the street. I have no problem with what he's doing there at all. What he says is 100% accurate. It's a very narroyv lot; it's a long lQt. And he just wants to build a deck to enjoy himself like all his backyard neighbors have that's all he asked for. He'll put a nice deck there and his garage is moved over to the side yard by the regulations. So I have no problem with this at all. It's very straightforward. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming in. Is there anybody else like to speak? Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? No response. Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * 7:06 p.m. Appl. No. 4900 - MARTIN AND JACQUELINE TAESCHLER. CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is Appeal No. 4900 on behalf of Martin and Jacqueline Taescher. Is anybody here for 4900? Oh yes. UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN: We're against it. CHAIRMAN: Oh you're against it. We didn't get to that point yet. It appears that the applicant is not here. MARTIN TAESCHLER: No, I'm here. CHAIRMAN: We have an interesting situation because we all went out and looked at the property with the proposed shed in the other location and now you have requested the shed to be placed in another location. I guess the question I have is, does that affect the advertising in any way? We don't know. MEMBER COLLINS: Its still in the front yard. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Page 13 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MARTIN TAESCHLER: Well I changed it because I thought putting it on the north side; it would be in the front yard. CHAIRMAN: I'm not going to get into the determination of what the Building Department determines is front yard, but is there any particular reason why you changed it into this location? MARTIN TAESCHLER: Not really. CHAIRMAN: I mean you could put it back in the other location? MARTINTAESCHLER: Sure. CHAIRMAN: And this is a 12 x 18 wood shed? MARTIN T AESCHLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: One-story? MARTINTAESCHLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right any questions Mr. Dinizio of the applicant? MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the location; I'm assuming that the location now is Dickerson, next to Dickerson? I mean that's certainly a much better location than the other one and I have to wonder out loud at what point does one of these corner lots, does the rear yard come into play. We're 93 feet away from that street. So I really have no problem with this. I much prefer to have it this way than the other. MARTIN T AESCHLER: On the side? MEMBER DINIZIO: On the Dickerson side. That's the one you proposed, that's the second one right? CHAIRMAN: That's the second one right. MEMBER DINIZIO: And that's the one you liked? MARTIN T AESCHLER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm saying that I liked that one too. MARTIN TAESCHLER: I thought it wouldn't really fit in because it was in the front yard and it would be sort of an eyesore. It's more setbacks. Page 14 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Well its 90 feet away, that's what I like about it. CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: This is a utility shed for lawn equipment? MARTIN TAESCHLER: Farm tractor, an old tractor. MEMBER COLLINS: Will have water, electricity? MARTIN TAESCHLER: No. MEMBER COLLINS: Neither. MARTIN T AESCHLER: No MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. MARTIN T AESCHLER: Y ou're welcome. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: What's the distance from the Dickerson property line? MARTIN T AESCHLER: 21 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: Really. MEMBER COLLINS: Not exactly on good scale. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? MEMBER COLLINS: You want to just reiterate that Lydia so we have the record clear. MEMBER TORTORA: The distance from the Dickerson lot, the Dickerson property line would be approximately 21 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: Okay. MEMBER TORTORA: And my concern would be that the Dickerson's have concern about it. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sure they do. But 21 feet means that although we all know that the definition of front yard is sometimes mysterious, it certainly would be forward of Page 15- Transcript of Hearings Februmy 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals the rear line of the house. Because this drawing shows the house is 14 feet from that property line. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but he has sufficient room to move it forward quite a bit. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh sure. I'm just getting down the fact that it is in the front yard. Because that's what we advertised, that's all. MEMBER TORTORA: So my only comment here is that if there is concern from the neighbor that you might want to consider getting it off that property line a little more. MARTIN T AESCHLER: You mean towards side? CHAIRMAN: What's interesting to me is how come you didn't chose to put it a little closer to the house? MARTIN TAESCHLER: (inaudible) I figured I could move it more towards Hummel so it wouldn't block any window views. I could do that. MEMBER TORTORA: Right now its right where the driveway, you're gravel driveway, it looks like its almost right at the end of the gravel driveway. If you overlay the first diagram. Okay. MARTIN TAESCHLER: I moved it so it wouldn't block the view that they wanted from their backyard. I moved it more towards Hummel. And I could move it more that way, its 93 feet to Hummel. They don't have windows more on their south side of the house. I could move it more that way. CHAIRMAN: Let's see when they speak. MEMBER TORTORA: Let's see what we can do to make everyone happy, including you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: What's the closest you can have it towards your house without having your neighbor's view obstructed? MARTIN TAESCHLER: I think: from where it is anywhere north it might be a problem. CHAIRMAN: I see. MEMBER HORNING: Oh is that right? CHAIRMAN : Yes. Page 16 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MARTIN TAESCHLER: And if I move it any closer to the house then it would really interfere with my view and it would be like this thing outside my window. MEMBER TORTORA: It's awfully hard to get a storage shed these days. CHAIRMAN: It's a unique placement of the house, which causes the problem that you have. MARTIN TAESCHLER: It's really close to both lines. CHAIRMAN: W e'lllet you sit down and we'll see what we can come out with before the hearing is over. Thank you sir. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? Is there anybody else that wouJd like to speak against? Good evening sir, ma'am. Whoever would like to speak? Just state your name for the record. PAUL RINCKENS: My name is Paul Rinckens. We purchased the Dickerson house three years ago. I would like to give you a copy of this. It shows our house and our garage. CHAIRMAN: So its right smack in the middle of your house. We'll pass that down the other way. We're just digesting this. MRS. RINCKENS: May I ask a question? What is the height of the shed? CHAIRMAN: That was the question. We reduced it to one story. The question is if you build a shed with 8-foot timber okay and you used a peak roof, the height of the shed is usually 12 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: It says 16 on the Building Application. . PAUL RINCKENS: Is there a size of the shed? CHAIRMAN: 18 feet is the max. MEMBER TORTORA: You mentioned the entire new construction is 18 x 18 x 12 deep and 12 foot high. PAUL RINCKENS: Where it is how the lots are, you look out the kitchen window. MRS. RINCKENS: We have four windows downstairs on that side of the house and there is a on the comer on Boisseau Avenue which ifhe tends to put it, I will not be able to visibly there. That is a concern to me. I will not get a view out of those four windows that we have only on that side of the house. Page 17 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask you a question. You speak to this gentleman right? MRS. RINCKENS: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we just recess this for twenty minutes? Why don't you go out and find the location that you guys would all be pretty much in agreement with rather than having take this infonnation and then we'll go back to him and so on, and so forth. And then we'll see if we can find an appropriate location that everybody would be happy with. MRS. RINCKENS: the Town denied the first location? CHAIRMAN: No. He chose to move it from that location. PAUL RINCKENS: He told us you denied it. CHAIRMAN: No, well everything is a denial. MEMBER DINIZIO: It wouldn't have been denied. CHAIRMAN: Building Department denies it. PAUL RINCKENS: I asked him if he'd move it back alongside our garage because MRS. RINCKENS: It confonns more to the neighborhood. MEMBER TORTORA: That looks good to me too. PAUL RINCKENS: He could go three feet off the property line like my garage is and that wouldn't interfere with us at all. CHAIRMAN: We like about 5 or ten, mainly because you can work on the property and particularly if it's a wood design. MRS. RINCKENS: And all he needs is three. CHAIRMAN: I understand that. MEMBER TORTORA: But in a variance like this we can require it. CHAIRMAN: I mean five is a minimum really. It really should have 5, 7, 10 something like that. But, we'll go from there. Now are you agreeable to talking to him? PAUL RINCKENS: Sure. I Page 18 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I think that would be the way to do it. I mean we found this to be very successful actually. .MEMBER TORTORA: We'll let Mr. Taeschler know that we're not going to approve it where it's. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on that? CHAIRMAN: Surely. MEMBER DINIZIO: I have to tell you, if you were to tear down the house and build a house on this lot, that house could be built right where this shed is. PAUL RINCKENS: A house is different than a shed. MRS. RINCKENS: A house is a house. A shed is a barn structure. MEMBER DINIZIO: If you're talking about your view, that you're using now. PAUL RINCKENS: No, not a view. MRS. RINCKENS: First of all my house is only 11 feet off the property. And you're putting a. A house is a house, which would conform. I mean you'd have a house, you'd have a house, and you'd have a house. We have this little 12 x 18 structure going in that it's going to look so awkward right where it's going. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well is it the view you're worried about, or how awkward it is? MRS. RINCKENS: Excuse me? MEMBER DINIZIO: You commented that you wouldn't be able to see the kids at the bus. MRS. RINCKENS: Well that's my main concern. MEMBER DINIZIO: That was your comment. That's what I'm commenting on. If this gentleman tore his house down, he could build a house there, so that argument doesn't quite ride. So I think you want to, all I'm saying is the setback would conform to the lot. I think he can move and make you people happy. But I don't want to have Mr. Taeschler with the disadvantage of this Board saying that we're going to deny it in that spot when he's talking to you. You need to discuss it with him and both of you need to be reasonable. That's my point. I understand about having this type of structure in the position that it's in. I understand that, believe me. But you have to understand other things we're looking out. And the way I'm looking at it is it could be a whole lot worse than what it is right now. So I want you both, and I'm sure the Chairman does, to be Page 19 - Transcript of Hearings February 27, 2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals ¡ ,I I amiable to each other when you're talking about this shed. Because I personally feel he is entitled to have something. PAUL RINCKINS: He-has a shed in the back already. MEMBER DINIZIO: I know. But he's still entitled, he has plenty of land; he is not overbuilding on this land and he definitely has a hardship in the placement of his house. PAUL RINCKINS: He had a garage originally which was turned into living space. MEMBER DINIZIO: You can tell by looking at it. So just think of that when you go out. · . CHAIRMAN: Do you want YQur drawing back? So we'll recess this for about 20 minutes and just give us a high sign when you want to come back. I offer that as a resolution. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * 7:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4913 - LEONARDO TIRADO. LEONARDO TIRADO: Leonardo Tirado, I'm the applicant for the appeal. I live at 3850 Nassau Point Road. And I submitted an application to respectfully request that we be allowed to build a pool on the western most side of the lot. CHAIRMAN: You have Mr. Sharp's old house? LEONARDO TIRADO: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately when I was up there, there was a significant amount of snow on the property so I really didn't get a chance to fully look at it, but I was familiar with Mr. Sharp's property. LEONARDO TIRADO: It has the right of way in fYont of the house, which makes the lot peculiar in that its three-sided. In essence the right of way really accesses my house. It links Wunneweta to and Nassau Point Road, but it truly I have no other access but that right-of-way. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the question I have is I can't read the footage from Wunneweta to the pool. Do you know what that is? Is it 23 is that what you think? MEMBER COLLINS: 23 works, it's logical. LEONARDO TIRADO: Its 23. Page 20 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: The question I have iS,is there any possibility of moving the pool any closer to the house? LEONARDO TIRADO: Yes. CHAIRMAN: How much closer sir? LEONARDO TIRADO: I would say at least nine more feet. Which is really what we want as close as possible to the house. That's what we intend to do. CHAIRMAN: So you could go to 31 ? LEONARDO TIRADO: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Okay, good. All right, we'll start with Mr. Homing, any questions of the applicant? MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN: No questions. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: My concern was the same as the Chairman's and you've answered that. That would place it at 32 feet. LEONARDO TIRADO: We have more land on the Nassau Point Road, along side of the lot. But to build the pool there, it would probably destroy the esthetics of the area for one, and the area would also suffer because all the trees are there. You have a very nice blue spruce that is maybe 40 years old that gives shelter to the birds and stuff MEMBER TORTORA: It looks like the most logical place. I mean your situation is pretty clear. (rest oftape muffled - at end). MEMBER COLLINS: If there's going to be approval it's going to go on the tront yard and that seems the most logical location. I would just add Mr. Chairman, I think we might ask Mr. Tirado to give us before decision is written, because I can see where this is going, a really accurate measurement of the depth trom Wunneweta Road to the house and the size of the pool so that we don't write a decision that has him doing something that may be a little more than he can do. MEMBER TORTORA: Is the pool 20 x 40? LEONARDO TIRADO: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: And there's the surroundings of the pool and all that. I just want to make sure we get it right. Page 21 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals LEONARDO TIRADO: I can submit it by tomorrow at 5 o'clock. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now you're aware of the overall surrounding, as Ms. Collins mentioned of the pool, we referring to the decking area or whatever type of. LEONARDO TIRADO: We're going to keep it rural, so there's not going to be really deck, just grass, we're not going to have a deck. CHAIRMAN: No stone? LEONARDO TIRADO: Little bit, just maybe a foot. CHAIRMAN: So it's going to beßtone around the pool at ground level? LEONARDO TIRADO: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: And the fencing? LEONARDO TIRADO: Fencing? We haven't decided yet, but it could be either around the pool or around the perimeter ofthe lot also. CHAIRMAN: Okay. LEONARDO TIRADO: To give us more privacy you know, we have no privacy on that lot because we Road. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Miss Collins, that was a good point. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well that certainly was my question that you might just want to re- think that 9 feet. As I recall, that's a cellar way there, isn't they're a basement there? The little piece that sticks out. LEONARDO TIRADO: Yes that's there. MEMBER DINIZIO: So that's 7 feet? And you're talking 60; you're going to be very close to that with this. You figure it out and do it accurately. LEONARDO TIRADO: We even thought maybe even slant it a little bit so its even more leaning towards the structure itself. So its even more to our advantage, this way we won't bother anybody around. The closer it is to the right-of-way and this side, the less we will bother people. MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just thinking, you're going to need more than 31 feet. Page 22 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Well you also have the advantage of LEONARDO TIRADO: Well I said 9 feet, but we can maybe go 12. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, No. I think you want to sit down and really draw this and take the time, because even if you tilt that, the pool, you're going to need more than 31 foot. Once we grant it to you, you have to start making the pool smaller. CHAIRMAN: I was just going to say, that's an advantage too. You can go to 18 x 30. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean the 9 feet, you gave it away and I really shouldn't have. Why don't you draw it and let us take a look at it and see if you can actually live with it. You may not be able to. I think if you want this size pool, LEONARDO TIRADO: There's no entrance to the house on that side. MEMBER DINIZIO: But there is a basement to that cellar way? LEONARDO TIRADO: It's a crawl space; it's not really a full basement. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well you're talking it will probably be about 6 feet trom that. LEONARDO TIRADO: That's okay, its just service. I think its better to be closer to a house this way you I i I 111 I Ii MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Tirado, understand, we are not trying to nickel away your pool or nickel and dime you, we're just urging you to give us good, accurate measurements of what you want so that when we write a decision it gives you what you want and not something that's going to cause you problems with the Building Department. LEONARDO TIRADO: I will make it, 5:00 tomorrow. MEMBER TORTORA: You don't have, it doesn't have to be. Next week is fine. MEMBER COLLINS: We're not going to write it for a while. CHAIRMAN: It's not going to be written for two or three weeks. LEONARDO TIRADO: Also, you received three letters trom three of my neighbors I think? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, we did. LEONARDO TIRADO: For the record. Page 23 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold TOWTI Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Could we make the 9 feet tentative? CHAIRMAN: Yes, it's tefitative. MEMBER DINIZIO: I know you said that, but I mean I would like CHAIRMAN : You are aware, just off the top, that if this is a liner pool, that it holds 27,000 gallons of water, a 20 x 40 pool, so you may want to make the pool a little bit smaller. MEMBER DINIZIO: You look at it. You do all the measuring and then see if you can live with it. Walk it off and flag it out or something. LEONARDO TIRADO: Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: . We will not be having a meeting where we actually make decisions for probably about two weeks. MEMBER TORTORA: But we do not have a problem with that yard location, that's what we're saying to you. So if we do something, you're going to live with it for a long time. LEONARDO TIRADO: Well thank you. Can I sit down? CHAIRMAN: Surely. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody that would like to speak against the application? Yes sir? State your name for the record? UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN: I don't want to speak against; I just want to ask a couple of questions. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I just need you to come up and use the microphone sir and state your name. MIKE SILERNO: My name is Mike Silerno, and I live at 2045 Wunneweta Avenue. I'm just concerned about that the pool is going to be heated and where the filtration stuff will be and if we're going to hear any noise with the pumps. If it's going to be heated and what type of heat, what type of fuel will be used for the heat, and where the tank for the fuel storage and stuff would be; again, this is not an opposition. CHAIRMAN: We're going to ask him for that, okay. And I think what we're going to end up doing is holding this hearing off until the special meeting and I think that's the best thing. So ifhe submits it to us, we'll submit it to you, and then you can look at it. So Page 24 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals you must indicate on those plans, Mr. Tirado, where all of these things are that this gentleman is requesting. Okay? LEONARDO TIRADO: Mr. Chairman, I can say something to him? CHAIRMAN: No, you can say something to the Board, not to him. LEONARDO TIRADO: The pool is not going to be heated. It's just going to be a plain pool for a very short term in the summer, for eight weeks, its not going to be heated. Any equipment that makes noise will probably be housed near the right-of-way, so it won't bother anybody there. It will be at the furthest point on my lot away from Mr. Silerno's lot. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I have to b? honest with you that, we hope that you are a neighbor of ours for many, many years. Okay. But there is always the possibility of you selling this premises, and then your neighbor, your subsequent owner putting in these utilities. Utilities today on these pools have caused this Board some great concern. So I would appreciate it if you want to refer to it as the mechanical area, or whatever you want to refer to it as, that you indicate that on this. And that you take this survey and you blow it up and you write everything down so that we have it, and once we have it, give us a call in a week or so and we'll submit that to you. MIKE SILERNO: Okay, my other question would be the fencing? That would all be in the plan or the survey? CHAIRMAN: Well the State 'Law requires that you have a four-foot fence around the pool. This applicant has indicated to us that he possibly is going to surround that section of the property in total. What we have normally have seen in these pools where people have significant front yard areas, i~ that there is a great deal of landscape that's done usually that is done to protect the integrity and the privacy of the pool. I have no idea if this gentleman intends to do that okay. Maybe you want to indicate that also on. MIKE SILERNO: I could too. CHAIRMAN: So this is all hypothesized at this point. So, until we have it reduced to writing, so call us in a week or so and we'll tell you if we have it. And whatever we can do to get it to you. Maybe you can stop by and pick it up or whatever. MIKE SILERNO: Okay. MEMBER COLLINS: Excuse me Mr. Silerno, where do you live? You gave us your street address. MIKE SILERNO: Right next door to Mr. Tirado. In other words, his yard where he's going to be putting the pool is actually our front yard. II II 11 I ¡I I' Ii I 'Ii II II I I I I Page 25 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Y ou're just south of. MIKE SILERNO: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Your property runs trom Wunneweta to Nassau Point? MIKE SILERNO: Lot 164. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, okay thanks you. CHAIRMAN: Is that okay with you? What I asked for? MIKE SILERNO: That's fine. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. MIKE SILERNO: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against? LEONARDO TIRADO: The signs, do we return them? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You can leave them, thank you. CHAIRMAN: We'll be right with you in the back. Is there anybody else that would like to speak concerning this hearing? The question of the Board is do you want to accept this plan or do you want to hold it off to our regularly scheduled meeting? MEMBER TORTORA: Why don't we recess it to the 15th? CHAIRMAN: I have some bad news ladies and gentlemen. I'm not going to be available on the 15th. I have to take a test, a state exam. And I didn't know that the test was that night. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We also have a resolution trom the last meeting to put it on for the 15th but maybe we can have another meeting. CHAIRMAN: Could you change it to the 14th? We'll change it to the 14th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You can't. CHAIRMAN: You have to re-advertise it. Okay, well you have the meeting without me, and when I finish the test I'll come to the meeting. MEMBER TORTORA: We've only got Buskard and Tirado that night. Page 26 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: As to Tirado, can't we, we can close the hearing pending the receipt of the requested input. CHAIRMAN: Well what if Mr. Silemo has questions? And it only makes sense. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, my first thought was to leave it open, but now we have all those questions about what date do we leave it open until. MEMBER TORTORA: The 15th because we only have one hearing that night anyway and that's a carryover. CHAIRMAN: So we will then recess this until the 15th of March. So as soon as you can get that into us Mr. Tirado, we appreciate it, so that we can get it to your neighbor. LEONARDO TIRADO: Marchi5th? CHAIRMAN: Yes. But if you can get it to us by the mid part of next week it would be greatly appreciated. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion recessing it to the 15th. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * CHAIRMAN: Mr. Morrel we're just going to hold you up one second and we'll go back to Taeschler and his neighbor. Are we ready? We need an Affidavit of posting for you SIr. MARTIN TAESCHLER: I thought that was after the hearing? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It doesn't matter, but I need it for the record so we're reminding you that we need it. Do you have it with you? So you're going to bring it tomorrow is that what you're saying? Okay, that's fine. As long as you still have it. MARTIN TAESCHLER: The only thing we wanted to talk about was the permit of the area that I could move it. CHAIRMAN: Okay, let's see what you have. MARTIN TAESCHLER: How much this way I'd be allowed, or how much this way. CHAIRMAN: Well you could probably build it 50 feet trom home. Does the Board have any objection to that? MEMBER COLLINS: No objection. How further south can he go? CHAIRMAN: 50 feet. To 50 feet, so 43 feet. Page 27 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: So that's the possibility that everyone seems to think: is a good thing? MEMBER COLLINS: And a-little bit further into your land. MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have any objections to that? MAR TIN T AESCHLER: I mean any way I could put it, I can't put it in the other side and I can't put it in the front yard, but anywhere that I could put it on that other side yard, is fine with me. MEMBER DINIZIO: The height is how high? MARTIN TAESCHLER: 12 feet. MEMBER DINIZIO: It is 12 feet. MARTIN TAESCHLER: I could make it lower I guess. CHAIRMAN: No, that's fine. 12 feet is good. Do they have an objection to that? PAUL RINCKENS: Yes, we do. We didn't realize that the property line was, to the front of our house, was only 48 feet its still beyond our side. I didn't know that was the limit. We have a survey if you want to see it. CHAIRMAN: Well, it puts it in your front yard, and you don't want it there. PAUL RINCKENS: Well it still keeps it on the side of our house, because we're 48 feet off the road. MARTIN TAESCHLER: It could be less than 50. PAUL RINCKENS: Well no matter which way you put it, you're still on the side unless you go, I suggested to put it like here. Maybe come 8 feet off our garage. CHAIRMAN: Well that's what i would suggest to him that he move it closer to the house. PAUL RINCKENS: And this way it still wouldn't interfere CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to moving it closer to the house? MARTIN T AESCHLER: Yes, I do because then it also is; it's not esthetically for me. Page 28 - Transcript of Hearings February 27, 2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Yes, okay. All right, so I think what we have to do here is we have to go back and re-1ook at the site. Because I understand what you're talking about. MARTIN TAESCHLER: I'm willing to move want it anywhere in my yard. , but it seems like Paul doesn't ALL TALKING AT ONCE, INAUDIBLE. MARTIN T AESCHLER: I'm willing to move it anywhere I can. MEMBER TORTORA: You can't move it closer to your house though. .¡a, MEMBER DINIZIO: How much closer do you think you can go? CHAIRMAN: You have to state names here, Jim, because somebody has to take this down here. PAUL RINCKENS: I don't understand your question. How close what? MEMBER DINIZIO: How much closer to this gentleman's house would you PAUL RINCKENS: Well ifhe carne 8 feet off my garage then he'd go 10 feet back, he's got more than enough room there. And his driveway comes right up there. MEMBER DINIZIO: Go back 10 feet towards his house? PAUL RINCKENS: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN: But he doesn't want it tr-ere. MEMBER DINIZIO: What's wrong with that, it's still a good 20 feet away from his house. Right? MEMBER HORNING: Ifthe applicant wants a shed, he has to be willing to look at it. CHAIRMAN: I think what we have to do is. MARTIN TAESCHLER: Yes, but I don't want it 3 feet from my window either. I mean 3 feet is different than 21 feet. Its 33 feet from his window, if I put it that close to my house, its 8 feet from my window. CHAIRMAN: Time out here for a minute. You have to put a stake in the ground, indicating to us the farthest away from your house, excuse me, the closest to your house that you will enjoy, or at least bearably this shed without interfering with these people. Page 29 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MARTIN T AESCHLER: I've done that, it can't be there. CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't know what to tell you at this point. MEMBER HORNING: It can be denied if the applicant doesn't want to compromise. i MARTIN TAESCHLER: I'm willing to move it anywhere in that side yard. .' CHAIRMAN: Well let me go back and re-Iook at the property. I need these copies, so I need to make copies of these copies. Would you make copies of those for us? So what do you want to do ladies and gentlemen, do you want to hold this off until the 15th or do you want to re-schedule it to the next regu¡~rly scheduled meeting. Wbat do you want to do? . MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a question, can we get an accurate survey? MARTIN TAESCHLER: An accurate survey? MEMBER DINIZIO: One that shows footages accurately and to the scale. MEMBER TORTORA: A surveyor's map. CHAIRMAN: Do you have one? MARTIN TAESCHLER: Well I have the one that has MEMBER COLLINS: I would propose recessing it to the next regularly scheduled hearing, because among other things, Jerry has a stake in compromising this. MARTIN T AESCHLER: I have this one from the sale of the house. CHAIRMAN: That's pretty old. Linda, see if you can get a copy of that. So what do you want to do with this? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not prone to asking for this, but I have to tell you, if you're not willing to go any further towards your house, I'm going to need, in order to make a decision on this, I'm going to need to have an accurate survey. I'm going to need to have something to scale that shows me here exactly how this is going to look on the lot. MARTIN T AESCHLER: I did that. I built a 1 x 2 skeleton of it and moved it around the lot. MEMBER DINIZIO: But how about on this map here, right here on this map, I get something to scale. Because 21 feet doesn't look like 21 feet here. Page 30 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: You know what the issue is. MARTIN T AESCHLER: Its not graph paper. MEMBER TORTORA: Here's what the issue is in my mind. It's your shed; it's your property. If you don't want to look at it, why would your neighbors want to look at it? So you take responsibility. MARTIN TAESCHLER: No, they're talking distances. MEMBER TORTORA: Correct. But, we're here for a variance to vary the code requirement. But in doing that you shouldn't hurt your neighbor. See. MARTIN TAESCHLER: But i(sa huge yard on that side and there's plenty of room to put it anywhere, but it seems like CHAIRMAN: Not without a variance there isn't. MEMBER TORTORA: Not without a variance there isn't. MEMBER COLLINS: Asking Mr. Taeschler actually to get a surveyor's survey is kind of overkill. It is possible for him, he has the facts, and he has the numbers. Either to do it himself or get somebody in the family who draws well. MARTIN T AESCHLER: I don't know how long it will take to get those measurements. MEMBER COLLINS: Excuse me, please don't interrupt me, I'm trying to help you. You've got the outlines of your property accurately drawn here, get graph paper, draw really accurate drawing of where the house, the setbacks, draw the shed where you would like it. We have faced with these kind of cases, what we tend to do is a little bit of moving things around. We go out and look at the property and we take the survey and we look at where that would be. We need a proper survey that shows us how big the things are and what the setbacks are. And I was set off by the 21 feet, that's not 21 feet on the drawing, it's about 8. We need something accurate to work with, and I'm just asking you to do it. It's just a matter of getting graph paper and a little patience. Jerry is that all right with you? CHAIRMAN: That's fine. MEMBER COLLINS: And I think we should recess until we have that. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So whenever you can get that back for us. Then we're going to come out and take a look at it again. I haven't been there for about two or three weeks. Actually, then you made that change and Page 31 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MARTIN TAESCHLER: I mean aside from moving it closer to my house, there's no way it can be met? MEMBER TORTORA: I thinkthat's what the Board is saying. MARTIN TAESCHLER: I mean it meets the Code. CHAIRMAN: No it doesn't meet the Code, that's why you're here. It doesn't meet the Code. Everything is a stretch on our part, and what we're saying to you is we're stretching it and its not going to happen because we still have objections to it. MEMBER TORTORA: We're saying, we're willing to grant you a variance providing the variance doesn't hurt your neighbors. That's the name ofthe game. MEMBER DINIZIO: Within reason. MEMBER TORTORA: -That's right. And we see that it is reasonable. MARTIN TAESCHLER: But what is the difference between the house on the side? MEMBER TORTORA: Frankly, if your house burned down tomorrow you would be allowed to rebuild it in exactly the same footprint. But if you were to rebuild it anyplace else, you would be right in this Board for a variance, because you have two front yards. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll tell you what, if that house burned down tomorrow, he could build it where he wants the shed, because. MEMBER COLLINS: We're getting very hypothetical. MEMBER DINIZIO: The problem is, and that's the whole problem here, is you could take your shed and attach it to your house and not even be before us. CHAIRMAN: That's right. MEMBER DINIZIO: Anything else beyond that, because of the placement of the house on this lot, you're are going to be before this Board. It's pretty much as simple as that. And I can't tell from this, I can't even judge from being out on your lot what would be acceptable to everybody. But you are held to a little different standard here when you have a comer lot and you want to take an accessory and put it in the front yard, which is the definition ofthis. MARTIN TAESCHLER: So, how can I appease my neighbor then, no matter what he doesn't like it. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's something you are going to have to work with. Page 32 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: So we'll get back to you whenever we. MARTIN T AESCHLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of yours, right. MARTIN T AESCHLER: Right. CHAIRMAN: Do you have other copies? MARTIN TAESCHLER: Yes, that's it. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll rec~ss it without a date. I'll make a motion recessing it without a date until we received the proper paperwork. MEMBER COLLINS: Better to do it at the next hearing. CHAIRMAN: All right we'll do it for the next regularly scheduled meeting, which is April 5th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: April 5th? Not March 15th? CHAIRMAN: April 5th. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * 7:52 p.m. Appl. 4914 - OWEN MORREL. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Morrel, you've been very patient. How do you do? How are you? I apologize; I was in the middle of a conversation when you came over to the office. So nice to see you. Actually the house was not built, the foundation was in when I was there and that's how long ago that was. I'" i I I I I OWEN MORREL: It's a pretty incredible sight. CHAIRMAN: It is an incredible sight. OWEN MORREL: I think if I might, the most effective, meaningful thing I could do is read this short paragraph that went with my application. It pretty much presents the facts. Weare requesting this variance to construct an accessory swimming pool on the proposed site because it is the only site anywhere on our 12.5 acre property that is not wooded with 150 year old and _trees or are part of the echo system of sand dunes and pine trees that protect some 50% of the total property area in question. The contours I :1 Page 33 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals of the land surrounding the house under construction are glacial and extremely sever in variation. There are 20 - 30 foot drops in elevation on three ofthe four sides surrounding the house. The only relatively clear site anywhere near this house is on the east side of the property where there are no houses, within approximately 1,000 feet on the east, north and south; and approximately 400 feet on the west. The proposed pool will not be visible from any adjacent dwelling or from any access road as the site has deep and mature forests. It's an unusual lot in that it contours the land. There are glacial, we're building the house on the top of a knoll and the drop-offs between 30 and 40 feet on either side of the house. And without destroying this basically pristine forest, it's the only site that makes any sense at all. If we go toward the sound, there's a 30 foot bluff which is not in the D.E.C. Zone but it's a 40 foot bluff nevertheless, and a very fragile sand dune with pine trees and we don't think that's a smart thing to disturb that. So its really the only, believe it or not, on this huge sitc;ifs the only spot that makes any sense whatsoever and the pool will not be visible at \tl to any neighbor and basically that's zero visual impact on the environment. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I have no objection to this thing. Mr. Homing any questions of Mr. Morrel? MEMBER HORNING: How did you come up with the approximate age ofthe trees? OWEN MORREL: Somebody from Barton Tree Company was in there helping me do some preventative tree trimming. And Richard Hillary, who is the head of the Peconic Dunes Camp, who told me he was a tree expert. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I just wanted to know; it's a 36 x 18 foot pool and its 20 feet from the northeast property? OWEN MORREL: We've actually decided, we're actually going to turn the pool so that instead of the 36' long dimension running east and west, that's going to run the other way, so it actually will be more like 40 feet off the property line the way we're going to turn it. MEMBER TORTORA: If you are planning to do that, I'd like the exact location of the pool so that we can. OWEN MORREL: I would just assume rest on the way that is drawn. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I think what you just said is a great idea because that gives you more privacy from your neighbors. OWEN MORREL: We don't have any neighbors. There are no neighbors. The next house is almost a half a mile away. Page 34 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Well, that's a big lot. OWEN MORREL: It's a big lot and our neighbor has 100 acres. A little unusual situation, we don't have any neighbors, per say. I mean we have neIghbors, but they're not in the near side. MEMBER TORTORA: Do you really want to turn the pool around? OWEN MORREL: That's the plan, but it really shouldn't effect the application. MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing it would effect is the, so that we have on file where the location is. OWEN MORREL: I can reconfigure that on a survey, that's no problem. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you? OWEN MORREL: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: I have no objections to this. If you can reconfigure it on the survey showing the exact distance to the property line and where the pool will be, I have absolutely no problem. CHAIRMAN: Let me just hold this hearing up for one second. Is there anybody in objection to this application in this audience? No response. Okay, thank you. Miss Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Mrs. Tortora's request is really very much in your interests. A good record reduces problems that you'll have with the Building Department. OWEN MORREL: No, I understand, it makes sense. MEMBER COLLINS: There's a lot, it appeared, we went out there in our Jeep I'm happy to say in the snow. It's nice for the Jeep to have an opportunity to do its thing. It appears that there's a good deal of, I wouldn't call it fill, but there's a lot of fresh earth in this area. OWEN MORREL: That came out ofthe hole that was dug for the foundation. MEMBER COLLINS: That came out of your excavation. In other words, one reason why you have a level piece ofland there, is that you put OWEN MORREL: It was reasonably level already. MEMBER COLLINS: But it was not as high. Page 35 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals OWEN MORREL: It had a little bit of a bump, maybe four foot, five foot. The dirt that we took out of the hole helped. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm not complaining, I'm just asking a question. CHAIRMAN: There was a house there, was there not? OWEN MORREL: There was a small house there, yes. CHAIRMAN: That you destroyed. OWEN MORREL: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank YOll. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN: No questions. So we will receive that from you before, well before March 15th? OWEN MORREL: By the end of the week. CHAIRMAN: Okay, good. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. We thank you for coming in. Its great to see you, and the site is magnificent. We wish you the best ofluck. We need green cards and Affidavit of Posting. OWEN MORREL: I have the Affidavit but I have to get it notarized, so that d0esn't do you any good does it. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you sign it in front of us? Can he sign it in front of us, Linda? BOARD SECRET ARY KOWALSKI: Yes, that's fine. It's signed already? OWEN MORREL: I just signed it; I'll sign it again. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, that's all right, as long as it's signed. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody that would like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * Page 36 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals 7:54 p.m. Appl. No. 4915 - MANOR GROVE CORP. AND PETER DENICOLA. CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir. PETER DENICOLA: Good evening. CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us? PETER DENICOLA: Well, I think the application speaks for itself. We have a wide lot, but not very deep to meet the tront yard and rear yard requirements, which is ten feet. So we designed a house that's 25 feet wide and we're asking for a rear yard variance. t·.·... . CHAIRMAN: Of 22. Mr. Homing any questions of this applicant? MEMBER HORNING: Not at the minute. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: This is strangely familiar. CHAIRMAN: Because we just discussed it with Mr. Olsen that's why. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN: And we discussed it a couple of months ago, and I believe this gentleman was the applicant at that time. MEMBER COLLINS: Doesn't this one actually back up on Bemadotti? PETER DENICOLA: Correct. MEMBER TORTORA: And you're doing the same thing which is you're meeting the 35 foot tront yard setback? PETER DENICOLA: Correct. MEMBER TORTORA: Identical. Well, obviously we have to, whatever thinking I think we should try to be consistent. Well it looks like the consistency is going to be 35 feet. MEMBER HORNING: Could I ask the applicant what do you think of this 35 foot front yard? Page 37 - Transcript of Hearings February 27, 2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals PETER DENICOLA: I'm willing to put the house forward if that would make things any better. We just added a rear yard because I thought that would be the simplest way to go. MEMBER TORTORA: That's interesting. You wouldn't have any objections if you moved to 30 feet. CHAIRMAN: 33. MEMBER TORTORA: or 33. PETER DENICOLA: Deficient, CHAIRMAN: Clos,f¡1\ to the road. ;'7:'" .',~.;.... 0; MEMBER TORTORA: Three m9re feet. PETER DENICOLA: I have no problems with that. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: Comment, not really to Mr. DeNicola, to the Board. That whole stretch of Gillette on that side is unbuilt. You have to go quite a few lots away before you come to another house. You're down to Mr. Buskard's house, which is very much not the usual style. CHAIRMAN: Y ~s, it's way setback. MEMBER COLLINS: And if we were to fiddle with the 35-foot required ITont yard setback, scoots this house around a little bit here; I think we would be starting into some urban planning here. CHAIRMAN: Well that's exactly what I was referring to. MEMBER COLLINS: Because we'd be setting ourselves up as saying as what we think is, the lots are all the same size. We're going to see this once a month for the next five years. CHAIRMAN: My next question to Mr. DeNicola is how many more lots do you own? PETER DENICOLA: At the present time, none. MEMBER COLLINS: But there are a lot down there. And I like the idea of, personally, of preserving the 35-foot front yard setback because I think the streetscape needs in a neighborhood like that, and if we squiggle we're going to have to look at our own II I I II I I Ii ,Ii I Page 38 - Transcript of Hemings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals precedent the next time one of these comes along and we'll be, in effect, doing suburban planning that I would rather not do. PETER DENICOLA: I tend to agree with that. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So you're done Miss Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, oh I'm sorry. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No comments. " .... CHAIRMAN: We thank you sir. If anything develops please don't leave until I close the hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? No response. Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * 8:03 p.m. Appl. No. 4916 - CHARLES MILLMAN. CHAIRMAN: The next application is on behalf of Charles Millman. Is anybody here for that? Good evening sir, could you state your name for the record? PETER DENICOLA: Peter DeNicola. CHAIRMAN: Uhuh, we're on a roll with you tonight? PETER DENICOLA: . I guess. CHAIRMAN: All right. You're asking us to reduce the side yards to I believe, the Notice of Disapproval read 29 feet something. Is there any reason why, 29 feet 3 inches? Is there any reason why you need to build the house to that width? PETER DENICOLA: Actually, we're asking for a 1 t 10, 29 feet was really pulling on that (inaudible). MEMBER COLLINS: Jerry, while you're asking Mr. DeNicola about that, I of course didn't have the original blueprint, I couldn't find the 14.34 setback. CHAIRMAN: I had trouble finding that too, but its actually on the, standing on the road, its on the left side. PETER DENICOLA: That would be on the deck. CHAIRMAN: Yes, on the deck side right. Page 39 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: I read the text that said it was on the deck, now I'm lost again. CHAIRMAN: Its there. MEMBER COLLINS: Standing on the road, it's on the left side. CHAIRMAN: Its right there. MEMBER COLLINS: That says 14.3 quite clearly. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Dinizio any questions of the applicant? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: Miss Collìns? MEMBER COLLINS: All right, I'm sorry. On my particular copy of the survey, that number was all smeared and that's why I couldn't find it, the 14.3-foo1. How much of a setback on that side would make it conform? CHAIRMAN: 15? MEMBER COLLINS: Well it has to be a minimum of 15 and a total 35. They've got 15 on the other side. PETER DENICOLA: You'd need 20 on that side. MEMBER COLLINS: So you'd need 20 on that side. And I guess Mr. Goehringer asked you why exactly, well it's a new house, and you're starting from scratch. Why do you need to cut back from the required side yards by this total amount of 6 12 feet? Why 4? PETER DENICOLA: The house was designed and the rooflines and everything if you shrunk it, it doesn't play into the look of the house. And the house really, I believe, would upscale the neighborhood. It's nothing shabby; it's a beautiful house. In order to stay away 150 feet away from the wetlands (inaudible). MEMBER COLLINS: I do not want to sound flip because we went through this with another builder only maybe two months ago and I think what you're saying is the house the client wants doesn't fit on the lot with the setbacks that are required. So, therefore, you have to violate the setbacks. Is that really what it comes down to? PETER DENICOLA: Basically. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? r------- Page 40 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Two-story house? PETER DENICOLA: No, one story. It's a walkout basement in the back. CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay. So it's going to be built pretty high? PETER DENICOLA: Yes, I believe the elevations (inaudible). MEMBER TORTORA: I just personally think it's a brand new lot and CHAIRMAN: Well, it's are-construction. PETER DENICOLA: We're tearing down the existing. MEMBER TORTORA: It's a brand new structure and Ijust really cannot see that it can't be built with no variance or certainly less than a variance. It's a big house, it's a nice size lot and we have a total of 29 on the side yard. I just personally think that PETER DENICOLA: We're talking about in the front l' 10" on that porch part, and in the rear part we're talking about six feet for the deck. Now could we do something, which just restricts us to that and built the house that much closer to the property line? Basically the house confoTIns except for these two little pieces, the deck and the part on the front porch. CHAIRMAN: We'll talk about it, that's all we can do. Mr. Homing, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN: No. We thank you sir, don't leave, again, until we finish the hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of the application sir? Thank you. UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN: I'm neighbor to the James Bar, 2740 Deep Hole Drive I'm next door neighbor to the east. And my lot is very wide at the spot that they're talking about. So I have no objections. So I'm speaking in favor of the request. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? No response. Anybody like to speak against? We will run the numbers Mr. DeNicola. We thank you for corning in. We thank the applicant for corning in, the applicants. And we appreciate the neighbor's input. I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving the decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold up. Let me just ask a question Jerry? CHAIRMAN: Surely. I !I .I' .¡, I ,Ii I' I Page 41 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Because this is mine. I have this as a 5' 9" variance? CHAIRMAN: Yes, you need 15 on one side and 20 on the other. So on the one side you have 17, what you need is 3 to make the 20 and on the other side you have 14.3 which you need 15. MEMBER TORTORA: The Notice of Disapproval says 15. MEMBER DINIZIO: The Notice of Disapproval doesn't say that. MEMBER COLLINS: The 15 on the west side, my copy does show that one. There's a 17 mark, but there's also a minimum. That's part of the house setback on the west side. So the actual minimum variance on the west side is 15. So there's no squiggle room there. And on the east side he's got 14.3 and he needs 20 so that's the 5.-foot. CHAIRMAN: I'm glad you brought that up. MEMBER DINIZIO: So that's what we're looking at. MEMBER COLLINS: So the denial correctly reflects the numbers. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so on the 14.3 side he actually needs 20 is what you're saying. Thank you for clearing that up. All right Jim. So again, we'll close the hearing. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * 8:03 p.m. Appl. No. 4910 '- NICHOLAS BUBANY. CHAIRMAN: No. 4910, Bubany, is anybody here for this hearing? Mr. Lark, how are you tonight sir? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Richard Lark attorney for the applicant. The applicant is also here tonight and you may ask him any questions and I know he wants to say a few things. Here again, the application and the appeal before you pretty much sets all the facts when you consider all the exhibits. Basically it's a two-pronged application, under the two Sections of 100-271, which empowers the Board of Appeals to act. On lOO-27lA which is one part of the application, application to review the appeal, to review the determination of the Building Inspector which denied the application for a C.O. for this as-built garage, which was construction in the side yard area in 1961. As the application indicates for that relief that the application of the -appeal it was done in accordance with the Interpretation of the Zoning office by the Building Inspector and the Board of Appeals at that time in 1961. That is. of a free-standing garage located in the side yard area was attached to the principal dwelling by any means as long as the material used was, of all things, was burnable. That was the Interpretation at that time. Don't ask me Page 42 - Transcript of Hearings Februmy 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals why, that's the facts. I can remember Mr. Goehringer can too. It's not the case today, but that's the way it was in that time. I don't know if it was intense purposes or what. I never got the reasoning for the determination, although I know one case in particular where the applicant did exactly that, Mr. Teritone connected with a two-by-four and-we're in. He did, it was ridiculous, but that's the way it was. This, of course, if you've seen it and read the application is attached by a trellis and it is quite attractive at least it was at the time. It has kind of deteriorated now. But in any event, the petition allowed the construction of the garage to be built where it is located and attached it to the house by this wooden trellis arrangement. And it is attached both to the garage and to the house, I've sent that personally. The other portion of the application is for a straight variance under 100- 271B, which allows the Board, of course, to grant variances. The variance being requested, of course, is in 100-384 whichrefers you to 133 which is what the Building Inspector based his denial on his determination. And that requires any accessory structures to be built in the rear yard area. 13 3 also requires any accessory structures to be located three feet from the property line when you have a lot size less than 20,000 square feet. I will just discuss this first portion of the application. . Mr. Bubany would like to make some comments- on the second portion and Mr. Bubany would like to make some comments on the first. At the outset from, as you know from the Zoning Map the area is all R40 and 40,000 square feet. However, virtually all the lots in this neighborhood are undersized. A review of the tax map shows that on the westerly side of Old Shipyard Lane in Southold, the lots are all basically 75 x 150 or 11,000 to 150 square feet. And on the easterly side, they're a little deeper. They're 75 feet wide by approximately to 215 or 16,000 125 square foot. This is an established neighborhood. It was established I believe, long before Zoning was established in the Town. So the requirements for a straight area variance for the location of this accessory structure in the side yard disregarding the 1961 Interpretation. I think it meets the requirements and the statutory requirements of today. The first one, of course as you know, the undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood and there won't be any detriment to any neighboring properties. This house has existed for over 40 years now and there's been no complaints, in fact a few of the neighbors did write letters in favor or it indicating that it had been constructed at that time, and there was no problem with it. Can a benefit be achieved by the applicant by any other method? Not really when you consider the neighborhood and the size of the lots. Unless you tore it down or attached it to the house as indicated here with some comments before, then you wouldn't even be before the Board. Is it substantial? Not considering the neighborhood. If it was brand-new construction, I might view it as substantial even though it is set back from the front of the house, but I could see you saying attach it to the house and be done with it if you want it in the side yard area. But, considering the neighborhood and the fact that many a garage is in them. Not all houses have them, but the ones that do have them are all attached to the house and I think there are one or two that are in the rear yard but considering the neighborhood and the fact that its existed for this length of time and it is set back at its closest point, 12.9 off the side off the neighbor's property, its not substantial. And for that reason, number four; it will not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. Now as to the fifth one, which if the applicant can say the hardship was self-created, I guess you would check yes. I guess you would have to say it was self-created because Mr. I I ì ¡ , ,I Page 43 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold TOWll Board of Appeals Bubany will testify here. The house itself was built in 1960 and when it was finished that summer it was decided to add the garage and it was just continued on and rrom what I can understand, what happened was is thè builder, Mr. _ did build a considerable amount of homes in Southold in that -period of time, got clearance from the Building Inspector to ahead and do it. And Mr. Bubany, it was explained to him that it was all part of the original application. When I explained to him no, since there was a e.o. issued for the house that stopped the original application even then. There should have been an application for a Building Permit, which would have been granted then and then subsequently the C.O. But apparently it was just a continuation of construction; it never really stopped even though the Bubany family moved into the house. Of course, they had to have a C.O. to do that, and Ms. Tortora was quite strict on that. You did not occupy the house without a C.O. So I can understand it, there were some technical deficiencies that went on for some years because his w.other and father lived there and there never was a problem and, of course, they .all got61ti, the father died and then subsequently the mother ended up in the nursing home and she died and the house had to be sold to pay the bills and hence became the problem. I'll turn this over to Mr. Bubany to take it rrom there to explain what happened rrom that point. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Lark. Good evening sir. NICHOLAS BUBANY: Actually I was there, I was 19 years oldwhen the house was constructed. I remember the discussion regarding connecting it because my father built the house, had it built, told the builder that he would like to have the garage added. He had some funds left over so I guess he wanted to add' that. He was old that it would be fine but it should be set back. He said well is there any way of moving it up a bit? You've all seen the house I take it? The garage starts two-thirds of the way back on the house. Someone in the Building Department told the builder, and he referred to my father, that if it was connected it would be legal and they could put it anywhere on the side. So based on that, he said go ahead with it. Now he was an extremely h~:nest individual. He didn't do anything that wasn't exactly by the law. When he was told that, that's what he assumed. Now I'm sure that he would go for the C.O. if he knew that he needed one. To him, occupancy meant you lived in it. And since this, the house had a C.O. and was legal and the garage was attached, therefore, that was fine. He paid taxes on it for 40 years. The trellis is still there; a few minor parts have been replaced. He even had brackets put on the garage that are still there. And he had a grape arbor in the back going toward the house. So his intent was to comply with the law. He passed away 24 - 25 years ago. My mother lived there until recently and had to go to the hospital and then to San Simeon. Before she went to San Simeon, I had to sign a paper that said that the house would be sold to pay for her bills, that's the understanding. She passed away recently, and the house had to be sold. We cleaned it up as best we could, did what we could. It's a relatively small house, as you know. It comes time to close and almost on the eve I find out, they tell me there is no C.O. on the house. I panic, shock and didn't know what to do. So, I didn't want to lose the people, they wanted the house, they wanted to move in. But basically, the attorney suggested that we set aside a fund of $10,000 in escrow and that I would have to get the C.O. Now, to me, I know it was legal. Page 44 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals By the way, there's one stipulation that says 4.9, it's supposed to be 5 feet. If you look at the drawing, when they did it they were off slightly at an angle so where its three inches short in the front, I think it is three inches in the back. That's what happened there. They punhe money into escrow. I went to the Building Department and said, what do I need to do? I went and go architect's drawings. The architect said it was certainly up to Code and very well built. Everything that was needed I gave them. They came back to me and they said basically that they would approve it if I went with the 1983 or 1987 Code; I think it is, because they couldn't find anything before that. There wasn't anything before that. They said that if I added a deck six inches high, connecting the two they would give a C.O. I said fine. I went to the owner, said look I'll bear the expense, just put it in. He said no. He will not accept any changes on it, he wants the C.O. There's $10,000 in escrow if it doesn't get approved after a certain period. So again, befuddled I "W~1J-t back, I started checking a little further. I said to the Building Department what could I do now because they denied it? the Bupding Department said you couldn't do anything. You have to go to the Zoning Board. So here I am. I have notarized letters that I've gotten from three Building Inspectors covering thirty years. From the time this was built and before to a few years ago. They all said the same thing. It is legal, it was legal, it was connected and it's legal. Now that's all fine except that one of the things Mr. Lark has already gone over, it really wasn't a detriment to anyone or isn't a detriment. It's been there. The neighbors bought their homes with that building being there forty years. So I don't think it's a problem for them. I can't solve the problem. It's not feasible to move the garage. And I don't own it so I'm kind of caught in the middle there. CHAIRMAN: We'll put it to bed for you. NICHOLAS BUBANY: There's nothing I can do on it. So I guess you're my court of last resort. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora has a question. MEMBER TORTORA: I just have a quick question. It looks to me, because only less than half of the garage is in the side yard. Well that's what I wanted to ask you. The width of the garage, 12.2 x about 8 feet? NICHOLAS BUBANY: It's eight from the foundation in front of the garage to the foundation in back of the house. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, so the total size of the garage is 12.2 x 22 and only 8 feet of that 22. NICHOLAS BUBANY: 96 square feet. He intentionally moved it back. He didn't put it up to the front of the house. MEMBER TORTORA: We see this quite often. Not particularly your story, which is very interesting really. But we see it, and I'm very sympathetic. Page 45 ~ Transcript of Hearings February 27, 2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to discuss anything with this applicant? MEMBER COLLINS: I would just like to get clear because Mr. Lark gave us quite an extensive filing, for which I am very appreciative. But the denial, the Notice of Disapproval simply says that its because its in the side yard. It did not discuss the setback from the side yard. CHAIRMAN: It's pre-existing. MEMBER COLLINS: And I think that we should act on this as a question of can, will .. we permit this building to be in the side yard. I just wanted to "Clear the air. ,,- CHAIRMAN: Question. MEMBER HORNING: - Yes, I wanted to ask the applicant. You went through an explanation where he tried to make an above ground patio to consider it being attached to the garage; does your prospective buyer like that idea? Can you see it without the C.O.? CHAIRMAN: He doesn't really intend it. MEMBER COLLINS: That's why he has money in escrow. CHAIRMAN: That's his intendancy. MEMBER HORNING: Maybe you thought about some other way about making more of an attachment to it that would bring it up to Code. NICHOLAS BUBANY: First of all he owns it, so I have to get a letter from him in fact, to put in for this request. He will not allow any change on there. He told me, I went back and forth with him several times on the phone and he said look I'm getting expensive. If you want the C.O. I don't understand why you don't want to approve this. There were many different reasons given, but basically he doesn't want to change anything on there. And I can't change it. CHAIRMAN: Okay we thank you. We hope to put this to bed for you as I said, not to be redundant. Just let me finish the hearing first. Okay we're ready. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, I'd like to move that we grant, we're going to need to discuss just how we're going to word this. CHAIRMAN: Let me close it first. Make a motion closing it. Page 46 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold TOWll Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to suggest something to this gentleman first, if I can. I didn't get a chance. In your application you asked one or two things, I think Mr. Lark did. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: No either way. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I need to have your opinion on which way you think it should be done. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Probably a straight variance. I thought about this quite a bit. You have to have justification because you get that self-created wise guy idea he just puts it here. That's why when he carne to me I didn't represent him during this transactio¡l of the purchase and the sale. And he carne to me and I said where did you get this notion? Well, I talked to the Building Inspector. And I said would he be willing to give you that in writing? He not only got it from one he got it from all three. But Mr. Forester wasn't moved by that because they've changed their opinion and I said, well, if they won't grant you a straight variance we better ask for alternative relief because you did do it under what they told you to do. But I think if you ask him a question direct Jim; I would say a straight variance would be the better way. Because they're trying to put all of that stuff with the 2 x 4 burnable material to bed, and I understand why. Because I never understood it to begin with. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I'm trying to ask this question why would they say to put a deck there? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: That would totally befuddle me. But if it became academics, I just ignored it. That was ridiculous. They were looking for a way out. We have probably this school about another dozen of these floating around in the Town. MEMBER TORTORA: We see a lot of these.· Not in this particular case, but a case where a garage ends up partially in the side yard and partially in the front yard. RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: I resolved one not too long ago, that's why I was so familiar with this because I then made an application to the Building Department for a breezeway and I connected it and as you said, more substantial because it warranted the setup for it because they had a pool in the back and you had a fence required in an area and that's how I resolved it. I resolved the one on Fishers Island in the same way. But here didn't warrant it and they didn't want it and it was so tight to the house that I could see that a breezeway wouldn't do the job anyway esthetically. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so make the motion, well first of all I want to close the hearing. Make a motion closing. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * Page 47 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals 8:05 p.m Appl. 4837 - H. CASHY- CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody here on Cashy, Appeal No. 48317 Are we postponing this to the next regularly scheduled meeting or the Special Meeting? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We're opening it and recessing it to March 15th. CHAIRMAN: I offer that as a Resolution. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * 8:08 P.M. Appl. No. 4906 - V AND R LYNCH CHAIRMAN: Good evening ma'am. UNKNOWN WOMAN: Good evening. Could I come up there, or should I stay here? CHAIRMAN: We'd rather you stay there to take it. Unless you would rather come up here. UNKNOWN WOMAN: I'd rather because I have a lot of papers that I have to give to you. CHAIRMAN: And you are? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: I'm Barbara Ham. CHAIRMAN: You are aware that this is not going to be resolved tonight right? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: I'm not (interrupted). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: He's going to explain that to you. She doesn't know anything about that yet. CHAIRMAN: Okay, go ahead. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Do you want to tell me? CHAIRMAN: Well, we had a discussion with Soil and Water Conservation and they would've loved to see the site and made an evaluation, however, they are unable to tie up two ferry rides and get back at a certain time. So the other facilitated way would be to fly them over. Which would cost your applicant about $450.00. However, in further reviewing the application it appeared to me that if you came up with a landscaping plan, a significant landscaping plan to involve some type of pennanent wall or step, which I understand you, are anticipating doing that. Page 48 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Yes, I think I might have that for you a very topographical (inaudible). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have to speak louder. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: I think I might have that. I have a topographical plan for you. CHAIRMAN: Now, we need to review that before we would close the hearing and we may even submit it to Soil and Water and let them review it based upon the pictures that we have at this point. A~d the main reason for that is that because that road is in between the property, they mayor may not have significant thoughts regarding this particular. I'm not speaking for them. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Which road are you referring to? CHAIRMAN: I'm referring to the street. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: There's two streets that are. CHAIRMAN: I'm talking about Crescent. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN: Crescent right George? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN: So that's where we are at this time. So, you are certainly welcome to do your presentation. You are certainly welcome to give us any information that you would like to give us. But I need to see that plan and I need to resolve any issues that. I understand there are neighbors that are concerned regarding this and so on and so forth. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And a letter today. MEMBER COLLINS: We just got a letter today. I just read it now. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, we got it late this afternoon. CHAIRMAN: Are you familiar with that letter? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Yes, I am. From Mr. Tolcott? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. Page 49 - Transcript of Hearings Febmary 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Okay, so let's go. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: The Notice of Disapproval said that pool was not Okayed because they couldn't put it in the required rear yard. But on this piece of property there is no rear yard. Two sides of it border streets. One is Avenue B and one is Crescent Avenue. CHAIRMAN: Right I think that the applicant can determine one to be a rear yard. .:;-':'~..-:. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: In the Southold Town Code I read that on a comer lot they can determine one to be the' rear yard, however, I didn't see anything that they could determine on a lot like this that one could be a rear yard. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I don't knoW. I don't question. There are people on this Board that question and I'm not taking anything away from the Building Inspector's Notices of Disapproval, but in this particular case, if that's what they determine, that's what they determine. I've been here a long time and I just don't do it. I'm sorry. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: I'm sorry I don't understand your point. CHAIRMAN: I don't determine, I don't question unless there is a blatant reason to question. This is not a sarcastic statement. If they determine something to be a rear yard, they determine it to be a rear yard and that's it. I can go back to them, I can hit them over the head, I can anything I want and they are still going to determine to a rear yard so it's an exercise in futility so I don't do it. MEMBER COLLINS: This lot has two front yards. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Right, and two side yards, which have neighbors. One of whom you've heard from. They're as a pool in a similar location, which had a C.O. in 1989. The old pool has been removed totally. The reason for the placement of the new pool are two things. One is topography, this is a sloping site. And one is that it's the most private area for the pool. Also, there's a drive on the other side. The other issue was what they called the deck. Which was a setback issue. This was like a complicated thing for me to understand. It seems like there's a retaining wall which they're calling the deck, which goes around a 40-year old mimosa tree that was there, has not been moved there. It's been there. When the people bought it, it was there. They're trying to retain that tree and it's health and integrity. So what they're doing is, at grade, they're putting down 2 x 4 planking. But this retaining wall is going to continue from where it's not a variance issue around the mimosa area. And I asked why they needed to make it so high, and they said it was a safety issue too, because somebody would fall off the edge. So depending upon which part of the grade you're at, it's going to be between three feet high and maybe five feet, depending on how much they fill in. So that's the deck issue. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Page 50 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: There was another issue with stairs, which has been withdrawn. They have decided not to go with the stairs. MEMBER HORNING: Did you say you had a topography map? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Yes, I'm looking for that right now. This is from Common Associates in Stonington, Connecticut. CHAIRMAN: Is this your only copy? ,.. . BARJ5'~itA HAM, ESQ.: Yes it is. . . CHAIRMAN: Can you get anoth_er one? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: We'll have to.. CHAIRMAN: Now remember this is a topography; this is not a landscaping plan. So what I want to see is a total landscaping plan of the entire front yard because you're losing a portion of the front yard as we speak, and that's where we are at this juncture. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: In that case, do I need to leave this with you? CHAIRMAN: It would be greatly appreciated. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Okay. MEMBER COLLINS: Jerry, to go back to what you were just discussing with Ms. Ham or she was explaining to us, the pool I understand and the stairs have now been withdrawn. This other setback issue is 12' 8" from a property line. That was how I saw it. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: From what they called the deck? MEMBER COLLINS: The deck, right. And what you're saying is that the so-called deck is timber on the ground protecting a tree? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Okay, I just wanted to be sure I understood that. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: It's planking on the ground, protecting the roots of a mimosa tree, however, what's around it, what surrounds it, is the continuation of a retaining wall which is brick. I'm saying brick and it could be some fancy stone, but its some kind of natural material that continues around the house. Page 51 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Is it ground level? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: The retaining walhs going to be higher than ground level. MEMBER TORTORA: The deck? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Did you submit any photos ofthis? .. . . . . BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: I did. I sent five, I have some additional. MEMBER TORTORA: The reason I'm asking is that I would like to see on the setbacks, I'd like to see photos of the setbacks. So the setback that's being removed is the variance requirement that's being removed is the 9.5', is that conect? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, that's what she just told us for the stairs that you see going off of the BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: That's right. I'm looking for a picture of the retaining wall area for you. This is from, I had marked the directions and these are pictures that came over our computer. I have not gone to see this property myself, because I just couldn't make it over to Fishers Island. . CHAIRMAN: Let me just tell you Mrs. Ham, it's Mrs. Ham right? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Yes, that's right. CHAIRMAN: You're Steve's wife? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Yes, he said he couldn't come because he was embanassed that Southampton Lumber sold for some ridiculously high amount of money or something. CHAIRMAN: (laughter) We have significant pictures of the site that indicate a portion of your rear yard is now sinking into to the confines of Crescent Avenue, which makes us concerned. Of course, it does not necessarily affect the pool area because I'm sure that's going to be retained in a very sophisticated manner. However, we can't go granting variances when you have the activity, I realize its wintertime at the same time, but all I really see here are some terracing in the center. I don't see anything that's going to retain the property on the Crescent Avenue side at the road itself. And that's what concerns me that am where we are at this juncture. I mean, I see these rock walls, which are, this is evidently probably a $5,000,000 house if it's not more. So what we need to see is what you intend to do to retain the front yard area of this house. Page 52 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold To'1,11 Board of Appeals BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: And that's a landscaping issue also? CHAIRMAN: That's a landscaping issue. Because once you go over Crescent Avenue, then go-into the body of water, which basically access Connecticut and Rhode Island, which is the Sound. So that's what we're concerned about. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN: Yes. '~ MEMBER TORTORA: Why dìdyou locate the pool closer to the house? The pool is only 24 feet from the property line and that's the inside of the pool, I'm not sure is that a patio around it? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: I'm going to take a look at it when I find it here. My understanding is the pool is as close to the Talcott property right, but also close to the Lynch property of their house. The reason they positioned the pool is that what you're asking, the lengthwise? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Is because of the topography. If they had turned it around it's a more sloping site. Am I making sense? MEMBER TORTORA: You are, I'm just a little concerned about where the leeching pool is and if you have some erosion here that we're all going this way. All the erosion would be going towards Crescent Avenue. . CHAIRMAN: There's got to be some sophisticated plan that has to be put in place then. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: In the pool location, there is quite a drop off towards Crescent Avenue that is our concern. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Right. MEMBER HORNING: And we need to have a safe plan that shows. CHAIRMAN: You need to address that. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: On my plan, it should be on yours; there is a retaining 'Yall. CHAIRMAN: Right, I see both of those particularly on the topographical survey. Page 53 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Excuse Miss Ham, which drawing? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: On the topographical drawing, but I have some little ones I can give you of it. MEMBER COLLINS: No well, we may have it. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: It's the topographical one. CHAIRMAN: We only have one copy of that. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: There is a retaining wall proposed. MEMBER HORNING: Was there any consideration for turning the pool so that it is parallel to the house rather than? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Yes, that's what I was just saying. It's because of the sloping issue. It would've required a greater height retaining wall, which then would have been more visible to the street. MEMBER HORNING: which Street? BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: I believe, Crescent. Let me just take a look. MEMBER HORNING: Well if the pool is in the same location or turns, I can't see how it would require any difference in terrace. MEMBER TORTORA: The elevations aren't that different there anyway, you're 31,28. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: This is what the builder told me, that it would have required a greater retaining wall had they turned it parallel to the house. .1 'I ~ ~i Ii I" Ii ili 'i ! MEMBER DINIZIO: They're right. It would be about 4 feet, maybe even 5. If you turned it and you ran it parallel to the house and kept it the same length. MEMBER COLLINS: You'd be going from 32 feet to MEMBER DINIZIO: And by the time you go out near Crescent, it would be 4 feet higher than it is right now. MEMBER HORNING: Unless it was headed back toward Avenue Beach. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, unless you pushed it back. Page 54 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Alright where we are at this point is that we're requesting from you a total landscaping plan for, we'll refer to it as the rear yard, as the BuÍlding Inspector, the yard adjoining or contiguous to Crescent Avenue. And we will make the detennination if we need anyone else to look at this to evaluate that plan. If we need someone, we'l1 need money to evaluate it, that's all. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chainnan? Would you also ask Miss Ham to give us, not arty great expert opinion, but just something in writing that we have in the file about the considerations relating to what we just talked about, which is rotating the pool 90 degrees and what that would mean, because we were just sort of tossing words around a little bit. CHAIRMAN: Sure, good point. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: SO it's the plan and the pool issue. " .. ~~)::.". .. CHAIRMAN: Right. You were kidding about Steve not coming right? MEMBER HORNING: In order to abate the concerns of the neighbor, Stanley, with noise reduction, if you could come up with a specifics about the mechanisms of the pool. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: I spoke to the builder about that one because we got a copy of the letter. He said that there are going to be a few lights within the pool, but no freestanding lights. But he also added that they might have put some pathway lights at ground level from the pool to the house. And about the air conditioning unit, they said it's by Trane, and that it's a state-of-the art unit known for its quietness. CHAIRMAN: We want to know where they are. MEMBER TORTORA: Where they are, where the pool pump and filter is. CHAIRMAN: Where the heater is. Where all the mechanical stuff is. MEMBER TORTORA: The fence for the pool where is that going to be also. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: I believe that's on the survey. CHAIRMAN: Okay, that's where we are. BARBARA HAM, ESQ.: Thank you very much, good night. CHAIRMAN: Goodnight. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this application? We will recess until April 5th. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * Page 55 - Transcript of Hearings February 27, 2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals Appl. No. 4918 - WILLIAM AND THERESA ACKERMANN. CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of the audience we are going to take a five minutes recess, however, Ackennann which is Appeal No. 4~18 is recessed so we need to go back on 4876 and 4909. We'll recess to April 5th; I'll offer that as a Resolution. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * 9:00 p.m. Appl No. 4876 - GORDON AND MADELEINE SCHLAEFER. (1670 House of Furniture). PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: This is on the 1670 House and the Schlaefer family, which is all here. And if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Has anything changed on the site plan from the last one you originally submitted? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Yes, I believe that the site plan was revised at the meeting with the Planning Board. We came away from one of our meetings. I think we had two. One of the meetings there was a comment about the curb cut and the difficulty you and many people had experienced with emergency vehicles being able to get around some of the curbing in some of the fully developed site plans. We went back to the Planning Board. Garrett Strang revised the plan and actually changed the plan entrance so that it would create a greater area for a turning radius and access to the front. We also increased the entrance into the back as well. And in your site plan, we also I think clarified that the building, what we're proposing is an addition which is stepped back from the front of the building. So we would be balancing with the addition on the westerly side. But it also has a covered porch that will be incorporated as part of the structure for architectural as well as just display and access. So those issues, the porch was always designed there, but the site plan didn't really clearly identifY the area and how it was set back and how the porch is an additional setback with respect to the entrance. Is there anything else, I think that was it? CHAIRMAN: There still is, I looked at this plan and I looked at it right after we received it, so I am merely asking you to recap what we've been. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Right. CHAIRMAN: There's still no access around the building into what we refer to as the handicapped area. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Right. We talked to the Planning Board, we discussed the site plan; I think that for the most part we certainly, I don't want to put words in their mouth, because it hasn't been approved yet, but I think that they're relatively satisfied with the site plan that has been proposed. Keep in mind that in 1989 that a site plan for Page 56 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals this building was previously approved by th~ Planning Board. So this kind of goes second round for the 1670 House and certainly with the new Code provision that was adapted in 1989. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a question. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Did you, where did you leave it with the Planning Board? .¡, ··f'._, P A TRICI'\ MOORE, ESQ.: )Ill ell I went to the Planning Board and I pointed out to them that there have been rela~~ris·wit~(\~~l'ect to wineries. Many of the recommendations that come before this Board with respect to 60 foot width have come with some dicta, some elaboration trom the Planni,ng Board. And one of the things that they talk about is single use occupant; the intention of the 60- foot rule was for strip shopping centers. When I discussed it with them, they said Mrs. Moore, pat me on the back, very compelling argument, but make it to the Zoning Board. So that's pretty much where it left off. They would rather you make the decision than provide much guidance. I was hoping they would provide some support. They won't go that far. CHAIRMAN: Do yòu have any other future meetings with the Planning Board? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Well, we need the variance to finish up the site plan review process. I think that for the most part we satisfied all of their conditions. DOT may be the last issue. We've got one curb cut, so it's a relatively minor amendment to the original curb cut. So we are really there. They're waiting for the variance and then we can finish up the process. Any other questions before I discuss some of the other issues that I want to raise tonight? CHAIRMAN: I guess the question I have is of the Board and that is basically does anybody have any objection to this plan as it is before us? We'll give you a chance to speak Mr. Tuthill, just hold on one second and we'll be right there. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I guess we were looking at this supposed truck that would go in here and load up, and worrying about whether it had to back out onto the highway. Does this plan take care of that? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Yes, urn. CHAIRMAN: I can't see how it can. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Well keep in mind that the truck that they use is a panel truck. And that purposely has, that could get through before. It will get through even better now. And it will have an unloading and space behind the building that is screened trom you. As far as the big tractor/trailer trucks, they don't, well when they come now, Page 57 - Transcript ofHemings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals . they really don't belong there. They are directed to their warehouse facility, their storage facility and that would continue. They are not intending to eliminate the need for their warehousing. What they need is some inventory. CHAIRMAN: In the showroom. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: In the showroom, exactly. If you've been in the showroom they have an enormous inventory, really nice selection of things, personally. But you really have to meander through the building and get around all of the displays area. And this addition is going to relieve some of that, some of the difficulty, if you are one either tall large, or wide large, you would have to ~going the inside of the showroom at its present condition. If you are handicapped, in oth~r· words, in a wheelchair, you could not get through that building. There is just;~~t...,)nY w.ay. So by giving them this addition they are going to be able to estaþlish di, sØ\'tri:areas that, you've gone to many furniture stores, that's the way you show furniture fS to display seating areas, the different materials, the different furniture items that are showñ. That's the way its to be displayed inside. You need room for that. Right now everything is crammed into the area in tight quarters. So, I don't know if I answered your question. The truck, the issue that you raised, I'm not sure I answered is, the large tractor-trailers should not go there. They can go in there, they can park in the front, but they would not be welcomed there by the Schlaefer family the business zone. CHAIRMAN: First of all, I visited the store, and I spoke to Mrs. Schlaefer and their daughter and they are both lovely people. Personally, I've never met Mr. Schlaefer except for being here. It's very difficult. We understand the procedure, but it's difficult to visualize when we have members of the community saying that trailer trucks stop traffic on County Road 48. And that's the problem that we perceive. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: I understand, but that is occurring under the present conditions. So if anything, it will improve those conditions because there is room to get into the front area where the clientele parking is. They could, depending on; they pull over to on 48 onto the curbs. I've been there when trucks are going by and they pull over to the side. They do that for the deli. I mean, when you go to get a cup of coffee, you will see trucks that are parked right off the ferry and they park on the Route 48 and they run in and they run out. That doesn't mean that that's where they belong or where they're welcome. But, reality is that that's where, trucks will at times park there. It will continue most likely. The site plan presently doesn't address it. The current conditions do not address it, because actually the trucks are pulling over to the side of the road. If anything, they're pulling into an organized parking area. The site plan will monitor it. If they see curbing and they see parking and they;see things in a much orderly fashion, they're going to stop they're going to çheck to see, they're going to call in and say all right, where do I take this delivery? And it's going to be at their direction to their warehouse. So it can only improve it. The existing conditions certainly don't solve it. Page 58 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Would there be any reason for me to go to a Planning Board work session as I did with you at one other time? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Honestly, I think it's wasting our time, quite frankly. We have been to the Planning Board now twice, maybe, well I've been there twice. Was there at least twice before. We gave them, I think a very strong, and we gave a copy of their own resolution, a copy of other applications where they've made the recommendation. And it was like talking to the blank wall. There was just no reaction, one way or another. The best reaction I got was it's a very compelling writing. You have a good argument. Go to the Zoning Board. That was the response I got, and I said it would really be nice if you came back with a recommendation. They're going to leave it in your hands as an Area Variance and here we are. And we've been going back and forth with this for quite some time. CHAIRMAN: What, was the reason for not, for no internal flow all the way around, through that wheel chair or ADA area? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: I think it was, if I recall, was it the circulation of the customer parking. It didn't make sense. For the purposes of a big truck, they are not going to go around. For the purposes of the panel truck, it has a parking space and it will come back out. But you want to keep the parking out of. CHAIRMAN: I don't want customer parking back there. That wasn't the purpose of it. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: No, no. Maybe I misunderstood. But the customer parking is in the tront. What you had suggested was take the access that's now going behind the buildings and there's parking for staff and for the panel truck behind the building. There's also, the dumpster back there and it's a hidden place and blocked from view as well as secluded in the corner and your alternative was to keep it going around, eliminate the handicapped parking, relocate the handicapped parking area, but keep the access going around so it comes around the building and comes through the customer parking and out the exit. We discussed that with the Planning Board and they looked at it and they said no and that didn't make sense. It didn't make sense to us either because we do want to keep for safety sake, we don't want the panel truck going across and through the customer parking, plus just the whole layout of the site plan made more sense the way it was proposed. That really didn't improve. CHAIRMAN: During the 9 hours and 37 minutes of the McDonald's in Mattituck hearings, when you ride into that parking lot, apart from the issue of the drive-thru which has been an issue that has gone on for the last five or six years and probably will go on for at least another one or two, if you look at the back parking lot and where their dumpster there is an earthen area which is access to Old Main Road. The purpose of that access is for emergency and fire vehicles. I'm telling you right now, as I sit before you, I cannot vote on this application. I will not vote on this application because this application will not allow fire and emergency vehicles to go into this site and to access II r ! ¡ Page 59 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals this site and to get out of this site. And I can't do it. I apologize but I can't do it. You vv;ant to go to the Planning Board, you want me to discuss this issue with them, and I will discuss it with them. This is not a fire issue here before this Board. This is an application for 60 feet, in excession of 60 feet. But I am telling you I cannot deal with it. I have lived with it every day with another application that the Planning Board granted and this is not an objection to the Planning Board, because it was a different Planning Board at that time in Mattituck. And I will not allow that to happen again. I am not against the Schlaefers, I like them very very much. They are lovely people and I want their business to profit just as every other business out here. I am a businessperson myself. I just cannot deal with it. You are going to bury three trucks in the front of that building and there is no way that you are going to be able to get anything around it. And that is the problem. You are going to stagnate everything that is in the rear. of this building and you are not going to allow it to get out. And that is where the problem lies. So, as I said to you, I can do one, of two things. I can go back to the Planning Board and discuss that with them, and you know that I've gone with you on work sessions before. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: If you can get anywhere with them, I welcome your presence. CHAIRMAN: So what I'm going to suggest to you, if my Board doesn't mind, is that you reschedule another work session, and that we get together with them and we discuss that Issue. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: I mean, it could be on a Monday, its always on a Monday and I think probably seeing them this coming Monday. So it's at your convenience. . CHAIRMAN: Okay. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Keep in mind that this variance application doesn't impact the access question of pulling around, because the tight spot is on the westerly side where there is an existing building. So the addition that we propose, what you're talking about is pure site plan issue. So when you say you cannot include this, you cannot decide on this, we don't have a problem with you providing your expert opinion as to emergency access for site plan review. I welcome that, I think you have years of experience for that. CHAIRMAN: When we're talking about violation of health, safety and welfare, its broad all the way across the line and that's what I'm saying to you. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Okay, and I appreciate that but keep in mind we've been at this for quite some time and that this addition, the 60 foot variance, or the rule for 60 foot variance, won't, the site plan resolving your issue with respect to site plan can be addressed with the Planning Board through the site plan process. It has really CHAIRMAN: I've given them every advantage to do so. Now I have to spell it out to them and back them up. That's all I can do. r Page 60 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals I I I ,. ---" PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: We welcome you to discuss it with the Planning Board. I just, my concern is your opposition to a project that really is unrelated, the opposition is unrelated to - the variance application. It is purely site plan. Fine we can make modification to the site plan with the Planning Board's knowledge. CHAIRMAN: Let me tell you Miss Moore. I voted against an application on the comer of Pequash Avenue where a person put a swimming pool 11 feet fTom the comer of Pequash Avenue and the Main Road. And I told them could not gamer my vote unless they put some sort of guard rail up in that hedge area because some day, somebody is going to end up through that hedge and somebody is going to be swimming in the pool and I'm not going to be the person that's going to be able to put up with that if someone is seriously hurt. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Well, if I have your assurance that we have your vote on this application, if we give you an access curb cut going around the building, its whatever the Planning Board wants us as far as the site plan review. CHAIRMAN: That's one of the discussions. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chainnan you started this by saying you wanted to ask the Board where our thinking was. You asked Mr. Dinizio and he raised the traffic circulation issue, which has now been discussed at length. I think it would be useful if we continue the process of asking the Board where they're standing. And I would like to say where I stand. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tuthill also wants to speak. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Oh, and I need to make a presentation. MEMBER COLLINS: Well I think, partly Miss Moore, my theory is that if you get a sense of where this Board is thinking is, it may assist you in figuring out what you have to layout here. CHAIRMAN: Don't you want her to continue her presentation? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Oh no, you can give me what you're concerns are and then I'll address them. MEMBER COLLINS: No, I think it will be useful for her to know where our thinking is before she goes on. My thinking is and has been that I feel that this is a business that by its nature operates under one roof splitting up into separate buildings is not a realistic solution and I'm quite willing to entertain fTom the 60 foot rule for those reasons. I think it is rational not irrational. To do that, this issue of the site plan traffic pattern carne up right at the beginning and there's been a lot sort of waltzing around it. And Mr. Strang Page 61 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals did put in a new plan in January, I realize I don't have a copy in my file but I have seen it and I know that it makes changes. And I've heard the Chairman on the subject of adequate vehicular circulation for safety reasons, and there is a constraint on us and granting variances that we consider the health, safety and welfare of the Town and we can have views about that. And I have a sense that the Board hasn't seen you on this almost three months, but we did discuss it at one of our Special Meetings where we can legally talk to each other about these things and my impression was that other Board Members were probably willing to give a variance from the 60 foot rule, not all of them, but probably were. And the seriousness with which people were concerned about the traffic issue kind of escaped me and I end up being completely mystified by the Alfons/Gaston operation between us and the Planning Board on this. I think what you're telling us is if we give a signal that we're willing to give a variance for the 60 foot rule, in other words, to let them have the building they want to have, that they won't fuss about that but we don't know what they're going to say about parking and traffic and the Chairman is very upset about it and I respt?ct his concerns. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: I just broached a topic that hopefully that, if your variance has a condition that the access go all the way around that's fine with us. I asked Garrett, as the architect who designed the site plan. CHAIRMAN: The only problem is that steps on the Planning Board's toes. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: We've been three months waiting for them to come back. MEMBER DINIZIO: Could I comment on that? I was here; I think I might have missed one meeting, but certainly the same night that, we had two memos from Planning Board. One said well we like this building that's over 60 foot, well I don't know why but we like it. Then we had another one that said, no we don't like it and it basically said the same thing and I don't know '.vhy. Now if the Planning Board is going to inject their opinion, then they should be here at that podium explaining that memo if we have a question about it. Not us going to them. And number two, there is absolutely no reason why we can't say, as a condition for this approval those trucks go all the way around that building. Now I'm going to tell you, as a fireman for thirty years living in the Village of Greenport, I can tell you, there is not many opportunities for a fire truck to get into a back yard of many buildings in Greenport and I don't believe we've lost many. So I find that just a little bit. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Well I was going to say, you probably could skip the curb and run around the back of the building and nobody would complain. I mean all we're talking about is a curbing blocking your access. I would hope that you would trespass all over my property to save me. MEMBER DINIZIO: We always do, don't worry it will happen. Page 62 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: But if you want to make it as a condition so it's very clear to the Planning Board. MEMBER DINIZIO: I still have a problem with you asking Pat to testify for th-e Planning Department on their memo. The Planning Department should be here to explain that if we don't understand it. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: But I also don't want to delay this application any more by making it the Planning Board upset. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just making a statement. Anybody.th~t wishes to comment on it is fine. But, Jerry you were questioning her on that ~~mo ;~hd paturally. ,.,. #/I, . CHAIRMAN: I wasn't questioning her on that memo, I was questioning her on at what point we were at this, where we are at this point. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Certainly I can't speak for the Planning Board. I can only relay my impressions of their reactions to what I said. MEMBER DINIZIO: But naturally they are going to be favorable to you. I would expect nothing more. So if anybody has a question, let's get the Planning Board here. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't want to get the Planning Board here. MEMBER DINIZIO: I figured you wouldn't I just hope it would move things along here a little bit. MEMBER TORTORA: I think I will do that Jim. I've really heard enough on this application. And my personal views on this are that it is, I don't think it would look good with separating this into two structures. I don't see any reasonable reason to do that. I don't think it will accomplish anything. I have no objections to the planning of the structure itself. I understand the Chainnan's concerns, and I really have a lot of respect w:ith him. As a resident of Mattituck I think Jerry and I share one thing in common, trying to get out of a very poorly designed mall, where there've been I don't know how many accidents because it wasn't designed properly. Poor trucks loading and unloading, so I really am sympathetic to his concerns and he's right on the money. As far as the conditions, let the Planning Board do whatever they want because the ultimate test is the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community. I think that that can very clearly contain a condition that trucks have clear access. Whether it means putting the curb cut this side, it's not my problem, that's the Planning Board's problem. And I don't think we should be designers. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: My only concern with the way with the traffic is that. MEMBER TORTORA: I know you can't change things. Page 63 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: No, no, its how its read. I don't want them to read more into it than really it's a simple cut through the property because it's in a matter of opinion getting a truck around. Because the truck can be va-rious sizes; I think if you say simply and clearly that the curb, that the access shall go all the way àround to the westerly. CHAIRMAN: Where the clearness has to be Mrs. Moore is that MEMBER TORTORA: I agree with you, you don't want to read. more into it. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Yes, because they're going to start arguing what truck, cut what access. CHAIRMAN: I don't care if these nice people intend to chain that off so that no one drives back there. I'm talking with those little plastic chains. I don't care if they chain it off. I don't care if they gate it off. I don't care what they do to stop the normal customers from going back there. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Oh, I see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN: This is not for customer vehicular circulation. MEMBER TORTORA: I'll tell you what, why don't you draft something. Hopefully we will close the hearing tonight. Draft something up, we'll review it, take a look at it and because I am concerned that more might be read into than is necessary that way we can take a look at it. CHAIRMAN: That's why I wanted to clear that issue up. MR. SCHLAEFER: I'd just like to say one thing. We get about four trucks a week. There's two basic trucking companies that deliver 99% of everything we get, that's MGM, and Shelby Johnson. Two of them come on Tuesday, and two of them come on Thursday. This is not a place where there's trucks going in and out all the time. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: I think that's a good suggestion, in fact, I would, pictures and words together. So I would recommend they reattach a drawing so it shows you can see access. MEMBER TORTORA: Put something in writing, draft it up, and submit it to the Board, if that's all right with everybody. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we'll modify it. MEMBER TORTORA: We'll modify it. Page 64 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals ,II I MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, that's good. MEMBER COLLINS: That's fine. CHAIRMAN: Again, not to be redundant, and this is the issue that I'm referring to that I am not referring to customer parking. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: No, its emergency vehicle access. That's what you are focusing on. CHAIRMAN: Now lets get down to the nitty-gritty Pat. How much more time do you want to take in reference to your presentation? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: We.!l, based on the way you feel, I can hold off on some of my comments because it doesn't really seem to focusing on them and I'm not going to waste your time. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tuthill. Thank you. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight? DONALD TUTHILL: My name is Donald Tuthill. Chairman and Members of the Board, I seem to be a loaner I happen to live near it too. But basically I seem to be the only one trying to support the good and the bad. But very bluntly, my letter, I'll read the letter that I turned into the Board. "Weare the owners of a 1.2 acre lot, tax map #55-5-12.2, located on the south side of C.R. 48 directly across from the 1670 House in the above varia!lce. Just a few figures, and this is partly because of what was said a couple of months ago. "The 1970 House frontage now occupies 82% of the maximum allowed width of 60'. This appeal to widen it to 103' or 72" over the maximum width of 60' goes against the Southold Town Board's plan to keep the area along Route 48 with more open space. As a result of this plan our lot directly across Route 48 was up zones from Business to Home Office. At the November ih, 2000 hearing the 1670 House legal council announced to us that we could put up a building that was wider then 103'. This statement is irrelevant because our lot has a frontage of approximately 310' on Route 48 double of what this lot has". So remarks like that just sort of turn me off. "We stated at that time that we doubted a trailer truck could navigate into and out of the unloading area behind the building. The new site plan dated 1-10-01 shows a 2' to 4' wider driver to the rear of the building. It also shows a loading area for an existing, that's a strange word, because things don't exist, 8' x 23' box truck. Most of the furniture deliveries are made by trailer trucks. Where will they unload?" Now I've sat back there Page 65 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals and listened to some strange comments on this. I cannot see the house from out house. I can see the road near them because I've got a nice. And everybody appreciates the set of trees I've got there. But we just happened to eating lunch this noon, we. weren't spying, we were just eating lunch and I saw this truck come up. This time, I'll admit it did not cross the road. It pulled up on the left side. But then as it proceeded to back up to go into the area, which is much more, open now than it ever will be. Several cars had to stop on the highway while this truck backed because it was so large; it blocked the road while it was backing in. And I listen to all this stuff about how they don't do this and they don't do that. That's what I see. So what I'm really saying is you're not getting the true facts. It amazed me that you spent your time with a hearing a couple of months ago and then when I got this plan I could not believe and so little has changed on the plan. It seems like a waste of the Appeals Board's time because this two foot wider, three foot wider behind the building is and they state beyond there, that its not for a trailer truck so where is it going to be. And I know th,is happens, because I see this happen right in our farm. The Appeals Board or the Planning Board makes the decision. I see violations afterwards and unfortunately there's nobody to monitor this and the same thing probably happened here. So, I'm going to ask my wife if she has anything else on her mind. But I just can't understand trying to· keep this Town _ why they've got to extend this business by more than double. I don't understand it and I don't understand why it has to take all our time. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Okay, hearing no further comment sir, in the back room? JOHN RICKLES, JR.: John Rickles, Jr. spokesperson for the Southold Business Alleyance. I looked at the plans. I think that if the Zoning Board of Appeals has suggestions of which to address any safety concerns I made them to the Planning Board. That's probably the most expeditious way to bring this matter to a' close. I think that the traditional architecture of the plan is very good and anybody that wouldn't be in favor of that I wouldn't understand that. I just want to say that I'm in favor of it. RUDY BROWN: I'm Rudy Brown on behalf of the Southold Chamber of Commerce. I was Chairman of the Zoning Board Greenport/Southold Chamber of Commerce where there are over 200 members of the business community for the Zoning Board to come to an agreement with this application. 1670 House has been a member of this community for a number of years. They run a good business, they employ residents, and they pay Southold Town taxes, patronage our local business. We again urge the Zoning Board to resolve this variance. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION * * * Page 66 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals 8:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4909 - JAMES AND PATRICIA MCNAMARA. This is a Reversal of Building Permit No. 26821-Z issued concerning new construction at 3705 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, property owned by Paulette Satur Mueller and Eberhard Mueller; Parcel No. 1000-101-2-24.5 and 24.6 (combined as one lot). Daniel C. Ross, Esq. for- applicants. Eric Bressler, Esq. for owners. CHAIRMAN: The last appeal of the evening is on behalf of James and Patricia McNamara, appeal no. 4909. Where is Mr. Ross? There he is, sitting there quietly in the back of the room. DANIEL ROSS: Good evening. Dan Ross, on behalf of the applicants, Pat and Jim McNamara. I would like to, first, hand out some exhibits; affidavit of posting, green cards and other exhibits. CHAIRMAN: My statement is this. In reading your narrative again today, I realize that the permits that this applicant, not you, this property owner, which is the nature of this hearing tonight, were approved by a Suffolk County Department Planning. I work for the Suffolk County Department of Planning. I do not work in that capacity, nor do I work on that floor. I work for a division of that department. I have not had time to discuss this with the town attorney, but, if anybody has any objection to my chairing this, I will have a discussion with him later. If they ask me to recluse myself, I will do so. If anybody has any objection, at this point, of my chairing this, please raise that issue at this point. DAN ROSS: No objection. CHAIRMAN: No objection. During the peIiod of this hearing I just want to inform people that certain people will be asked to be sworn in; so that both co-council for applicant and council for the property owner, were officers of the court, so we don't swear in officers of the court. We know you; we know your reputation, so on and so forth. So we will ask you to continue. I 1 I II~ DAN ROSS: The applicant seek a reversal of building permit 26821-Z, which permitted the construction of two green houses, 30 feet by 100 feet each, on premises across the street fÌ'om the applicant's residence on Alvah's Lane. The main basis of the application is based on section 100-2-50 of the Town Code, which requires site plan approval for all permitted uses, except single-family home uses and customary non-agricultural accessory uses under 100-31-Al. 100-31-A1 lists agricultural uses in sub-section A2, it includes greenhouses. In other words, section 100-31 separates and makes clear that agricultural uses are different than the exemption form site plan approval of single-family homes and non-agricultural uses. Greenhouses, hence, are not a non-agricultural accessory use. That's clear. I submit there is really no two ways to read those sections. It is very clear that site-plan approval was needed and necessary before the building permit could be issued. So you may ask, so what's the big deal. The big deal is, the greenhouses were built directly across the street, in front of the front window of Mr. and Mrs. McNamara's home. It is not as if there was no other place to build, to put the greenhouses. The Page 67 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals property has sufficient acreage that the greenhouses could have been placed in another location. Had site plan approval required, these issues could have been addressed; and Mr. and Mrs. McNamara and the neighbors could have been heard on this very important issue to them, in as much as it affects their home. Pictures, which have been handed up, show what the property, the view from the McNamara property, before the greenhouses were built. That's referring to picture A. Picture C and D; show you the view of the McNamara property as it presently exists. There are other pictures, A thru M, of basically, that shows different views of the property. I would like the Board to review them. The second basis for the application, and I don't want to dwell too long on this, is basically that there may have been a side yard violation, a side yard setback violation. This was unclear, because on the building permit application, there was no indication where the side yard was. Investigation indicated that some of the property is in the Suffolk County Farmland Development Program, and no sub-division approval is needed or required when that happens; eyen though the whole of the property is not put into the program. Nonetheless, there is two tax lots, and we were asked to post two properties. I don't know if, for zoning purposes, you treat this as one lot or two; but it's an issue and if it's treated as two, I submit there may be a side yard violation, side yard setback violation. But, with the records submitted, you really can't tell. Just for the record. Which brings us to the other point, which is the Farmland Committee of Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Planning Department, granted permission for the construction of one temporary greenhouse. The Farmland Committee granted the permission for a northwestern location, subject to local requirements. The Committee's permission made specific reference to a letter of the owners dated April 21, 1998. The letter was, in effect, the application to the Fanl1land Committee asking for permission to build the greenhouses. I would like to quote from that letter. "Our desire is to site the greenhouse at either the northwest or southeast end of our property. Even though it will incur more expense to bring water and utilities to either of these ends, it will not be obtrusive at either of these sites. " That was the penl1ission that was granted to put the greenhouse in the northwest comer. Of course, it was not put in the northwest comer. It was put on the road, across from, again, the McNamara's residence. As I noted, the Farmland Committee's permission, also, was subject to local requirements. Nonetheless, construction commence without a building permit. You will see in the application a letter from the building department directly a building permit be obtained. This was, at some point, during the construction. We know that the owners of the property ignored the Farmland Committee's direction. We know they started construction without a building permit. But, this Board probably is aware, and I don't know if you are, that it really doesn't stop there. In fact, the big house on the premises was built subj ect to a variance granted by this Board. As the survey, which is Exhibit F to the application, indicates there is a cottage on the premises. This Board, in granting the variance said, upon the completion of the new single-family residence and prior to the issuance of the Certificate. of Occupancy, the existing cottage shall be converted to an accessory structure. In no event, shall the cottage be considered a habitable living unit, nor shall it be used as such. That's this Board's decision with respect to this property wherein you permitted the construction of the large house. The Board doesn't have to feel left out, in terms of ignoring instructions. Delivered today was a affidavit by Pat McNamara indicating, it's a sworn affidavit, that the cottage is Page 68 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals inhabited and has been for some time. Getting back to the main point, had site plan approval been required, there would have been a forum to address this issue, the placement of the greenhouse. From discussions with Mr. Felderman of the Farmland Committee, I know I am aware that, the owners of the premises have basically made application to the Farmland Committee that the greenhouses can remain as built. I also am aware that this board has requested from the Planning Board, an opinion as to the sections 100-250 and 100-31. While I don't begrudge your seeking input from the Planning Board, may I suggest, I believe it's a simple question, this Board is charged with interpreting the Town Code. The Town Board is charged with drafting it and adopting it. That's been done. Again, I don't think there's any wiggle room in the language. CHAIRMAN: Let me just elear one issue up there. We were aware of when that legislation was drafted, ,t~e'legislation that you were referring to. No matter how the memo is written, I was :':iiôpingt.þ.ey would come back to me and say, yes we did a site plan review on X, Y, Z parcels of property. Significantly, I don't think they have, at this point. So thatwas the purpose of DAN ROSS: I haven't seen the (unknown) I just talked to Bob Johnson, he said there was a request for one opinion. CHAIRMAN: I'm just telling you that's the reason why I charged our secretary to send the memo. DAN ROSS: That's basically the appeal for McNamara's appeal. There is another issue that's been raised by the attorney for the property owner's, and that goes to the issue of the posting of the sign. I don't know if you would like to hear me on that, or wait until Miss Wickham makes her presentation; and I will respond to it. CHAIRMAN: We are aware of the situation and the memo ITom Miss Wickham today, regarding that, and we will take that under advisement. As for your presentation, we're here to listen to you. DAN ROSS: Okay, on the issue of posting, state law requires notice of the ZBA application. That's at Town Law, as I don't need to tell you, 267-M. Following the statute, there is commentary in the McKinney's Statute book. The commentary, which I've handed up as an exhibit, I'm going to quote ITom some of the commentary. "The failure to strictly comply with the notice requirements of Town Law 267-A7, or with the additional local notice requirements, generally has not been constituted a jurisdiction of defect. " Moving down in these notes, these are, again, supplementary practice commentary following the Town Law section in McKinney's. "The courts generally will not rely on a failure to fully comply with a notice requirement to negate the authority of a board· to hear a matter or the ballistae of its decision. Again, from those commentaries, "Consistently with the apparent judicial policy of endeavoring to sustain notification efforts, a substantial compliance has occurred. The courts ordinarily have cOJ/eluded that the failure to strictly comply with a local mailing requirement, is not jurisdiction." And, Page 69 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals !I finally, "Regardless of claim confinnities in the provision of notice the strict compliance with local requirements or with the publication provisions of the Town Law, the courts unifonnly upheld that one who receives actual notice of a hearing and appears at the hearing, is not prejudiced by any claim defect and is waived any irregularity in the provision of notice. " You have the commentaries in total before you. I suggest that there is no court that would throw out your decision, because, the posting was removed by the attorney for the property owner. I I ¡ I I I I I CHAIRMAN: My question to you 011 this, Mr. Ross, is was the posting done on Mr. & Mrs. Mueller's property? DAN ROSS: I don't know where the property line is. I posted it, you have my Affidavit of Posting. I don't know, is the 50 foot, I don't know how big the road is there, but, it was within 10 feet of the roadway property. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I don't know if I should take testimony first, or if I should go on.. . (turned tape over -beginning inaudible) DAN ROSS: Affidavits have been submitted to the courts, I know you haven't had a chance to review them. Is there some point that you would like testimony with respect to. CHAIRMAN: Well, first of all, my esteemed colleague here, of course, is an attorney. So she would like to ask you a question. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Ross, I just had two fact questions based on your, of course, we haven't read the material you put in tonight I realize that. I have fact questions based on the affinnation and support that you submitted ahead of time, which I read and studied and annotated. Do you know exactly what property the greenhouses lie on? DAN ROSS: As I indicated, I really can't tell. MEMBER COLLINS: I just want that answer. Eyeballing it, I would say they probably lie entirely on the development rights land, but I don't know either. I just wanted your VIew. DAN ROSS: If you look at, and, if you look at Exhibit F MEMBER COLLINS: That's my next question, right. DAN ROSS: You'll see the survey, and I didn't know, I assume from that survey that the greenhouses, that survey is from the Building Department's file. MEMBER COLLINS: It's from the file that was related to the building pennit application, I gather that. Page 70 - Transcrìpt of Hearìngs February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals DAN ROSS: Yes, it is. MEMBER COLLINS: And there appear to be greenhouses 30 x 96 penciled in very lightly, just beyond the DAN ROSS: I have to go back and make another copy, because it was so light. MEMBER COLLINS: Okay, I wanted to see if that's what you saw. Thank you. That's it. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to go over and clear up, .just exactly what you just stated. Which at the beginning was, that the applicant should have had an opportunity to comment on these through the planning process; and, that our Town Code entitles your applicant to that. DAN ROSS: Correct, the Town Code, and I don't want to quote from the Town Code. You have to sit down and read Section 100-250, which says you need site plan approval. Everything except single-family homes and non-agricultural use, 100-31 A. If you go to 100-31A, and it lists agricultural uses, the agreement. It separates that out from the non- agricultural uses. I don't think there's any two ways to read those two sections. Site plan approval is required. The building inspector should have required it. And he didn't. You know, whether that's the way it's been read for the last ten years, I'm not sure; but, in this circumstance he should have required site plan approval, and it would have taken care of the problem that has arisen. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted, I thought that was what you were saying, and I know what the code is. DAN ROSS: There's a lot of history. There's a lot of background, but, basically, that's it. That's we're here on, site plan approval should have been required. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Then, we'll just go on to opposition at this point. Anybody else want to ask any questions. No, okay. Miss Wickham, how are you tonight? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Good evening, my name is Abigail Wickham. I'm here on behalf of owners of the property in question. Miss Satur and Mr. Mueller. First, I would like to mention again, the issue in my letter to you this afternoon, regarding the jurisdictional question. There was no posting on the property in compliance with Town Code Section 58.1, which I believe renders the application improperly in front of you. No permission to post was requested and none was given. In fact, contrary to the quotations by Mr. Ross, those cases about notice and whether they caused a defect are mainly, are mainly geared toward publication notices. The Town Code, if you remember a few years ago, had a notice provision that specifically said that failure to comply would Page 71 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals not be a defect. That was removed by the Town in 1998. That was the former Section 100-275C. In fact, unlike the cases Mr. Ross quoted, where defects in posting or notice are not deemed to be defective, there was no substantial compliance here. If the Board is not in a position to make a ruling on that now, I will continue on with my comments on CHAIRMAN: Let me just make a brief statement on that issue, okay. This will be the first hearing that we have had for the reversal of a building permit application, based upon this new law, as it exists fight now. But, we briefly discussed that issue tonight, not of this case, but of cases similar to this that we had in the past. We find it very difficult to understand how, I find it very difficult to understand, how these notices, although the Affidavit of Posting would exist, would be very difficult to see or hear or be able to view in certain i,j.,spects of this town. Being on 1600 right of ways, or rights of way, and so on and so forth'.· Yes, you could say you put it there. Yes, you visually saw it for the last five days, but it would be very difficult. I think that there are provisions, or may have to be provisions within this Town Code which address those particular issues, in reference to either voluntarily p1acing'it or adverse takings, as in this case. I mean, that's just an issue at this point. .~{'. ".' ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I understand that. The point is, is that our code requires that it be posted. It was not continuously posted. You can have my testimony on record, and, they didn't comply with the code as the way it is written. Is it written properly, should it be corrected, perhaps. But the way it's written now, wasn't complying with it. CHAIRMAN: I'm just saying to you, that we're taking it under advisement at this point. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you just explain to me just exactly what happened, in plain language? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: We were in receipt; let me answer your question by making a statement. My clients have spent the past four years, spending a lot of money, making a farm operational on the property; and in addition to the financial investments, they've worked literally from dawn to dusk, in addition to their regular jobs to make a go of it. All of a sudden, they're faced with an application, that they feel has not merit whatsoever; and someone coming on their property and posting a sign, without asking permission. My legal council to them is that they did not have to grant permission to do that. Therefore, this sign was removed. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, so you're saying it was on their property? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't know where it was; we have no way of knowing. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you just stated that. You just stated to me that it was on their property and he came on there illegally. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: It was posted on or near their property. Page 72 - Transcript of Hearings Febl;uary 27, 2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Was it on their property? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't know. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, that's what I need to know. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I didn't remove the sign. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted you to state that. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't know where it was. If it wasn't on the property it was. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, Jerry, I'll go along with whatever you ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Either way, they didn't comply with the statute. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, could you explain to me why they didn't comply with that statute? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Because the notice was not posted. MEMBER DINIZIO: How did that come to be? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Because they did not have pennission to do it. MEMBER DINIZIO: How did it come to be that it was not; can you explain that to me? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: That what was not. .. MEMBER DINIZIO: I have testimony from a lawyer, that says that he posted a sign. That it was there. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Yes, that's correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: Now you must have some infonnation that tells me that it's not there. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: The sign was removed. We advise them of that. MEMBER DINIZIO: You removed that sign? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I didn't personally, my client did. I advised him to do that. That's no secret. That was advised, we advised him of that. Page 73 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I need to get that on the record, that's all. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Okay, we advised the Board of that immediately; and we advised opposing council, as well. MEMBER COLLINS: I think we might just ask you where that leads. Does that lead, in a case like this, where, in your view, the sign is not posted on the property in question, is invalid. I think that's your point, and, the property owner has the right to keep the sign from being posted, he has an absolute right to keep the action trom going forward? Is that true? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: The way the code is written, they have not complied with the notice; and they made no arrangements to comply with it. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, arrangements mean negotiating with your client. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No permission was requested. MEMBER COLLINS: I just want it on the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Let's continue please. MEMBER HORNING: Has it been determined whose property it was on? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No, I don't have any information on that. MEMBER HORNING: And yet you know that it was removed. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't know where it was located. . BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's an affirmation of sign posting if you would like to read it. It states where it's posted. CHAIRMAN: Miss Wickham, any time you're ready. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I believe Mr. Ross indicated he was not clear, exactly, whether it was on the property or not. I would like to proceed to the merits of this case, because I think those are extremely important. The first is, we don't believe that the applicant really has standing to bring this action. First of all, their view is not over our property, my client's property, it is not a protective right. They don't have a legal righUo a view and, therefore, they really have no standing to object to a placement of this greenhouse, visa vie, it's erection in a view that they may feel is protected. It's not protected, nor have they shown any proof of loss of value to their property. I also like to clarify for the Board that, while there's been a lot of talk about greenhouses, this is not typical, a typical greenhouse. This is what you would call, in the industry, a tunnel or a tube house. It's Page 74 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals I I 1 I i merely a plastic covering over a metal trame. There's no footings, there's no cement, there's no water, there's no electricity, other than maybe a hose that goes out to the tunnel. It's a temporary structure, probably won't be there for more than two or three years, and it's intended to get the plants started at an earlier time in the Spring. So, we do not feel that standing has been established, and that the applications should be dismissed on that basis. Number two, and also very important, Mr. Ross's two-pronged position are one of, A, violation of the site plan regulations; and B, violation of the side yard setback regulations. I would submit that there is very clearly another way to read Section 100- 250, and it is not the way that he is reading it. The references that he is made to single- family residences and non-residential accessory uses apply only in the event that a site plan is required. But, that section very clearly says, a site plan is required only if there has been a change of use or a change of intensity of the use on the property. This tunnel has been constructed for purposes of an agricultural use. There has always been an agricultural use on this portion ~f the property, and, that has not changed and it's not going to change with the operation of this facility right now. Nor, has the intensity of use changed. There has always been planting and growing and harvesting of crops on that property, for as long as I -can remember. And of my personal knowledge, I know it's been fanned for probably, I know fifty years, I can't go beyond that. There have been all kinds of different crops. But the point is, there has always been crops on that property. The fact that they are now being seeded in a tunnel, as opposed to outright on the ground does not change the use, which is an agricultural fanning use. I think that's very important to recognize and on that basis, the building inspector is not required to seek site plan approval or direct the applicant to seek site plan approval from the planning board. . CHAIRMAN: Do you construe these in your own interpretation? Do you construe these buildings to be an improvement? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: They are an improvement to the property, they're a structure, and I'm not debating that. But the use, if you look at the definition of use in 100-13 of the Code, the use of the property has not changed, the use is fanning. It's similar to the debate that came up in the town a few years ago, when they were talking about and it's commercial use. Do you need a site plan when you change the use, if you're selling drive-it and not all of a sudden you're selling candies. Is that a change of use, no it's not; it's a retail sale. Similarly, this is a fanning or an agriculture production use; and, we maintain it has not changed. MEMBER DINIZIO: Question? CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: What was the reason for putting these tunnels up. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: To extend the growing season. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, isn't that an increase in the intensity of the use? Page 75 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: Could they do this in the winter? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No, itts not an intensity issue. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it is. You could not grow those things if you did not have these. So you are increasing the intensity. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: This particular crop, but, there have been crops on that field that have been winter crops... MEMBER DINIZIO: 100%, But what I'm saying to you right now is, could they do what they are doing in those tunnels, without the tunnels? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: - They could grow winter wheat there, which has been growing there by Mr. Steele for many years. MEMBER DINIZIO: Could they do what they are doing now, without those tunnels? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: That particular crop? MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: Because that is their business,I'm assuming, from what I read, this person sells these crops to restaurants. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: They sell them to.... MEMBER DINIZIO: So now, it's enabling them now to sell those crops in a longer season. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: It starts them sooner. CHAIRMAN: We need you to come up and just get, this is Mrs. Mueller? PAULETTE SA TUR: Yes, I'm Paulette Satur. Our farm was transitioned to be organic and, I should get certification this year. To be an organic farm, I have to start my own plants. I can't purchase them. Well, you can, if you can purchase organic, but it's almost impossible to do. So I have to raise them myself. Page 76 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: So you've changed the use ITom a regular fann, to an organic fann? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: That's not a change of use. They've changed the type of fanning, but it is still a fann. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to clarify that, you know, I understand what you're trying to do here, in your pride in what you're doing. Your council is trying to represent to us that it's not an increase intensity of use, and I'm just trying to clarify that in my mind. PAULETTE SATUR: There are many different crops one can grow. I'm growing now vegetables, produce; whereas, before it had pumpkins, or other crops. It's a changing crop, and with the change in selection of crops, I have certain. MEMBER DINIZIO: The new crops that you're growing in this tunnel, do you have a truck that comes and picks up the crops and delivers them to different? PAULETTE SATUR: We make deliveries, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, so you can do that, because of these tunnels you can do that now. PAULETTE SATUR: Nothing is really coming out of the houses. I mean, over winter, things, lemon for instance can't make it through winters; or rosemary, so there now living in the tunnels and so that they'll come back. MEMBER DINIZIO: So you can get them out sooner? PAULETTE SATUR: No it's not sooner. MEMBER DINIZIO: They wouldn't exist without the tunnels. PAULETTE SA TUR: Correct, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I needed to know. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: There's always been year-round crop there. If it wasn't that, it was covered crop or some other kind of crop. So, ITom that point of view, I see what you're saying, it's a different type of crop. But, I don't think that changes the use or the intensity. It's just a different type of crop and a different way of approaching the agricultural production. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you very much. Page 77 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Our third point, relates to the Suffolk County Farmland Committee issue that Mr. Ross has raised. That was added to his papers, although it doesn't seem to address his two basic points in paragraph two of his application regarding the issues of site plan and side yard; he did add it in; and I'm not sure how it relates to those two objections, but I will address it in any event, because he does mention it. We feel that the Farmland Committee issue is really not a Building Department concern; it is a deed restriction, that was placed on the property by the Satur/Mueler predecessors when they sold the development rights to the County of Suffolk. The Building Department, nowhere that I can see, is directed to look at whether Farmland Committees have been approved, either on a town or a county level; whether they do as a policy matter, I don't know. But, certainly it is not the job of the Building Department or the ZBA to enforce deep covenants. That's what the development writings are, it's a restriction on the types of use that can be used and the type of procedure that you have to go through, in order to do certain things on the property. The owner did go to the Farmland Committee. We have, as a result of this application, ask that they clarify the location issue, so that we don't have a problem with them in the future. But, I don't believe that it is an issue that the ZBA needs to be concerned about, in terms of the Building Department's issuance of this building pennit. On the set back issue, there was basically no proof offered as to what the concern is or what the issue is; and again, I don't think the applicant to over turn this application has standing to address this. Whether the side yard setback is 10 feet, one way or the other, really doesn't affect them. The front yard set back was established at 60 feet, and I don't think there's any impact, one way or the other 10 or 20 feet to the side. They are across the street. They are not a neighboring property where a side yard might be an issue. So I think that's really rude issue, as far as they are concerned. On the fifth item that I want to address, there is a line of cases that indicates, if a building permit is challenged, but no injunction is sought to stop construction, if construction is substantially complete, then the application to reverse the Building Department's application is rendered moot. When we would argue based on Bums vs. Bums Pharmacy and some other line of cases in t!1e town of East Hampton, I can give you the citations if you would like; that because the easterly greenhouse is virtually complete, and the westerly greenhouse is substantially complete and no injunction is sought or obtained, that their application is, therefore, moot. CHAIRMAN: Could you furnish us with a copy of this. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I could do that. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I'd just like to address a couple of miscellaneous things, because I know it's getting late; but, I do want to emphasize that there is no right to view, either on an adjoining property or property across the street. If there were no development rights here, there could've been a house constructed that would obstruct their view. Being there are developments sold, I've seen the committees, both town and county, particularly the county, barns approved, (inaudible) approved, fences approved, Page 78 - Transcript of Hearings February 27, 2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals I greenhouses not just in tenns of square footage of area, but in actual acres of area that they've let people put up. So there is no protection to a right to view, either by virtue of the fact that they own across the street, or that the development rights have been sold. This is our client's property, it's their property, and as long as they do what they are supposed to by their deed restrictions, the property owners across the street are not charged with enforcing that. The sighting, I might add, of these greenhouses was based on purely agricultural considerations, based on the topography of the property. The drainage, had they been put further back trom the road, they would've been going down to a low area they would have had a sloping problem, be it further west or further north. This is a very poor soil area where these greenhouses are constructed, because it is at the top of the hill. When, I know when Mr. Glover had pumpings there he had trouble. When Mr. Steele had his hay there, he had trouble. It's sandy soil. It's poor drainage. It's a good spot for greenhouses, because they can't grow crops there. I would invite the Board, during the production this_summer, to look at this fann. While they may have two or three little greenhouses or hoop houses, they have acres and acres and acres of field crops and they really are producing a lot of agricultural production. I think that's what our town is trying to -accomplish here. I would ask that the Board dismiss this application. Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: Miss Wickham, can I ask you the question I asked Mr. Ross? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Certainly. MEMBER COLLINS: Are the greeÌ1houses, in fact, on the, whether there are two lots or one lot and tax map numbers, there is a survey and it delineates the land where the development rights were, where the house is and the rest of the land. Which land are the greenhouses on? Are they on the land where the development rights were sold? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Keeping in mind that I am not a surveyor and I have not specifically been out there and walked the property trom that perspective, it is my understanding that they are on the parcel where the developments rights are. MEMBER COLLINS: And that's what I think the survey and the building pennit filed, that we talked about before, shows that. I just wanted your tape. CHAIRMAN: Miss Wickham, before you sit down, just a thought. Is not, one of the main points of the nature of why we're here tonight, is to address the issue of site plan as opposed to no site plan? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: That was one of the issues. CHAIRMAN: You have indicated to us tonight, that there is no change of use on this property; so, therefore, that should not trigger a site plan. Is that correct? Page 79 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I believe the way that the Code is written, and the way that the Town has administered that in the Building Department, in terms of previous applications for greenhouses, that they have never required a site plan for this type of greenhouse facility. And that, where we have an existing farming operation, which is an agricultural production, that that type of usage has continued and the language of 100-250 is not triggered. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Ross, anything-in rebuttal or we're ready to close the hearing. DAN ROSS: The issue of a requirement of an injunction is somewhat new. As the Board doesn't know, in order to get an injunction in this case, in all likelihood, I believe it's less to post a bond I don't think an injunction is necessary; but, if you're going to look at those cases, I'd like to have an9Pportunityto review the cases and respond. CHAIRMAN: Sure. Mrs. Tortora wants to ask you a question. MEMBER TORTORA: Are there any other examples that you can think of, or that you're aware of, where a site plan review has been required of greenhouses? DAN ROSS: I haven't reviewed the files of the Planning Board with that in mind. No, I haven't. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just curious if, your ( ? ) essentially is that every land use, except residential, and non-agricultural accessory, require site plan? DAN ROSS: That's what 250 says. MEMBER COLLINS: It says any use or change. DAN ROSS: 100-250 and 100-31, ten different times, there is no other way that I can see to interpret that; and it makes sense. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: May I respond to that? CHAIRMAN: Sure. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Briefly, I know it's late. It doesn't make sense, because we're talking about an agricultural operation. The cost of bringing a site plan review before the Planning Board, as you can imagine, is staggering. That's not something that I think, in an agricultural usage of this type, that the Town should be looking at. I don't know to the extent it's admissible. Mr. Forrestal did advise me, that he is aware that there have been in the past few years, probably fifty or sixty greenhouse application permits granted without site plan approval. It's not something that they consider is required by the Code. Page 80 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals :\ What their reasoning is, I don't know. My reasoning, on this particular case, is all I'm addressing. CHAIRMAN: The question is though, did they actually send those applications to the Planning Board; and did they waive site plan? ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN: You don't believe so. PAULETTE SUTURlMUELLER: May I comment on, as far as the operation goes. This is not a greenhouse. It's a high tunnel. I'm about ready to order a machine that actually lays tunnels down the high, down my rows of beds. I don't know if that will require a site plan or not. I mean, that's all it i;;. This is a large high tunnel, it's has no footings, it has nothing. CHAIRMAN: We're familiar with this. PAULETTE SUTUR: It's just a field; it's covered with a tunnel. It's not really a building. CHAIRMAN: Is that heated in any way? PAULETTE SUTUR: No, there's no heat. CHAIRMAN: It's passive from the cellar during the day? PAULETTE SUTUR: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: There's no heat. How do you bring water in? PAULETTE SUTUR: I hook up a hose. MEMBER COLLINS: There's a lot of parsing of what the Code says, going on tonight. I'm not taking a position; I'm just listening and reading the Code. I think one of the political issues that was bubbling around in town, when the Town Board's Code Committee spent a lot of time talking about greenhouses over the last year, was that some citizens in town were complaining to the Town Board "Wow we're spending all this money to buy development rights to keep land from turning into sub-divisions." Now, people are going out and putting up greenhouses on the land. We don't want to look at them. The Code Committee has been struggling and wrestling. That's kind of in the background here. I think that the Building Department, if they were, it would appear from what we've heard, that the Building Department has not been requiring a site plan approval. It certainly would have been nice if we'd been able to ask them to corne and tell us about it. My reading of the Code is, if you were looking to require it, you would Page 81 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southo1d Town Board of Appeals rely on the sentence that says, any change in use that effects open space. You could say it was open space and now it has a plastic tunnel on it. Excuse, Miss Wickham, don't feel you have to rebut me, I'm just thinking out loud. I don't say I go along with that; I'm just kind of ruminating on the record coming to the point where I'd like to hear from the Building Department about this. Because, what we got, isn't that a case of second-hand opinion, as to why they did the way they did. I think their view is... It's interesting, it has no utilities. It has no utilities, that part of Section 250 doesn't reach it. I'm rambling, it's too late, and I'll stop. DAN ROSS: Regarding the Building Department's, however they've read it. What the Code says is clear in black and white and how it's been applied. If you take a look at Judge Dunn's decision, in the Riverhead case, where Riverhead did not require, the Riverhead Building Department and Planning Board, did not require site plan documents, although it was required by the ,Code. You can't rely on past mistakes to bootstrap a wrong decision. That's made clear very close to home. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Can I clarify something for Miss Collins? The reason I didn't get to the issues of (?) parking, etc., is my position that the farming use has not changed, and therefore, you don't need site plan approval. On the development rights, and the whole issue of greenhouses and political, the way that the deeds read, the development rights are defined as the right to restrict the use of the premises for anything except agricultural production, clearly whether it's in or not. MEMBER COLLINS: I was aware ofthat, and, I prefer greenhouses to subdivisions. CHAIRMAN: Jack, I think we're ready for you. If you would state your name for the record when you get up there. JOHN LADEMANN: John Lademann from Cutchogue, my wife's mother lives across the street, next to McNamara's, and she's lived there for, I guess, close to seventy years, sixty-nine years. She's ninety-five, and she's lived on Alvah's Lane all her life. I've been in touch with the chairman of the Suffolk County Department of Preservation. He said that they approved one greenhouse on the northwest part of that property, okay, and this was the motion here. Request was made for a greenhouse, as proposed in a letter dated April 21S\ 1998. A motion was made to approve northwestern location for temporary, subject to local restrictions, by Elma Zae and seconded by D. Corwin, motion carried. Now they have the greenhouses down without a permit. We filed a written complaint in July, with the Building Department. We have not heard one word from the Building Department as yet. Not one word. That's not right. They don't issue a building permit for something, without even noting that the Farmland Preservation properly. Two years ago, my mother-in-law would sit out on the porch, and she would see an outhouse right in front of her window. I mean, this is the way these people treat their neighbors. It's not right, what's going on, they build the greenhouses, they take them down after we Page 82 - Transcript of Hearings February 27, 2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals complain building permit, and this is what's going on. I mean, greenhouses, nobody has any objection to the greenhouses where the Farmland, where they said they had to go. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, you have to stand up and use the mike and state your name. MORGAN GRIFFIN: My name is Morgan Griffin and I (? ) Pat McNamara. I lived in the house on Alvah's Lane for many years and always enjoyed the view of the open farmland· and now my view consists of a wall of plastic. I would like to see the Mueller's follow the rules. It's obvious, they don't follow the rules, because they went ahead and put up the greenhouses without a building permit. It was only after a complaipt to the building department that they went through the proper proè~dtíres. In her letter'to the Suffolk County Planning Department, Mrs. Mueller states, "The'Î'iI..icement "bf. the greenhouses will not be obtrusive. The continued beauty of our property is of utinost importance to us." How true! The greenhouses are not obtrusive to her, because they are not out her front door. She still has the beauty that she says is important. All we have is an ugly, large wall of plastic to look at, with the possibility of more to come. Furthermore, the greenhouses are not situated where they said they would be. Also, I would like to know why the manager of the farm is living in a cottage, that, according to a June 19th, 1997 Board of Appeals Meeting states, "in no event shall the cottage be considered a habitable living unit, nor shall it be used as such." Last, but not least, I feel that when someone moves into our beautiful area, they need to learn to follow the rules and regulations; and, perhaps, learn that common courtesy among neighbors, goes a long way. They have plenty of land to place those greenhouses that would not be offensive to anyone. Thank you. .*. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The question is, ladies and gentlemen, do we close the hearing or do we leave it open? MEMBER COLLINS: I think we should close it. MEMBER TORTORA: I think we'd better leave it open. MEMBER HORNING: I won't agree to that. Let's try to get the Building Department here. I I I, Ii ¡I :1 I II I MEMBER COLLINS: Get the Building Department here that might be worthwhile. MEMBER TORTORA: I want to hear testimony from the Building Department. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you take the testimony on March 15th, and by that time we will have received the cases from Miss Wickham, and we'll be able to give them to Mr. Ross and you can all talk about them. I'm being a little trite tonight, but it's the hour that's doing it. Page 83 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals JOHN LADEMANN: May I just say one thing in question, was when the signs were taken down, they were taken down at 1:00 on Valentine's Day, February 14th. CHAIRMAN: When were they put up? They were only up a short time. MEMBER COLLINS: What's that mean, an hour or two, or a day or two? JOHN LADEMANN: About a day. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER HORNING: This allegæ violation of occupancy, have you mentioned that to the Code enforcement people, i.e., the Building Department? MEMBER TORTORA: It's not a condition. MEMBER HORNING: Well don't they enforce the condition? CHAIRMAN: Yes, they're obliged to do so. MEMBER TORTORA: We can open the hearing, if they're in violation, you're aware of that. MEMBER HORNING: Did you do that? JOHN LADEMANN: We did it in July, seven months later; we haven't even got a reply from the Building Department. MEMBER HORNING: I'm asking about the occupancy that's alleged violation of the Code. MORGAN GRIFFIN: I'm only saying what I observed. In your Board of Appeals Meeting, it stated that. That no one supposed to live there. I see lights on, I see people going in and out. I see dogs going in and out. MEMBER HORNING: The Code Enforcement enforces that for us. If you would file a complaint. CHAIRMAN: So that's where we are at this point. So, we'll recess to March 15th. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I make a statement, Jerry? CHAIRMAN: Sure Page 84 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm interested in hearing more about Miss Wickham's comments concerning this injunction; and, anything that you could have, that you could offer, for that, because I found that quite interesting. I'm wondering, why now, shouldn't the Building Inspector be put1ing a stop order on this, so that, you don't complete it. I'm wondering where he's going with that. Why it hasn't been asked for, and or if it has. Well, if this is a product of that, that seems to me, if your statement, that an injunction can be sought and it should have been sought, because it's not fair to you to allow to spend all this money and tell you no, why that process wasn't taken. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I'm not talking a about building permit injunction, I'm talking about going into to court and asking. '. MEMBER DINIZïo: Yes, I know. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I don't think the Building Inspector... .1.lli II I (INAUDIBLE - TOO MANY PEOPLE SPEAKING AT ONCE.) MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'm interested I that, if anyone get that information. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: I'll give you cases. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to reflect on this? DAN ROSS: Just we have the Town Law adapted by the State, says "a person has a right to appeal to a Zoning Board of Appeals on a decision by a Building Inspector." Yes, these people could go into court and, post a bond, and spend the money, that's an option. We have requested, I have requested of this Board, on a previous occasion, for a stop work order. This Board has requested it from the Building Department 2.nd, the Building Department said no. The Building Department is not required follow the dictates of this Board. Although, this Board has the power to reverse a Building Department decision. What I'm saying is, we chose our remedies, which we were permitted to do under the law. I would be very surprised if there is a case law that says, you have to seek an injunction besides going to this Board. This is the purpose of this Board; exhaustion of administrative remedies. Most of the judges would throw you out. They'd say go to the ZBA first. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'll address it when I get the cases, but. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So I need a resolution requesting the Building Department to be here. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll make that motion. Page 85 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: On March 15th. I think you have to reduce this to a specific time limit, when this healing is going to occur, so that these nice people know when they have to return. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It would be approximately 7:30 pm. CHAIRMAN: Okay, you want to leave it at 7:30. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: So I offer that as a resolution, ladies and gentlemen. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Jim already made the motion, and George already second it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Jerry, would you like me to sign that? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's a Board resolution. Everybody here voted on it also. You voted on it, right Jerry? MEMBER COLLINS: At the recessed hearing, we're inviting the Building Department; we're requesting their presence. CHAIRMAN: Now we have to recess the hearing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We did a resolution for the Building Department to appear on March15th at approximately 7:30 p.m. So it's all in one resolution. JOHN LADEMANN: I have a request. Will you get something from the Suffolk County Farmland Board, where this was approved? CHAIRMAN: Jack, the only thing that we have, is what you gave us. I have no knowledge of anything else, at this point. JOHN LADEMANN: I mean, you want something official. MEMBER COLLINS: We have the Minutes. I just want to get clear on what it is we're going to do on the 15th. By that time, Ms. Wickham will have given us the cases that she referred to. We will have given them to Mr.Ross. He will have a chance to look at them and respond. So we will certainly deal with that, at March 15th. Beyond that, I guess, Mr. Ross gave us material tonight which, of course, none of us has had a chance to read. We will have had a chance to read that, and see if we have any questions. I think, mostly, r II I: Page 86 - Transcript of Hearings February 27,2001 Southold Town Board of Appeals .1 Ii I: 'II ¡I it was affidavits and things; but I don't know what it is, because I haven't had a chance to read it. 'J BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I'd like to ask Gail, if she could give a duplicate copy to Dan the same time she gives it to us, please. ABIGAIL WICKHAM: Of the cases? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: It just eliminates a day or two lags. MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to be clear on where we're going with this. CHAIRMAN: So, we are at this particular point in recess. We thank everybody for his or her comments. We thank their council for their presentations. Thank you. Prepared from tape recordings: Paula Quintieri