Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/03/2001 HEARINGPresent were: Ab sent: SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD MAY 3, 2001 (Prepared by Paula Quintieri) Chairman Goehringer Member Dinizio Member Tortora Member Homing Secretary Kowalski Member Collins PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:30 p.m. RESOLUTION Re: Appl. of H. Cashy. Confirm written portion of record extended for reply by opposition to May 9, 2001 (Oral testimony was, concluded April 19, 2001). CHAIRMAN: The first issue on the agenda is No.I, statement of review, decisions and discussions on Cashy at this time, other than the fact that we have received notice from attorney for'Cashy, there is a brief in my mailbox. We will review it. Confirm the written portion of the record extend for the opposition to May 9, 2001. H1 offer that as a resolution. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 6:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4939 - JANET WOCKENFUSS. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for permission to locate dwelling with a front yard setback at less than forty (40) feet, and under Article III, Section 100-239.4A. 1 to locate dwelling at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff or bank of the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 2386 Hyatt Road, Southold; Parcel 1000-54-1-4. CHAIRMAN: I believe Miss Moore is representing? Good evening. PAT MOORE: This is such an early time. CHAIRMAN: Didn't we say that to you last month? You had an early one last month too. PAT MOORE: No I had another one. Mrs. Wockenfuss and her son are both here, they came all the way from Florida for this hearing. They cut short their winter stay. What I have before you is an Application for Variance from both top of the bluff and also, what would be considered, the front property line. You know the history of this property, as Page 2, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS far as the sub-division; it was a 1967 sub-division. Which, prior to the bluff ordinance being on the books, Mrs. Wockenfuss actually had gotten a building permit for the construction of this other house. Because of family problems, her mother was ill and so on, the house never got constructed. During that time, the ordinance for the setback to the bluff came into the books, and now we had to start over. That Building Permit was no longer valid. We actually submitted, I submitted, on their behalf, a generous building envelope, which actually was intended to create a variance request for the front yard. I imagine that we would want to have some discussion and consideration about the setback that has been proposed, giving room for negotiation. This is what they would love, but I've explained that the size of the house could be shrunk a little bit, provided we move towards the front property line. We wouldn't have been able to move toward that front property line without a variance application to this Board. So that's why we made it all at once, giving the Board an opportunity to look at the entire picture and push their house back some, but certainly to the extent that the Board feels a variance, is willing to grant us, as large a variance toward the front yard. Obviously, as you're pushing towards the front, which is actually a common property line, this is a family compound and the parcel to the rear is vacant. So there is no impact on an adjacent property owner, and we can move back towards that property line. That is certainly something that they're willing to consider. The gazebo that is presently there was also built in the 1960's. This property, the gazebo and the house, were built prior to Zoning, in the 1950's. CHAIRMAN: 1941 PAT MOORE: 1941, the house was built. Pretty much, that's the development of this property. This sub-division has been on the books since, as I said, with the intention for the family to be able to have a-house on each of the parcels at one point in time, as the families grew. Here she is a grandmother now, with lots of family of her own and it's a long time coming for a house on this parcel. Do you have any particular questions that you'd like to ask? CHAIRMAN: Well, you have to understand this heating will not be concluded tonight. Last Friday, I hand carried a request signed letter to review the bluff. Secondly, the Board does have a concern about the degree erosion over the last five years, if there has been any. So if you could look at that MEMBER TORTORA: The last ten years. PAT MOORE: The last ten years. All we have is what we can see, we'll certainly, I'll have their records, but it looks like that bluff is very stable. It's very vegetated, so it doesn't look to be a great deal of erosion back half way it's vegetated half way, there's a walking path down to the bluff: CHAIRMAN: My main concern is between the lip of the bluff and where that vegetation starts. Because there is a difference between those two areas, tight there. That's the reason why we had __inaudible look at it. They did tell me, last Friday, that they could not, so I wish you would leave the gate unlocked, if you would please. Page 3, May 3. 2001 ZBA HEARINGS PAT MOORE' I will. CHAIRMAN: Okay, because I've instructed them how we got in. Because they're really is no other way to get into the property. I know that first hand, trust me. Okay. I think the other issue was the Health Department with cesspools and well. PAT MOORE: Wejust got a letter of non-jurisdiction from the D.E.C.. I think we're ready at this point; we could file a Health Department application. What they wait for is the D.E.C. letter of non-jurisdiction, and we just got that. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so why don't you do that. PAT MOORE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN: I have nothing else on this particular situation tonight until we get that letter back, and until we get any response from the Health Department on what the situation going to be. Because, I have a feeling that they are going to require to put the cesspools back sixty-five (65) feet from the width of the bluff. I don't know how that's going to affect the building envelope. I don't know how the cesspool situation lies between the present house and your neighbor's. PAT MOORE: Well, 85 are the Health Department approval. We can check to see if they'll grandfather it. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Division, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, just looking at the footprint, it seems like you're asking for an awful lot. PAT MOORE: No, that's why I start with that. We do not really want, in fact, all we really needed was a 30-foot width by 50. But, when I put that on the map, I realized that the ideal place is away from the bluff and towards the front property line. But, if we did that then, the only way to do it is to request two variances and then squeeze the house in however it fits. So, they were prepared, it was actually done purposefully to get two variances, two variance requests. CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins is not with us tonight. Mrs. Torture? MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not sure if you only need 30 x 50 feet, then all of your setbacks would change. So, I'm not sure, as would the northwest and the northeast comer to the bluff on the property. It's 20 feet on one comer, and it's 21 feet on the other comer. If you're actually talking about doing what you're doing, I'm a little confused as to why be allowed to do that. If you only need a 30 x 50 foot house. I'm confused as to why you put something. Page 4, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS PAT MOORE: Well, we put a 50 x 50, because, ifI had asked for 30 x 50, it would've been conforming front yard, 40 foot front yard and we wouldn't been able to, we would have been back here later asking for a variance moving towards the front property line. This way a 50 x 50 could meet the non-conforming as to the front property line. I'll leave it up to you, we're certainly comfortable moving towards the front property line and away from the bluff. But, without having that application before you, we would have been starting all over again, had you suggested well move away from the bluff and go towards the front property line. So it was done with the intention in mind to move away from the bluff and go towards the front yard. Because that would be the continued front yard setback. MEMBER TORTORA: There's only one thing I'm a little confused about is that I recognize the Notice of Disapproval for the 31 feet from the top of the bluff. According to your survey, at the closest point, it's 21.3 feet at the closest point on the southwest comer, and 20 feet on the northeast side. That's on the survey that you submitted with your proposal. I just want that clipped in a reference. PAT MOORE: I'm sorry, just so I know what you're looking at. MEMBER TORTORA: The survey that is dated March 13, 2000, with additions. If you see the line at the top of the bank.. PAT MOORE: Oh, the 31. MEMBER TORTORA: Southwest comer, you'll see 21.3. Look at the northeast side, and the course is 20 feet to the top of the bank. PAT MOORE: Okay. MEMBER TORTORA: The closest point that we're looking at is 20 feet. PAT MOORE: I have two surveys in the file, as I said, because of the 50 feet, footprint. If you want me to revise the footprint, I can certainly do that with I think it would depend on the survey that..; MEMBER TORTORA: Could you give me a little history on this lot? What has been on this lot? PAT MOORE: It has been a landscaped lot that has a gazebo on it. It's whatit is today. Looks pretty much the way it has for... MEMBER TORTORA: Is it a front yard? PAT MOORE: No, it's a family compound. So, they have been sharing the one and only house that's on the property. There's only one house out of the four lots that are shown in Page 5, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS the sub-division. There is a house on the one to northeast, diagonally closest to the entrance way. That's the yellow house. The yellow house is the family home. MEMBER TORTORA: That's now Brown? PAT MOORE: Brown/Wockenfuss, yes. It's hers and her sisters. Mother and father bought this property in the 1940's and had intended for all the family to be able to live here in harmony. MEMBER TORTORA: Do you have a survey of that property as well. PAT MOORE: Of the sub-division? Yes, I do. This is my only original print. I can give you a copy. MEMBER TORTORA: That would be great. PAT MOORE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you give us that, and we'll return it to you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What's the date on that Pat, please? PAT MOORE: This one is dated July 5, 1967. It shows plan to divide these. So it openly was sub-divided at the at the B sub-division. I actually wrote on it already. It actually has the name of all the family members so that I could follow who was who. Janet is here, that's the piece we want to build on. Then you have Ruth, Janet and Ruth, this is the house Janet and Ruth. MEMBER TORTORA: That's the only questions I had, except I would like to see the coastal erosion rates. PAT MOORE: That is on the survey. MEMBER TORTORA: The erosion rates? PAT MOORE: The erosion rates, who would have this information? MEMBER TORTORA' There are specials that probably know that area. The D.E.C. would probably be a good place to start. PAT MOORE: Alright, I mean if I had to get somebody. I thought maybe you might know, tike Soil and Water that would help. CHAIRMAN: No, but we're going to be asking for that from now on, according to council, when we are dealing with lots of this size. Page 6, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS LISA BROWN: ~ I'm Lisa Brown, representing Ruth Brown, the other sister. The gazebo has never moved. It's the most stable property, it's jutting the actual bluff. So if you were to go there, you could see, and no erosion. ' JANET WOCKENFUSS: Hi, I'm Janet Wockenfuss, thank you for hearing me tonight. It's a beautiful place that the family has; it's been there since 1941. After my mother died in 1975, she passed it on to my sister Ruth Brown and myself. We shared the place for twenty-five years. When we inherited the place, we were only two families. But now, our five children have grown up and we're seven families. We find it, really it's hard to fit seven families coming and going in a small house. I would really very much appreciate it if I could build a house, so each family could have their own place. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER HORNING: For clarification the chairperson mentioned the gate. ! was there briefly today, for the first time in my life, saw the gate, saw the lot, look behind it, saw that I could undo the lock, didn't, walked down Lora~s driveway and went in through there; looked at the gazebo, etc. Can you just place that gate on the map? PAT MOORE: Sure, the gate is actually- imagine this is the line that goes on this property. Yes, this is the house parcel. The gate is here. MEMBER HORNING: Would you put that on that? CHAIRMAN: We're not going to write on that, copy it first. PAT MOORE: Copy it and insert it. Just so you're aware that, it looks like the access for this parcel is CHAIRMAN: Adjacent to and contiguous to the Miller property. As show here. PAT MOORE: As shown on the sub-division. CHAIRMAN: Okay, is there anybody else who would like to 'speak for or against this application? Could you speak into the mike please sir? I need you to state your name. WALTER MILLER, JR.: I have a letter here. First of all my name is Walter Miller Jr., I represent my father, Walter Miller and my sister, Diane Miller. I have some copies of the letter. CHAIRMAN: We'll take it, sure. WALTER MILLER, JR.: One question for Miss Moore? CHAIRMAN: You have to ask the questions to the Board. Page 7, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS WALTER MILLER, JR.: The house is it a single story or a double story, two-story? PAT MOORE: I don't know that a design is set, but I think it could be two-story. WALTER MILLER, JR.: The right of way that's going, someone proposed a right of way that's adjacent to our property. Do you want to leave one? PAT MOORE: No, that's actually what the original sub-division showed as the access. WALTER MILLER, JR.: We have a survey from 1948 of our property. Usually all this would show the right of ways all over, in adjacent areas. Here's our entrance here, our right of way. Usually, it would show a right of way here, nothing here. This right of way runs down on the bluff. We Would think that if there were this right of way here, it would be on our survey. PAT MOORE: I think I can explain this, is that okay? CHAIRMAN: Why don't you do that? PAT MOORE: I'll share your microphone, so that we can look at it together. At least from initial impression, it appears that this, the B land, which is what was ultimately sub- divided I believe in 1967 from that sub-division map in the era. 'B prOperty is right here; this is what the Wockenfuss sub-division is today, okay. And then this right of way which gives you access to your property, that same access was used by the Planning Board to WALTER MILLER: That's outside the green line, that's correct. That's 130 feet to Wockenfuss' property. 15 foot wide, an area of 1,950 square feet which was removed from this first parcel. The right of way should be right in the center, which shows on their survey. Not along the property line. It should be exactly in the middle. Where they have their gate. PAT MOORE: Okay, what I'll do is I'll go to the Planning Board and see if that sub- division is one that the Planning Board approved and we'll get you a print of the Planning Board. You can ask them to send it. That's what I'm doing for the Wockenfuss' family. But the map that is shown by the Planning Board, the sub-division that we have. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, you have to carry this outside. PAT MOORE: Sorry about that. We do the questioning outside then. We'll double check the access is. It appears from the sub-division that the access is from the Wockenfuss property, along the adjacent property line that's Mr. Miller and out to the 20 foot right of way. That's what it appears from our sub-division, our surveys. Mr. Miller is pointing out on the same survey, correct me if I'm wrong, there is a right of way that is shown that is a 10-foot, it shows as an 8 foot right of Way. Page 8, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS MR. MILLER: NO it's about 15 foot. PAT MOORE: I'm sorry, eight foot is the elevation. 15-foot right of way that goes to the parcels that are along Long Island Sound. I believe that from the deeds, that those right of ways are pedestrian right of ways going to the beach. We'll double check if the right of ways gives us access for cars, and we'll let you know. Certainly, we can talk to the family about that. That's looks to be the legal access they are required to use. But, if there's another one, we'll certainly MR. MILLER: It never Was legal. The only legal one is the side of the prOperty with the gate, which they have been using. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller, you have to turn around. MR. MILLER: The gate is at the center of the property. CHAIRMAN: You're referring to the Wockenfuss property? MR. MILLER: This piece of property consists of four parcels. This is how it originally been divided up to her four children. They now want to build a house on it, and they want to create the right of way, 15-fo°t right of way, that runs right along our property line for 130 feet from the right of way. All these years, they've been using the center entrance of the property. They have a gate there, they have 2386 the number on the gate, and they've been using that. They never use the right of way along the property line. Now, because they want to build a house, they want to put it along our property line; which would require a tremendous amount of grading, because there is a slope in the land. You would have to put up a retaining wall in order to prevent the rain from running down onto our property. I can't understand why they don't use the fight of way, which they have right in the center of their property which goes down to the beach. Why all of a sudden they have to put it on the left side of their property along the property line. CHAIRMAN: Are you the gentleman I spoke to yesterday? Who actually owns the property, the Miller property? MR. MILLER, JR.: My father, myself and my sister. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Would you be able to get us a copy of your maps for the file? For the permanent file, because the Board members don't have that, tomorrow or Monday. Bring it in and we can copy it. MR. MILLER, JR.: Yes, possibly we can do that for you, yes. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so you are aware that this hearing is not going to conclude tonight. So we appreciate you bringing that issue up, and that may be an issue that Mrs. Moore Page 9, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS may deal with. Do you have the availability of speaking to Mr. Miller? Do you have his telephone number? PAT MOORE: He gave me a phone number. MR. MILLER, JR.: I just have one more thing. One of the things on the proposed line is that they've got to make it about 15 feet from our property line. Can that be increased to at least 25 feet? PAT MOORE: I think that they're, again, we are going to squeezing around the sanitary system, and also the bluff. So to the extent that we can move a little bit, we will try to accommodate it. Quite frankly, it really depends on the Board's willingness to grant variances. As they push us we're going, obviously, 15 feet is the legal property line, is the legal setback. The bluff curves around, so if they say to move away from this bluff, then obviously we can't squeeze any more for a reasonable size house. A reasonable footprint. We could certainly put vegetation, buffers. It looks to be pretty well, it looks to be a lot of buffering already from all the trees that you have. But, there certainly always willingness to add landscaping to buffer it. You know from the way that they care for their property, that they do a very nice job. CHAIRMAN: Could you guys get together and discuss this, so we can get some amiable situation going on here. PAT MOORE: You have the single and separate search, and I think you also have deeds in your file. The deeds I would refer you to all show legal access, we do have which right of ways are the right of ways of record. Regardless of which ones may or may not been used, needed to be used, so far, we have them under. CHAIRMAN: We will conclude this hopefully, on June 7th. Hearing no further comment I make a motion to recess until June 7th. Thank you. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:05 p.m. Appl. 4947 - DANIEL AND MARY ALICE KOHS. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's March 5, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing an addition, by connecting the accessory building to the main building. The existing accessory building setback is less than the code requirement of 10 feet when connected to the principal building as a dwelling addition. Location: 900 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold; Parcel 1000-87-2-6. CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir, could you state your name for the record. DANIEL KOHS: My name is Dan Kohs. I am the owner of 900 Minnehaha, in conjunction with my wife, Mary Alice. We are asking for a Variance with regard to the side yard setback. Currently there is a two-bedroom house on the lot, and there is a garage structure, which has been finished as a two-bedroom apartment with a kitchen and Page 10, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS full bath. I understand that your files, back when an addition was added to the main house, there was a requirement as part of that variance that the residential use of the garage be removed. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. DANIEL KOHS: That was two owners ago. We just bought the house in November, and we are seeking to legalize all of the issues with regard to this property. I will say that the apartment has not been removed, was not removed or has been reinstalled, but there is currently a two-bedroom apartment in the garage. CHAIRMAN: But, it's going to be removed? DANIEL KOHS: As part of the application that is filed with the Building Department. We're removing the kitchen, and our plan is to make the garage into a two-bedroom. The use of the garage would be two bedrooms, a laundry and a bathroom. It would be attached to the main house by an addition, which has no problems in terms of the variance. What does happen is, that as a result of the garage not being attached to the main house, the use for the garage is legalized, but the setback becomes a 10 foot setback because the existing structure was built as a garage it sets 2.8 feet into the side yard setback. Basically, from my nose to the tip of my finger. We are asking for, that the hardship of demolishing the 26 feet around the length of the structure by the 2.8 wide or the 70 square feet of this structure not be required and that the variance be granted. This lot will support a four bedroom house, which is what this will be when it's completed. It supports it in terms of the lot coverage. The septic system is designed to handle in excess of four bedrooms not anything greater than that. The only problem is the side yard setback and that the edge of the garage sets at 2.8 feet into the side yard setback. The goal of the side yards is to keep houses a reasonable distance apart. Our neighbor's house, the comer of our neighbor's house to the north, which is the McHughes, has about 30 feet from the property line. We would be 7.2 feet from the property line. CHAIRMAN: Instead of 10. DANIEL KOHS: Instead of 10. So there is still approximately forty feet between the houses, which I think is in the spirit of the side yard setbacks. The existing structure is in place. We are not expanding it or changing its footprint in any way. So the neighborhood is used to that density of built structure and used to the relationship between the two structures. There doesn't seem to be any objection to that from the community. I have a letter here from neighbors on whom we are encroaching, and they have no problem with garage structure to be an accessory to the house. The garage structure to have the house extended in this direction, they have no objection to, which is the letter I am handing to the Board. CHAIRMAN: I'll take it, thank you. Page 11, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS DANIEL KOHS: With no objection to the one party which we come closest to, l respectfully request of the Board, a variance to the side yard to be determined 7.8 feet, or 7.2 feet so that the house can encroach the 2.8 feet into the side yard setback to avoid the hardship of demolishing the 70 square feet of the finished structure. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: Don't leave. Mr. Homing, questions? MEMBER HORNING: On your one sketch here, the survey sketch, the wooden deck and the patio in between the two structures right now and the patio and putting the addition? DANIEL KOHS: The wooden deck between the two structures has already been removed. The deck to the rear of the structure, is at grade, therefore, it doesn't factor into the coverage and will remain. The shed, also which does show on the survey, has been removed. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: You're speaking of an economic hardship of removing the 26 lengths and 2.8 feet. That's all. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: We thank you sir, but don't leave until we close the hearing. Okay. DANIEL KOHS: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN: Don't leave until we close the hearing, we thank you for your presentation, but don't leave until we close the hearing. Just in case a neighbor wants to speak. We do reserve decision on all of these, so there will not be a decision this moment. Okay, just so you are aware of that. DANIEL KOHS: Can I ask when a decision will be pending, because there is construction underway and the Building Department will issue a stop order on May 5th if we don't have. CHAIRMAN: It depends on the length of the meeting tonight. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's mine. I have no objection to it. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't either. Page 12, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS MEMBER DINIZIO: Grant it as applied. MEMBER TORTORA: With a condition that it remain a single-family home and in no event shall any portion of the garage. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have to listen to neighbors. CHAIRMAN: Are there any neighbors that would like to speak concerning this application? CHAIRMAN: Go ahead Sir; we need you to use the mike. ART RIOS: My name is Art Rios, I live on Minnehaha. My family has no objection to the application. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. HANS LANGE: My name is Hans Lange, and I'm about four houses away from. I'm not a director neighbor, but I have no objection either. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other questions, statements, concern. No. Okay, Mrs. Tortora back with Mr. Dinizio: MEMBER TORTORA: Jim that's the only condition that I would put in this. That in no event would it ever revert back to an accessory structure. MEMBER D1NIZIO: That the apartment shall be removed. MEMBER TORTORA: Or this Variance will be null and void. CHAIRMAN: We may move this tonight; we're still working on it. MEMBER TORTORA: Jim did make the mOtion. MEMBER DINIZIO: I can make the motion. CHAIRMAN: It's done. We'll have it in writing for you within five days. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:10 p.m. ApPl. No. 4952 - KATHRYN CAMPBELL. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's January 25, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing a porch addition which is less than thirty-five (35) feet from the edge of the front of the property, line at 570 Hippodrome Drive, Southold; also referred to as Lot #9 on the Map of Beixedon Estates; Parcel 1000- 66-2-12. Page 13, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS CHAIRMAN: Application No. 4952 has been cancelled. 7:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4951 - WILLLIAM WILKE. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, based on the Building Department's Mat'ch 5, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing a deck addition which is less than seventy-five (75) feet from the bulkhead at its closest point. Location of Property: 3380 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold; Parcel 1000-70-5-49.1. CHAIRMAN: What would like to tell us? WILLIAM WILKE: I'm William Wilke, 3380 Oaklawn Avenue. I am filing for a variance for a 16 x 10 deck. It will be 55 feet from the bulkhead rather than 75 feet. The present house is 65 feet from the bulkhead. MEMBER TORTORA: The present house is what? WILLIAM WILKE: 65 feet from the bulkhead. CHAIRMAN: And he,s putting on 10 x 16 which will give him 55 is that correct. WILLIAM WILKE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: This is an open deck, not to be enclosed. WILLIAM WILKE: No. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio, any questions of Mr. Wilke? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: A couple of questions for you Mr. Wilke. You said the deck is, the house is 65 feet from the bulkhead. The survey shows the proposed deck would be 49 feet from the high water line at the closest point. That's the survey that you gave to us. On your trustee permit is for t0 x 20 foot deck, 65 feet from the water. So, I'm really confused with all the numbers. WILLIAM WILKE: I am 55 feet from high water. MEMBER TORTORA: But, see we usually go off the survey. If we go off the survey, I'm kind of confused. Because the trustee permit is for the deck is 65 feet from the water. What they mean I'm not sure. Page 14, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS CHAIRMAN: They simply took the figure for the house. That's what happened. You just have to go back to the Trustees and have them adjust that Mr. Wilke. The question is Mrs. Tortora; do you have any questions of Mr. Wilke, other than that situation? MEMBER TORTORA: No other question is the obvious question, why couldn't we put it on the side of the house, so you wouldn't need a variance? MR. WlLKE: It's also looking over the water. The side of the house, you can have a view of the water (inaudible) It's about 13 feet high from the high water line. MEMBER TORTORA: No more questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horuing. MEMBER HORN1NG: It would be about 4 feet above grade. MR. WILKE' (papers rustling - totally inaudible) CHAIRMAN: Let me show you the picture. Here's the picture. Okay, don't leave until I close the hearing okay Mr. Wilke? Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilke, we hope to have a decision for you in the very near future. We'll let you know by mail. Thank you. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4949 - WILLIAM YOUNG. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33, based on the Building Department's March 21, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing an addition to an existing dwelling which will be less than 15 feet from the side lot line. Location of Property: 550 Saltaire Way, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-100-1-36. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Young, how are you tonight? BILL YOUNG: Fine thank you, sir. My name is Bill Young. I live at 550 Saltaire Way, Mattituck. I am here to request a side yard variance for a setback of 10 feet from the property line. Our current is 15 feet. This to include an addition I would like to add on. I would like to get a 1 O-foot mark. I've spoken with the neighbors. No one has a problem with this. I've spoken with the neighbors across the street and next door. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. It's also my understanding that this addition is going on the side where the park and playground area is for the sub-division? Page 15, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS BILL YOUNG: Yes, it is. The addition is going onto the north side of the house, and the property next door is part of the association that has a small tennis court and basketball court. I've spoken to the Board Members, and no one has any objection to this. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I have no objection to it. Mr. Homing, any questions of Mr. YOung. MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're on a roll here. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: Oh, wow. Don't leave until I close the hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Does anybody have any objection to my moving this application? ALL: No. CHAIRMAN: Granted as applied for. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION CHAIRMAN: I'll have a decision for you in five days. BILL YOUNG: Thank you very much. MEMBER TORTORA: Do you want to move Wilke? CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER TORTORA: CHAIRMAN: Provided that it remain open. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly, with standard conditions. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION I'll make a motion to approve it as applied for. Page 16, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS 7:22 p.m. Appl. No. 4941 - EILEEN GALLAGHER. This is a request for Variances under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's December 19, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing an addition which reduces the front yard setback facing Minnehaha Boulevard and Wabun Street to less than the 35 ft. minimum code requirement (or the average of established setbacks within 300 feet on the same side of the street). Location 1575 Minnehaha Boulevard at intersection with Wabun Street, Southold; Parcel 1000-87-3-51; Lot 61 and part of Lot 60, Filed Map of Laughing Waters CHAIRMAN: Good evening, how are you? EILEEN GALLAGHER: I'm fine. I'm Eileen Gallagher and I am applying fora variance to add 8 feet to partial front of my house, which borders on Wabun Street, and 10 feet towards Minnehaha. I need a variance because I want to be less than 35 feet from the road with this extension. The extension is to build a garage. I currently have a small one, hardly a car into it. Currently, the entrance that I have is from the dirt path, the right of way, from my house on Wabun Street. So, therefore, to get to my garage, I have to shovel all the way through there to turn up my driveway on the back property. I would like to leave the garage entrance on Minnehaha and turn the garage around and make it wider, therefore I have to add ten feet on the Minnehaha side and eight feet on the Wabun side. I'm asking for this variance because I believe it doesn't effect the character of neighborhood, other than Laughing Water, maybe the houses in Laughing Water are very close to the road. I have provided several examples of that. I would like to be able to limit the amount of building that I do and use the existing garage. If I'm not able to do that, I would have to put up a separate structure and take down several trees, and I really don't want to do that to the appearance of my property. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Gallagher, what is the distance between the new addition and the paper street? EILEEN GALLAGHER: Right now? CHAIRMAN: Where will it be? EILEEN GALLAGHER: 19 feet. CHAIRMAN: 19 feet, okay. EILEEN GALLAGHER: There's a house directly across from me that's currently 9 feet. CHAIRMAN: I did notice that. Mr. D, any questions of Mrs. Gallagher? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? Page 17, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS MEMBER TORTORA: I think you just aSked the question. What's the dePth of the addition on Wabun Street? EILEEN GALLAGHER: 8 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: So the porch is 8 feet wide? EILEEN GALLAGHER: The porch itself is 12 feet wide right now. I would just be adding on 6 feet to the porch to make it deeper, not width wise, but deeper. The porch is next to the garage. So rather than have the garage stick out all by itself, the porch will be adjacent to it. MEMBER TORTORA: So, at its closest point, on Minnehaha, it's 19? EILEEN GALLAGHER: No on Minnehaha 23 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: It's got to be less than 33 on Minnehaha. CHAIRMAN: 23. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 22 ½. It could be 22 ½ because of that one comer. MEMBERTORTORA: So, 22 on Minnehaha, and what have we got on the closest point, on the paper street? CHAIRMAN: 19. That's what she had said. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 17 ½.. EILEEN GALLAGHER: 18 or 19. It's hard to determine where that street actually stops, because the street is, right not it's not paved. It set right in front of our house, which is only 10 feet wide. CHAIRMAN: Okay Eileen the problem is we have to pretty much be exact, because, what will happen is if you build it, then the Building Department goes to do an inspection. EILEEN GALLAGHER: I looked at the survey, there's a map of the surveys for the setbacks. MEMBER TORTORA: That's why I asked you how far the addition was on the map. Because, on the actual survey to that comer you're measured 26 ½ now. EILEEN GALLAGHER: So it's 26 minus 8, would be 18 ½. Page 18, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS MEMBER TORTORA: 18 ½, so it's 18.6. EILEEN GALLAGHER: Right BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The only thing if it's 17 1/2, do you want to go with 17 lA, or have her re-apply. I'm coming up with 17 ½, and I used a scale, a ruler at the closest point. CHAIRMAN: Which is usually better than doing it the other way. If you had exact perpendicular streets, which you don't have. That's the problem. We're trying to alleviate a problem in the future, by availing you another foot or so. EILEEN GALLAGHER: But t7 would give you more, right? CHAIRMAN: We don't want you to necessarily build more, what we want' you to do is not have to come back to us in the future. EILEEN GALLAGHER: And ask for a variance? CHAIRMAN: Right. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You won't have to reapply all over again. EILEEN GALLAGHER: So, I'll ask for 17 ½. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, you're aware that there's a letter from the executors to EILEEN GALLAGHER: Yes, I'm aware of that. She stated in her that she had no problem with my request for an addition. Her issue has to do with the right of way. Laughing Water has had several right of ways, where members of the community that border the right of way, have claimed ownership to the right of way; and it prevented people from using the right of way. It caused hard feelings. Several other members here tonight, to my knowledge, there is nobody claiming any rights or trying to prevent anybody from using the right of way. She was just trying (inaudible). MEMBER TORTORA: Who owns the right of way? EILEEN GALLAGHER: Laughing Water Property Owners Association. CHAIRMAN: Could you just, I hate to go back to these figures again, but I just need from you, it doesn't necessarily have to be this evening; the actual size of the addition on Mi~nehaha Boulevard, and the actual size of the addition on the paper street. I know it's six wide on the paper street. I know that addition goes to the comer of your house, as it presently exists. Page 19, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS EILEEN GALLAGHER: I did give you a diagram like this, it shows it. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'll check it in there. EILEEN GALLAGHER: It's in graph; it's drawn to scale. There's boxes. box. It's a foot per CHAIRMAN: You have 31 is that correct? EILEEN GALLAGHER: I have 31. 33 on the Wabun side. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I got eight wide on that, counting the boxes. EILEEN GALLAGHER: Eight wide on the Wabun side and 10 on the Minnehaha side. CHAIRMAN: Okay, that's all we need to do. Mr. Homing, any questions of Mrs. Gallagher? MEMBER HORNING: Are you using that Wabun Street to access now? EILEEN GALLAGHER: Yes, it's a right of way. Some of my neighbOrs use it to get to the back of their property. I use it because I actually am the only one that has a front door on Wabun Street. My address is technically, Wabun Street. MEMBER HORNING: And you're using Minnehaha also? EILEEN GALLAGHER: I am because the mailbox is on Minnehaha. And the tax records here have both addresses on them. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: We thank you for the presentation. Don't leave until I close the hearing, please. Is.there anybody else that would like to speak in favor ofthis application? Yes, sir. State your name for the record when you come up here. MR. GIFFORD: I am (inaudible) neighbor to Miss Gallagher. Also, a member of the Directors of the Laughing Water Association. We have no objection to this whatsoever. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. Anybody else who would like to speak in favor? Anyone that would like to speak against? Seeing no hands, anybody have any objection to moving this one? MEMBER HORNING: I have no objection. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I'll make a motion granting this application. Page 20, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS CHAIRMAN: That's it, five days. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:31 p.m. Appl. No. 4950 - GEORGE KOUGENTAKIS. This is a request for Variances under Article XXIV, Section 100-33, based the Building Department's March 21,2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing a tennis court at less than 10 feet fi.om a lot line, in a side yard area, and with lot coverage exceeding the 20% code limitation. Also requested is a fence enclosure for the tennis court at a height above 6-1/2 feet. Location of Property: 1725 Willow Drive, East Marion; 1000-22-5-7. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald, how are you tonight? JOHN FITZGERALD: Fine thank you. CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us? JOHN FITZGERALD: The owner's asked for variance, I don't think this project is significantly intrusive. The variance because of the deficient rear yard setback and (inaudible) The same thing goes for the fact that 30% or so of the tennis court is in the side yard, instead of the required rear yard. Probably the only significant factor is the fence that we're asking for. And, to a certain extent, that is I think the intrusiveness of that is nullified by the fact that along the two of the property lines, you can see this in photos, the west and the south property lines there already exists plantings of evergreens which are, for the most part, more than 20 feet tall. CHAIRMAN: You're aware of Mr. Israel's concern? Did you see the letter, the copy of the letter that he gave us? JOHN FITZGERALD: Yes. All his comments are in, what he considers to be violations of (inaudible). It is my understanding (coughing, therefore, voice inaudible) CHAIRMAN: We don't enforce them, but we do look at them. JOHN FITZGERALD: Okay. CHAIRMAN: In other words, if we, as an example, if we were to violate C & R's in every sub-division that came before us, it would be a disruption of what the original developer had wanted to produce and what people relied upon when they came before us. JOHN FITZGERALD: Okay, in that case I will address Mr. Israel's comments. One of them has to do with the fact that there be a drainage, and that's not the case. The area, again, as you can see from the photographs, it's not really where the tennis court would go, is entirely flat and it will stay entirely flat. Certainly, the installation of the tennis Page 21, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS court will be done in such a way that the drainage is not a problem. That it does not stay on the court, and it does not drain into the neighbor's property or into the house portion of their own property. He is concerned also about the view. I don't think that's valid point. Because, as I said, particularly in the area that he affects the property which is, looking in from Willow Drive the rear property line, in the picture you will see large evergreen trees there; and the addition of a chain link fence on the side of those trees is not going to signifiCantly impair his view. I think those are the two main items that he had. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: I'll reserve it until everybody else speaks. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Well, he's concerned because you're going to be 5 feet from his lot line. That's what he's concerned about. You're asking for four variances here. Starting off with lot coverage at 33%. Why do you require a 10 foot fence and why do you require such a large tennis court which is what is knocking YOur lot coverage up? JOHN FITZGERALD. The 50 x 100 is the standard size for a tennis court. CHAIRMAN: We can aCtually grant him as low as 39 x 78. MEMBER TORTORA: Tell me what you said is the standard size? CHAIRMAN: 50 X 100 MEMBER TORTORA: 50 X 100 JOHN FITZGERALD: 50 x 100 is the standard size if there are no other considerations. MEMBER TORToRA: And 1 O-foot height on a fence is that standard? JOHN FITZGERALD: As far as I know, yes. It would seem to me that those are items that could be addressed. For instance, an 8 foot fence, or a 9 foot fence, which would prove to limit his view or reduce the impact as seen from the street, then I'm sure that Mr. Kougentakis would be willing to consider that. MEMBER TORTORA: Really Mr. Israel's view is not our Primary cOncern. Actually our primary concern is we're supposed to grant the minimum variance necessary under the law. That's why I'm asking you what's the standard size for the height. We have a couple of other applications for tennis courts, and they're all requesting 8-foot height. That's why I wanted to know what the standard was. Page 22, May 3,200I ZBA HEARINGS JOHN FITZGERALD: The tennis courts that I am aware of that have fences around them, have 1 O-foot high fences. However, that does not mean that it has to be 10 feet. As I said, if that is dam breaker for the door, we'll fix it. CHAIRMAN: That's only the tip of the iceberg, because of the 33% Mr. Fitzgerald. That's a killer, partiCUlarly on a lot this size. MEMBER TORTORA: That's like; you're way out there. So we've got to come back. I don't think we've approved 33 % lot size in five years. That's a good starting point. I'm not saying some great unusual thing might happen, but it's never happened in six years. So you might want to think about tailing that down. Tail it off to get it off that 5 foot line, run it 10, which would go a long way to appease Mr. Israel's concern. Drainage plan, if it's a concern for drainage, that has to be sent out of a real plan before us, before we can say yes, it's okay because Mr. Fitzgerald say so. Overall, I'd say if you can scale this back, come in a little less so that you knock down that lot cOverage, get off the property line, I think we'd be a little more reasonable. JOHN FITZGERALD: I'm sure we can do it. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. I'm just saying that to save you a lot of time. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORN1NG: Sir, could you point out the difference in the Notice of Disapproval of March 21st, from the one of January 4th. JOHN FITZGERALD: There shouldn't be any difference. It was renewed because it expired. MEMBER HORNING: I was just curious because the one says it's updated, and I just wondered if there were any changes. I didn't see any. JOHN FITZGERALD: No, there were no changes. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: Will there be any lighting? JOHN FITZGERALD: Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN: We'll just ask the question if anybody would like to speak, Mr. Fitzgerald, so we'll hold this over until the regular scheduled meeting which, at this time, appears to be June7th. I'm going to let you speak sir. We're ready for you. Are you speaking for or against, and would you state your name. · We're against. Page 23, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS CHAIRMAN: be. Okay, what's your name sir? · My wife and I own the lot adjacent to where the tennis court is going to CHAIRMAN: What's your name? EDWIN HEINSER: Edwin Heinser. My wife and I own the lot next door. We're not abating to this. Not the way it Stands right now. It will be an eyesore. CHAIRMAN: What would you like us to do? MEMBER TORTORA: Where is your prOperty located? EDWIN HEINSER: Right next to the MEMBER TORTORA: Lot #8? CHAIRMAN: I don't know if he's in back of or if he's EDWIN HEINSER: We're along side of. JOHN FITZGERALD: Lot #6 is Israel. CHAIRMAN: Oh lot #6 is Israel. MEMBER TORTORA: Lot # 8. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to wait until he comes back with an alternate plan and then comment on that sir? EDWIN HEINSER: That's fine. MEMBER TORTORA: While you're here, you're concerned about the visual impact and the closeness of your property to the fence. EDWIN HEINSER: The property value and it being an eyesore. Because it comes so far out of the front yard. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Fitzgerald is going to come back with (coughing inaudible) Would some kind of buffer along there, landscaping help your concerns? Is that something that could be worked out? EDWIN HEINSER: I think possibly, yes. You're talking about a smaller size tennis court? Page 24, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS CHAIRMAN: Oh, definitely. We're going to knock that 33% down. MEMBER TORTORA: We're talking about landscaping to help both the neighbors there. JOHN FITZGERALD: And the drainage. We'll give you plans. MEMBER TORTORA: You might want to talk to Mr. Fitzgerald. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald, we don't care if there are storm drains inside of the tennis court, but the draining has to be addressed. Okay, because no land is flat, even though it looks flat, it's not. So there is going to be some elevation factors there. Reminds me of in Mattituck, up by the sound. Which though was flat, but ended up not to be flat. Trust me. Okay. Thank you sir. Anybody else like to speak. Seeing no hands I make a motion to reserve I'm recessing the hearing until June 7th. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION CHAIRMAN: We're taking about a three-minute break, just to get some water. We'll be right back. 7:53 p.m. REHEARING of prior denial under Appl. No. 4786: New Appl. No. 4870 - DR. VALLO BENJAMIN. This is a rehearing, for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33 based on the Building Department's August 25, 2000 Notice of Disapproval, and ZBA Denial No. 4786 to locate a proposed deck addition with a side yard at less than 20 feet. 29315 Main Road, Orient; 1000-13-2-4. PAT MOORE: First, I would like to thank the Board for giving Dr. Benjamin an opportunity to have me appear on his behalf. He, unfortunately, couldn't be here. He's in the City. His architect had all intentions of being here, and he just had major surgery. So, I'm here alone. But I did have the benefit of discussions with everyone. The one thing that, apparently, did not come out last time he was here, was that he was, at that time, contract vendee for the 23 acres adjacent property. Since then, he's closed and he is now the owner of that piece. Approximately the sub-division, the adjacent piece, assuming it gets developed the way it's been proposed, is going to be a 3-acre parcel. So, there will be, he is the owner next door, he surrounds this property except for the easterly side, which is set back quite far and it's quite vegetated. It is not the side where the decking around the pool is placed. If you've gotten a chance to see the property since the last time you were out there most recently, you can see he's done a great deal of landscaping. The 23 acres that's being cleared, it's going to be a vineyard, and all of the trees that are being removed from the vineyard and actually planted, relocated up to the edge of the property. So there's a great deal of activity over there, with all intentions of making his property just a beautiful private setting. The importance of the design, I start with the fact that the house was constructed in 1987. The owner, at the time, was Ann Page 25, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARhNGS The architectural design of this house is very unique. The architect who happens to be a former chairman of the Pratt Institute. It's a very distinguished architect. The architectural style is module. It's based on proportions. The pool addition and deck, to maintain the architectural integrity of the house, had to be of a certain size and square shaped and so on, it's what we see today. The difference between the variance request is four feet. It's not four feet along the entire length of the property, but only, since the house is on an angle, it's only a small portion of the property. The alternative was the lot line change, which we did submit the Planning Board, we didn't submit the lot line change, we discussed with the Planning Board. And talked about the 'alternative lines that could be created and the Planning Board kept Coming back with a line that would have taken 2,336 sq. ft. away from the adjacent property, in order to make this property conforming. They did not like the idea we came up with how we have an ability to do a lot line change, that would really be insignificant. We would not be able to notice it was a 3-acre adjacent parcel, nobody would know. But the Planning Board didn't like it they wanted to see a straight angle out, and it was such an extreme measure that, that's why we are before you today. As I mentioned in my written submission, the parcel itself is only, the buildable portion is about 1 acre, even though it maintains the setback restrictions of a larger siz.e parcel because of the actual acreage from the sound to the property line, What is useable is only 1 acre and it really does, when you only have one acre the setbacks under the cOde make sense. But they are difficult to apply to a large parcel that is encumbered by wetlands or bluff, or whatever the topographic conditions are. So, for that reason, preserving the architectural integrity of the house, we wouldn't request the small variance to allow the decking which has to remain. Keeping in mind that this property would have to be fenced and we could have requested several applications for fence variances, there could've been a fence that ran along the property line, by code, 6 ½ feet, and that is so much more intrusive to any adjacent property. What's there, and what's in place is certainly non-intrusive. It's in character with the design and the character of this property, which right now, there is no character to the area, this is the only house. And, Dr. Benjamin, we hope come several months from now, will have the opportunity to then build another house on the 3-arcre parcel, which will be sufficiently set back from this house, so everyone has privacy. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN: I don't have any questions, because I didn't object to it in the beginning. PAT MOORE: Okay. CHAIRMAN: So we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: what's the size of the pool? Is it the same size as before? PAT MOORE: Yes, everything is identical. 19.8 x CHAIRMAN: It's a. 19-foot area x 40. PAT MOORE: 19.8 x 40 is the internal dimensions. The exterior, the perimeter is 21 x 40. Page 26, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS- MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, so it's essentially the same plan. MEMBER HORNING: It's all as-built? PAT MOORE: Yes, it's as-built. Keeping in mind that you didn't have the benefit of knowing, and unfortunately, he is a very private person, didn't let you know that he owned the 23 acres that is the only affected property owner to this property, while he was contract vendee at the time. Had he let the Board know that, I think that the Board certainly would have considered differently, in all fairness to this Board. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: What is the difference between what we decided on in March 2000, and what's before us right now? Is there any difference at all? PAT MOORE: The plan is the same. 'The difference is the circumstances, which is what he is the owner of the 23 acres adjacent property. Which is the adjacent property line for the variance. I mean, keeping in mind, this is a 4-foot variance, for a 20-foot setback. Requesting 16 feet, and no the entire length because as you go towards the length of the pool it could be 20. So you're conforming, it's on a triangle, I'm not really good geometry, but this is the angle, here's the pool, so you're non-conforming on one end and quite conforming on the other. MEMBER HORNING: Well he owns that adjacent property now, but he may not own it tomorrow, he might sell it. PAT MOORE: That is true, but then the person buying will certainly see the pool and know that it's there and it will be something that the person accepts. Plus the fact that the owner of the 3 acre parcel will have quite a large building envelope to work with and probably will not be building right on top of the owner of the house. He would need some privacy. CHAIRMAN: Miss Moore when you refer to a 3-acre parcel, you're referring to a parcel that's going to be created out of this 22.2. PAT MOORE: It is potential, correct, right now it is 23 acres adjacent to this is 7 acres. It is proposed for two lots along the sound. What he ultimately gets, I don't know. But right now it's proposed for two lots. Each of those lots being, the closest one 3 acres and the one to the west of it 3.3, I'm sorry, 3.8 acres. MEMBER HORNING: Could you give us a brief history of the development of that area? I know that someone previously had been buying it. Thought they were making a sub-division of some kind and that bottomed up. Page 27, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS PAT MOORE: We here about Mr. Reise. Mr. Reise has owned a lot of properties in Southold, went through, They had gone throUgh an extension sub-division process, went through preliminary approval and then got stuck because of water quality problems. Towards the end he dealt with Hillcrest section one and Hillcrest section 2. Only got approval for one, built on all the roads for 2 that never got approval. So when he bought the piece, the roads everything is in there. But now we're dealing with different development schemes that used to be one-acre lots, now they are two and three acre lots at best. MEMBER HORNING: I saw him today; he told me he's going to have a 20-acre vineyard. PAT MOORE: Yes as a matter of fact he's doing that right now. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. PAT MOORE: If the Board wishes, Dr. Benjamin is willing to grant to the adjacent parcel, the adjacent parcel could begranted a 10 foot buffer, a non-disturbance buffer. To keep the difference between the present Dr. Benjamin house and the developable piece. So when the potentially 3-acre parcel parcel gets developed, no structures. When you have such a large acreage, I think people generally tend not build it next. CHAIRMAN: You really can't tell though, because you don't know holes are on that piece of property and so on and so forth. You want to give us a length on that of what that buffer would be that you. PAT MOORE: It would probably be, should be the length of the adjacent line, wherever that line is ultimatelY by the Planning Board. It's something he offered, I'm not sure that it's really something that is, I don't think it's necessary. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it's not necessary, but, I didn't go against it before, but there's no reason why, if you're willing to dO that. PAT MOORE: He is willing to do that. If that makes the Board happy. MEMBER DINIZIO: Just give us a description. PAT MOORE: It would just be a 1 O-foot buffer along the adjacent the common property line. CHAIRMAN: Get us a figure tomorrow. PAT MOORE: I dOn't know the figure yet, because ! don't know what the line is. MEMBER DINIZIO: You go by his lot line; ! don't really care what goes beyond. Page 28, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS CHAIRMAN: We can give you that tonight. 522 plus 118. PAT MOORE: That's the common property line now, but it actually would be, if the sub-division comes out the way we want it, it's going to be two properties, two lots. It doesn't make sense for us to do the southerly lot because it's all vegetated. MEMBER DINIZIO: How about right to the front of the house. PAT MOORE: Okay, that's fine then. That makes it easier. Along the length of the house. CHAIRMAN: To the survey (inaudible) Of all improvements on the property. PAT MOORE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Miss Moore. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands I make a motion cloSing the hearing reserving decision. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 8:07 p.m. Appl. No 4948 - GEORGE L. PENNY, INC. Request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-243A, based on the Building Department's March 20, 2001 NotiCe of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing a new commercial storage building which will be less than twenty (20) feet from the side property line, and a new storage building at less than 100 feet from the front property line. Section 100-243 provides that an action not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. Zone District: Light Industrial (LI). Location: Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport; 1000-53-2-25.1 27.1, 21, 22 (combined areas). ' CHAIRMAN: Mr. Penny, how are you? GEORGE PENNY: Fine thank you, how are you? CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us? Why were you denied? GEORGE PENNY: I don't know, I shouldn't have been. I have a nonconforming situation, which already exists in Greenport which is the old Rempe Fish Market which we bought in 1989. I'm finally getting to use that portion of the property. One of the things (inaudible) since we bought it is that building is fairly unreasonable, except for the fact that there is a raised concrete portion of it which makes it ideal for a platform loading On tractor-trailers; unloading and offloading of tractor-trailers. So I would like to retain part of the foundation, which already exists there, for a number of reasons. Number one, concrete is very tough to move, it's very expensive to move, and once you remove it, then Page 29, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS you have to replace it. So 1 would like to utilize as much of this building as I can. What I'm doing would be a vast improvement, because, if you've driven by there and checked out that building, it's not the best-looking thing in the world. How and why it's gotten where it is, I have no idea. I just bought it, and that's where it was. It's kind of a ramshackle building, by rights should have been knocked down. Parts of it, I've had to do a lot of work just to keep them up so they didn't collapse. It's non-functional for building materials. CHAIRMAN: So you're going to remove that portion of the building? That building, I should say, down to the platform. GEORGE PENNY: A good portion 0fthe building, probably three-quarters of the building. Some of the concrete super-structure, I guess you could call it; I would like to re-utilize that and actually add to that, use that for raised storage. CHAIRMAN: Then where it says proposed metal storage building at 54 x 100. GEORGE PENNY: That would be an extension of that building. In other words, I would be taking off everything that was in that celandine there, and be replacing it with what you see there, the heavy galvanized. CHAIRMAN: That's going toward the existing center of the property, so to speak. GEORGE PENNY: Absolutely, and not getting any closer to the lot than it already is. CHAIRMAN: Right, okay. So the 36 feet that exists where that fish market was is exactly what's going to stay, except the platform will GEORGE PENNY: The 36 feet from the property line. Right. CHAIRMAN: So, therefore, that existing cement pad will stay there to some degree. Then you will construct this building landward of, toward the center of the property. GEORGE PENNY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: And the LIRR is directly in back of you, so there is no specific property owners in back that would be affected by that. ls that correct? GEORGE PENNY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Homing, any questions of Mr. Penny? MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? Page 30, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS MEMBER TORTORA: The six foot 3 inches from the railroad, is that the same line that that the existing building is? GEORGE PENNY: I'm afraid so. MEMBER TORTORA: The distance between the new storage building, the 5502 and the property line, what's the distance there? GEORGE PENNY: 6.3 MEMBER TORTORA: The new one, 5502 foot storage building, the one that's in the middle of the property. GEORGE PENNY: That will be approximately 15 feet. CHAIRMAN: Now, the buffering that you have on Kerwin Boulevard, that you're showing here, the trees that you have. GEORGE PENNY: Only a portion of that exists fight now. CHAIRMAN: And you will be continuing that all the way through? GEORGE PENNY: We will continue that right up to the railroad track. CHAIRMAN: That will be continuously maintained so if one buys, you'll -? GEORGE PENNY: Absolutely, actually it will be far better maintained than it has been in the past. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I'm sorry Mrs. Tortora - go ahead. MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to get one thing clear. The existing front yard setback on Kerwin Boulevard, are you going any further, closer to Kerwin Boulevard? GEORGE PENNY: No, ma'm. MEMBER TORTORA: That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: The existing "to be removed part" - now you're going to remove that right? There's a foundation underneath that, am I correct? GEORGE PENNY: The foundation is where all the concrete build-up is. There's a platform right now that is probably close to three feet off the ground (where it was before). Page 31, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm concerned more about the 6.3. That side. (end of tape) Poured concrete? GEORGE PENNY: No. I don't believe so. MEMBER DINIZIO: But it's Part of the building, it's nothing temporary. GEORGE PENNY: It's nothing temporary. Resting on top of that it's like a concrete bunker instead where the freezers were. MEMBER DINIZIO: You're going to rest this 54 x 100 foot building on that foundation. GEORGE PENNY: On one end of it, yes. That will be a raised portion, which will be approximately four feet off the ground so you can back a track up to it and a forklift can unload right off the track. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. Ok, thank you. GEORGE PENNY: The rest will be normal.. On the other future building, just in case there's a question on why that's where it is, is because I have a very unique situation there regarding drainage and I could've turned that building sideways but if I mm that building sideways, rather than the way it is facing out into the water I wipe out my drainage. The back of that yard approximately 3-5 feet behind water. So if I loose that so-called drainage soil, which I have back there, I want absolute drainage. It's almost impossible to put rings in around there because I can't get the rings down deep enough. I don't want the rings to get water in them. No matter what you dig back there, it always fills up with water. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we thank you. Please don't leave until I close the hearing. (Member Homing left at this time for the Ferry.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? Okay, why don't you use that mike over there ma'am we'll be with you in one second, okay. GEORGE PENNY: Do you want me to stay here, or sit down? CHAIRMAN: Here. This gentleman has questions, so they may be questions you might want to answer right away. The questions are, of course, Posed to the Board sir. And then we'll see if the applicant wants to answer them. PAUL WOOD: My name is Paul Wood, and I am president of the Peconic Bay Estates Association. It's just the last couple of days I noticed the notice on the fence. It was brought to my attention by someone else on the lane. I agree with a lot of the things that Page 32, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS this gentlemen has said. The building that's there is ridiculous, it's collapsing and so forth. I do have a question. The 100 feet that he's speaking of, runs parallel to the railroad tracks, going west? Is that correct? CHAIRMAN: Is that 100 feet running west, George? GEORGE PENNY: Yes. PAUL WOOD: How many feet would be running north along Kerwin BouleVard? CHAIRMAN: 54 PAUL WOOD: That's a lot more than what is there now. GEORGE PENNY: Would you like me to answer Jerry? CHAIRMAN: Sure. GEORGE PENNY: I have a scale stuck in here. That building, the way it is now, is approximately 65 or 75 feet at this point. PAUL WOOD: (voice muffled inaudible) GEORGE PENNY: About 65. PAUL WOOD: This building is going to be used as a storage bin, how high, how big? CHAIRMAN: How high is it going to be George? GEORGE PENNY: Approximately 16 feet. 16 feet from the ground to the rafter height and it will probably be another 4 feet over that, so approximately 20 feet. PAUL WOOD: What you're saying is, of course, the access into the and the property that I represent. We don't want something like Port of Egypt put on the Main Road. We don't want it 25 and 30 feet high. CHAIRMAN: You're referring to that new storage building. PAUL WOOD: Yes. I understand that the property is zoned for light industrial. But, if this is a loading platform, where will the trucks access the property and exit the property for loading and unloading in this new storage place? GEORGE PENNY: Exactly where they do now. PAUL WOOD: So there will not be additional traffic, so to speak, or heavier trucks. Page 33, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS GEORGE PENNY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: Talking about the front gates, is that what you're referring to Mr. Penny? GEORGE PENNY: I have two gates, I have two gates for safety, because, what's happening is, the reason I bought this property, was just an amount of time before somebody got killed, was the traffic all coming in and out of One gate. So when we bought the property on Kerwin Boulevard, I filed a site plan with the Town back around 1990, and we achieved access on Kerwin Boulevard, so the heavy equipment and trucks leaving don't interfere with the regular customer traffic. There will be no additional traffic. PAUL WOOD: I (voice muffled - inaudible) As far as the drainage, yes, and this gentleman did take care of the bad drainage problem four years ago this summer, five years ago. GEORGE PENNY: When we re-graded the property which sent everything which had been running on Kerwin Boulevard for some length of time, we contained that on our property. PAUL WOOD: There was this big puddle and then he did put some trees along the way. But, his proposal to put more trees would be greatly appreciated; because the trees that are there are pretty crummy to be perfectly truthful. They really don't hide anything or provide any more pleasant access to the area at all. So we really would appreciate a little more landscaping there. If those are the conditions, then there Would not be any objections. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Wit. Ma'am, do you have questions of the applicant too? Could I ask you to use that mike over there also? CAROL SANTACROCE: My name is Carol Santacroce, and I live on Kerwin Boulevard. I see Penny Lumber day in and day out. I understand the business has been here for many years, that's not my complaint. But, over the years it has changed drastically. I've been living in my house since 1970, and I've seen major, major changes take place. George says there are no tractor/trailers going in and out of that exit and entranceway to Kerwin Boulevard. I have seen them myself, tractor/trailer trucks. Loaded with lumber or coming out which had been unloaded. As far as t'm concerned, that is zoned for light business; and, tractor/trailer trucks, in my estimation, do not come under the heading of light business. We now have, multiple racks of lumber piled up along Kerwin Boulevard, as storage. If we have another storage building, which is going to be extremely high, it's going to be sticking out over the top of any type of tree that he plants, whether it's an evergreen or whatever. I think it detracts from the area, and it also violates the property of the homes that are there or close. You can't help but notice it. I would like to see, I have not seen the plans for the landscaping and I would like to see that. I hope it does include some type of evergreen that is going to stay green and full all year long. Perhaps, even white birches put in front of it or grass mowed, because right Page 34, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS now it's atrocious. We've got cypress trees there that really, again, are detracting to the area. I would like to also see some plantings done along the railroad tracks, to make that comer, the comer of Kerwin along the railroad tracks so that people coming down from Kerwin towards the lumber company wouldn't have such an eyesore as they're approaching the railroad tracks. The drainage problem has been corrected quite a bit, but we still have puddles. Every time there is rain, there is a puddle and we have to go around it. ! really am not happy on what's taking place. I think anybody that wishes to see a home that is immediately adjacent to that property; they're going to have trouble. Major trouble. I know he's got a business and I sympathize with that, but I think we have got to in some way come to some type of agreement that where we can all live together. I know if Mr. Penny lived in an area and a lumber company or something came and shot themselves down right in front of his house, or by his house, he wouldn't appreciate it either. So I would like to see something done where we can push that building back further. Again, if he's going to be unloading tractor/trailer tracks tight there by Kerwin Boulevard that to me, again, is not light business or light zoned business, that's heavy industry; then, again, it would be heard and seen from the houses that are nearby. I don't know how they're going to rectify the situation, perhaps, move the building back further, which means he won't be able to use the Penny Building, but, sometimes that's the way it goes. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora would like to address that. MEMBER TORTORA: It is not zoned light business; it's zoned light industrial and contractor's yards. That could include cesspool tings, that could include lumber stored outdoors, indoors, however, are permitted in this zone. So I don't want you to have any illusions about it. There is nothing that he is doing that is not a permitted use. He's not expanding or bending it in any way, shape or form. As far as the screening, we generally don't get involved in buffeting and screening. The Planning Board is going to go through this with a fine toothcomb. They usually do when it comes to site plan approval, so we usually defer to them. They have a lot more knowledge in that area than we do. Mr. Penny, I would like to know if you could provide this Board with an estimate, a cost estimate of how much it would be to move, not use the existing structure that you plan to use part of the foundation. Please give us a cost estimate of how much it would be if you were to demolish that structure and relocate it to another area; although, I don't know where that area would be. But, the purpose of that is one of the things we generally look at, that also is a Town Law, is alternative locations that wouldn't require variances. A cost estimate, dollars and cents, ballpark what it would cost. GEORGE PENNY: To demolish that entire foundation, and start from scratch? MEMBER TORTORA: Build it back, because, as you can see, it's one of the questions that generally comes up. Okay. CHAIRMAN: The other thing too, possibly, is maybe some buffering along the road as an alternate. Page 35, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS GEORGE PENNY: That's not a problem. I have no problem buffering. Believe me what was there as a result of what we used, is far better looking. It's going to be not as tall as the others there, according to this one. I would just like to respond to one thing that was said earlier that I represented that I did not move tractor/trailers that it did not occur at all, that's not true. On my site plan of 1990, we addressed that; I had an approval fi'om the Town for the access. We probably didn't start using that until about four or five years ago. Yes, there is tractor/trailer, and there is heavy equipment moving onto Kerwin Boulevard and off of Kerwin Boulevard into the back of my yard. I'm not going to say there's not. It goes on everyday. The tractor/trailers that are there, one of the things that we are addressing is we unload tractor/trailers in that area now. I not intending to increase the tractor/trailers that are coming in there. The way we're unloading tractor/trailers is when somebody comes in and you have to park it into the back of the tractor/trailer with power jacks and chains and having a building where a trailer can back up to and you want to forklift right into the trailer, it's safer and it!s better for everybody. The trucks will be in and out of there one heck of a lot faster. Nothing is really changing. No one's use on the property is changing and the intensity is not changing. We're just trying to utilize a non-functignal area of the yard. MEMBER TORTORA: Has the Planning Board indicated whether they're going to require a site plan approval on this? GEORGE PENNY: I have a filed application for site plan. MEMBER TORTORA: You do? GEORGE PENNY: The reason I used cedar trees back there is the Town, I received some letters from the Peconic Bay Association back in the 1990's, and the Town requirement, at that time, was for maple trees, I think 25 feet on center. I went to the Planning Board, at that time, and said if you want to buffer something, I can't buffer with maple trees 25 feet on center. He said, well what are you going to do? And I said, the only thing that survives in that area is a cedar tree. And the cedar trees have been there,' they've lived God knows how. The only thing is an awful lot of water runs by it. But that's not my water, that is the Town water. If you could check with Ray Jacobs, you will find that Ray Jacobs has in back of my yard, a drainage room and it runs to a drainage room on the other side of the road. Those fill up so quickly it's just incredible. My drainage has been contained and will be contained, because my drainage square will now run at 56-foot spot. CHAIRMAN: I just want you to give us the submission of the dollar figures; maybe you could increase the buffering to some degree down toward the road. It would be greatly appreciated. GEORGE PENNY: I can double the trees, I can triple the trees. I can't make them grow faster. CHAIRMAN: No, we're not asking for that. Page 36, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS GEORGE PENNY: I've moved some major size trees in there now. Probably 10 or 12 feet tall. Because, I know that the little ones they grow so slowly because they get no nourishment. I would be more than happy to increase the buffering there. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. GEORGE PENNY: How would I get to doing this is to make better for everyone. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else would like to speak. Okay. MEMBER TORTORA: How long do you think it will take? GEORGE PENNY: If I can find somebody, probably in a week. MEMBER TORTORA: Two weeks is fine. Okay CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Make a motion closing the hearing receipt of the request that we made of the applicant. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4943 - NANCY STROKER. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-23 lB, based on the Building Department's March 13,2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing a fence enclosure to tennis court at a height greater than 6-1/2 feet. Location of Property: 50 Harborview Avenue, Mattituck; 1000-100-1-43. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harrison, I see you've been sitting back there very patiently. JOHN HARRISON: Good evening Board, obviously I'm on Stroker. My name is John Harrison I'm here on behalf of Stroker. Miss Stroker is requesting that a Variance for a tennis court enclosure on her property on the comer of Harborview and Reeve in Mattituck. The existing Town Zoning Board of 6 ½ feet, everything else, there is no other consideration at this time. The fence will be screened by vegetation on the two side of the perimeter of her property and, so we did not disturb the 20-foot setback, so the existing vegetation still remains there. The one side that will be facing will be facing the back of Miss Stroker's house. On the side facing ., the fence will be higher, as it would on the tennis court, there will be a 40 foot break in the center of it, as most tennis courts afc. If there are any questions, we have building permits for the tennis court and everything else, but we do need requirements for the square footage. CHAIRMAN: Just not the fence at 8 feet. JOHN HARRISON: Just not the fence at 8 feet. That's correct. (ct ~ Page 37, May 3. 2001 ZBA HEARINGS MEMBER TORTORA: Is it 8 feet all around? CHAIRMAN: Except for the opening. JOHN HARRISON: Except for the, we're having a deer problem, so we're still working through this one. If we can get the deer to agree to a certain distance, we will be working with that, but it's going to be on one side at this point. CHAIRMAN: That's deer and wild animals. MEMBER TORTORA: An 8 foot fence, except for? JOHN HARRISON: Openings on one side. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Do you have any other questions Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: No. Mr. Dinizio? 120 x 60 is that a normal size? JOHN HARRISON: The owners of the property are both very big tennis enthusiasts. They both play, and that is the official court size. MEMBER DINIZIO: That really was for this application, I just thought I would ask. JOHN HARRISON: I appreciate it. I understand that. I didn't know that until I got involved with it. Then we started talking the tennis court, and that is the actual size of a tennis court. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Just don't leave until we close the hearing. If there is anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody that would like to speak against the application? Whose is this? MEMBER TORTORA: I'll move it as applied for with the condition of all liking shall be shield to the ground. What else can we do on this? Mr. Chairman, I defer to your years of wisdom for any other conditions you see fit. CHAIRMAN: There really aren't. Because of the position of this court, and where it is on the property, I don't think it really has any significant effect upon. I had spoken to Mr. Harrison about this. So I'll second. CHAIRMAN: We'll get it to you in a couple of days. It will be 4 6 days. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 38, May 3,200i ZBA HEARINGS 8:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4940 - FRANK CICHANOWICZ. This is a requ. est for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33, based on the Building Department's December 26, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing a swimming pool located'partly in a side yard, at 155 Halls Creek Drive, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-116-7-1; Lot 32 on the Map of Harbor View at Mattituck, filed August 21, 1987. CHAIRMAN: This appeal, Mr. Fitzgerald, is Mr. Cichanowicz. JAMES FITZGERALD: (muffled, inaudible) CHAIRMAN: I met with Mr. Cichanowicz this morning about 7:30 at his property. I told him of the particular concern that I had, as a Board Member. He showed me exactly what his concern was regarding this fence and the D.E.C. line, and how the fence and D.E.C. line were basically right on target. He also discussed with me the elevation factor, and I was concerned about that particular opening on the one side of the pool. He told me he was going to swell that up, which he did do; and he was going to put a drain in there, and drain it back to the large drain that's on the other side of the pool and landward of the D.E.C. line. He also is moving the pool closer to the house, if you look at the old plan that you have; which I think is a real positive move in this very beautiful house. Is there anything you would like to add on that? JAMES FITZGERALD: Just that the pool is actually an architectural rear yard, and, I consider it an unusual way figuring where the rear yard is that the pool is proper uses. It puts a relatively small portion of this ground level facility defined side yard. So I think everything he's done, whatever he's done to make it as acceptable as possible. CHAIRMAN: Well moving it within five or six feet of the house, is a very positive move. Because, instead it pushed it out into the middle of the lot. He explained to me that the purpose of that was, that he did want to plant grass back there. He is in the sod business, so he said to me, I just can't see having a house without sod. I really want that, and it probably was a mistake on my part for putting it out that far. So, let's start with Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands, I guess we'll make a motion closing the hearing Mr. Fitzgerald, reserving a decision to later. We hope to have a decision for you very shortly. Thank you. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 39, May 3,200i ZBA HEAR1NGS 8:38 p.m. Appl. No 4945 RICHARD GOODALE. This is a request for a Lot Waiver under Section 100-26 to unmerge Lots 1000-117-10-13 and 14. The Building Department's March 5, 2001 Notice of Disapproval states that under Article II,. Section 100-25, the lots are merged for the reason that the adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and at least one of the lots is substandard in size. Location of Property: 58755 Fifth Street and Jackson Street, New Suffolk. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Goodale, how are you tonight? Mr. Goodale we have a very unique situation, which we really don't see too often, and that was the purpose of my call to you. I didn't realize there was going to be in the nature of this situation. We met with council tonight, and council does not want us to open this heating. The concern is that, MEMBER TORTORA: Council has just advised that we are barred from hearing this application under the doctrine ofresjudicata the matter had been decided prior to that. And that you will receive written notification from the Zoning Board of Appeals and your application fee will be refunded in full. RICHARD GOODALE: You lost me on the first one. MEMBER TORTORA: That's all I can say. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you wait for the decision? RICHARD GOODALE: I'm asking you to repeat the first part. MEMBER TORTORA: The Zoning Board of Appeals is barred from by the doctrine of resjudicata from hearing this application. The Board has made a decision on this application before, therefore, their decision has been rendered. Council has advised us not to proceed with this hearing, but to return your application fee and refund it; and that the Board of Appeals will send you a letter informing you of this, in much better terms than I capable of doing right now. CHAIRMAN' I'm sorry. RICHARD GOODALE: Thanks. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's no heating tonight on this. MEMBER TORTORA: Motion to return the application. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 40, May 3, 2001 ZBA HEARINGS CHAIRMAN: (Appl. No. 4940 Cichanowicz) It refers to any and all approvals from any other agencies. That's it. It's very easy. MEMBER DINIZIO: It sounds like he's going to do the right thing. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's his house. If the man who does really quite magnificent work, doesn't do the right thing for his house. CHAIRMAN: Motion to make resolution. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION CHAIRMAN: Does anybody have any objection to Dr. Benjamin? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: Whose is that? MEMBER DINIZIO: It's mine CHAIRMAN: Do you want to move that Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, do we need to define this 10-foot buffer in some way? CHAIRMAN: She's going to define it. You do the decision; we'll hold the decision in abeyance until such time as she gets that to us. MEMB ER DINIZIO: We're just going to grant this, basically, as applied. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION END OF PUBLIC HEARING 5/3/01