Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/04/2000 HEARING INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS HELD May 4, 2000 Page 1 - Appl. No. 4780 - LAWRENCE & JOSEPHINE PEARLSTEIN 10 - Appl. No. 4801 - NANCY WEBER 17 - Appl. No. 4804 ~ ASTRID GADDIS 28 - Appl. No. 4806 - THOMAS GURNEY 33 -Appl. No. 4805 - WILLIAM MOLLER 36 - Appl. No. 4810 - JOEL BRAVERMAN 39 - Appl. No. 4811 - CLIFFORD CORNELL 43 - Appl. No. 4819 - J. WOLF 50 - Appl. No. 4812 - DIANE SMITH & GEORGE ALEC 54 - Appl. No. 4813 -A& S SOUTHOLD CORP. (and E.M. &T. Inc.) 66 -Appl. No. 4814- RONALD & ANNE WILSON 69 -Appl. No. 4815 - GEORGE GARBE 72 - Appl. No. 4816 - VEDA DALEY 94 -Appl. No. 4817 - JESSICA BOGER 101- Appl. No. 4818 - CHRIS & JAMES MESKOURIS 117- Appl. No. 4809 & 4822 -BELEVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS May 4, 2000 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) Appl. No. 4780 - LAWRENCE & JOSEPHINE PEARLSTEIN This is request for a Variance under Article Iil, Section 100-33 based upon the Building Inspector's November 26, 1999 Notice of Disapproval regarding accessory storage shed located in an area other than the required rear yard (or required front yard) at 2225 North Sea Drive, Southold, 1000-54-4-23. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Pearlstein, how are you? MRS. PEARLSTEIN: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the longest going storage building that we've had. We do want to put it to bed tonight however. MEMBER COLLINS: Certainly on a per square foot basis. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK. Would you like to say something? MRS. PEARLSTEIN: Well just that at our last meeting, we did agree to move the shed to the rear of the house and parallel to. Upon the further inspection we realized that this would entail a lot of earth using of plants and what not. And also, though it appears that we have a lot of space from our new addition, everything under that new addition because of the high roof and the crossings we can't use that.~for what we want as storage. That was.why we needed the shed. We are simply requesting to face the shed close to the side of the house the way it has been used before in the same situation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the option is where it is now or closer to the house as it was in the first hearing? That was my discussion with you a week or so after the hearing and we told you that we had to reopen it, just to close it and so on and so forth. MRS. PEARLSTEIN: Right° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we'll see what develops. MRS. PEARLSTEIN: Thank you. Page 2 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against or of concern? A particular concern? Could you just use the mike if you would Sir. Were you here at the last two hearings? MR. CHIHLAS: The first one I wasn't here, and my daughter spoke for me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Your daughter spoke for you. Could you just state your name for the record. MR. CHIHLAS: My name is John Chihlas. I'm a neighbor of the Pearlsteins and i live over there for 20 years, OK. Now, up for many years we live in the same house. We don't care what's happening outside and what is (). So they issue here about the view (inaudible because of acoustics & gentleman speaks with a strong accent). The issue here that they know that it requires, it says, to go to the front of the part of the house. Am ! right so far, or I'm not? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To a certain degree except that we have waterfront property in this particular case and the actual rear of the house is a dune. it's a natural dune. MR. CHIHLAS: OK, now the dune came up. Two weeks before the hearing notice said, Mr. Pearlstein was outside digging and moving all the bushes to make room for the shed. So, it wasn't a problem then so why is there a problem now? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Pearlstein just told you why. I mean there was a definitive judgment made upon their part, that the building cannot fit within that crevice area. MR. CHIHLAS: They're probably desperate. They scraped it over there and honestly why does it ( ) 18 feet and as I said before, it's 10 feet, why does it not fit in the area? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just telling you what they said. I'm not here to - MR. CHIHLAS: Oh, I understand it. I'm telling you how I feel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Put a shoe on somebody's foot Sir. I don't mean that in a sarcastic sense. I'm just saying to you, that I understand your concerns but we do have a natural beach area here. And they tell us that it cannot fit. That's their opinion. MR. CHIHLAS: Whose opinion Sir? Page 3 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The applicants and the applicants' opinion. The owner of the property, the applicants' opinion. And mainly because the natural .part of the front of this house is a dune area. . MR. CHIHLAS: But it isn't a dune area because so how come they dug before to put the shed where it is now? It wasn't any problem then. There is no dune there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright I can't answer that question other than the fact that this is what they are proposing. You are certainly welcome to voice your objection. MR. CHIHLAS: That's what I said. I'm objecting to what they're asking for. So the rest is up to you people to say what you want to say. I'm objecting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. CHIHLAS: OK. MR. LAMPEAS: I'd like to say something. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, surely. We need you to state your name. We're having trouble with the person that's taking this transcribing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's not me but it is in the office. MR. LAMPEAS: I'm Peter Lampeas and Mr. Chihlas' son-in-law. The past several years I have been spending a lot of time out to the house and I really can't believe what is going on with the Pearlsteins. It is very obvious to me, that over the last two hearings, a compromise is suppose to be made by my father-in- law and Mr. Pearlstein, which was made, and now, at this third hearing, that compromise has been changed. I don't understand that and I don't think it's right. If the code says, the shed does not belong there and Mr. Pearlstein went through the expense of buying the shed, I'm terribly sorry. But just because he bought the shed, it does not mean that he has the right to place it in a spot which is not convenient to all parties. You know, I want to buy things too, but if I can't put it anywhere or if it's against the law, - ..: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's the nature of this headng. MR. LAMPEAS: I understand that, but I mean the agreement of compromise was, to place it where he said at the second hearing. Page 4 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. LAMPEAS: And that was the decision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. LAMPEAS: And i fail to understand why Mr. Pearlstein is pushing beyond the compromise that already was met. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, I'm not suggesting that you have a discourse with Mr. & Mrs. Pearlstein. I am merely telling you, that they told us, that it requires the removal of a substantial amount of sand to do so, and they are not in a position to do that and that's the reason why they don't want to put it there. MR. LAMPEAS: I understand that but we have to realize that they were obviously never in a position to buy the shed the first place. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's not actually true. It was brought to our attention that they spoke to the Building Department and that was the nature of I think a discussion by Mr. Peadstein at the first hearing. That this particular shed they were told that they could put it in an appropriate location and they assumed that this was the location that was appropriate. So I don't think and after my discussion with Mrs. Pearlstein on the phone, sometime after the last hearing, that I don't believe that they are telling me an untruth, alright. I believe that they are telling me the truth. Secondly, we close and we move and we adjust side yards significantly on the waterfront. It is an unwritten precedent of this Board and I'm not speaking specifically for the Board. I'm speaking as a Member of the Board. That as long as one side yard is kept open free and able to be gotten to the waterside for any type of emergency purposes. Be it flooding, be it a collapsed foundation, God for bid, be it fire emergency, whatever the case might be. In this particular case, in their proposed location they still have 9 feet on the one side of the shed. I can tell you that this Board in preliminary deliberation has really suggested at one point, to move the shed closer to the house. MR. LAMPEAS: Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt you but I own a house on the water in North Shore. I'm not unfamiliar With North Shore property. I'm quite aware of the lines that are drawn right through people's homes and they can't fix it. That they are disturbed or they're damaged by nature. It's very obvious to me that Mr. Pearlstein doesn't want to look at the shed in front of his house, or, on the water side, and this is the issue, and as I said in the first hearing, Mr. Pearlstein doesn't want to look at it, why should we? Page 5 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, there are appropriate steps that you can take on that part, and that is you can ask for it to be screened. You can ask for bushes to be placed around it. You can ask for any reasonable thing that this Board is able to reduce to writing. And I can tell you, that we have done this many, many, many, many times. I will go back again prior to my making a decision on this application and relook at the side yard again. And we'll make the decision based upon my recommendation and the recommendations of everybody who has looked at it. If they want to go back and look at it again, they're certainly welcome to do so and that's all I can tell you at this point. We do significantly accept your concerns as we do in all situations. There are just times when there are significant side yards on this person's application. It's got 20 and 25. They are pretty bare side yards. It's 100 foot lot and the house really doesn't demand that much of the property. So, I'm just saying that. I realize there was an addition put on but I mean, you know, that's where we are at this point. MR. LAMPEAS: Well I disagree. That's not where you are at this point because there are other people that asked your permission first to put sheds on the side of their homes and they were denied, and I don,t understand what you're going to tell them. When they have asked you initially, before they went through the expense of buying the shed. What type of responsibility does that show? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Every piece of property is unique and every situation is different. There are definite and distinct problems that lie with every piece of property that we deal with. That's all I can tell you at this point. I will go back and look at it again. MR. LAMPEAS: i wish you would Sir. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask this fellow a question? Can you state or as simply clearly as possible, your family's objection to the existing placement on this shed. MR. LAMPEAS: I think formally my wife was there and spoke what the objections were. MRS. LAMPEAS: Hi, my name is Virginia Lampeas. I am John Chihlas's daughter. The whole point of this is the fact that it's not esthetically pleasing to Page 6 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of.: .Hearings Board of Appeals the whole neighborhood. As my husband said, there are rules that have been placed by the town and the more rules that are overlooked will just continue to be overlooked in the future and everyone will just be flopping sheds wherever they feel fit. Mr. Pearlstein, I'm s0'~: Mr. Chairman you had mentioned, that maybe we could make it esthetically more pleasing and plant some bushes. Well Mr. Pearlstein ripped out all of the bushes and natural plantings that were there. Perhaps if they had plantings better they might have flopped the shed down in an area where the bushes were not completely (). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but that could be changed. First of all it was a moved in shed. So you have to do that. If you,re building on site, it's a different situation. So quite honestly, I mean, personally what they took out, I'd have to do the exact same thing. To be honest with you, if it was going next to my house. MRS. LAMPEAS: Well to be honest here, first I can't believe that this has been going on since November. This is the oldest case that i've been seeing in all of these papers, and I frankly I grew up in this town, and i worked for the Town of Southold for many years as I recommended the Pearlstein's son to also work for the Town Southold and I don't want to not be proud of my time working for the town and following all the rules and regulations that I was taught to follow in the By-Guide. I feel that this has become a difficult thing because now we're playing neighbor against neighbor with all of these unnecessary meetings that shouldn't have been. All of these and it's creating we, we, obviously we all have different views. But i feel that if the Pearlsteins really did care about their neighbors, they shouldn't have come up to our deck after planting this shed, and then looking at it and saying, well, do you mind that it's there? Did they come to us and ask us beforehand? It has nothing to do with blocking our waterview. If that were the case, my father would have been here when they were building a tremendous extension. I have a photograph of the way their home looked when it was purchased. They went up and they went over and Mrs. Pearlstein writes an article about how monstrosity this is and puts it in the Suffolk Times, that all homes are being built tremendously over on the water and knocks other people and does the same thing. ! can't believe that, and now so worried about the dunes when they put a deck on this flat sandy area. I walk there when I'm ( ) their house and all flat sand and there should be no reason why this can't, they cannot abide by the Town Code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we do accept your objection and I will go back and relook at this prior to a decision. We thank you for your opinion. MRS. LAMPEAS: Thank you. Perhaps we can all go together and make some kind of- Page 7 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well let me go first, OK? Thank you dear. Anybody else like to speak? Sir? MR. BETSCH: Mr. Chairman, my name is John Betsch. I'm the owner of a piece of property. 2325 North Sea Drive, which is adjacent to 2225. Being new to Southold i'm rather unfamiliar with the workings of the Town Board of Appeals.. It is my understanding that these hearings are a result of the deficiency that was visually noted by a Town Inspector during a routine patrol and review of properties throughout the Town. It is also my understanding, that these inspections are done to insure compliance with Town Code in place to maintain property value. I was unable to attend the first hearing of this request and at that time I submitted a letter which in part said: "As a new member'~of Southold Town, I feel I have an obligation to conform to the various Town Laws and Building Codes which were significant influence in my purchase, and which are in place to maintain my property value. Therefore, it would be hypocritical and inappropriate for me to agree to this variance request." I believe the outcome and when I called the town of that first hearing, was an owner action to determine what agency impact and what approval he had to have to move the structure to be in Code compliance. At the second hearing, it was volunteered to slide the shed to a place that would be in compliance which would make the variance request moot. We are now into a third hearing and I am hopeful that this is not just simply to wear the Board down. There has to an equitable solution to all involved and simply my concern and involvement is that this variance request is maintaining my property value commensurate with my purchase cost last fall. At present, I believe the shed does not meet the Code on two counts. 1) there is a requirement for rear yard placement and; 2) if it was permitted on the side yard, it does not meet the setback requirements from the side property line and the way the setback requirements of 15 feet. If it was placed 15 feet from the property line, I don't think it would be usable in that the doors would be so close to the house you would not be able to use it. The most recent letter I received concerning this third hearing states: "To tuck it into the Northwest corner, which I've assumed now it means the northeast corner. The northwest comer would be the oppOSite side of the house into the northeast corner parallel to the house would necessitate earth moving of many cubic feet of sand dunes." This is rather confusing to me and requires somewhat of an explanation as our properties in that area are flat. In any case, the amount of effort should not be a decision driver. That letter also continues, "it would be a simple matter to move it closer to that side of the house, consistent with similar houses in the neighborhood and Mr. Chihlas would still have his waterview." It is my belief that the Board has a responsibility to apply present Town Code, and not be influenced by a previous Board's decision or error. The driver of this hearing should be Code compliance and also using waterview should not be a Page 8 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals method of selling a variance. Please understand I have no beef with Mr. Pearlstein. I'm not trying to believe, that I'm trying to believe that it was just poor planning.,,or~ his part. But there has to be an equitable solution to all involved. Again, my concern is maintaining my property value commensurate with my purchase cost last fall. The solution should not affect my equity. The Board has a responsibility to insure that any potential solution is considered not detrimental to any of the affected parties. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you sit down, I just want to mention, that the side yard is not 15 feet. That's for a primary structure. For an accessory structure it's much less than that. MR. BETSCh: When I had called the town they had said, based on a 20,000 sq. ft. it would be 15 ft. setback. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For a primary structure. This is an accessory structure. MR. BETSCH: What is the setback? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Probably 5. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 5 feet. MR. BETSCH: 5 feet, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? We'd like to thank everybody for their comments and we will make a decision at the next regularly scheduled special meeting, which we have not given you :a date on. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: May 10th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There may be a problem with May 10th. You may want to call the office tomorrow morning and we'll tell you when it is, or Monday and we'll tell you exactly when it's going to be. Alright? Thank you very much. MEMBER COLLINS: Did we close the hearing Jerry?. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, we just need a second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, I'm sorry. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI; Whose going to second that? Page 9 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 10 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 6:54 P.M. -Appl. No. 4801 - NANCY WEBER Proposed pool with a setback at less than 100 feet from the average top of the bluff at 160 The Strand, East Marion, 1000-21-5-7. '~"~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I think we're ready. Mrs. Doherty, how are you? MRS. DOHERTY: Good, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a meeting that was postponed from the, actually carried over from the last hearing. MRS. DOHERTY: I handed in the survey showing the coastal erosion line. Here's a copy of that and if you have any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are there any questions of Mrs. Doherty regarding Mrs. Weber's swimming pool? Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZlO: No, not from me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? You want me to skip over you and come back? MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, I just wanted to see what the covered letter had said about the dryWell. No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't have any specific questions regarding this. Everything is just as it was before the pool is moved back. It's approximately 10 feet from the property line. I'm just reviewing this with you. It's approximately 10 feet from the property line. It's 58 feet from the SCZM line and it's 63 feet from what they construe to be the top of the bluff. MRS. DOHERTY: Yes. Page 11 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And this is a liner pool? MRS. DOHERTY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: of water reclamation system. And Mrs. Weber has agreed to put in some sought MRS. DOHERTY: Yes, it's on the same site plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see it there. And that's it and not link it to the house. MRS. DOHERTY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you. MRS. DOHERTY: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak? How are you doctor? MR. TROWBRIDGE: I'm very good, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just state your name for the record again, please Sir?. MR. TROWBRIDGE: Mr, Chairman, I am Dr. Richard Trowbridge. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, Ms. Secretary of the Board, it's interesting this evening that I've been offered another opportunity in civics. I've seen our government in action and it's interesting also that the people in the community do believe that the Codes that are on the books should be lived up to and should have very little acceptation made to them. What I am here tonight., I came here tonight with only two objectives. One was to give you the Code Enforcement Administration's text concerning new swimming pool enclosures. It specifically addresses self--closing and locked gates. As I stated in my first testimony to you about a month ago, on my inspection of the pools on the bluff at Pebble Beach Farms, I had the opportunity to see seven. All seven were accessible to me without any locks on the gates. None of the gateswere self- closing. What I'm stating is that we have a Code on the Books that's not being enforced. We have a Code violation that's been brought to the Zoning Board's attention and no-one has taken that information and relay it to the Code Enforcement Officer to have those property owners notified that they must now come into full compliance with the law. I am very much concerned because we Page 12 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals have a lot of little children visiting the community and this is the season they start visiting and anyone who had children, or has children, knows very well how curious they are and how very easily they get into trouble. The swimming pools are a big p~:o~lem. Now I will address this on the next issue on Pebble Beach Farms Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But could you please furnish us with those appropriate tax map numbers and locations. MR. TROWBRIDGE. Oh, boy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, no, I mean I'd like you to do that. like to give it to the Code Enforcement Officer. ., I would MEMBER TORTORA: i was going to interrupt you at some point. We are not the Enforcement Agency of the Town. However, however, I find your statement very alarming because there is a known risk to children in swimming pools. So I would urge you to go to the Building Department tomorrow, with this information. If you don't go to the Building Department, go down to the Town Supervisor. But this is important information. We do not have the authority to act on it. But I personally appreciate you bringing it to our attention and would urge you to take it to the Building Department and perhaps simultaneously to the Town Supervisor. MR. TROWBRIDGE: My problem in response to that is that I work at Plum Island. I catch a 6:20 boat and i don't get back here until 5:00 o'clock at night. My opportunity to visit the Town Officer is very limited. I have taken many days off to come down here and collect information just to get here to present you with the information that I have access to ,it. That's why I'm requesting~.~:if you have the opportunity - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have another suggestion. MR. TROWBRIDGE: I will try to get the tax or the lot numbers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have another suggestion. One of the more helpful organizations in this Town Hall as helpful as our office and actually the entire Town Hall in general, I'll.make that as a generalization, is.the Assessor's Office. As long as you have a copy of the tax map, they will probably go right across the board for you in telling you which one has a swimming pool and which one does not and you could probably do that on your lunch hour with them. Page 13 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. TROWBRIDGE: Well the problem is,"you see I work on Plum Island I don't have a lunch hour. I have a 1/2 hour to get a shower and get dressed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Whatever time you can work that out. Whatever way you can work that out. I think you probably can estimate it by if you just this weekend went down the road and did it by street address. MR. TROWBRIDGE: Oh, I could do that. Thank you. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Trowbridge, can I ask a question? MR. TROWBRIDGE: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Are you here now representing yourself or anyone else? MR. TROWBRIDGE: i'm here only because i am the President of the Pebble Beach Farms Lot Association, Board of Directors. If I was just John Q. Public living in Pebble Beach Farms, I would never have gone out and gotten this information and I certainly would not be here. MEMBER HORNING: Alright, well I mean this question came up at another time as a matter of fact. MR. TROWBRIDGE: Yes, it did and - MEMBER HORNING: What is the objectiOn to this proposed pool? MR. TROWBRIDGE: ! believe that all the construction that's occurring on the bluff, within 100 feet of the setback rule, is contributing to a potential disaster. These past two seasons and I've only been there two seasons, have seen a very deleterious effect on both the bluffs and the beach. Now deleterious I mean, there's one section of the beach where it's dropped over 10 feet. Now no-one can tell me that that's going to stop. I know where that sand is going. It's going right around and to a point. And it's going to continue there. The bluff in certain areas has been dropping. This past winter, the toe of the bluff has seen major destruction in many areas. There are a lot of lot owners on the bluff who are now asking that the whole association be gathered together to offer some type of meetings where we could address this problem. I'm sorry but this is mother nature. What are you going to do? Get out there and shovel more sand into the tide? I don't think there's a reasonable explanation or resolution to preventing the ocean from taking that bluff away from us. And what I'm frightened about, is that these property owners are putting in a lot of pools on the bluff, very close to the edge and it's not going to be too long before these Page 14 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals pools are dropping out in the ocean. And whose going to pick up the mess? Whose going to enforce these people or tell these people you have to remove that debris. I don't think you are. i won't be here. But now we have a significant problem on the bluff. My only concern as a resident of Pebble Beach Farms and as the President of Pebble Beach Farms is specifically the beach that the association is responsible for. The bluff is the lot owners responsibility. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that a community beach all the way through? MR. TROWBRIDGE: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MR. TROWBRIDGE: No, they only have one section that's the community beach, the rest - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which section? MR. TROWBRIDGE: That's the one at the end of the long one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, OK, good. MR. TROWBRIDGE: But that beach when it was first brought to my attention, when I first became Vice-President of the Board, that that beach was also experiencing significant erosion. There was a time when they had trouble getting equipment down onto the beach to clean it. Now, this past year rm told that we aren't going to be able to do much of a clean-up for the rest of the residents along the beaches along the base of the bluff because it's so seriously eroded. The second issue that lWan[ed to bring up is of this seven pools that I inspected, the Zoning Board seems to of required those property owners to take all water that's running off the roofs to the down spouts and dump it into drywells. Is that still being required? We have two pool applications that came through with that has not be addressed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we have, when you have an existing house, you cannot, this is not part of the application. That would be construed to be unreasonable. MR. TROWBRIDGE: Mike Paulos built a house and then added a pool. He was required to put in downspouts. That's in the Water Department. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's because it came out of the Soil & Water Conservation based upon the contour of the property. Page 15 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. TROWBRIDGE: OK, that's all I have to say then. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So I mean we're going to do on~-'a: case by case basis but quite honestly we really rely on Soil & Water. When there is true vegetation on the property we realize that some of the lots are a little narrow and so on and so forth. I don't foresee that that is as much of a problem because the majority of those down spouts are running toward the road anyway. The way the properties fall away to be honest with you. I assume that there could be on a regrading issue which was the nature of a discussion that you and I had, that there is a possibility that you could have some topside erosion with the water running but the vegetation up there is pretty, pretty dense and most people in the properties that I have seen of have taken really super care of their lawn. MR. TROWBRIDGE: Well property from the Lempl's property down to the Longway, along the Strand, I'm talking about the bluff side down the road, there has been considerable sand erosion from those properties down off the road. So there is considerable erosion occurring on the backside of the bluff also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was that nature of this 5 inch rainfall that we had recently? MR. TROWBRIDGE: No, this is all year. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All year. So then what you're saying to the Board then is that we really should take that entire process into consideration and relook at that issue. That is an issue also that we will be discussing with the Town Attorney to make sure that it falls within the reasonable nature of our germane status basically. MR. TROWBRIDGE: I have no objection to people building pools but I am concerned that what's going to happen to these pools when they start dropping off the bluff? Where are we going to be? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to end up with a V in the bluff, God for bid. That's what's going to happening. There's going to be an entire section that's going to go out. There's no question about it. MR. TROWBRIDGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak? Yes Mrs. Doherty. Page 16 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. DOHERTY: I just want to touch on his comments. First of all Mrs. Weber has a pool in her other house and she has a self-locking gate, she has three young grandchildren and whom she frequently has over. And you can be assured that she's going to have self-locking gates and everything else that is necessary to protect young kids from going to the pool. And the other thing is, she's put a lot of money into this property since she purchased it. And she's the first one that would not want to negatively affect the blue She wants to protect it and she plans on doing a lot of landscaping after this is all over. I mean, you know, Protecting the bluff even more. If the pool is going to negatively affect it, she wouldn't even consider it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you a question since you raised that particular issue. Once this swimming pool iS:completely finished would she has an objection to us coming back and looking at it? MRS. DOHERTY: Oh, no, not at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because we may want to use this if it's going to be as enhanced as you said it is, use it as a model with some of the future ones that we may have. MRS. DOHERTY: And also just for your information we did get the permit from the Trustees for the fence around the perimeter of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Thank you. MRS. DOHERTY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else. Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 17 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:11 P.M. - Appl. No. 4804 - ASTRID GADDIS Applicant requests Variances for a dwelling addition at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead and side yards at less than the existing 14'9" non-conformity. 7020 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; Parcel 1000-126-11-6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is an appeal that we have had from the prior meeting and we ask Mr. Butler if he would like to add something? We received some correspondence from you, Mr. Butler. MR. BUTLER: Yes, I forwarded the alternate site plan, showing the relaxed setback to 13 foot 1 inch from the 14' 9" which you are in receipt of. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. BUTLER: I also have the Lowe green card from the neighbor to the west which is most affected by this. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore stopped in, and Mr. Dinizio saw her while we were across the hall. She indicated to us that we think there is no objection on the west side. So, we just want you to be aware of that. Is that correct, Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Moore, I believe has another application tonight. She's just not here, at this time. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything you would like to add. I understand at this point, the house is pretty much up at this point. It's framed? MR. BUTLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was in the house I think Easter Saturday and was looking at it. Any questions of Mr. Butler before he sits down? Ladies and gentlemen? Anybody? No. We thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Anybody like to speak against the application? Ms. Wickham how are you tonight? MS. WICKHAM: Good evening. Just fine, thank you. My name is Abigail Wickham and I represent Ms. Shannon who owns the property to the immediate Page 18 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals east of the Gaddis property. We're here tonight to address the issue of the variance requested for the covered porch at the front bay side of the dwelling, and we would like to strenuously object to the granting of a variance for that addition. The reason for our objection is that we feel there is absolutely no basis for the Board to grant a variance for the proposed covered porch. The existing home was during the construction process leveled to the ground. It was completely removed to grade, and we feel that the entire building including the porch could have been built in conformance with the Zoning Code with absolutely no problem given the size of the lot, and the width of the lot, and the depth of the lot. However, it appears that the applicant decided rather than doing that to take the existing Building Permit for what he maintains is the existing dwelling and then basically guts it out to the Zoning Board of Appeals and hoped he would get a variance to extend the porch into the front of the setback line from the bulkhead. And we think that's just not appropriate and it's not why he should be here. He certainly could have avoided this whole procedure in the first place. There is as you can appreciate a significant difference between a very Iow open porch which was previously there and a covered porch, which is proposed, which could be enclosed into a permanent structure at some time in the future. The extension of the dwelling forward towards the water by virtue of the covering of the porch would adversely affect our client. It certainly brings the line of the house well further towards the bluff which the Town Code did not feel was appropriate when they enacted the legislation. The prevailing winds on this property are from the southwest of the extension of that building, in that direction will have a direct impact upon our client by cutting off even further any prevailing winds that might come along that way, and further brings the house up to the point where it's not appropriate. The factors that you are to consider for a variance really aren't met here and it's just as I said, no basis for the granting of the variance. An undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood because you're moving a house that could have been corrected forward and cutting off light, air, circulation and other attributes. The benefit sought by the applicant could certainly have been achieved as i mentioned before by another method in terms of creating a conforming structure. The area variance is substantial, the existing harm according to the site plan was already .within at least the prohibited setback by being setback 70 feet. Now they want to go another 9 feet to a 61 foot setback. The variance will have an adverse affect on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood in that it will further draw the house into the prohibited area cutting off light and air as I previously mentioned. And the alleged difficulty was clearly as i mentioned before self-created and could have been avoided. So we're thinking in Page 19 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals balancing your criteria here, there is absolutely no basis for the granting of this variance and we would like to ask that you deny it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just let me ge( one thing clear. You have an objection to the enclosure of the porch, but not to the porch itself? MS. WlCKHAM: My understanding, we would have an objection to the enclosure of the porch and to the extent I'm not sure whether the plan purports to raise the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's a question I'm going to ask. MS. WlCKHAM: That's another question I would have you - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to ask that question right now. MS. WICKHAM: And any other improvement for instance, the foundation under it or any other major. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But a free standing porch you may or may not have an objection to? MS. WICKHAM: The free standing porch CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Open to the sky. MS. WlCKHAM: Was already there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. WICKHAM: I don't think, I mean I'm in a position frankly to object to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: Getting to your so variance request. The 13 feet from the non-conforming 14' 9' setback. MS. WICKHAM: No, I'm not on that side of the building. I'm on the front portion. I'm not addressing the rear addition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, this is the waterside. OK, so let's ask that question of Mr. Butler. Mr. Butler, would you tell us what the consistency of the porch is, construction wise? Page 20 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. BUTLER: The construction of the covered porch is built on piers. It's not on a foundation as would be a porch that would be enclosed, it doesn't have a slab floor and a roof floor open to grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Elevation above grade, approximately? MR. BUTLER: It's 7" below the finished floor. So it's a step down to the finished floor from the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think the entire property has been regraded around the house at this point. So, maybe you could give us an estimate on what you think the 7" below the finished floor is going to be to grade. MR. BUTLER: I think it was the goal to keep that below 18 inches - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Above grade? MR. BUTLER: Above grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. So in other words we have 18" and then we would have the timbers which we refer to as the floor beams and then we have 7"? MR. BUTLER: No. It is a finished floor 7", finished floor, first floor, the 7" drop to the porch floor and 18" more or less to grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK alright. Does that answer your question? ; ir MS. WlCKHAM: Yes, I just have one more comment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, do you mind if she comments while you're standing up there? Go ahead. MS. WICKHAM: Since the existing porch is 18" or less above grade, you're talking about a request to convert a structure that doesn't even require a Building Permit in the first place into a structure which would not only require a Building Permit but also a variance. And again, I don't think there's any basis to do that in this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So now you're objecting to the exact, to the porch itself in general? Is that what you're saying? Because it's above grade? Page 21 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: No, no, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I'm trying to get at. MS. WlCKHAM: No, what I'm saying is, that the existing deck or porch that is there now, if it's less than 18" above grade, it doesn't even require a Building Permit. But they're asking you to approve - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think it does. it does Gall. MEMBER TORTORA: It does. It would require a variance because it's not 75 feet. MR. BUTLER: It did and it has a C.O. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but it's not setback 75 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, it has a C.O. MS. WlCKHAM: OK, if it has a C.O., then. MEMBER DINIZlO: It's the covered part. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, while we're talking about the porch and what's there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: This is just a fact question and I guess Mr. Butler is probably the best one to answer it. I visited the property before our last hearing. All this work had been done on leveling the building and pouring some additional foundation. At that time my legs were in bad shape and the ground was very uneven and I did not go hiking around to the bay side. I looked at the property from the (changed tape) patio is it a deck? MR. BUTLER: A deck. It shows up on the, it's on the Assessor's card as - MEMBER COLLINS: In a nut shell, it's something open? : MR. BUTLER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: It's something essentially at grade whether it's timber or it's not concrete? Page 22 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. BUTLER: Oh, no, it wasn't.at grade. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. But it's aa~;epen deck? MR. BUTLER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. That's all. I just wasn't able to visualize what had been there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're saying that deck has a C.O. on it? Is that what you're saying? MR. BUTLER: The existing deck has a C.O., yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Have you elongated that deck? In your drawings is it larger than the deck than the one you're applying for now? MR. BUTLER: No, it's smaller. MEMBER COLLINS: Smaller. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's smaller. MR. BUTLER: The sun porch is cut back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to understand from one hearing to another, I don't look at the file, so therefore. OK, it's smaller? MR. BUTLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you're saying that the Building Department would allow you to build the deck at this point? MEMBER COLLINS: The porch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The porch? MR. BUTLER: The Permit was granted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The 127 Permit. Page 23 - May 4, 2000 "Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. BUTLER: Yes. Well, previously to that, this occurred over several months. There were several conversations between myself, my client, Mr. Forrester, Mike in the Building Department and Greg Yakaboski. What could be done on this property? It was determine that the deck in the rear had a C:O., but if it was going to have a porch roof over it, it needed to be heard before this Board. Even if it was going to be cut back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So- MS. WICKHAM: Just to clarify. There never was a porch there. It was always an open deck and my point was that it was a Iow open deck which may or may not even require a C.O. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In that context you're saying it may not have required a C.O.? MS. WICKHAM: Required a C.O. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're absolutely correct. MR. BUTLER: It did have a C.O. MS. WICKHAM: OK. But a high porch never, it was an open deck. MEMBER COLLINS: So, just to make sure our posture is clear here. So because what is proposed is something that is shallower but more substantial and roofed. The Building Department took the position that the setback from the bulkhead was an issue and they denied this for that reason and that is the variance that you're opposing? ~ MS. WICKHAM: That is correct. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Butler, do you have a question, or do you want to make a statement? MR. BUTLER: I stated at the last meeting there's a C.O. on that deck which was issued in I believe February of 99. MEMBER TORTORA: For the deck? MR. BUTLER: Yes. Page 24 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Is it the one that you're going to - MR. BUTLER: The one that's - MEMBER COLLINS: Being taken out. MEMBER TORTORA: Now remove? MR. BUTLER: Should be cut back and covered. MS. WICKHAM: it has been removed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I didn't see any deck there. MR. SHANNON: I'm Kevin Shannon, Joan's brother. My sister could not be here tonight because she had to undergo emergency surgery this morning. here and I know what I'm going to say, has nothing to do with this particular objection but my sister is very upset about this whole dwelling. I don't know if you've been to the property since they put it up but and you want to talk about preserving property values and esthetics, some of the things that were mentioned in earlier cases tonight, I mean, they took an existing building which was more or less situated from land farm and have expanded it well beyond the scope of what the existing building that they tore down was. So much so, that pervertually the whole property length of my sister's house and well beyond towards the bay. There's a 4 foot setback. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're familiar with it. MR. SHANNON: We're going to tackle that I guess at a later hearing. But to me this project has many problems to begin with and I know my sister can't object more strongly than Gall has already stated. That no further variances should be allowed on this property. I mean, this is a project that should have been done in a better fashion. I mean it's done in total disregard to my sister's property and for her values. Other towns have Architectural Review Boards that wouldn't have approved such a project because it doesn't blend in to the existing homes and the surrounding neighborhood. I'm a little bit concerned as a town resident that this has gone forward to begin with. So, I'm Just want a second to be~able to say and you know, strongly object to this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. First of all, yes? Page 25 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: I would like to ask the Board if they would request the applicant to perhaps provide a guaranty, I mean a survey of the property because we're dealing with an architect's sketch which I don't believe has been actually '~rsurveyed and if there is some concern on our part about whether theses? dimensions are accurate. Mr. Shannon to, perhaps the existing foundation of the original house has been extended because the new foundation was built outside of it and if the Board would consider asking the applicant for a survey of the property we would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, we've had this request once before on the Long Island Sound and I don't remember, I think we finally disposed of the hearing in between and it was withdrawn. I don't know if we're in a position to do so but. you know, i'11 certainly ask. MR. BUTLER: Can I just remark on that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. BUTLER: There was one required by the Building Department that was done and submitted to the Building Department for the ( ) survey ( ) factor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're referring to the foundation Sir? But was there a post foundation survey done when the new foundation was done? MR. BUTLER: Yes, otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to go back there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. You have that? What's the date on that one Lydia? MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have - MEMBER COLLINS: We don't have that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't have that figure. Could you get us a copy of that please? Actually two copies and we'll forward one to counsel, OK? That's what you want, the post foundation survey? Good, very good. OK, so that's where we are at this particular point. Mr. Gaddis, how are you tonight Sir? MR. GADDIS: Fine, thank you. I'd like to say a few words, if I may. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. Page 26 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. GADDIS: First of all both of these gentlemen (inaudible). I would like first of all to say that these that are the only buildings, modifications that we're looking for. They're has never been any before this, number one. Number two, the screen porch that they're talking about, asyou do know ~hiat it was a 20 foot long deck which made it 10 feet closer to the water than it is now. We cut it back to10 feet giving us an additional ( ) away from the water and between our house on that property, you probably noticed when you were at the house, between our house and Ms. Shannon's house, she has a complete line of 10 foot arborvitae, about 3 foot (). When those things get another couple of years old, not only won't she be able to get any breezes from that area but she won't be able to see my house at all. I mean it's ridiculous. She's got the other arborvitae along the whole side of that property, almost down to the water. So when they talk about me blocking their views, not With me, but the air and everything else?:they did it long before me with the stuff that's there now. i also find it very disconcerting that we were here last month. The sole purpose of which was to discuss this and the front porch and not one word of either one of those was brought up when we had that meeting. This is the first time that that has been brought up. If the neighbors had said that they wanted to talk about something which is what Ms. Wickham had suggested the last time, why don't we sit down and talk about it, it certainly wasn't apparent to me when ! tried to talk to my neighbor, he doesn't even said hello to me. So, if we want to work something out, it's very difficult to do that. And also, I'm spending a lot of money on this property. We're doing everything as esthetically as we pos~.ibly can. ! think a lot that was said here is grossly exaggerated, if you drive in my property, and compare Ms. Shannon's property and her house, to my house, her house is on an angle such as this, my house is on an angle such as this. So what we're talking about is one point. So there's a lot of room behind the house on the north side of the land. I think that the neighbors to the west, we sat with them, we discussed, they, re pleased with what~We're,~doing tO; it compared to what it was iike. They're very happy with what we've done. I'd be happy to bring them down and you can talk to them on my behalf. However, I think that what we're hearing is, something that I'm very upset by because this is the first time I'm :hearing it tonight and as I said we had a whole month ago, we could have spoken about this and not one word was said, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to be honest with you. I was a little confused about the porch as opposed to as it existed prior to and I know the porch isn't there because I didn't see the pordh when I waS there and that was~ the reason for that particular thing. But I'm not sure we actually got to that aspect at that last hearing to be honest ~vith you. And I mean I know it's the nature of this application but I think the concentration at the last hearing was really on the other section of the application that was before us that Mr. Butler Page 27 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals had sent the correspondence on between the two hearings to be honest with you. MR. GADDIS: Would it make it any clearer to you;::.;.~hen you look out towards the water front the end of the house where it is now. If you had stepped out the door, before there would have been a 20 foot deck going out beyond that. Now, we're proposing they'll be a 10 foot deck to be covered. So that's pretty much what it was about. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. One more second then we got to roll here. MS. WICKHAM: I'm just going to have two quick points because I know it's late. Number one, during the last hearing and after the hearing, I did ask the applicant if there was anything we could discuss. The Chairman at the hearing asked that he hold off on the building until it would be discussed. The response was the next day. They started building as fast they could. And as to the blockage of the view, arborvitae are hedges do let air though much more so than a hard building does. Those are my only comments, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Shannon, no, OK. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing pending the receipt of the foundation permit which we will submit to counsel when we get. MEMBER HORNING: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 28 - May 4, 2000 TranScripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:35 P.M. - Appl. 4806 - THOMAS GURNEY Applicant is requesting a Variance under Article XXlII, Section 100-239.4A. 1 based upon an application for:~,a~ Building Permit to construct a swimming pool and "as built" hot tub/spa, as stated in the Building Department's March 9, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. Both structures are proposed at less than 100 feet from the bluff or bank of the L.I. Sound, and the spa structure is in a side yard location with less than 20 feet from the property line. Location of Property: 4055 Aldrich Lane Extension, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel No. t000-112-1-10. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Gurney how are you tonight Sir? MR. GURNEY' Very good, very good. HOw are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had the distinct pleasure of visiting your very beautiful property over the course of the last weekend and I met with you and your wife. it actually was the highlight of my entire day. MR. GURNEY: I don't know if that's good or bad. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's good. OK, what would you like to tell us? MR. GURNEY: Well a few things. Number 1, what do i do with these green cards? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need them. MR. GURNEY: I am seeking a variance within 100 foot setback. The key issue ~ere I bei;ieve is, the stability of the bluff. I have a G.O. Technical Engineer I~as a letter in the file which you have, which addresses the stability of the bluff. There is a letter from my architect which addresses the stability of the bluff. Today you received the report from the, I believe it's Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation which had a positive response to the stability of the bluff and vegetation which I maintain pretty well in regard to having a pool or no pool. I just keep the bluff in pretty good shape because I felt it's important to me more than anyone else. I also realized that one of my neighbors has objected due to some concerns about the bluff. His house which is probably 40 feet forward of my house so he has some conCerns. Because of those concerns I have provided you with a new survey which I've turned the pool sideways in order to pull the pool back to minimize any concerns at all. At this point it puts the pool about 71 feet from the top of the bluff and i believe it's 46 feet from the coastal erosion line. So I pulled it pretty tightly to the house in order to avoid any of those particular issues. Additionally, my builder Mark Beckman has looked at Page 29 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals the bluff and feels it's also stable. There's also three sub-service range areas on the property. One, on the waterside and there's two on the landward side. In order to take care of any existing drainage and any future drainage issues, if there would be any. As;far as any other feasible locations, for the pool, there really aren't on the property. The typography doesn't work. There's a septic system. It would cause me to even try to squeeze into the front yard which is not esthetically pleasing at all. I would also put it anywhere else on the property too far to have any safety concerns that I would have, having a pool that would be not close to the house and not able to watch any of the children. I don't know what kind of questions you would have. I'm open to any. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a liner pool or a gunite? MR. GURNEY: Gunite. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only concern we have is the possibility of your adhering or the only two concerns is the possibility of your adhedng to Soil & Water Conservation's thoughts about hay bales during construction and the situation of the drywell thereby pumping any water into a drywell as opposed to pumping it on the lawn which was, which is certainly not a good idea if you were using chlorinated water and number 2, the possibility of any type of topside erosion which that may cause. I realize that your property actually starts at the top of the bluff and falls away a little bit gently toward the house which could also cause a flooding problem on the house. So I think that you might want to adhere to us some sought of a drywell and indicate that to us, you know, where you might want to put that. MR. GURNEY: Well there's two existing drywells on the landward side of the property. There's' an existing one on the waterside which will probably be removed while the digging is going which I will then move it so there is one and I will continue to have another one in order to take care of any of those issues. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you finish that and get a final survey will you send us a final survey indicating where that drywell is so we can make it as a composite? MR. GURNEY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: know where it is. So wherever you intend to move it but we'd like to MR. GURNEY: Sure. Page 30 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with Mr. Horning. Any questions of Mr. Gurney? MEMBER HORNING: What made you to decide to move it to be parallel to the house rather than rotate it? MR. GURNEY: Well a few reasons. Number 1, Soil & Water Conservation in some discussions with them, they had I don't want to say concern, but you know, they had some questions number 1 but more importantly, the DeGraffs, my neighbors who I try to keep you know, have a good relationship with all of my neighbors, had some concerns which I recently found out about, spoke to him to alleviate any of his concerns, I turned the pool in order to keep essentially everyone;happy. I would prefer it the other way, That's my preference, but you know, it's the Board's decision on which way it would go. I would prefer it the other way but i'm just trying to be a good neighbor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Is the location of the drywell on the left side? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We just discussed that. He hasn't figured out where he's going to put it but he's going to locate it somewhere in the area. MEMBER TORTORA: So what's the distance between the slate patio and the pool? MR. GURNEY: 13 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: Is'that the distance to the poOlbefore decking or just the walkway area to the pool? MR. GURNEY: That's the a, 13 feet including the decking to the end of the patio and then they're stairs that go down out to the rear of the house, and I didn't want it so tied to the house where it comes up the stairs and have the ability to just fall in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This decking is a slate or some sought of - MR. GURNEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's going to be on the ground? It going to be relatively ground level? Page 31 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. GURNEY: Oh, absolutely on grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On grade. MR. GURNEY: It's going to be on grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me Lydia, go ahead. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I was just curious about how the top of the bluff area is ( )? MR. GURNEY: You know, you can take any feet you want. Basically, you measure the longest point. The neighbors would, the shortest point. MEMBER TORTORA: That's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: The way I read this revised plan from the existing little a (what would you call ) small deck on the rear of the house to the end of the pool across the slate patio is the 13 feet and then you get to the pool. MR. GURNEY: Well that's consider the line of the house with the furthest point. MEMBER COLLINS: I just thought I'd add, you know, Mr. Horning asked you, why did you rotate the pool 90 degrees and I think apart from Soil & Water and your neighbors, that you probably would have divine from the air that this Board does see pools on the bluffs not infrequently and our goal always is to keep them as far back from the bluff as possible and it almost always means, that the pool is rotated. MR. GURNEY: Well, I could just make it half the size. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But then you'd have the decision of which would be the deep and which would be the shallow? MR. GURNEY: The short walk to the deep end. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. Page 32 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings B6ard of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. MR. GURNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 33 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts'of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:45 P.M. -Appl. No. 4805 -WILLIAM MOLLER Applicant is requesting a Variance under Article Ill-A, Section 100-30A. 3 based upon an application for a Buildin¢ Permit to construct an addition as stated in the Building Department's February 11, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. The proposed addition is less than 50 feet from a front property line near Old Cove Road. Location of Property: 2530 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, N.Y.; Parcel No. 1000- 111-5-3. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you tonight Sir?. MR. STRANG: Very good thank you and yourselves? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. Could you just state your name for the record. MR. STRANG: Yes, Gary Strang., architect representing the Moilers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us about this project? MR. STRANG: Very simply, what we have here is an existing residence. My clients intention was to put the 13 foot addition on the house which would encompass a second garage bay on the lower level immediately adjacent to the existing garage bay and on the main level of the house it would be used as a family room or a sought of summer space adding the addition to the kitchen dining room. In making application to this, it became evident that the area that the property line to the south of this proposed addition is on the map as a road although it's not been improved to travel as such. It's called an extension to the old Cove Road. It's similar to many of the, for lack of a better term, paper roads~ that exist throughout the town especially in Nassau Point area, and in fact in my opinion, it really would serve no purpose to be improved as a road since it's bisected by the two adjoining properties. My client is on one side and their neighbors immediately to the south the property line comes down in the middle of the road. It's also the typography if when you look at the survey is such, that it's sought of a gull and acts as a natural drainage facility between the properties, so. It doesn't lend itself to be traveled but by definition of the Town Code, it's a road and therefore, it dictates that the yard in which we want to put this addition is a front yard and we are less than the required distance of 50 feet · to the property line. We really have no other option as to add or place this structure. It's the only side of the house we're it could go practically and make sense and if in fact, this paper road were not deemed to be by definition a road, it would essentially be a side yard and as a side yard it would be beyond the required setback, because that would be 75 feet and we're 30 feet from the Page 34 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals property line. So we're asking the Board to vote favorably upon the application to the reduction and the required by definition the front yard setback. If you have any questions I'd be happy to entertain them at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't have any questions. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, a little bit about this Old Cove Road. When I went there, what I saw I guess was these folks' ddve, and then what appeared to be a beat up but hard topped path. There were trucks in there of some sought. A tradesman truck and somebody's car and because it didn't look like you could turn around, I decided not to venture down this path. What I'm really getting at is what paths here serve whom, and I'm looking at the tax map. There are properties that face on Vanston Road and I assume they get their access off of Vanston Road, and there's your client's property which is this long thin piece of land with the so-called right-of-way, running on its southerly side. MR. STRANG: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And then there's a property to the south of the right-of-way that's on the water, it is also I assume served by this right, that's how you get to that house. MR. STRANG: Those are the two properties only that are served by this Old Cove Road. MEMBER COLLINS: Well that's really what I was getting at, because being unable to get down, being hesitant to go down in there, because it looked like a bit of traffic mess. I didn't go walk around. MR. STRANG: It's essentially for all intensive purposes, it's a private driveway from which the two parcels that we're talking about here have access to their individual driveways. MEMBER COLLINS: Access to their individual driveways, yes, OK, you can see that on this survey of the property, that the Molleds driveway takes off from the right-of-way a bit in from the paved Vanston. MR. STRANG: From Vanston, that's correct. Page 35 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: And I presume that's also true from the abutting property owner? MR. STRANG: Similar to the east of the southerly property it peers off to the left on to their property. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just, the road is a filed road with the county, ( ) right- of-way and it's not a paper road. It's a real road. It don't look it, but it's a real road. ' . MR. STRANG: I think at the time the subdivision was done, that may have been I guess put in for some reason or another, but obviously it's never been improved over the years, nor could it be because of the - MEMBER TORTORA: It's a fire access to the two parcels. The one to the south of your client's property and - MR. STRANG: Fire access to those two lots. In the area where - MEMBER TORTORA: It doesn't affect the request for the variance really one way or another. MR. STRANG: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: throughout the hearing. We thank you Sir. We'll see what develops MR. STRANG: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would ~lJke to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Seconds. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 36 - May 4. 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:51 P.M. - Appl. No. 4810 - JOEL BRAVERMAN Applicant is requesting a Special Exception to establish an access:ow apartment use in conjunction with owner's residence as provided by Article Ill, Section 100- 31B(13). Location of Property; 5700 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, Parcel No. 1000- 101-2-18.4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the nature of an accessory apartment in Mr. Braverman's house. Good evening Sir, how are you? MR. BRAVERMAN: Good, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell Braverman, right? us. This is Mr. MR. BRAVERMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, what would you like to tell us Sir? Do you have any statements you'd like to make to the Board regarding this accessory apartment and so on and so forth? MR. BRAVERMAN: No. As far as I can tell it can be done. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. What part of the house are you actually going to utilize? MR. BRAVERMAN: The upper part. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so the apartment? upper part will be the accessory MR. BRAVERMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the lower part will be your living area. MR. BRAVERMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. How many square feet would you say the upper area is Sir?. Just an estimate. MR. BRAVERMAN: An estimate of 450. Page 37 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. And you know you'll have to go to the Building Department if the Board so grants this and you'll have to work out whatever access they want to be worked out, You know, meaning up and down, in and out, whatever the case might be. MR. BRAVERMAN: Yes I know. I can put a doorway straight up from the staircase without doing any alterations to the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: AIright, great. Mr. Homing, any questions of Mr. Braverman? MEMBER HORNING: No Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: When was the house built? MR. BRAVERMAN: As far as I can tell probably 1930. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. I had some concern when I read the file as to whether the house met the minimum square footage that the code requires for putting in an accessory apartment. MR. BRAVERMAN: We had gone to the Town ( ) before we came here. MEMBER COLLINS: And they- MR. BRAVERMAN: And they said that it did. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I was going to say I guess - MR. BRAVERMAN: It would be foolish to come here first and then MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. You;Put in two different parking plans. Have you - MR. BRAVERMAN: That would be the ( ) one, that's not, except for grading. MEMBER COLLINS: They're equally - Page 38 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. BRAVERMAN: Usable. MEMBER COLLINS: Usable from your point of view? MR. BRAVERMAN: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. MR. BRAVERMAN: There's plenty of property and there's plenty of area for turning around. MEMBER COLLINS: OK,. thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. DiniZio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I have the square footage about 1150 sq. ft. downstairs and 480 sq. ft. upstairs. So you have plenty of room there. It looks to me like your needs are over qualifications for accessory apartment that if you go by the list. That's the only comment I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. We thank you Sir. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing and we should have a decision for you shortly. It may not be tonight. We have rather a lengthy situation going on here. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 39 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts ~f Hearings Board of Appeals 7:54 P.M. - Appl. No. 4811 - CLIFFORD CORNELL A Variance is requested under Article IliA, Section 100-30A.4, and Article XXIII, Section 100-230F, based upon the February 3, 2000 Notice of Disapproval regarding a Building Permit application to locate a proposed garage as an accessory in the side yard. Location of Property: Right-of-way north of North Bayview Road (tot he east of Reydon Drive), Southold, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-79-5- 20.8 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Fitzgerald how are you Sir? We haven't seen you in a little while. MR. FITZGERALD: Fine. The Cornells who are here with us tonight had settled on the concept of this house design before they purchased the property. They selected it because of the inclusion of the porte-cochere which I will say over and over again instead of using the word breezeway, in the design, and they feel that the house is including the porte-cochere is perfectly suited to the property and to the neighborhood. Historically, the porte-cochere does not always connect a house and a garage but at times in the long distance path connect it to the areas of running space within a structure and it was used to gain entrance to the house through their courtyard and so it's a legitimate architectural feature. The intent of the Zoning Regulation is apparently to prevent accessory structures from being considered part of the residence or the main building for whatever reason. Through artificially connecting them by means of a breezeway exceeding the limitation set forth in the regulation the breezeway first made their appearance. I'm recollecting up in the framework of four by fours and two by fours with corrugated plastic grooves and the purpose was from these people to get from the garage to the house from without getting wet in the rain. ': I have the feeling that we ended up with this regulation because people were using it to technically join an accessory structure with the main structure for the purpose of using the accessory structure for something that it was not intended for originally such as a living space, garage space. In this case, I think the Building Department is in error in considering the structure made up with a breezeway and a separate garage. It's a single structure, the design includes a porte-cochere to allow access to the rear facing garage and the parking area. Esthetically much more attractive and desirable and the same house would be either with a forward facing intricately attached garage or it could be attached garage in the rear yard. The house comes on we're discussing doesn't possess any of the undesirable features that may prompt the writing of the regulation, knowing the size of the breezeway. It could especially approve the porte- cochere, making it a pleasing valuable addition to the neighborhood. The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted is that they'd be able to construct as attractive, professionally well designed house as he and his family Page 40 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals have planned. If the variance is granted, it would certainly not result to the detriment of the health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood or the community. I provided with the application a printout of a picture of the house which came:from the web site of the architectural firm who designed it and it actually was built a number of times, there's a picture there, the so-called the firm so-called Centennial House and 1996 when (). Any of you can see that it doesn't look like two separate structures and ! think another feature is a fact that it's of importance that you see the property is more than two acres and it's in an R-40 Zone, meaning that there's plenty of room there for the house and the setbacks both the side yard where the garage and the building is, which is 70 feet, the setback, and the rear yard setback is 105 feet. So there's as a matter of fact, the setbacks are more then those that could be required in a R-80 Zone. So I think that the idea is, we're not trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Building Department or the Zoning Board. It's a legitimate architectural design and it looks nice and the Cornells would really like to be able build this the way the architect designed it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the garage is a garage? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no questions. Mr. Dinizio any questions of Mr. Fitzgerald? MEMBER DINIZIO: Just a big word, porte-cochere. All I can say is that to me it's beyond the setbacks you know, within the setbacks, certainly you should consider that as part of the primary structure, leave well enough alone. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: The a footprint plan that you submitted shows the porte- cochere as 14 feet wide from the house to the garage. Where are the entrances? Where are the cars go into the garage? Out at the end? MR. FITZGERALD: The garage doors? MEMBER COLLINS: Where are the garage doors? MR. FITZGERALD: They're in the rear. MEMBER COLLINS: In the rear. So you drive through the porte-cochere? Page 41 - May 4, 2000 rTranscripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Make a U turn in the parking area and go under? MR. FITZGERALD: Really, it's going to be used for what it was designed for. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. Sure, it's where the coach and ( ) pulled up and the folks got out and walked in the house. There are houses in Greenport that have them. Thank you. That was all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I just saw the photographs. It's magnificent. I just have one question. It's very beautiful. It really is. It's elegant and whatever that thing is called. What is, if you do you have the information, just the distance to the side yard? MR. FITZGERALD: From the garage? MEMBER TORTORA: The distance to the side yard from the garage? MR. FITZGERALD: 70 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: 70 feet. Is that from the corner to the property line? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes from the corner. That kind of points at that property line. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, I just want to make sure we're talking about the:same place. So it's 50 feet to here and it would be 70. 70 from here to here? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: in favor of this application? Seeing no later. Mr. Horning any questions? We thank you. Is there anybody else like to speak Anybody like to speak against the application? hands i11 make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until Page 43 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings: Board of Appeals 7:58 P.M. - Appl. No. 4819 - J. WOLF This is a request for a Variance under Article II!, Section 100-32 (100-30A. 3)for the rear yard setback of an "as built" foundation on Lot 11 at Sunny Shores, East Cutchgue at less than 50 ft. on this 20,1000 sq. ft. parcel. Location of Property: Corner of Wilson Road and Beebe Drive, Cutchgue, N.Y.; 1000-103-4-46 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. How are you? MR. McGahan: Fine, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you state your name for the record. MR. McGAHAN: Doug McGahan. i'm the contractor, i'm speaking on behalf of the Wolfs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We saw a pile of wood there. foundation. Tell us what happened. We saw a MR. McGAHAN: About a month ago when we started construction I told my surveyor to stake them off to the house with the plans that were approved by the department, the Building Department. The surveyor called me from the lot and said that this lot has already been staked and that was quite a surprise to me and I went down and sure enough it was staked so I sent the surveyors home and I called the owners of the property and said, have you done anything about, you know, had the place staked and they said they went ahead and already had it staked. So I said OK, that's fine. I didn't bother checking it. I assumed it was right. It looked about right to me. After the foundation was in, the surveyor came back and did a final survey and he came back 44 feet 9 inches which is 5 feet 3 inches shy of the 50 feet requirement. If the surveyor was unaware of it, he's not a local surveyor and he was under the assumption a lot that size 35 feet was the setback requirement. But it's 100 sq. ft. over the requirement of the 50 feet from the rear yard. However, the rest of the houses in the neighborhood have about the same size lots and the houses are positioned roughly about in the same situation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically this was an error made by the applicant and not by you as the contractor. ~ MR. McGAHAN: This is an error made by first of all the surveyor not knowing the proper requirements and me, for not checking it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning, any questions of Mr. McGahan. Page 44 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts. of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I think this is the second one we've had in a couple of months where there was an error made between the plans submitted to the Building Department and what has been approved. First verbally it's OK and then, what is actually being done. These are very difficult situations because in your case it's the surveyor's error, in someone else's case, it's the builder's error, and someone else's case it's always there. (inaudible). MR. McGAHAN: Yeah, but it can't rest.-on my shoulders, the bottom line. The house itself as pictured, the foundation there's a wrap-around porch going around the sides of Beebe Drive and Wilson Road. It's not shown on the survey because it's not concrete in the ground but it does extend the house 8 feet further towards those two roads that does center the house more in the lot. Here are those pictures of the survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything else? Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I guess so, just a gratuitous comment I think that those wrap-around porches which don't show on the foundation Sir, because there is no concrete, in fact, increase the size of the house and reduced the setbacks and probably make the front yard setbacks non-conforming. But that's just a gratuitous comment. I just want to mention for the record, that I went to the Building Department and looked at the Building Permit file for this project and in the file is an original survey on blue paper, that is the same as the one in our ill:es showing the Health Department~approvals, and on that survey the setback in question, the one at the rear is shown as 43 feet plus or minus and it was circled by someone in the Building Department with a little note put in minimum 50 feet required. So, I think that the applicant or whoever was you know actually doing this work, knew the 50 feet was required. The point is that somebody dropped the ball. MR. McGAHAN: That was me. I didn't get the permit but the owner got it and believe it or not, it was just a, yeah, I dropped the ball. I should have checked it and make sure that it was 50 feet. I thought the requirement was 35 feet. i was unaware of it until I wrote to the surveyor that it was 100 sq. ft. over the limit. MEMBER COLLINS: Well that's a sympathetic point to your case that were the lot 100 sq. ft. smaller, the setback requirements would be commensurably smaller. Page 45 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. McGAHAN: We are at 44 feet which is a considerable difference over 35 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just wanted to make that comment in the record so that we had it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you Mr. McGahan. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Hope to have a decision for you in. the near future but don't leave until the hearing is over. MR. McGAHAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody like to speak? We're still in the in favor situation. (Changed tape) Anybody want to speak against? Sir, could you state your name for the record. MR. SANEAFIANOS: My name is Saneafianos. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, how do you spell that Sir, the last name? MR. SANEAFIANOS: Saneafianos. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, what would you like to tell us? , MR. SANEAFIANOS: Well first of all he's got the door to the basement. It's very close to my property. He's suppose to be 35 feet away from my property. Now he showed 18 feet to my property. And he's by my window. I can see, but he's going to build the house. It's too close to my house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's not the nature of this hearing though. MR. SANEAFIANOS: Pardon me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're dealing with a rear yard setback. dealing with the back of the house. MEMBER COLLINS: Ask him where he lives. Page 46 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. SANEAFIANOS: It's the side of the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're not, that's not, you're welcomed to voice your epinion, but that's not a part of this application. I assume standing in front of the houSe he lives to the left. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I think he lives here. Are you lot 22 or lot 127 MR. SANEAFIANOS: Pardon me. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Are you lot 22 or lot 127 Your lot? MEMBER COLLINS: What street does he live at? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What street are you on? MR. SANEAFIANOS: Beebe Drive. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Beebe Drive. He's dght next to it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Lot 12. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Standing on the left, left of the house, standing in front of the house. MR. McGAHAN: Yes, 37.3 on the tax map. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, go ahead I'm listening Sir. MR. SANEAFIANOS: Well like I say, the difference in the basement, the door is too close to my property. He's suppose to be 35 feet away from my property. I measure the space it's 18 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 18 feet 5 inches. MR. SANEAFIANOS: 18 feet, 18 feet I measured. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 5 inches. MR. SANEAFIANOS: So he's going to put his water pump right next to my water pump. It's suppose to be 15 feet away from my water pump. I don't like it. It's too close. Page 47 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not trying to be curt or sarcastic to you but it's not the nature of this hearing. MR. McGAHAN: Could I ask the Board for a minute? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, let's come to the realization. First, Mrs. Tortora has a question. You can just hold on one minute. MEMBER TORTORA: Has the Building Department reviewed the new plan that shows the distance at 44 feet? MR. McGAHAN: Yes. 44 foot 9 inches; that's the final survey. MEMBER TORTORA: And the surveyor reviewed this plan? MR. McGAHAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, the only nature of the application is before us, is for the rear yard which is 44' 9" to 50 feet? MR. McGAHAN: Correct. The side yard setbacks are 15 feet. MEMBER COLLINS: This is addressed to the neighbor. Sir, these folks are here because the rear setback from the back of the house to the property on Wilson Drive is less than is required. The setback on your side is within the law. You mentioned 25 feet by that's not actually the requirement. The requirement is at least 15. They have only one side yard in this house and it's the one on your side because they got two front yards and their setback meets the law, they therefore are not in any problems with the Building Department and that issue is not before us and I realize it probably bothers you but it's not anything we're hearing. Sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. I apologize, I'm sorry. You want to say something? MR. McGAHAN: Yes just one other thing. With the covered porch it's on either side of the road or facing the road, it still falls within the limits of the town 40 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What are the side yard requirements? MR. McGAHAN: 15 feet on the side yards. Page 48 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: 15 minimum. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. McGAHAN: Right. Minimum? MEMBER COLLINS; 40 front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. McGAHAN: The Suffolk County Board of Health approved the well and location that was picked near the neighbors. It's yet to be determined whether it will be hooked up to County Water which is being run down the road right now, or the well because it's up to the owner. We haven't determined that yet_ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you Sir. Is there anybody else would like to speak? Sir?. State your name for the record please. MR. HEARN: John W. Hearn. I live at lot 22 and it's the setback from the rear is on my property. I'm not very well versed in these circumstances but about variances they got approval to put a septic tank within 45 feet of my well. I was given, invited to come and say something about us when health problems precluded. I was going to Riverhead to voice my objection. Now this comes up. It is not a big difference, 5 feet or whatever it is. It's not a big thing. I just wonder where does this end with getting variances? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hopefully at this point. But my concern to you is that you should contact the Health Department if you are concerned with that aspect of it because you could either do it by telephone, you can,do it by fax, or, you can do it by writing. And now is the time to do it before the systems go in. MR. HEARN: I have investigated that and am in the process of doing so. Thank you very much. No, as far as the actual distance on the ( ) it is not that great of concern. As you said, it's not your problem today but I'm more concerned about the septic tank being practically on top of my well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I agree with you. I couldn't agree with you more. MR. HEARN: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. speak? Sir? OK, anybody else would like to Page 49 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. JOHN I had a very in-depth ecological study on the soil ground affected. The county changed the location of my septic system to actually be closer toward his well but at a different point where it would flow away down toward the (). Like I said, I had it different arid the county approved it to be the way they designed it and it was really out of my hands. It was up to the County Board of Health to determine what location it would be in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But if it affected his well and they changed it that way, I think the county would then have to remediate the situation if it had an affect upon his well would they not? MR. : Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I mean I would really like to just bring that to the record because this gentleman gratuitously came in here and I think that's a good point. MR. McGAHAN: Certainly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else regarding this hearing. Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 50 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 8:15 P.M. - Appl. No. 4812 - DIANE SMITH & GEORGE ALEC This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIli, Section 1000-239 based upon the Building InspectoCs March 22, 2000 Notice of Disapproval which states that the lots proposed in his two lot subdivision are less than 80,000 sq. ft. when the land under water is subtracted. The lots proposed are 73,677 sq. ft. and 79,302+- sq. ft. each when the land underwater is subtracted. Location of Property: 22445 Main Road, Cutchogue, N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcel 1000- 109-1-7. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cardinale, how are you tonight? We haven't seen you in a little while either. How have you been? MR. CARDINALE: Nice to see you. I'm well thank you. Philip J. Cardinale, Esq. I'm here on behalf of George & Diane who are right in front of me and I want to hand out the Affidavit of Posting, and the receipts for the mailings. Diane is George's daughter and with her husband will be building on the second lot if created. It occurred to me as I looked at this file and it probably occurred to you that if the surveyor had gone out other than in the springtime we might not be required to have the hearing since the issue is, that the ponds on the prop, although the property itself is over 170,000 sq. ft., the ponds are about 12,000 sq. ft. as they were measured at the time the property was surveyed so that the lots that would be created by the application would be 73,677 sq. ft. and 79,302 sq. ft.. If you grant this as you do the balancing test in regard to the significant benefit to the applicant as opposed to the detriment if anything to the community. Obviously you're going to consider the size of the lots are substantial at 79,302 and 73,677 excluding the 12,138 sq. ft. encompassing the pond area. The lot sizes are actually larger than some of the lots, two of the lots directly to the west, one of which is 140 x 200 and one of which is something less than on the other side of the cross entrance is something less than two acres. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method other than this to pursue. The existing parcel actually has 170,531 sq. ft. When you take out the 12,138 which is the pond, you see the problem. One of the options might have been to resurvey it at the right time but they chose this option. The amount that they've requested is not substantial because excluding the pond area, one of the lots is .99275 of the 80,000 required and the other is .9209 of the area required. The variance requested will not have an adverse impact on the physical environmental condition of the neighborhood because the variance is in fact s° minimal and the land area including the ponds is so significant so that the lots actually will be larger than 80,000 sq. ft., inclusive of the ponds. Obviously the difficulty was not self-created and it is the minimal that is necessary and adequate to preserve the character of the neighborhood and the health and safety of the community. I should note there also that the neighbors, I guess Page 51 - May 4, 2000 ;.Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals the Crosses, the Pellegrinies and of course cousin Ray Alec who is a small lot directly adjacent have all indicated no objection and are in support of this. I think that's all I can say at this point unless you have questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any significance in reference to volume of water at the end of the summer. I mean, would this pond drop to a, to a mere little puddle or a - MR. CARDINALE: I asked that question of George - MR. ALEC: It drys up sometimes. MR. CARDINALE: Why don't you. I'll summarize what you told me outside and you tell me if I'm correct. He indicates yes, that it does dry up in dry weather. It's a fresh water not tide water and so it does dry up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We'll start with Mr. Horning. Any questions of Mr. Cardinale? MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Was this property ever setoff from a bigger property or has this just been the property in the family? : MR. CARDINALE: As I understand it, this was a farm at one point. This was a 48 acre farm at one point and I believe that this parcel was the homestead parcel. Is that correct? MR. ALEC: What was that? MR. CARDINALE: This parcel was what you retained? MR. ALEC: Yeah. MEMBER COLLINS: So they kept this parcel and the rest, it's not really as much as setoff as the rest was sold? Page 52 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. CARDINALE: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. MR. CARDINALE: This is the only parcel remaining in the family. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, can you slowly give me the square footage of each lot? MR. CARDINALE: Sure. The square footage of lot I is, 73,677, 6,323 of which is a pond - MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, no, no, no. MEMBER DINIZlO: MR. CARDINALE: MEMBER DINIZlO: MR. CARDINALE: pond is, 80,000 less the pond acreage of 6,323. of dry land as measured was 73,677. MEMBER DINIZlO: OK. He's got that wrong. Say it again. OK, the area, the total area in lot 1,80,000 sq. ft. Right. And the area as I'm reading from the survey, the area without So the total area without pond, MR. CARDINALE: The next one, lot 2 total area as indicated is, 85,117 sq. ft. and there's 5,815 of pond, so you have 79,302 square footage remaining. Apparently also, he took out from either lot. It appears it's not included in either lot, the 25 foot right-of-way and that's 5,414 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Out of lot #2? MR. CARDINALE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Only? MR. CARDINALE: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, does that answer your question Jim? Page 53 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: TFie right-of-wa~::i~iS how you get from the road to lot 1, right? ~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. CARDINALE: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because of the pond you couldn't get to it the other way. Alright, we'll see what develops. We thank you for the presentation. MR. CARDINALE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a pleasure seeing you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 54 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts o~ Hearings Board of Appeals 8:22 P.M. - Appl. No. 4813 - A & S SOUTHOLD CORP. (and E.M. & T. Inc.) Variances are requested under Article XXlV, Section 100-242A and Article X, Section 100-101C(1) to locate a?:?canopy structure over gasoline pumps in the front yard area, and to construct an addition to the existing building, both with insufficient setbacks from front property lines. This variance is based upon an application for a Building Permit, which was disapproved on March 6, 2000. Location of Property: 49670 Main Road, Southold, N.Yo; Parcel 1000-70-7-4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Strang you're back again. How are you? MR. STRANG: Very good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us about this site? GARRETT STRANG: Essentially what we have here is, another one of those unique parcels in Southold Town that's triangular in shape and it sprouted a gas station many years ago. The difficulty obviously is the fact that we wind up with all front yards and at this point my client's intention is to as is the typical case these days is to develop two things on the site. One is to convert the previously used service bays into convenience store, and secondly is to put a canopy over the pumps and the application before you at the present time deals with the fact that in order to put the canopy over the pumps, we're going to need relief for front yard setbacks since the canopy basically can fall out pretty much right on the property line and very close there too. There's a second aspect to the application and that is my client is asking for relief from the what would be considered I'm not sure in this case, if it's a rear yard or a side yard since we have the other two as front yards, but relief for a 5 foot addition toward the rear .~of the building to serve as the walkingS'cooler box behind what would be the~:', convenience store. So you know, we're asking the Board to entertain here is those two levels of relief. The canopy obviously provides shelter over the pumps as well as better fire suppression systems in today's state of the art equipment that is available. But there's no way to really shrink the canopy. Make it neat, Setback requirements obviously due to the nature of the property. And we feel that it would be an improvement to the site to have a canopy as well an improvement for fire safety and that we'd be able to do a better job with lighting with lighting the pump areas from the, down-lighting strictly from the canopy above. Asfar as the addition toward the rear of the building for the convenience store use for the walk-in cooler, the area is basically going to be fenced in anyway. It's unoccupied area and it does not, in my opinion anyway, I don't believe that it represents a major problem but the Board may have a different opinion on that. I mean you're welcome to discuss it maybe. Page 55 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Has there been any change in the pump island themselves from the prior owner to this owner? MR. STRANG: To the best of my knowledge the pump islands remain as'they were brought up. The pumps were changed, the islands are in the same location as they were so it's not as if there's been any changes, there's been new tanks put in. But the owner of the property said when they did this, they upgrade for the tank, they put in a new pump themselves. The islands stayed exactly where they were. I reviewed a prior survey plus the current and really it seems basically to be the same location. MR. ILGIN was present and nodded in agreement with Mr. Strang. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any particular reason why the canopy has to extend to that extent? MR. STRANG: Well we're basically going a car's lengths, there are an isle which is about 10 feet from the face of the pump island itself out is the line of the canopy that you normally practice. So that when there's a car, they don't poke a curve at the pump, they're usually a few feet away from the pump so that there is adequate coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So if I was to go down there and take a 10 foot mark from the outside of the pump island itself, that would be the end of the canopy? MR. STRANG: That's the edge of the canopy, correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would Mr. Ilgin object'to my :putting:.: a spray painted spot on that so that everybody could look at that part of it, just in some color? MR. ILGIN: Why can't - (inaudible). I believe that is concrete now. The size of the pump - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you think it's right to the end of that concrete? OK, that makes it great. MR. STRANG: Yeah, that should be pretty much be the edge of the a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't want to go down there and do any- we're just trying to figure out the exact location. The other question is, in all situations that affect lighting, this has been a new determination from the Town Attorney's Page 56 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals office - and as you know we've had some significant lighting problems with other people's canopies in town. i don't want to single anybody out but i just, we're going to put a, I'm going to put a caveat on that, that the Board is going to rese~e.:;the right to look at the lighting after the lighting is done and I hope the Board goes along with that aspect but I do have approval from the Town Attorney to do that. And that is of concern to us, alright. I certainly know this applicant. I know him personally and I know that the station in Mattituck is not overlighted because I do frequent with that station. But, you know, we're talking about himself and subsequent owners and whatever the case might be. At that light I'll just go on to Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: I see they have curves on here also. Is that right, Gary? They come odds-;even what another 5 feet or so? '~.~ MR. STRANG: Well what we've done actually is we have a double application going here before the Planning Board, the site plan review for the convenience store aspect for the project and they are requiring that there be at the least curbing shown or curbing installed along the main road which definitively gives curb cuts and likewise along part of the Main Bayview Road as well so that there's a little more traffic control there. So we are installing curbing and it's on the Main Bayview Road. It starts at the property line and goes out to the edge of the pavement. And similarly on the main road side because the rest of the property, the majority of the property obviously is paved and we do need certain circulation if we want curbing in more of the property line as would normally be the case if you had a typically sized and configured lot, you'd be able to do that and still pull traffic through. But if we do that we'll have traffic conflicts disposing all the vehicles, both automobiles and delivery trucks. MEMBER DINIZIO: That looks like an additional 10 feet orso to the edge of the curb and I mean - MR. STRANG: From the property line? MEMBER DINIZIO: From the edge of the canopy to the actual curb. It looks like it's going to be another 10 feet or so. MR. STRANG: On the main road side? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, actually on both sides, you're just going to put dirt on the other side. MR. STRANG: Well yes, that's approximately right. It varies a little bit but it's in that vicinity, yes. Page 57 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. It's not going to be right on the road, actually? MR. STRANG: Oh, no. No, it's and again, I think that the reference point that was made earlier is that if you go to the site and look where the concrete apron is that's there now, that's basically where the canopy is going to be hooked up. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thanks. One more thing. There's an oil fuel tank in the back of the building? MR. STRANG: That's correct. MEMBER DINIZlO: Is that the heating tank or is that some kind of storage or - MR. STRANG: That will be the fuel oil for the heating plant in the building. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's just a tank like a - MR. STRANG: It's 275 gallon - MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not you know oil change kind of thing? MR. STRANG: No, no, no, no. It's domestic oil. It's a double container tank that the county has. It's in their generic program of an approved tank and it's strictly for the heating plant to heat the building. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right and it's, it says here, that exists already? MR. STRANG: There is, but~it will:-be upgraded. MEMBER DINIZIO: Upgraded to - MR. STRANG: Upgraded to code standards, correct. MEMBER DINIZlO: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? Page 58 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just wondered is he had a similar application before and it's already gone to the New York State Department of Transportation? MR. STRANG: This site plan on this application is being forwarded to the DOT. We are waiting for a comment with respect to curb placement and curb cut location. MEMBER TORTORA: You don't have any idea when this is? MR. STRANG: I was hopeful I'd have it already because its been in the hands for about five weeks, six weeks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you doing with the Planning BOard on this? MR. STRANG: They're awaiting feedback from- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: From them. MR. STRANG: They have looked at this. We did a presubmission conference with them. They were somewhat I'll say ( ) for lack of a better word at the moment, the configuration we had was subject to review by the State DOT and obviously they'll go back to them for their final comments and to finalize the site plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we haven't gotten any feedback from them, and I assume that's probably the reason why we haven't. As you know, the typical situation is that we're probably going to hold it in abeyance for a short period of time. MR. STRANG: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just so you're aware of that situation. But I am you know, I'm happy about the whole site plan aspect because it looks like you're moving in a positive direction with them. MR. STRANG: Well it's a, i think it meets all the criteria and it's the best with Obviously solving a major issue there with traffic every which way, 'Mr. Irving is helping us with that just as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. Page 59 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts:of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. Thank you Mr. Strang. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. MR. STRANG: Is there anything I, one question while I have the Board's attention. Is there anything that I need do with the Planning Board because I was under the impression that they would be in communication with you with respect to this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, just ask them why they haven't I guess. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well they said Monday is their hearing and that they'll send something after Monday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, OK, great. MR. STRANG: This has been before them for quite sometime also. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. So then we'll just wait until midweek and if we don't get anything then we'll - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We'll have something by the 10th I'm sure and the 10th is our next meeting, so. MR. STRANG: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Sir, in the back. Just a minute, ma'am;.we'll be right with you. MR. TRUNCE: My name is Victor Trunce and I represent my mother who lives across the road from the property. I've reviewed the application that's before the Board of Appeals and the reason that they have stated there was for the fire protection. That already exists on the site without a canopy, and, you know, my objection is the canopy of course is a visual standpoint. It's, you know, basically it fills that entire section and from our property being at the elevation basically it will be more than present on the site from the property. I wanted to clarify a point that Mr. Strang made that when they redid the islands there, though nothing was changed with location, the lighting was changed and there is, there's always I mean throughout the stations (inaudible) some years, there's always been lights all over the place. It was remarkably more lights than - and that has changed, and given the situation that we read Page 60 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts :of::';Hearings Board of Appeals about Cluster Institute you know, maintaining the dark skies, I think that that's you know I'm glad to hear the Board address that because that certainly impacts the whole neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to be honest with you. I just want to mention to you that I think it's a better aspect of having the lighting focus down than it is having the lighting focused over or straight or whatever. MR. TRUNCE: No, I understand that they can put bumpers on it. That doesn't change my objections. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: i understand that but I'm just saying that i think that's one-plus factor in that aspect of it. I den't know how the Board feels about it. That's one of the reasons why we never vote off the floor because we don't know how anybody feels about these applications. We deliberate and then we vote. MR. TRUNCE: I can't help thinking that the reason for the canopy is that there's another reason which would be moving the station more towards self-service. And I (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no knowledge of it. MR, TRUNCE: Yeah, it's just in my own thinking about it. I guess that seems logical that they would; why would they do this if the fire prevention was already there. No, there, of course we live near that service station it's a you know, there are noises associated with that, they were confined to daylight hours, you know, this addition with the walk-in means compressors operating 24 hours a day. ~iln the 'summer with windows open and so on. You know there are objections about the use but I understand the values of permitted use in that area - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And not necessarily before us. MR. TRUNCE: Oh, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, but that's one issue but the issue of course was the trade-off between that and the actual gasoline repair aspect of the station. MR. TRUNCE: Right, right. But again being that that's daylight hours and this is daylight operation. And I understand that some of this is before the Planning Page 61 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts ~f Hearings Board of Appeals Board and the issues about landscaping and the traffic thing is all outside this and so I wanted to skip it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any. b~y else? You want to answer this question? MR. STRANG: Yes, may I just? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely this nice lady is going to get up anyway and stand so go ahead. MR. STRANG: Just quickly I appreciate the points that were made by the neighbor and a couple of things with respect to the point he made on fire safety. Yes, there is a fire suppression system there which is mandated by law but it's strictly to it pumps itself whereas when you have the canopy you have a much more sophisticated and better system to protect the entire area underneath the canopy. So, that is definitely an enhancement and improvement to have better and superior and more state of the art fire suppression equipment available in the canopy. As far as visual goes, yes of course the canopy does pose the you know the visual impediment but for the most part it's above the average line of sight. You really have to look up to see the canopy in most cases because it's over your normal line of sight. So you'd be looking right past it. So, it's not as if it's you're building walls and everything. I mean this is suspended obviously above ground. So, although once again I don't want to negate or take away any substance to his concern. It is something new that hasn't been there before but I don't know that it's going to have as much a visual impact as he may feel and lastly just to address the issue of noise. Again, as a service station which it once functioned as, I'm sure there was a tremendous amount of noise that was generated by the ongoing vehicles moving in and out of the service station as welt.'as what was going on in the service bay with their ratchets and things of that nature, so I think it's going to be less of a noise issue in my opinion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes ma'am? Would you state your name for the record please. CHARLOTTE LADEMANN: charlotte Lademann. I'm here with my mother Charlotte Smith. She lives directly across the street and she's lived there over 60 years and when they had originally sold that piece of property. She owned :that':whole section.,. She signed a release saying they would not, my mother doesn't object to a gas station. They figured this little mom and pop gas station. They didn't expect anything like this. But they did agree to it if they had a large shrubbery to hide it. You know, from their front porch because they have a porch in the front. Their only bedroom is in front of the house. The other one is Page 62 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals in the back, and there isn't a tree that I know of today that would hide a canopy of that size. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MRS. LADEMANN: And they all have to look at it. And they're worried about protecting it from gasoline. What about the poor people that have to sleep with bright lights and with the service of a mini mart going in the back. You know what that's going to be? Cars, cars, cars, cars in and out all evening long, all night long if they stay open at night, which some of them do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to say this. I don't mean to, that's not an issue that's germane to this particular hearing at this time. I just want you to be aware of that. The canopy is but the service station, the convenience store is not. That's a Planning Board issue. MRS. LADEMANN: Other than actually for people creeping in and out of the rain, what do you need a canopy for? Is it actually needed for pumping gas? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well let's ask the architect that. MRS. LADEMANN: They've been selling gas there for many years. Why all of a sudden they need this big monstrous canopy? That people who've lived there all their lives have to look at. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Strang I have to tell you, that I sat on this Board for 20 years, OK? We had had person come in with 40 pictures of gas stations. We looked through every one of them throughout a hearing and you are the first person that :told me the-'reason for a canopy an ;,additional suppression system because we knew the suppression system could exist without the canopy, OK? MR. STRANG: Nodded. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But now you're telling. Does that lessen the impact of the applicant's fire insurance, or, what does it do for the applicant? MR. STRANG: Well I'm not sure about fire insurance. MR. ILGIN: (The fire special system won't just hit the pumps. It comes off the (). If you put the canopy up, you're going to have more grOund ( ) also that the whole fire suppression system (). Page 63 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. LADEMANN: If the gas station is that dangerous, I mean why do they allow it? They never had these canopies - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They're pre-existing. I mean t~ canopy itself or the gas station. MRS. LADEMANN: I mean they had gas stations for many, many, many years. Now why all of a sudden they need the canopies with all these big lights and everything? I mean it's not going to stop anybody from buying gas. Do you stop? Would you stop for gas? Do you go into a gas station just because they have a canopy at the top - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When it rains I do. MRS. LADEMANN: I mean yeah, rain, yes rain. I'm saying but just because it has a car protection? I'd never even think of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To answer your question. There are several gas stations in Mattituck, only one of which has a canopy. And I will go to that gas station if it rains. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There are two now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, there are two now, that's right. MRS. LADEMANN: But do you go there because there is fire suppression? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I, really haven't thought of it on that basis to be honest with you except for what the engineer had told us tonight. But that's an issue. MRS. LADEMANN: How many times have you ever heard of something like this happening? I mean people have to sleep with these bright lights and all this noise and cars going in and out. My mother right now before I can even mow the lawn, I have to go out and pick up cans, papers, boxes, all kinds of junk before you can even get started. I very much disagree. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. LADEMANN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any other reasons for the canopy that you know of? Page 64 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. STRANG: Well the canopy obviously addresses two issues and it's becoming more and more in common places as we see it throughout not only Long Island, but across the country_that most service stations do have canopies, fire suppression, superior fire suppression over what was existing previously and now there's one. Secondly, I think it's a point that this Board addressed although some of it and in this case is obviously being addressed as well by this Board. Is to better illuminate the pump area and not have to illuminate the whole site to have adequate light of the pump areas. So you can direct the light and maintain it better from a canopy than you can from a general siting location. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Thank you Mr. Strang. MR. STRANG: And of course weather is another issue under the circumstances. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, of course. Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak? Yes, Sir. State your name for the record please. MR. VERITY: My name is Wilbur Verity. I live across the street from the situation that we are discussing tonight. One of my objections is the size of this canopy is almost going to be out onto the road. It's way too big for the size of this property and I would hope that a truck wouldn't come along and hit the canopy, the truck riding in the road. I think it's too large a thing. We've had perfect lighting there at night. It lights up my living room beautifully. And it's going to bring in more lights, I hope not, but the fire protection is for the area of the pumps where the gas is being put in and it's been approved now by the State and the everybody else and I think it's adequate the way it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. VERITY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just remember that there is a second hearing on this application. This is the preliminary hearing. MR. VERITY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK? Thank you. Anybody else? Yes Sir, again. I'd just like to wrap this up shortly if you don't mind. MR. TRUNCE: I'd just like to make a short comment. ! invite the Board to my mother's house and stand in her living room and see because her house is at Page 65 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals such an elevation to the street, this is a tremendous visual in the back of her property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ;.OK. Could you just tell me - MR. TRUNCE: I'm the first house on Bayview Road. So it's next to the Marina and across from - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it's on 1.8 acres? MR. TRUNCE: Yes. MR. TRUNCE: So it is, I'll tell you, it:could use more or less looking down:on this, blocking the view across Bayview and I've seen situations where the suppression of lighting happened without a canopy. I mean I realize it's something that's there already and that you may not be able to do anything about it but I would like to object to that as a reason only. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ma'am you have another question? Mrs. Lademann, nothing at this point? No, OK. We will recess this hearing until we get comments from the Planning Board, and Mr. Strang is there idea or picture that you can show us as to what this canopy may look like? From existing locations or, you know, take a couple of snapshots or something like that? MR. STRANG: We don't have one as yet but we can certainly get from the manufacturer. We can get that information to this Board so they have it both from a manufacturer's with respect of what the canopy looks like in place at other stations as well as the photographs of other stations and canopy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, thank you. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion recessing this for a minimal of one month which will be the next regularly scheduled meeting and if we don't get the comments by then, we'll recess it again. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is there a date with that so we don't have to re-notice and re-advertise? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' June 10th. ExcUSe me, June 8th. Thank you everybody for your courtesy and we'll see you on June 8th. I offer that as a resolution, ladies and gentlemen. See Minutes for Resolution Page 66 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 8:45 P.M. - Appl. No. Appt. No. 4814 - RONALD & ANI~,'WILSON Applicants are requesting a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244, based;ulpon an application for a Building Permit to construct additions which will exceed the 20% lot coverage limitation. A January 20, 2000 Notice of Disapproval was issued by the Building Department which indicates that the combined lot coverage is 23,80+- percent. Location of Property: 1330 Gillette Drive, East Marion, N.Y.; Parcel No.1000-48-2-14. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Changed tape) it was a pleasure meeting you on that rainy day with your ferocious hound. MR. WILSON: ::In fact I think you had snow flakes too: Remember the dogs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us. We know that Mr. Richter is a Member of this great Town Board and he has given us and indicated to us, that he is not going to present tonight and that is the reason why you are here. MR. WILSON: Right. Just that we want to extend our porch behind the garage to add an inside entrance to the garage, and bad weather like you when were out in and I think it was snowing too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was snowing. MR. WILSON: Yeah and just to conform it to what we have out there already and I've talked to my neighbors Mr. Virdigni and it's going to be very similar to his and I've talked to Mr. & Mrs. Connors the other night. They came over and there's one neighbor happy and Mr. Cheropowich and his sister Polak, informed me, back to back yard, there's no problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is going to be a natural addition to the house. It's going to be a full winter and summer porch, or addition? MR. WILSON: Right, right. MEMBER TORTORA: Addition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, addition, OK. this nice man? Mr. Homing, any questions of MEMBER HORNING: No. Page 67 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, it's actually just going to square off that corner but it w.ill:'be leveled with the frontyard of the house? MR. WILSON: Right, exactly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I'm just curious. Have the development rights on the Cheropowich's farm, are they in tact or, have they been sold, do you know? Can that land be developed? MR. WILSON: I know that personally he said it will never be developed. But I think it's a done deal. I don't know to be honest with you. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I didn't really expect you to have the answer. I just thought you might. MR. WILSON: Yeah, I think it's already been done. Whether it, if they worked on, I don't know. It's been agreed to. MEMBER COLLINS: I will have to admit that although I looked at your property I did not walk around to the back which I should have done because once again my legs were bothering me. Do I understand from the drawings there exists right now a small addition on the back of the house? No? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. WILSON: Yeah. Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, a sunroom? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, a sunroom, right. MEMBER COLLINS; And you're going to square off the corner next to it and you're going to add a deck on the other side next to it, and the setback from the rear property line is already established by what'S there? MR. WILSON: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. Page 68 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: And you're going along with that setback? MR. WILSON: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. MR. WILSON: We had it resurveyed last three, four, five months, something like that. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. I apologize for not going around and looking but. MR. WILSON: That's OK::'; CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No comments. We'll see what develops just don't leave before the end of the hearing. Pleasure meeting you and seeing you again. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I11 make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 69 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 8:50 P.M. -Appl. No. 4815 - GEORGE GARBE This is a request for a Variance based upon the Building Inspector's March 12, 2000 Notice of Disapproval in applicant' request for a Building Permit for an "as built" accessory shed. The reasons noted are that the shed is located in a side yard with a setback at less than three feet on this 15,240+- sq. ft. lot. Location of Property: 685 Osprey Nest Road, East Marion, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-35-6-27. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. GARBE: Nothing further really than I outlined in my application in that it's the existing shed, the:property on the north east side faces the road and the south west side is on Gull Pond so I really have no rear lot line. So ! put this shed in the middle of it. Roughly in the middle of the property on the side line. And it is now as far as I can determine about two feet. It's about 4 feet from my neighbor's shed and I assume that I'm right in the middle. The property line is right in the middle. I'm 2 feet from it. As it exists now, it's fairly dose to the carport and if I move it 3 feet it would ( ) my access to the shed where the lawnmower and secondly if we did add another foot to it, I really don't see what would be gained by that. It's facing his shed and a it might even make it less attractive. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that on a cement slab or is it right on the dirt Sir? MR. GARBE: I beg your pardon. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is itona cement slab or is it on the dirt? MR. GARBE: It's a concrete blocks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. GARBE: And I have posts in the corners secured to the base of an existing walk of blocks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER¢;~How long hasit been there, do you know? MR. GARBE: '77. 23 years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Dinizio, any questions of this gentleman? Page 70 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts or, Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. 6ollins? MEMBER COLLINS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: How did you happen to end up before us? MR. GARBE: Well I had a friend who lived in Orient just recently and moved and he had placed a shed on his property, and it was not according to the guidelines, and he had went through quite a lot of trouble and apparently didn't have time to come before the Board to get a variance and he ended up ripping the whole thing out. It was on a concrete slab and it was a fairly involved structure. I didn't have any intention of selling my house now but I'm looking into the future. I just wanted to get things squared away so that I would get a proper variance for it. MEMBER COLLINS: That's what you call a cautionary table. MR. GARBE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you Sir. Is there anybody else would '~like to speak in favor of this application? Good evening Sir, how are you? Could you state your name for the record. MR. ISRAEL: Richard Israel. I'm here this evening with my father Isaac who is Mr. Garbe's neighbor. His shed backs up on to Mr. Garbes. They've been neighbors for over 20 years. Gull Pond is very unique where this is because everyone's rear yard is on Gull Pond and everyone is very considerate of each other. They have really put nothing within their backyard. There are no fences, no trees, or anything, so everybody enjoys the view of the Pond and the Bay. The Shed where it exists now is probably in the best place that it can exists. It really would be obscured from everyone. It is next to my father's shed so if he doesn't see his shed, they don't see each other's shed and they have subsequently over time, planted landscaping around both the buffer on Gull Pond Street and from the waterview. Page 71 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the color of it you almost miss it when you go by. Thank you Mr. Israel. It's a pleasure. Anybody else like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 72 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 9:07 P.M. - Appl. No. 4816 - VEDA DALEY This is a request for a Special Exception to establish Accessory Bed & Breakfast use in COnjunction with owner's residence, as provided under Article Iii; Section 100-30B(14) of the Zoning Code. Location of Property 8900 Main Road, East Marion, N.Y.;; Parcel No. 1000-31-8-1.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, Good evening Sir. How do you do? Could you state your name for the record. MR. JOSEPH: Yes, my name is Wilford Joseph. I'm Veda Daley's husband. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? It's a pleasure to meet you. What would you like to tell us? MR. JOSEPH: I have cards that were return that were sent. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. JOSEPH: When we purchased this beautiful house in East Marion and we're in the process of restoring it and we're going to live there and are applying for a Bed & Breakfast. It has four bedrooms and we have three bedrooms on the second floor and one bedroom on the first floor and we've been using as our bedroom. I must say that for the last ten years I've restored the whole building. This is a very old building. I think it's almost two hundred years old and the original part of the building and I'm doing everything in my power to restore it and of course to make it unique. So it's a combination and all the systems are being updated. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I notice you have a, furnished us with an appropriate parking plan showing 1, 2, 3, 4 spaces. MEMBER COLLINS: Six. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well a total of six. I'm talking about the back right now and then two in back of the structure itself. So, a total of six. MR. JOSEPH: Yes, that's correct. We have a two car garage on the property and one of the things we wanted to be assure of was provide parking that would not be obtrusive to the neighbors and also to the general area of you know, the neighborhood. So where the cars, where proposing that the cars parked would comply mostly with them. Page 73 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I apologize. I have a tenancy to get into the hearing. What was your last name? MR. JOSEPH;.'::Joseph. Saint Joseph. (laughter). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Joseph, I'm going to ask the Board if they have any comments and we'll start with Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: No, Sir, I don't have any. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA:.-::' You have four parking spots in the back and the access to the Bed & Breakfast would be on the Main Road? MR. JOSEPH: No we are providing a walkway from the parking space to the main house and so there's a driveway for people which drive in, park and then walk to - MEMBER TORTORA: From the main house up to the Bed & Breakfast? MR. JOSEPH: No, from the little shaft area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's a garage. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. MR. JOSEPH: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: From the garage area to the Bed & Breakfast? OK, that's it. That's the only question I had. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: It's really a question of curiosity and not really substance. I know on you floor plans here for the upstairs where the B & B would be is showing two new bathrooms and a renovated bathroom. I assume that you want to get your B & B approval before you go ahead with all of this really extensive -new plumbing. Is that right? I see you have a Building Permit displayed in the window. MR. JOSEPH: Oh, no, we have a Building Permit and we've been working on the house for several months. Page 74 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: I see, OK. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. your wife at this hearing, is that correct? It was really just curiosity. Mr. Joseph you're representing MR. JOSEPH: Well, my wife and i are doing the Bed & Breakfast. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, but your wife is in title to the house? MR. JOSEPH: Yes, she is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. JOSEPH: She is not. OK, and she is present at this hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: She is not present at this hearing. OK, would you just give me an affidavit from her, indicating that she is giving you the permission to, you know, speak for her. MR. JOSEPH: At this time? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, no, just within the next three, four business days. Just fax it to us and then send it to us. And she is the resident of the house. We just have to have that. That's a matter of the formalities of a Special Exception in this Town, if you don't mind? MR. JOSEPH: This is notarized or a? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, notarize it if you would. You're owner, you're also owner of this house? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well wait. MR. JOSEPH: Well- MEMBER DINIZIO: It says here, "Statement of Ownership and Interes¢, Veda Daley and Wilfred Joseph, right? Page 75 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. JOSEPH: Well, I think it's a technical issue. My wife's name is on the deed. I'm married to her and we're going to be living there. So, I'm not sure exactly from which point of view - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well if you weren't - MR. JOSEPH: i thought I would be like my wife, or my wife would be like me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but you're not in title- MR. JOSEPH: Except she's prettier. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It'S only a formality, please. You're not in titleto the house, meaning, you're entitled to live in the house, but you don't have title to the house, OK. I'm glad you're still laughing about this, OK. So therefore, we just asked you for the affidavit that's all. I appreciate that. OK, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. MR. JOSEPH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome, thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Now there is a familiar face. Hi, how are you? MS. SYLVIA DALY: I'm Sylvia Daly and I am the sister of Veda Daly and sister- in-law of Wilfred Joseph, who is not as pretty as we are and Wilfred was the one who did the restoration and many of you have been to Quintessentials in the, on my house. He did all the work and he has done a lot of restoration on building houses. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which is directly across the street. MS. SYLVIA DALY: We can see directly across the street and both a neighbor, and a member of the family support the opening of the B & B across the street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, nice seeing you. Anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Sir, would you state your name and use this mike please. ~, ~.~ MR. BAXTER: My name is Ernest Baxter. I live one house away from where the proposed B & B will be. I just want to read several points. Number 1, they tried to convert this several years ago and never got it straightened out. The area that we're talking about is a very small area. There's a post office and a fire Page 76 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals house. Right next to the proposed B & B there is, there are two more B & B houses that are used already. One is currently for sale but the other one is used that way. Less than half a block down the road, there's a motel situation called the Blue Dolphin. What happens.during the day, especially during the summer, the traffic out there, is deadly. I mean it's absolutely deadly. The fire house is open all day Saturday, all day Sunday and people park their cars out there in front of the post office. So we can't get out of our driveway and that's on top of all of the traffic. The new traffic situation we have because of the gambling. So what they're parkings are doing, is using I think what use to be a fire road, ~ didn't have time to look at the map, as a driveway. You go down this thing and what the parking involves is there's a parking lot is actually, there's actually room there for about six or seven cars. Now, this is not a little shed. It's a huge barn, that the prior owner worked on illegally for four, five years and I don't know.: whether he had, he actually had people stay in that house. ~ don't know. I've never been in it. I don't know what it looks like but it's a huge structure factor. What it does, is it puts cars, you take it, it puts cars where it use to be this beautiful little strand of wood suddenly we have six or eight cars. And to speak to the issue of cars, do we have been, we have watched what's going on for months across the street since this, since this big ( ) has been down there. On any given Sundays there can be four, five cars parked in the front yard. Let me first get to this other point. So the staturation all of a sudden in this little bucolic area of B & Bs becomes it's almost as if every other house is all of a sudden a B & B, and rather than have a family taking care of it, what you have is some place for 85 cars, thousands of people running up and down the street, tearing up apartments. It's a disintegration of the area to rob us of our property value. That's number 1. Number 2, what's been going on, now you have a family situation where you will have people running back and forth across the street, (inaudible-coughing) When they try to get that ambulance out of there, or the fire 'truck out of there, or the post office trucks are coming in there, it is as it is a mess. Now, quintessentially we're the neighbors across the street. Several times, last summer, what happened was that they have parties there~ They call them parties. They're actually events, they're catered events, like weddings, so that on a Sunday, on a Saturday or on a Sunday, what we have a~l day long was music. We called the police a couple of times. They said, well there's no sound thing out there. So we had to go to the movies early because ail we heard was the music. But not only was it the music, it was the cars not only parked in your front yard, but parked down the street. So if there is ( ) here I have to believe that if this is granted, it will be run much the same way as the place across the street which obviously doesn't just run it as a B & B, but runs something kind of like a catering hall. If ( ) cars as well, that's .an exaggeration. Ten cars out there, plus a front yard, plus rooms out there and a lot of people in the front yard on the sidewalk and music. That's not a B & B. That's a catering hall and it happened several times. Page 77 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sir, I don't know if you were here when ! had the discussion but the Board is going to, I'll vote on any application, the Board will reserve the right to relook at this applica~:ion and any application that it intends to grant in the future that requires Special Exceptions. By the Board's own Motion, we can rescind any application and I assure you that we will continue to use that phrase. This will be operated as a B & B. it will be conforming to a B & B and it will continue as a B & B, if we so grant it. MR. BAXTER: OK. I wasn't here when you said that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; I know, I apologize. That's why I'm a - MR. BAXTER: Alright. So let's see, the traffic. Now, I wonder whether or not the Board has examined that barn. It is a barn, it's not a shed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, that will not be a pad. of this application. They will house these people. I assure you, a Special Exception is a matter of a specific right that is given to us to rule on and I assure you there will be no operational effect of that barn except for storage purposes. MR. BAXTER: This was denied. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, years ago. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The accessory building was denied. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. But I assure you that will not be the case. Again, on the Board's own Motion, we'll reconvene the hearing and pull the Permit. MR. BAXTER: Alright. I guess I talked to you about - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to express to you that a Special Exception is a Special Permit granted by this Board. MR. BAXTER: I think, I hope I understand that. Maybe I'm slow. I just hope you understand my problems here. . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I understand that, I appreciate that. MR. BAXTER: i understand that there's no law against this sound. We have the Blue Dolphin playing their music across the street. page 78 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think that we've come to the time in the year 2000 where I think it's incumbent upon and I very rarely direct people that you deal with [he appropriate Boards within this town to ask for a decibel meter. And that that decibel meter be used for appropriate purposes. MR. BAXTER: What do I do? I got one from the Police Department so I can ( ) and I got one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you need a certified person to operate it. So that's what you have to do. And you need an ordinance to use it. MR. BAXTER'.':t'A decibel meter? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. BAXTER: A little hand held decibel meter? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just telling you that that's the situation. It's almost like a person using a, a police officer using radar. MR. BAXTER: That's strange. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, it's only applicable as a noise ordinance. It's got limits for it. It's got time limits. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean it's time that we set a noise ordinance in this town and that's it because we do hear this a lot. MR. BAXTER. Let's see. Traffic, yeah, OK, I guess that covers my objections. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you we appreciate it. MR. BAXTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There was someone over here that wanted to speak? Yes Sir. Good evening. Would you state your name for the record, if you would Sir. ~ MR. COTRONE: My name is Michael Cotrone and I live, well I don't live there because this isn't my permanent residence. We come out here periodically during the summer and my kids also do. I have six children and they all in fact utilize the property and the location. This parking stuff, I was glad to hear that Page 79 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings B°ard of Appeals it's you know, we kind of cradle the barn also but you clarified that and that was real good. I appreciate the clarification. CHAIRMAN :GOEHRINGER: Well it's made life alot easier- MR. COTRONE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In dealing with an aspect of this situation. This has been an area that we have been discussing with the Town Attorney for a period of time and Special Permits are special rights and special rights can be taken away if they're violated. MR. COTRONE: B8[ the parking issue I think should be - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you just tell me where you live in reference to the property? MR. COTRONE: Yes. They don't show it on the survey but I can kind of point it out. I didn't want to draw on it but I do have a survey of my property. Can I approach here? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. You live directly in the rear almost? MR. COTRONE: Yes Sir, and also here's what I received in the mail which thank you for sending. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good. We know it now. MR. COTRONE: Do you need them for any? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, no. MEMBER TORTORA: You're directly to the rear of the proposed parking area? MR. COTRONE: Yes. Well I'm here. Here are some pictures that I took today and maybe they can clarify things a little bit more. The footage is between 15 and 17 feet of the back of my house so that you can see that little stone wall there, very close. I don't knowif I have to clarify what this implies as far as cars parking and people coming in and out but it certainly is going to impact my house situation. Page 80 , May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If the Board is so inclined to grant this Special Permit, a reasonable request upon the Board is that of screening, and screening can be done quite easily through evergreens. MR. COTRONE: I beg to differ with you on that point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. COTRONE: They tried to grow certain evergreens and so forth there previously and it hasn't worked out that way. It's a very shaded area. Evergreens will not grow there. Nothing will grow there. And also whatever you do put there, you're going still hear doors opening and closing. You're going to hear people talking. ':You're going to hear, just life is going to go!on. But we're going to be very close to this life that we're not living and we just don't think it's right. It's just not, we didn't move out here for that kind of reason. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. We'll talk about possibly moving the parking if the Board is so inclined. MR. COTRONE: I appreciate that. We would definitely appreciate that. Is that all I'm needed for? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, thank you. Yes Ma'am? How do you do? Would you state your name for the record. MS. SMITH: My name is Barbara Marie Smith and I live quite close to this Bed & Breakfast. I don't know if you were aware of it. It was either last summer or the summer before they, the only word that I can use is Ernie stole all of my lines. They catered a wedding celebration that lasted longer than a lot of marriages. It lasted all of one hot simmering Sunday. They had a crazy disc jockey who screamed that I think you could hear him in Greenport. He played the kind of music that made your body do this long after it stopped. Why do you give permits to people and then have no control over what they do? ! mean if we call up the Town they have the magic sentence. We have no noise ordinance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Smith, we were completely, Mrs. Smith or Ms. Smith, we were not aware of any of this stuff going on. This is - MS. SMITH: There were a lot of complaints to the Town Hall. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's never come before us. It is certainly, directly a violation of a - Page 81 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MS. SMITH: The Suffolk Times talks about it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sure your correct. MS. SMITH: It's a B & B. It's not all sweet rolls. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I'm aware of that. MS. SMITH: In fact, the owners of some Bed & Breakfast say, that they're being run out of business by people who are not running good ones. I think they're running a catering hall quintessentials. You don't have music and have people around the halls one day (). Doesn't a Bed & Breakfast mean you go there to sleep and then to wake up and have a breakfast that is what you get at home and then you go home? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Or you stay the next day. MS. SMITH: Oh, you can stay but it doesn't mean that you have parties and things. And one opposite the other and plus all the properties that Mr. Baxter told you about that can contribute noise. We have two down Bay Avenue that the police are quite familiar with. All you do is call up and the police say there's nothing we can do. That's been going on as long as I've lived here. MEMBER TORTORA: Go to the Enforcement Officer. MS. SMITH: Who? MEMBER TORTO~: Go to the Building Department and talk to the Code Enforcement Officer because there is a definition of Bed & Breakfasts and there is a limit of what they can do. MS. SMITH: If you give them a permit what are the Rules and Regulations they have to follow?. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To our knowledge, exactly what you just said. MS. SMITH:,~ A Bed & Breakfast. CHAIRMAN TORTORA: By definition of the Code, if other activities are going on there that are not permitted - MS. SMITH: Well I don't think we would all get up and tell you about it. Page 82 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're not questioning you. We're just saying, - MEMBER TORTORA: We're t~i,ng to help you to find some relief. We can't give it to you because we don't enforce the Code. But I would suggest to you, instead of calling the police you walk right into the Building Department and talk to the Code Enforcer and say, this is what's going on, and this is what the Permit is for and please help me. MS. SMITH: And then what will he do? MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know, I hope to help you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He may issue them a violation. MS. SMITH: You mean ( ) a pool or something like that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, he may issue a violation. If the violation stands, we may have to reconvene the hearing and find out what actually is going on. MS. SMITH: I think we would all welcome some relief. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. MS. SYLVIA DALY: Question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. You've got to come up and use the mike Ms. Daly: How are you? , ? MS. SYLVIA DALY: Hi. My name is Sylvia Daly and I would like to just state for the record, do these people really know where quintessional is next store to the fire station, because quintessionals has never ever had a parking, and one thing they could also do is also I'm sure when they complained they filed a complaint to the Police Department and they recorded it so there would be a date when this noise would have happened. So I'm wondering if they know where quintessionals is? So we would also like to say that this is so incredible that'there's been parties and caterings at quintessior~als. Most Bed & Breakfast operate Friday evening until Sunday and it's a Bed & Breakfast. There is no catering. This September marks the third summer my sister and my brother-in- law got married in the garden and the wedding ended at 8:00 P.M., 8:00 P.M. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was three years ago? Page 83 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MS. SYLVIA DALY: Three years ago. That's the only party that we have ever had at quintessionals and second, I do not have a stereo. I have a radio. I do not have a stereo. · ?~?~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was there a band at that or any type of D.J.? MS. SYLVIA SMITH: At the wedding? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. SYLVIA SMITH: There was the D.J. at the wedding. The wedding started at 3:00 P.M. in the afternoon. Was held 4n the East Marion Church and ended,~- at 8:00 P.M. The D.J. left. So I don't know really where quintessionals is, because I don't have a stereo, I have a radio, and we have Bed & Breakfast which is usually Friday evening to Sunday noon. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. MR. BAXTER: When I look out, when I walk to the end of my driveway, quintessionals is, it's just catty-cornered from my driveway. I know exactly where it is. One other thing that I just wanted to mention. As these, I'm not going to address that. I'll withhold the truth and I'll let it stand. One of the other things that happens during the summer. As these places walk, as these places open up, something Ms. Smith reminded me of. What happens, we get walkers, you get groups of people walking in the neighborhood and a lot of these people mean well but they want to come up and look at the old house. Whether it's ( ) they kind of want to kind of check the porch and see if it's really that old. They want to kind of peek in the window. They don't really mean any harm but it's:: disconcerting to come out of your house and find five people standing in your front yard saying, what a lovely tree and by the way you should you put on the other shirt I saw you trying on in the bedroom. Now I can't tell you how ( ) I meant it as a joke but I can't tell you how many times we have a big huge linden tree and we also have what's a tulip tree out there. Last year on three different occasions we had people look at these tulips. They're beautiful, and we had people actually on each others shoulder, picking the tulips off the tree. That's just and those trees are historic trees. I ( ) those trees. I'd like those trees to be there for everybody. I have a great big lot in the.~back. It's almost an acre. There's nothing there. I mow it every week so that everybody who backs up on that lot can look out and just look at the lot and look at the trees. I never put anything there. I like the tulip tree instead but every Saturday I'm cleaning up the deer prints, and all the rest of it. Now, I'm not blaming quintessentials for deer prints. But it's a little too congested area. Page 84 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Joseph is there some place that we could talk about moving those parking spaces that are against the back property line? MR. JOSEPH: Certainly. Before we do that I'd like to answer some of the concerns that of my neighbors. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. JOSEPH: First of all concerning the barn. The barn is a moot point and I invite any of my neighbors or anybody on the Board to come and visit the barn. The barn is used for storage. The previous owr~er applied for something. I'm not sure whether an accessory apartment, or, rental, or, whatever, but it was declined. And whatever work was done on this barn up until that time, I don't know when it was done, it's in that condition and I bought this property with the understanding that this barn was going to be used as a barn. Attached to the barn is a two car garage and a shed. My property use to be a part of a property that was subdivided that abuts to Mr. Cotrone's property and I understand his concern about the parking and we have adequate space on the property to relocate the parking or extend the parking, maybe remove a tree or two which we didn't want to do, but you know, if that would, you know, make for better neighbors I'm quite happy to do that. Regarding the quinessential and the noise and the increased traffic and the concerns of Mr. Baxter. Yes I am one of those people. You know when people describe me as those people it pricks, it hurts. I am one of those people and ! do understand every time I come here, I am one of those peoples. For the first time, I am one of those peoples and ! know that it really bugs people but I want to tell you a little bit about me, Wilfred Joseph, and where I come.from. I'm an immigrant to this ,count. I came here with an engineer degree in 1968. I have three children and six grandchildren. I retired from Digital Computer Digitally Corporation as a Manager after ten years as a Sales Manager, making six figures. I have two engineering degrees. I am not one of those people. I am more like one of us than one of those people. I'm educated and I'm well traveled and I speak very well and I understand quite a bit. Now I've purchased this property in this neighborhood because I like the area just as much as you do. I like this bucolic area. I wanted to remain. It's why I moved from Staten Island to this area. The Bed & Breakfast part of it that I al~plied for is because of the joy that I feel when I assist my sister-in-law for people who are discovering the area or passing through the area and I would invite anyone to come and have breakfast with us or to come and read the book of the guests that have been coming to our Bed & Breakfast for the last four years and that's what attracted me. I never knew you know, even six years ago that I'd be in the Bed & Breakfast business. I'm 56 years old. rma vibrant, Page 85 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals healthy young man and you know, why would I want to be in a Bed & Breakfast business. My vision of Bed & Breakfast people are old and people who are retired, you know this is the end of the line. But this is not for me, it's a new beginning. So, I really want to allay the concerns. I'm willing to work with people and I invite them to come and speak with me. I speak English very well. I came from an English speaking country and I did not learn it as a second language. So concerning the traffic. Yes, I live on the main road and my house is very close to the main road and the property and I am one of those people concerned by the traffic in the summer. Last summer after I purchased the house we slept in the house and it is noisy but kiddo, as they say, theme's the break. I bought the house. That's where it's located. It's been there before I came along and that's what I get. I do not feel that having a Bed & Breakfast in an area that has an additional Bed & Breakfast across the street, or a Motel down the street that's for sale or illegal properties that are being rented in the near-by area by other residence should affect my application. My application meets the letter of the law. I will comply with whatever is required and I invite anybody to come at anytime and inspect my place. It wil~ be operated at the highest standards and with integrity, It's the Way that I've operated in my life. It's the way I've trained my children and it's the way that we have run our Bed & Breakfast at quintessential whenever I've been able to assist my sister-in-law, Sylvia Daly. And I~ve been fortunate recently to have spent more time there because I have been staying there as I renovate the house because I've been doing it hands on personally in addition to having licensed contractors and electricians. So I do understand the concerns and some of which are beyond my control. The ones that are within::my control I'm quite willing and enable to (change tape) I will swear on a stack of bibles that we have not had no parties. We have been inundated by parties from the Fire Department. We live right next door and unless sometimes people come and investigate they may think it's coming from, quintessential because the properties do'~:abut, ~So with the exception since my knowledge quintessential has been in existence. The only party that we've ever had was my marriage there in 1997, September 6th. And as Sylvia said, the wedding was at 2:30 and the party began about 3:00 o'clock and ended at 8:00 o'clock where upon my wife and I left. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Joseph. question and then we'll be right back. Mrs. Tortora has a MEMBER TORTORA: Let's talk about the parking.. I did:look at the pictures that your neighbor submitted. Is there any other alternate areas for four parking spots that you have placed in the rear. Maybe we can get them off that property line and is there any other alternate areas in here that would work well so that when you come down the dirt driveway you can park and go back to your Bed & Breakfast? Page 86 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. JOSEPH: Well I think that there's a possibility. May I approach? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. ~i~.~ MEMBER TORTORA: I kind of sketch in something but i don't know the lay of the land and you do. MR. JOSEPH: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: You indicated that on the rear and it would be hard to plant trees over there because of shade. Starky meant well. What if we did something in here. Would this work? Or, ! don't know the land!~'.that's why ! throwing it up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think he should submit. I think it's probably an unfair question tonight. Ithink you should submit. You take a look at it and submit a couple of things to us before next Wednesday. MR. JOSEPH: In actuality, one of the areas that we were thinking of proposing parking was in this area, right in this area here. Can I draw on this? MEMBER TORTORA: Absolutely. MEMBER HORNING: Where is your neighbor's house? MR. JOSEPH: My neighbor's house is about here. MEMBER HORNING:' I see, so actually if he would park over here, it would be less of- MR. JOSEPH: Well yes, we do have - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going to show it to you as soon as we finish. MR. JOSEPH: We do have about six, seven greens except that the bottoms of the evergreens were trimmed and there's no fence between the property. But certainly we could put these f~)ur spaces over here and probably lose a tree ,or two certainly so that people could turn in here and then back out this way. MEMBER HORNING: Right, that would work. Page 87 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you do me a favor, would you submit that to writing for us on your clean copy of the survey? (Everybody is speaking at one time). MR. JOSEPH: There is a tree here. There's a very large tree here which we would like to remove but there is a tree there and a stock fence between here so we could go closer to these evergreens so that rather than the, you know, large tree would go before the curb here. We'll resubmit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Could you do that for us before next Wednesday? MR. JOSEPH: Before next'Wednesday, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Cotrone he's going to resubmit another plan. MEMBER TORTORA: He's going to resubmit a plan that he'll put evergreens in here that would bring the parking up from here and bring it up to here. MR. COTRONE: Who did these parkings here? MEMBER TORTORA: I was just sketching one. MR. COTRONE: You are right. This is where the people who lived previous parked their cars. Right in here. There's no problem. There's plenty of room for whatever they want to put there. All he's doing is, he's putting the mite over here and he's got the same situation, and what he's doing also is, he's taking down trees. I not only have si.x. kids, tgot ten grandchildren who'Jove to run around. This is totally, it's all the same. No place, over here I wouldn't mind it over here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I could not have dual discussions. This doesn't exist anymore because of the people that transcribe these things. No, I really ask you Mr. Joseph to give us an A and a B plan based upon the plan that you just discussed with Mrs. Tortora and possibly another one that even gets the parking farther away from Mr. Cotrone's house, OK, without taking anything down conceivably- MR. JOSEPH: Well, it's very difficult because the lot is full of trees. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know, I know but maybe you can park around trees or whatever the case might be. I want to reconvene this hearing at the Page 88 - May 4, 2000 TranScripts. of Hearings Board of Appeals Special Meeting and close it at that particular point, which is next Wednesday if I can. MR. JOSEPH:I'd really be happy to provide you with those drawings but I do have a question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MR. JOSEPH: I have a two car garage. Is that considered two parking spaces? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Inside the garage, yes. MR. JOSEPH: Yes. So that would betwo parking spaces and what about, the patio and the concrete strip outside the garage. Would that be considered two additional parking spaces? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would say yes. MR. JOSEPH: OK, and I need only five. is that correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. MR. JOSEPH: So then I can provide you with one additional parking space some place else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. MR. JOSEPH: So i'11 provide you with the drawing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we're saying to both of you at this time a quarter to ten at night, we're not asking you to draw parking spaces. That's why I want you to go home and think about it over the weekend and see what's appropriate without taking anything down. We do applaud Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, whatever you can do. Come up with a couple of plans. The one that you suggested and maybe another one. Two alternatives. MR. JOSEPH: Certainly. MEMBER TORTORA: We'll CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: also. Thank you Sir. reach a compromise believe me. Yes. At that point we're not holding hearings up Is that alright with you? Page 89 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. JOSEPH I have a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely: MR. JOSEPH: I'm not sure where Mr. Cotrone is proposing that I have the parking. Maybe I can get that information either from him or from you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, you know, we always applaud that you get in touch with your neighbor if you can, and work it out with him prior to the ~ MR. JOSEPH: Well, it's the first time I've seen Mr. Cotrone in months. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, no, but i'm just saying, you know, ! mean, he's going to come next Wednesday, alright, and so we'll discuss it amongst both of you at that particular time if you don't see him over the weekend, or whatever the case might be. But a, give us a couple of plans. Keep it away from his house if you can without destroying any of the existing nice trees and ground cover that you have, if that's OK. Is that appropriate? MR. JOSEPH: That is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, OK. Again, anything you can keep closer to the house would be appropriate, or on the opposite side of the garage area, or the barn area. MR. JOSEPH: I was really concerned about the view from the street and you know as you saw, the driveway is quite long, and I thought having it shaded by trees in the-back would be a lot nicer than having it in the.front because we have a lawn in the front but you know, I think that it's really just one space that I have to come up with. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good. That's terrific. MR. JOSEPH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright so we're going to move along with this because of the time. . ..... ~-. MR. COTRONE: Just one more question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Page 90 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. COTRONE: He's talking, one car, one space? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, no. He's talking, one additional car other [han the places that he is anticipating. , BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Five altogether. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Five altogether. MR. COTRONE: Alright, so he's going - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't know where he's going to put them. MR. COTRONE: Wednesday we will know? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will know on Wednesday. MR. COTRONE: So he has no OK for anything else? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's a public meeting, it's a special meeting. It will be in the Town Board room and it will be approximately at 6:30. MR. BAXTER: Let me ask you something. All the remarks that were made here, is that a public record? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It' recorded on tape, yes. You're welcome to come in and listen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wait, we're not discussing anymore. We're not having any discussions in this room without a person using a mike because [ am not going to try, no, I'd like you to come up and use the mike and we'll approach that issue. I spend the better part of my lunch hour trying to interpret these tapes and it's not going to happen anymore. MR. BAXTER: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. What we are doing is, this nice young lady is a stenographer. She is taking it down in shorthand which you don't see too much anymore. It is being taped at the same time. Unfortunately, neither she, nor the tape recorder are transcribing. It's done by a second lady. A very delightful lady that lives in Riverhead that comes to work with us three days a week, and so sometimes Linda has to jump in and tell her exactly what's going on. Page 91 - May 4, 2000 Transcriptsof Hearings Board of Appeals MR. BAXTER: In light of what's been said, rm going to make a couple of remarks and then I'm done. First of all, those people, my objections to this, were on the grounds that..~l made that ha~e nothing to do with anybody's background or anything else. He sounds like a fine gentleman. I have no problems with him. I have a problem with getting a B & B here, despite the fact that his sister said, called me a racist. That's number 1. Number 2 - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: productive situations. I just don't want to get involved with counter MR. BAXTER: I swear to you but I have to answer this. I can't let this stand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. But we don't want to get involved. MR. BAXTER: The second issue is this. Where the music is .concerned, I see those stereo types in music being played extremely loudly. It matters not to me whether it's Boch or anything else. I don't care if it's George Ives, or I don't care who it is, if it's too loud for me to listen to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just say again to you, it's about time that this town have an ordinance and that decibel meters be used, OK, and I'm not talking about a single function. I'm talking about multiple functions. MR. BAXTER: I understand, but since all of this is going on back here I want to be very clear about the purpose and the event of what I was saying so that there's never any misunderstanding. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Joseph, we apologize. What else can we do for you? MR. JOSEPH: I'm glad that the record is verbatim because I have a very good memory and I don't remember anybody calling anybody racists. CHAIRMAN GOEHP, INGER: But we consider that. I don't know if it was done. I didn't hear it, it's not really a part of this record. MR. JOSEPH: I'm sure nobody else heard it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK but I'm just saying to you, it's a counter productive statement which I don't think is germane to this hearing, OK. Page 92 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. JOSEPH: Well it is very interesting but I do realize that this has raised a lot of fire and I apologize for it. It has not been my intent. I really expected that the a sought of lot more and I have a lost for words but it's probably a little more welcoming. However, I'll provide you with'the information:,;t..-bat you do need and ~ look forward to next week's hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just say to you in general just one second? The Bed & Breakfast today, have no longer have the nuances that they had when we first had three or four of them in Town. Some people object to them. Some people are in favor of them. The major portion of the people who are contiguous and adjacent to these properties are not particularly happy with them. MEMBER TORTORA: The last one we had we had concerns from the neighbors and it's not unusual. It's normal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not unusual. We just want you to be aware of that. MEMBER TORTORA: It's very normal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Mr. Cotrone. MR. COTRONE: When is that meeting on? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Wednesday. I can't tell you exactly when we will address this issue but this will be the only public hearing that we will have. The rest of the hearings are decisions that are closed. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It'll be about 6:30. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going to commence and we're going to go down the roster, starting with the first hearing on our Agenda at 6:30 and we may not address this until 7:30. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well we need a time for this hearing if this is recessed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So let's make it 7:20. MR. COTRONE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 7:20. Page 93 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 7:20. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that OK, with everybodyg,: Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: This is fine. MEMBER DINIZIO: Just have Linda fax me so I know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Either that or we'll call you on three cell phones. MEMBER COLLINS: What's with the date? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Wednesday, May 10th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wednesday, May 10th, 7:20. Hearing no further comment, I'll recess this hearing to the next regularly scheduled Special Meeting which is May 10th, 7:20. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 94 - May 4, 2000 TraaScripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 9:55 P.M. - Appl. No. 4817 - JESSICA BOGER This is a request for an Accessory Apartment in owner's existing single-family residence as provided unde¢,!Article iII-A, Sections 100-30A.2 (B-13) and 100- 31B-13. Location of Property: 270 Gagens Landing Road, Southold, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-70o10-18. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Boger, it's been a long night. You are here to tell us about your Bed & Breakfast, pardon me, your Accessory Apartment. What would you like to tell us? I went by your very nice house. It's a ranch house. I notice you're going to put a circular driveway in. MRS. BOGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I assume you're taking the garage and making an apartment out of it based upon your plan. MRS. BOGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which is a one car garage and you're utilizing one bedroom ! guess in the house? MRS. BOGER: Dining room. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Dining room, OK, which is now a bedroom. We'll start I guess with Mr. Dinizio. He likes to grill people, so watch out. Any questions? :MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. I understand the drawing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Can you clarify your overall purpose for doing this? MRS. BOGER: For the income. Page 95 - May 4, 2000 TranScripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Don't leave please. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody likb:t~o speak against the application? Yes Ma'am. Ms. FLETCHER: My name is Dorothy Fletcher. I live a few house down from Bolger's accessory apartment and I just. My concern is that we are a single family neighborhood. We're very single neighborhood, and ~ hate, I, you know, I would not like to see a precedent that (). We have multiple family dwellings. It opens the doors to a transient population. I think this would be very detriment to the neighborhood and it's going to change the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; We~do voice concerns that many people have regarding this. All I can tell you is that the majority if not most of the accessory apartments that we have granted, we have very little if any complaints about it. Originally in 1982, when the Town Board of the Town of Southold, which is somewhat different than it is today but still very concerned ladies and gentlemen, developed this law, and it was finally put on the books sometime in the end of 1984. They're were concerns about putting them within subdivision areas and so on and so forth which this is a subdivision. A very nice subdivision. The Town Board felt that they would leave it open for the entire town. I have to be honest with you. We really didn't have that many of them, you know. So I understand your concern, there's no question about it. MS. FLETCHER: You know it opens either way. MEMBER COLLINS: No, that's wrong. MEMBER DINIZIO: Just before you said a precedent (). Any house can have it. Just like your Bed & Breakfast. Just like this application that you heard before you. MS. FLETCHER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Any house that's in a residential zone, it can be a Bed & Breakfast, it can have an accessory apartment. CHAIRM/~N GOEHRINGER: You just can't have both. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, to have an accessory, it has to be old enough. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, yeah, and they have to meet the criteria. They come in and meet - Page 96 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MS. FLETCHER: And the criteria are? MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, think about it. Scary isn't it? MS. FLETCHER: No, but I just want, would like to her please look at the criteria. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well it's written, I mean on the application there's steps, you know, it has to be owner occupied, 450 sq. ft., has to be dedicated to that. It has to be less than 40% of the entire house, in other words, the reason why this lady is here today, is to show us, that she meets all these 15 steps. If she meets these, OK, there's nothing we can do. We vote for it. So basically we're insuring that all this criteria, that the Town Board set up is met, and the Bed & Breakfast is the same thing. You know, I understand you're thinking that it's a precedent but you're entitled to it, and the neighbor is entitled to it, and everybody down the block is entitled to it. And anybody in a residential zone - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If they meet the criteria. MEMBER TORTORA: If they meet the criteria. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, if they meet the criteria and I would venture to say, that every house with the exception of a few on the east end meet this criteria. You know you have to be 1984, just before 1984. MS. FLETCHER: Do you have a copy of the criteria? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, it's her application. And I say that not to be. I want to inform you that you know, what - ~.:~ ~ MS. FLETCHER: You are clarifying things. MEMBER DINIZIO: The place to say what you really want to say, is not here. It's the Town Board, and those are the people that set the rules that we follow. MS. FLETCHER: I see, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like, to speak for or against? Yes , Ma'am. MS. SOVELLE: I'm Marilyn Sovelle from 830 Gagens Landing. My house was built in 85-86, so I guess I can't do this. Page 97 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to have a C.O. before January first. ?~:~,;MS. SOVELLE: My house was built in 85-86. I do object to this. I agree with the previous speaker. I would not like to See other houses on the block this way. I do feel it lowers the value of my property. I do feel also, it creates a problem with regard to cars and traffic. I mean when you come down our block, if there are cars parked in the street, it presents a hazard. Particularly when there's something parked along on the other side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that was the reason why we asked Mrs. Bolger if she was able and she has produced a plan that she is going to keep the cars on site. That is part of the Special Exception that she must keep them on site, ~:'~ ~ MS. SOVELLE: And also the question of how is it going to look? I mean I see cars parked on the grass here, there, the other place. Grant you it's their property. But then again, it does lower the value of your property. If somebody is interested in buying my house and come down that block and see this and that and the other thing, they might like my house, but they may not like the block. I could lose a buyer. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, one of the criteria for the Special Exception actually is that they do not change the appearance of the house, that it appears as one family. That's one of the criteria. MS. SOVELLE: Well what's inside doesn't bother me. I don't see that either. It's what's going to be outside. And also the value of my property. That's my objection. It seems to be a cut and dry case that this is going to be. I mean I don't know why I got all this hope. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's not true. This is still America. You certainly have the right to speak. This nice lady is going to propose a circular driveway. I assure you that embodied within this Code she must keep the cars on site, meaning off the road. That doesn't mean that if she has friends, or you know, people coming that they can't park in the road. The road is a public street. MS. SOVELLE: I understand that. I mean I have company too and if all the cars can't fit in the driveway, naturally you pull off the fbad Or partially, on to the grass. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MS. SOVELLE: But I mean it's not going to be an everyday occurrence at my house. Page 98 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I think the circular driveway is going to help the situation to be honest with you. MS. SOVELLE: I hope it's wide enough so that you can pull out and get around otherwise I don't know how that's going to look. You know, he can put a car one behind the other but if car number 2, wants to get out, it has to be sufficient -. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Area, width, right, OK. We can write that in the decision. MS. SOLVELLE: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can write that right in the decision. MS. SOVELLE: Oh, good, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes Ma'am. Would you state your name for the record please. MS. CASSIDY: My name is Antoinette Cassidy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do. MS. CASSIDY: I also live on Gagens Landing. I'm a neighbor across the street from Mr. Sovelle as well as down the road from Jessica. I came to the Town of Southold six years ago and I now have three young children and i came to this hearing because I didn't really, I wasn't at all aware of the status of what was happening until recently when I saw a white piece of paper on the front lawn and then one neighbor starts to discuss it and then we all figure out, OK, maybe we should go and listen to what she's going to do. But you know, speaking of course, agreeing with my two neighbors, my one main concern is that I have three children, my two youngest ones, five and six and my oldest of course who's nine, ride the road and it's somewhat private, you know, there's a lot of summer people on the road, and we're thank God able, I'm able to send my children on the road to be able to ride their bikes, but that end of the road is getting a little congested. There's a brand new house going right on the bend of South Street and Gagens and I say thank God now but I am aware that there's going to be a driveway that's going to be put in because that takes my concern away of the cars being on the road but it doesn't stop me from being concerned about two or three more cars being on the road and heading in the direction that I live in and then my children have to be worrying about three or four more cars to worry about. Now from the other end I have the creek and I have a lot of Page 99 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals traffic on that end that I need to worry about as well. You got people who have boats, boat ramps, you know, the boat ramps, the trailers, you got fishermen, you got bay men. So from both ends I have my concern. I'm not in the middle but I'm second from the end and you know, I'Ve ;had scares of traffic coming through that fast. Mrs. Sovell's front lawn being ran over. Her post being ran over. My car being vandalized in my neighbor's driveway that I utilize when they're not there. I live in between two summer homes. My husband spends a lot of time out-of-town and I'm not very comfortable being by myself with three young children and it just concerns me because I'm very comfortable with whom I know who my neighbors are. I know whose on my road. I'm not saying that the new people that She's going to have rent in there, you know, are not going to be, are going to be anything to worry about which I hope. But I want my children to knoW who the neighbors are as well. They don't speak to strangers, As far as I'm concerned, they're going to be strangers because until they really know who they are, I want my children to feel safe. You know juSt around the block the other day, my daughter for the second time I allowed her, 9 years old, to ride her bike and I give her only a couple of minutes to get back. Now she was approached by a pick-up truck, riding around, approaching the bay, the creek I should say, and here she's riding her bike and this pick-up truck guy as he's driving rides his window down and curses and calls her a curse. I have no control of what's going on. I want to be able to have a safe street and I'm just concerned for my childrens' welfare and Jessica and I are friends. We share a lot. She has a son who comes down and plays in my yard and visa versa. But I'm just trying to make these statements because my husband and I have concerns. I'm speaking for him as well because he's out-of-town today. So I just kind of just wanted to make these points across because I think they're important to make and out of respect for the friendship that I continue to share with her. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no further hands I'll make a motion. Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize. MR. SCHUMBACHLER: My name is Fred Schumbachler. I live on the corner of Gagens and Clearview. So I'm really further away than everybody else. But the one thing that does concern me is as three ladies mentioned, is the value of my house with this type of situation going on. I can't help but feel that it will deteriorate. I can't help but feel that way. As far as the traffic goes as Mrs. Cassidy said here, the number of people that' tear down that street, Gager~s Landing and go into the ramp. I don't know what they're doing down there. It's really scary. But my biggest concern is going into a situation like this where you rent a room, rooms out, is what it will eventually do to the value of my own property? Thank you. Page 100 - May 4, 2000 ' .Tr, arlscripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? Again, seeing no hands, we thank you for your comments. Thank you for your courtesy. I'd like to make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 101 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 10:12 P.M. - Appl. No. 4818 - CHRIS & JAMES MESKOURIS Applicants request a Variance as stated in the Building Inspector's April 5, 2000 Notice of Disapproval for the followingi (1) Proposed¥.construction on non- conforming lot is not permitted under Article XXlV, Section 100-244B due to the minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, subject lot has right-of-way across property on easterly and northern boundaries creating front yards on those frontages, proposed setbacks on those frontages exceed forty foot minimum required by Code. Setback from right-of-way on north proposed at 25+- feet, on the east at 12-1/2+- feet; and (2) pursuant to Article IliA, Section 100o30A accessory use(s) shall be located in required rear yard, proposed accessory swimming pool located in front yard on north eastern side of proposed dwelling. Location of Property':. 675 Summit Dr., Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel Ne. 1000-106-1- 47. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Rivera we haven't seen you since the last hearing. MRS. RIVERA: That's correct. On behalf of the Meskouris' family, I want to thank the Board for allowing me the opportunity to explain the uniqueness of this property before you this evening. As you all can see from the survey that was submitted to you, the property is unique because of the right-of-way situation that is concerning with this lot. Both to the north and east of the lot and also to the south, the property is boarded by Summit Drive. Because of this situation, the property is deemed to have three front yards. If you were to take the non- conforming setbacks to this lot, the building envelope would consist of erecting a building 10 feet wide by approximately 170 feet long. I'm sure the Members upon the inspection of this lot realize that all the homes surrounding this lot are considered as front yards,:.On Summit Drive and the rear yards~are to the north: Further evidence of this are the legal addresses for all of the properties and the access road from Summit Drive to the various homes that are situated on the bluff. By taking the building envelope where we have on the survey, I feel more than meets the variance setback requirements if Summit Drive is to be considered the front yard for this parcel. It is for the parcels as it is for the parcels adjoining this other lot. Some may say, that the right-of-way should be used to establish the setback. I can only respond to this by saying, that the Building Department has always used the property line to determine the setbacks for a building location, and never the right-of-way. If one would use the right-of-way to establish setbacks, I can assure you, that landowners would never or very hesitantly grant right-of-ways to be issued if they were to use, excuse me, if they were to lose the use of their right-of-way and the access to their property. The parcel would become virtually unbuildable and further restrict any deVelopment of the parcel. Furthermore, property lines never change where Page 102 - May 4, 2000 Transcr pts of Hearings Board of Appeals right-of-ways can also be eliminated or change as were the case on the adjacent lot to this property now in existence. The 25 foot right-of-way, that goes to the north continued on and Mrs. Katos relinquished her right-of-way access when she merged her two lots a couple of years ago. The placement of the house~:o~q the survey before you is in line with the setbacks of the various homes to the adjoining property. The house west of this parcel, the difference of the setback from the property line is actually one foot. The structure to the west is 51 feet back from the property line and not from the right-of-way, i would also like to point out that if this house were to be moved closer to Summit Drive, then an enormous amount of landfill would be needed as well as an extensive retaining wall system because there's more than a 20 foot difference in the elevation between the northern side of the property to the Summit Drive side. I would further state that the problems was obviously not self-created on this lot, nor the building that the house is going to be erected and in any way change the character of the neighborhood that is now in existence. Furthermore, ~ do not see how any alternative building location on this lot can be considered considering all the aspects that are involved with the uniqueness of this piece of property before you. I just want to thank the Board for their time and consideration in this matter and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all may have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think we're going to take some testimony tonight regarding the issue of rights-of-way. Having spent some time looking at this application I'm just wondering if there's a possibility, that if the Board was so inclined to grant the placement of the house from its present location, if the applicant would be willing to come back and discuss the swimming pool at a later date once these walls, you know we have a severely deteriorated wall, OK, and once the wall is up, we can all understand what we have after that, because i understand from a conversation with you;-! that ~he Contract Vendee is willing to reconstruct this wall. MRS. RIVERA: Yes, the respective buyer is here this evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is something i have just thought about, it's not something that I have been pondering upon but we have done this before Mrs. Rivera, and a situation like this where we have a, there's an illusion that exists in a negative fashion here by the fact that this wall is in the deteriorated -state that it's. in, and I realize thereCs great expense .,;involved in the reconstruction of this wall. There's no question about it and I know that that wall has been there for 20 years and I know that it's been deteriorating since the day it went in. There's no question about it. It was very simply a poor attempt to a create a retainance against a very important right-of-way, which services several houses for both fire and emergency reasons, apart from access to and from your Page 103 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals house. Their house I should say, not your house. So that's just a consideration that I have on my part. I think that once the wall is reconstructed, I think that once we can understand exactly what we have there, you know, I think that, that may be a possibility that we can deal with. That I can deal with. I'm.:.'~ot speaking for the rest of the Board but I'm just throwing that out. I think we'll go just down the line here and ask Mr. Horning if he would like to ask Mrs. Rivera any questions. It may be pre-mature. OK, we'll come back. We'll go on to Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: Just explain the revived Notice of Disapproval. MRS. RIVERA: The Building Department erroneously wrote the disapproval using setbacks from the mean of the right-of-way, the middle road. The middle of the road sought of speak. 12-1/2 feet on the 25 foot right-of-way and 15 foot right-of-way for the 7-1/2. That was incorrectly done, so they realized their mistake and rewrote the disapproval using the property line for the setbacks. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have anything else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Well I guess I'm confused. Ms. Rivera said very emphatically, well the Building Department never measures setbacks from the right-of-way, only from the property line and that certainly what I thought was the case. I think that's one reason why we get cases about setbacks because as you point out a property like this bounded by rights-of-way becomes unbuildable unless they get some relief. But claiming that they should be measuring from the property line, not the right-of-way really bothers me but I'll go past that. Now, that property daunted me. I was certainly not,going to,,climb up that hill through that jungle. I gather this wall that you're talking about, I can see it on the survey, it borders the easterly right-of-way? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, it actually bends around. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, and it is, yes I see it bending around, and it is planned or expected or contemplated that it's going to be reconstructed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. My conversation with Mrs. Rivera on the telephone was, I believe a cement wall is going to go in or a facsimile? MRS. RIVERA: It's either cement walls or stone retaining wall. Page 104 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings,:. ~ ~ Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean, it's going to be a sophisticated wall 4 to 5, 6 feet back? MRS. RIVERA: Yes, and it's going to border bQtb the north and the east and truthfully that's the only way you could possibly build on that lot is by a retaining wall, rather an extensive retaining wall and he has every intention of doing that. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: With appropriate rebar in it MRS. RIVERA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And everything that it won't crack and it'll withstand. MRS. RIVERA: I provided pictures for you Ms. Collins and for the rest of the Board of the deteriorating retaining wall, so you can see where it - MS. COLLINS: Yes, I know there in the file and I didn't go get them out. They don't Xerox very well. MRS. RIVERA: Just to get back to that right-of-way situation, property line situation. When I go to the Building Department, whenever I've been to the Building Department, your property is deemed 25,000 sq. ft., almost 25. Using the property line and not the setback and as I said, the family has paid taxes on that 25 foot right-of-way as well for 7-1/2 foot as it's always been part of their property. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, unquestionably. I don't argue that. The reason that we're claiming the right-of-way setback is because of the right-of-ways of the roads are considered front yard and so we need to determine as it was in the other cases on the bluff, which is the front yard and which is the rear yard and what would be considered the side yard? And this case, and all of the houses on Summit are deemed to have the front yard as Summit Drive, even though some of them even border Sound Beach Drive. The ones to the north of the bluff. But their access is from Summit Drive. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. Mr. Chairman, can we go back to what you were just saying a minute or two ago about once the wall. You were asking that we address the house location and later address the pool, is that what I understood? Page 105 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, yes, the house location is. First of all the primary structure is, I mean I don't want to go back to your situation but I'll briefly mention it OK? In the construction or the reconstruction of your house which is down on the beach side, 1,000-1500 feet awayi 1,000 feet away, OK, we address the house, we address the deck. But we did not address anything else because that particular situation didn't come before us. However, it was easier for us to understand once your house was up exactly what we have. Now we have a dual situation that's even a little more important here and that is, We have the illusion of the reconstruction of a retaining wall, which is going to retain this piece of property, and allow these Contract Vendees to construct the house but at the same time create an entire landscaping plan that's going to keep their lot in tact. So I think it's incumbent upon us to take a look at this but I think it's a little too much forus to understand at one point. If the wal!~, was constructed and we knew exactly what was there, I think I would have a better understanding of it. I went back up there and I was bewildered too. It's hard. So I really think that you know, that I'm not asking you to withdraw it, I'm just telling you that I think we may just address the house in it's present situation and the reconStruction of the wall at this point and then worry about the sWimming pool once the foundation is in. Once the house is being constructed and then do a simultaneous back once the wall is in and we understand what exactly we got here, and you knOw, what we can do, and that's just an iSsue that I'm throwing on the table and I'm saying to you at this point, that I think is really an issue and as I said we've done this before. We'Ve done it in Orient, on Southold parcels and it's been done a couple other times. I just, my mind escapes me at 10:00 o'clock at night exactly where the other ones were. But; it was done in grand view several times on some of the stuff that theY did then. MRS. RIVERA: I don't think there's any problem Mr. Chairman with coming back to you with a prop°sed plan for the retaining wall. Myquestion tothe Board is, the right-of-way shows 25 feet and the applicant's measurement. I had the surveyor's measure it and it's 11., the concrete or the blacktop is 11.5 feet wide, where it shows 25 foot right-of-way. So, you tell me as to how you would want the proposed retaining wall? Do you want it squared off? Right now it's as you can see from the survey, it's really collapsing in the north east corner. You bring it up, would you like it squared off, or, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you that the wall isn't before us, is it not? .. MRS. RIVERA: No, the wall is only - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I really think that that is a situation. It has to be worked out with two people and that is Ed Forrester and the Town Engineer, Page 106 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals OK? In either case, I find it critical. I don't want to be redundant again, but as you know I've been a fireman in the Town of Mattituck and the Hamlet of Mattituck for 32 years and we're getting wider ambulances and wider fire equipment but as ~8~h access as you can give to that right-of-way, or those rights-of-way, the better off all the neighbors are going to be and this applicant is going to be. MEMBER TORTORA: 15 foot right-of-way. MRS. RIVERA: It is. It is 15 feet going up to the homes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The newest trucks are 11 foot 6 inches wide. :: MEMBER COLLINS: She's talking about the feet of the right-of way. MRS. RIVERA: That's absolutely no problem at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So I mean, that's the importance of that aspect of it. I'm being honest. MRS. RIVERA: If the right-of-way were 11.5, if you need that made wider then obviously all the homeowners on the bluff which should be (inaudible) feet widening the right-of-way, sought of speak. (change tape.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know you only have 15 feet. The new specifications of the Planning Board are 22, but I think'you have the whole 15 feet to the - .MRS. RiVERA: Oh, that's absolutely no problem. It is 15 feet going up and as I said on the north part is where it is only 11.5 at the present time. I dug down and did not find anymore pavement there. So a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It definitely should be 15. MRS. RIVERA: That needs to be considered. Certainly all the homeowners in the area that have access to that and are responsible for that right-of-way will obviously take precedent if that's what the Board and the Town wants. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not only would the situation of width comes the situation of wait. You know we're now exceeding 16 tons on some of these vehicles and all you got to do is run that thing into some sand and that vehicle is going to stay there and that's where the seriousness and block the right-of-way. Page 107 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals And I am not speaking as a Fire Chief because I am not of that capacity. I am an Officer but that is the extent of my conversation. MRS. RIVERA: I don~f:[hink there's any problem with him making decision at this time regarding the property, the house location building as we have it proposed and certainly we can then come back regarding the pool and the erection of the retaining wall at a later date. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Let's see. Mr. Dinizio, do you have a question? MEMBER DINIZlO: Well only that it appears to me, that the pool is going right through that retaining wall right now the way you have it proposed. '.': : CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's the reason why I say it. I mean but let's put the retainer - MEMBER DINIZIO: All the more reason but I mean, that retaining wall has to be built you know, on your property. MRS. RIVERA: That retaining wall right now is on the property. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right so I mean in any case it has to be on your property and after that whatever is left over you get a pool. MRS. RIVERA: Right. As it is, no problem at all, the retainer wall is on the property. It will be rebuilt. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, VCell I'm talking about there's a 45 foot right-of-way. MRS. RIVERA: No, 25 foot. MEMBER DINIZIO: On the North side. What's that? 25? MRS. RIVERA: 25 on the north side, 15 to the right, 7-1/2 ft. MEMBER DINIZIO: 15, yeah, that's not something you can build on. to leaVe that. ~ MRS. RIVERA: Right. We have every intention of leaving that. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, that's all I have to say. You've got Page 108 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Let's see what develops throughout the hearing. I know we're going to take some testimony. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Ms. Moore how are you tonight? MRS. RIVERS: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, before you begin. I do believe that a letter was faxed from one of the neighbor homeowners, Mrs. Katos stating that she had no objection - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Our machine jammed yesterday and I called you - MRS. RIVERA: It was resent again today. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It was? MRS. RIVERA: And I have a copy of it here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, could you present it to us? MRS. RIVERA: Sure. And also, I just would like the Board to know, I spoke to most of the neighbors both to the north and to the east and absolutely none of them had any objection to the proposed building envelope of thiS property nor the development. In fact, they're very encouraged because they do know the new property owner will be rebuilding the retaining wall beautifying the lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just so we make this clear. If the Board entertains this application, we want to see at least a portion of the wall constructed during the construction of the house so that we know exactly and I'm talking about the north wall and at least the portion around the;-turn so we can understand what we have up on top. MRS. RIVERA: I believe the first thing that's going to erected will be the retaining wall in order to continue building the house. The first thing we'll do, will be the retaining wall. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is your applicant required, your contract vendee estimate the exact cost of this wall? You told me in excess - MRS. RIVERA: A minimum of $20,000. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Alright, Ms. Moore, we're ready. Page 109 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: I'm here on behalf of Karl and Vivian Koch, who are here this evening. They are the adjacent property owners. Where most of them desire this plan, they object to the application and to begin with so that the Board understands, Mr. & Mrs. Koch offered to purchase this property at the then asking price of one sixty five. So they offered to purchase this and for their purposes to preserve their property. It is that important to them to be able to keep this property from impacting them adversely. The second and publicly most important issue here is that this property can be developed with absolutely no bearing this application whatsoever. The question is which is the front yard? The definition in the code speaks of the front yard as a town road being the designated front yard. Summit would be the logical front yard and therefore according to the setback from Summit is available. Thereafter the rear yard is a 5Ofoot setback And I wish to differ with:the applicant, I'm sorry, with Christine. The Zoning Code speaks as far as where the setbacks are to be designated and the right-of-way line is specifically defined as the line from which yard and other requirement show measures and I know from my own experience coming before this Board, when I called Joe Ingegno and asked him for surveys and I asked him for setbacks from the right-of-way. That is the way the code defines the front yard, rear yard as setbacks, from the right-of-way. So right from the beginning, this application I think needs revision because the survey is incorrect. The setback should be measured from the right-of-way line. Taking those measurements from the right-of-way line, the Kochs don't, they don't necessarily have an objection to the house being built here. They prefer not it being built, and that's why they offered to purchase the property. However, if it is going to be built, it can be built with very little impact on the Kochs value and enjoyment of the property by staying within the designated setbacks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will admit though, that this lot has three front yards? MRS. MOORE: Oh, absolutely. It has three front yards. Well it really, no, I take it back. It doesn't have. It has the setbacks that are required. Front yard setbacks because of the right-of-ways. However, the front yard is Summit with respect to the way the code defines the roadway. The code also speaks as far as corner lots and corner lots require setbacks, front yard setbacks. So either way you look at it, there has to be the appropriate setbacks from the right-of- way. What we did is, when we were considering this application, we called on Joe FiSchetti to look at this project because we,were most concerned about how this property was being developed. Mr. Fischetti provided me with a letter that I'd like to present to the Board. He could not review this application the way it's been presented because there are certain things that are missing. First and foremost, the first floor, basement floor elevations, we don't know what those are. We would need to look at them because one of the first things I considered Page 110 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearing~:-? Board of Appeals was whether or not a height variance was required in this application since the property, the way that you measure a height, it is from the mean, the natural, the mean natural grade. There's a specific definition and when you look at the natural grade of this property, it's 88, the' elevation is about 88 feet whereas they're proposing to build in an area that is equivalent to dredge spoil. The road spoiled from when the road was cut, there were spoils placed on this property and there's a mound. What the applicant is proposing now is to ( ) of the retaining wall essentially filling the property, changing the grade of the property in order to accommodate the construction of the house at the most, at the highest point, and most intrusive point of the property. Again, that is not something that is required here. There is no hardship on building on this property. It can be done and Mr. Fischetti's letter points that out. You can build here. The fact that they're proposing to revise or rebui'ld this retaining wall at a cost of $20,000, they can probably, certainly the retaining wall needs some repairs but I would like to have Mr. Fischetti consider that if it's being built where it's appropriate to build here, the fact is, that the retaining wall probably only need repair rather than complete reconstruction and supporting much more soil than what is presently in place. So again, there is so much information that is lacking in this application to consider for my clients to be able to look at this and say, OK, it's not going to impact us the way we believe. We can tell that from here, we know right from the beginning that the setbacks are not appropriate and that the setbacks that are being proposed are going to severely impact on the Kochs, Mr. & Mrs. Koch and their home. They asked you to come and come on to their property, you can see every piece of the property, the applicant's property from their home, it looks right over it so you can see the entire property without even breaking a sweat and we ask you to come on to the property and take a look. Other issue that we'd like for the applicant to resolve for us, is whether, where the location of the garages and driveway are going to be, the location of the retaining walls and the proposed final' grades. The final grades are the most important because the sense I'm getting from the discussion is, the final grade is going to be a very unnatural grade. There's going to be a significant change to the grade of this property. The ~ast point that Mr. Fischetti asked about is the proposed location of the sanitary system. The Health Department has very specific rules on where sanitary systems are to be placed and what the grades are for the placement of sanitary systems and without that information he can't tell whether or not this project is in compliance with the Sanitary Code. That, that's actually doing them a service because if they're proposing a sani[~ry system in a place where it's inappropriate, they'll know in advance and can object (inaudible). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a question Ms. Moore? MRS. MOORE: Sure. Page 111 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you know Mrs. Rivera at all? MRS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You've met her before? MRS. MOORE: H'm, h'm. Well she from another - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you think the two of us and any Board Member could discuss this issue on site on Saturday morning? MRS. MOORE: Yes, that's absolutely fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I really just want the attorney and the agent for. I mean I will walk over to Mr. Koch's property but I would like to discuss this on site with you. I find this and we'll bring a tape measure and do some taping and so on and so forth. What would you say, 9:30? MRS. MOORE: I'm up at 7:30, so whatever time you want. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 9:30, OK. MRS. MOORE: 9:30, it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you see one of those red ambulances going by somebody has got to give me a cell phone number and I'll call you from the ambulance. OK? MRS. MOORE: But I would actually have you come on to Mr. & Mrs. Koch's property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I will then digress and go on to Mrs. Koch's property. Anybody that like to come, you're welcome to come. MRS. MOORE: I think it'd be easier if we discuss it from their level because you can look right down and see what they're talking about. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah. What I need is a copy of Mr. Fischetti's report. MRS. MOORE: Absolutely. I'm going to submit it right now. Page 112 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But I need an additional copy to give to Mrs. Rivera and then would this Board like to entertain the continuation of this hearing on Tuesday, Wednesday rather, or would you like to wait until the next regularly scheduled meeting? MEMBER DINIZIO: it's fine with me. MRS. MOORE; It's fine but I think we're going to need some information. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Well no, Mrs. Rivera is going to tell you what she can give you then on Wednesday, and then we'll continue the hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting whatever you can't give us. MEMBER TORTORA: Before we go any further, there's something that we will discuss with you. Where we're measuring from, right before the property line- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going, no, no, no, see we're going to discuss that with the Town Attorney before that. MRS. MOORE: Well that's fine. Have him read the definition of right-of-way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we'll discuss that and if we don't get that answer exactly on Wednesday, we will discuss it with him ongoing as we go on. But I'm going to tell you, that I can take verbatim testimony on this for the next four hours, and I still may be thoroughly confused, and it has nothing to do with either one of you very nice ladies. It has to do with this particular site. MRS. MOORE: No, ! think you have to actually look at it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean we've been up on it. Christina is, how is the poison ivy up there? My only question to MRS. RIVERAI Oh, it's fine. You can walk a great deal on the property at least from the north side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm still getting over the second dose this year. MRS.' MOOR:E: But again, I don~t think you either have to. You.~n see the property. So first try it from the nice easy way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So 9:30, Saturday morning? MRS. MOORE: 9:30 Saturday. Page 113 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and could you supply us with a copy of that? MRS. MOORE: If I could use the copy machine I'll give you a copy. MRS. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman, do you want me to address at the moment that we've already - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I want you to study it and see what you can give us and what you can't give us. MRS. RIVERA: I'd be happy to study it and look it over. No problem at all. I just want Ms. Moore tO:be assured that the house will be erected according to the rules and regulations of the Town of the Southold Building Department. If there's a height restriction, we will abide by the height restriction. We will not change the natural grade of the land other than to dear the land as appropriate to build the foundation. There's no intention, you know, raising the elevation of this property and she spoke about the spoils from the road being poured on to this property. From walking the property you know, there's numerous pines. There's not much spoils that were put on to this property from that location. And I have a topo of Mr. Salise's property which is adjacent, and the mean topo for that elevation are consistent with both Mrs. Katos' property and Mr. Salise to the east so the elevation, yes, is different but, I assure you the 20 feet difference between Summit Road and the north parts was not created by spoils from building that land. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Rivera I just want to tell you this and I'll tell you where the history is. I was the first one to get stuck on that right-of-way. When Frank Seleski was bulldozing that right-of-way and: I am::very familiar with it. He actually pulled my car up so I'm perfectly aware of the right-of-way and I'll shed that light on Wednesday when we get on this situation. So that's OK with everybody at this point? Yes, would you please use the copy machine and make us a couple of copies and give Mrs. Rivera one. What time would you like to reconvene this ladies and gentlemen? Like say a quarter to eight? MEMBER COLLINS: What's the one we're doing at 7:20? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: :That is the Bed & Breakfast. MEMBER TORTORA: Let's make them earlier. MRS. MOORE: I was going to say set them both at the same time. Page 114 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, set it at the same time. We'll set it at 7:25. MEMBER HORNING: Are you going to make decisions before that, or are we going - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we're going to make decisions. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: 7:00 o'clock would be good Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, you want to make this one at 7 and we'll have the other one at 7:20. Mr. Koch, you have a question? Statement? MR. KOCH: I'd just like to a correct a .couple of mistakes that were made and:.:a couple of numbers. Yes indeed ! did make an overture to buy the property. It was offered at $175,000. When I saw all this activity I was always assured by my neighbors and advisors, that they could never build on this property. Don't worry about it. But when I saw this activity I offered him 175, asking an offer on the telephone 155. That was rejected, I raised the offer to 165. In the morning that my wife made that offer, the owner advised my wife that it was too late, you should of called me last night, and had a shake hand on it. So that was the one correction. The other thought was I had when I talked to my advisors that ! would buy the property was to gain that fill. ( ) that whole dam wall all the way down pushing it in the lot and that could be done for $5,000. Now you've increased that elevation but you've lost the berm build-up when that road was cut. When that road was cut, they didn't haul that dirt away, they piled it up. Now if the applicant intends to use the highest point on that lot as their average, one of their average starting points, and the 38 still show up that, that road has, they have a tremendous advantage in height. They're taking a tremendous advantage and for review and costing !in the heuse by moving it forward. ~But what they've done, is they've destroyed our property. I made a few notes and this here lady mentioned most of it. I am my wife's husband. She is the owner of the house. We bought the house together for each other. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How long ago was that Mr. Koch? MR. KOCH: 3-1/2 years ago. This was where I was going to retire and when ~ saw the house, I was the only one sitting inside, this is where I want to be. But there would be a severe financial 'and we put it on the market to test it. and ~ didn't hire a broker, and take 3-$400 a week for the last three or four weeks to advertise to bring people in and say, do you want to buy this house? They're going to build on the lot and you see that stake there, that's where the building is going to be and they all walked away. So financially we would suffer. Visually we would be horribly impacted and emotionally we're going through that now. Page 115 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals But we're not asking them do not build. We're saying merely adhere to the existing code and it can be done. You can set it back. You can have a wonderful view from both houses. By merely adhedng to the code, it enables both families to share this view. So my wife and I were going to,suggest to you that the visit you said that and then what we love and what we have should be shared by both of us. Not taken away from us. That,s all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: hearing and - Thank you. Alright so we'll reconvene this MRS. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman could I submit for the record. I have the survey of Mr. Koch's property as it exists today with the current setbacks and actually the topos of his property which is adjacent and his setback is measured from the right-of-way of 51 feet and not, I'm sorry 51 feet from the property line, not the right-of-way and the setbacks are determined by semi-private as a front yard and this is obviously considered his rear yard because there's a pool now in existence here, and you can see from the topo that it's pretty consistent with the topos from both the Scalise's property and the Katos' property. So you can see there's not a tremendous amount of fill that was supposedly added to this property. MRS. MOORE: Just for the record, she's raising the issue of the Koch property. There has been a elimination of the right-of-way which has been recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office, February 3, 1999. I'll give you the Liber and Page. I had it here and if you'd like it for the record, I can provide you a copy. Liber 11943, Page 493. This Certificate eliminates the right-of-way over Mr. well it was Mr. Katos' property. So that the setback is actually now from the property line. It's not a setback from the right-of-way. And I'd also like to point out that the right-of-way receiving acoess to the westerly piece which did not:use the right-of-way and that's the whole reason that it is not an issue whereas, the lot that is being proposed, the right-of-way as you can see, is heavily used and is, I mean there's an absolute right-of-way. So that the reasons for setting it back it's the equivalent reason of why people put our setbacks from road because of the ability activity and just in general what you know, why setbacks were created in the Code from the beginning. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, you're saying, that there's an extinguishment of the right-of-way On the rear of the~Koch property:' ~,~ ~ MRS. MOORE: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which on the survey says, 25 foot right-of-way. That has been distinguished? Page 116 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Correct. That has been distinguished. to the property you'll see that it's all landscaped. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, OK. In fact, when you come MRS. RIVERA: Your right-of-way also that you're speaking of on the north side, I do know about the elimination, Mrs. Katos, you know, there is a letter in the file and a decision that she gave up her use of the right-of-way that was hers. But that right-of-way that comes up on the north side, is used by Mr. Koch's residence. The, I believe most residents which is to the north of Mr. Koch, directly north, and so that right-of-way is still utilized by - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Through the Koch property? MRS. RiVERA: Well it's right in front of the Koch's property, yes and that's the only access that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's look at that on - MRS. MOORE: Can I take a look? It's actually a, we'll show you the survey. Is the entire Board going to be there? MR. KOCH: In regard to the right-of-way and the setbacks, when this house that we live in was built, there was no concern for an adjacent house because there wasn't any. This was built clear and out in the open. This new proposal here is not clear and out in the open. CHAIRMAN~;-GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you.-We thank everybody for their courtesy. I'll offer that as a resolution ladies and gentlemen to reconvene this at 7:00 o'clock on Wednesday. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 117 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 10:56 P.M. - BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC (Owner Robins Island Holdings, LLC), located at 380 First Street, New Suffolk, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-117-8-19. Zone Distri:ct: Marine II. Applicant is requesting: (1) Appl. No. 4809 - (Robins Island Holdings LLC) A Special Exception under Article XlI, Section 100-121B(2) to construct new building and establish uses incidental to a private ferry terminal use (existing) for transportation to and from Robins Island from this 21,407 sq. ft. parcel; and/or an Interpretation that a Special Exception is not necessary; and (2) Appl. No. 4822 - (Robins Island Holdings LLC) Variance based upon the Building Inspector's March 28, 2000 Notice of Disapproval, for the reason that the new building, to be used for offices incidental to a private ferry terminal, is shown at less than 15 feet from the side property line, which is not permitted under Article XXlV, Section 100-244B. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Law how are you? I haven't seen you for a little while. MR. LAW: How you doing Mr. Chairman? It's good seeing you again and Members of the Board. My name is Kevin Law. I'm an attorney with Nixon Peabody, Garden City and I represent the applicant. We have actually three applications before you. I think you'd be happy to know I'm withdrawing one of them tonight and that is the request for an interpretation and the only two applications then I have, we have before you, would be a Special Exception Permit application as well as a side area Variance application. The property in question is 380 First Street. It's on the north east corner of First and Jackson street in:New Suffolk. it is a non-conforming lot. Just for some background, the owner indication since we here before you a couple of years ago. Lewis Bacon acquired title to this parcel back in December of 1993 along with another parcel in New Suffolk, which is bisectored by the Town program and Robins Island and all three parcels and all three lots were attached to the same deed. Mr. Bacon subsequently conveyed title to Robins Island Holdings Company and Belevedere Property Management is the manager of his properties and Belvedere is the applicant before you. So to the extent, if there is any confusion on who's Belvedere, that's who Belvedere is. With me tonight is our Engineer Marty Reeve, Hauppauge and Daryl Volinski, the owner's rep, to the extent they could help answer any questions. What we're looking to do is erect a new structure consisting of a two stow building about 30 x 60 on a piling base. It'll have garages on the bottom floor, four garage space and the top floor will be used for office space and storage. It is going to be used to support the Marine activities associated with Robins Island. Our plans also call for the improvement Page 118 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings ~ Board of Appeals of the bulkhead in the area which over the years has become an eyesore ever since the Oyster factory which use to be the other lot as owned by the applicant, burnt down I believe in the early nineteen eighties. And so we're going to do an overall enhancement project with the bulkhead in the boat basin area and try to improve it by that. The zoning for the property is M2, which purpose is to provide the water dependent and Marine we will (). We believe our proposed use will be consistent with the other Marine activities in the area. We met with the Building Inspector and staff of the Planning Board earlier this year, and as the Building Inspector, at the Building Inspector's suggestion, he thought that the building as I just described to you, which we similarly described to him, the closest thing to fit into under the code was a ferry terminal building and we realize it's not a typical ferry terminal building. It's not going to be open to the public but what it is, it'sa building that will be used as a staging area for Robins Island and which is exactly what we do in rented quarters right across the street. It's an opportunity where people can come in who need to get to the island where you check in, whether they are a guest, a deliver, or, an employee, and that's a way for us to have administrative oversight over access to and from the island and then they would go over to the boat basin area and have a boat take them to Robins Island. There's no intentions and let me emphasize that of an actual ferry coming to this particular lot and discharging guests or employees on to this lot. The boat activities will be the same as the activities that go on, on lot 20, which is the other lot I was referring to. And based on that suggestion, we submitted a Special Exception Permit Application to the Board which is the subject of our application tonight. We also applied for a Building Permit to the Building Department which was denied on the sole ground that we need a minor side area variance and that is the other subject of our application here tonight. We currently have pending applications with the Suffolk County Health Department. Site Plan Application with the Southold Planning Board and we will be filing our weather and permit applications next week with the Te~wn Trustees and the DEC. That's it, the overview of our project and what our intentions are. Again, I want to emphasize that this is private and so it's a pository terminat and again, the use of the property and the use of the structure that we'd ~ike to build there would be no different than the activities that have been going on over the last three years of the site on the building that we've been renting out. And what we think this project will do is actually, if we back up a little bit, the focus over the last few years has been on the activities on Robins Island and as I wrote to the Board last year, construction was pretty much stopped over there for now. Things are a,'; construction has pretty much stopped except for minor repairs here and there. There's no intention of doing anymore major construction at this time and it was always our intention that .once heavy construction activity stopped on Robins Island, we would then focus on New Suffolk and clean up those two parcels and try to improve them and make them functional, and I think those parcels were historically always linked to Robins Island because being an Page 119 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals island, it's unique just by its definitions and you always needed a main land parcel to support the activities that would go on the island. And again, in light of the hour, and if it pleases the Board, I was planning on going through a litany of reasons why I think you can comply with your Special Exception Standards and I'd be happy to share them with you or again, in light of the hour, I'd be happy to submit them in writing to the Board. Whatever your preference. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you submit them in writing if you don't mind and we'll deal with that aspect of it. What I need to discuss with you, is the aspect of the boat basin as it exists with this new proposed building presently and at the site. You have a trailer. Is there some modular home or mobile home, or something? MR. LAW: There use to be and now we have a small wooden temporary shack. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. LAW: But smaller than the mobile trailers that we had there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's only used for storage at this time, or whatever? MR. LAW: Correct and the Security Personnel go to and from there, because they punch a clock in there, and they use a little bit of storage, and that's on the lot where we'd like to construct the new building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Is there anyone in the audience that has not seen this plan that wants to look at it right now? So what we're going to do is take a five minute recess. We're going to let you look at the-plan. If you feel you need more time to look at the plan, then you let us know, OK? We're going to take my plan that I've been reading from, that I'm looking for, and we're going to place it down there and you know. So we'll take a short recess. (Took short break between 11:05 & 11:15.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Law, please continue for anything else you mighty want to. MR. LAW: Well Mr. Chairman,- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to reduce the areas of the Special Exception requirements that are in the code to writing, and you're going to submit them for us. Is that what you're going to do? Page 120 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. LAW: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. LAW: Again, in light of the hour, and I'd like to then just reserve my time to comment and perhaps answer any questions members of the audience will have and I would do that only in hopes of not delaying the public hearing conclusion in term of this (inaudible). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you tell us what's in the building, or ask either Daryl or the Engineer if you, that's not a sarcastic statement I assure you. MR. LAW: Right, no. '::. : CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But what the building will comprise of and before you do that, I just want to say, that I was in the building across the street as you know were the two inspections that we had done, and we found offices and one conference room upstairs, and one bathroom and the original kitchen that was in the house. I was just wondering if this particular building was going to change appreciably, or is it going to have approximately the same things of that building? MR. LAW: Almost identical. Activities would go on in this building, that are going on in the buildings that the Board inspected, or visited when they did their inspection on Robins Island. But for the fact, that, that building doesn't have a garage space, and this building would, and it would be used for both storage as well as the storage of vehicles, and perhaps a small boat. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK: And there would be ordinarily no overnight sleeping arrangements or anything in the building? MR. LAW: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. LAW; It will be used certain business hours. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The queStion that arose ;during the inspection was approximately the height of the building, and we kind of tattered the engineer and asked him if he knew approximately how much that would be. If he doesn't know tonight, we'd be very happy to ask him to furnish that to us. MR. REEVE: I can answer that. Page 121 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just state your name for the record. MR.:REEVE: Martin Reeve, Barrett, Bonacci & Van Weel. The building height the way it's measured by Town Code, would be about 20 feet. Give or take a foot or two. I believe that the requirement is, the maximum height permitted is 35 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We'll start with Jim. Any questions of Mr. Law or Mr. Volinski? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I assume that 20 feet is not to the "T", but a - MEMBER COLLINS: MEMBER DINIZIO: underneath? MR. LAW: Yes. The way they count it. I mean it's all going to be garage space. MEMBER DINIZIO: And then up above is just these offices, kitchen - MR. LAW: A small kitchen, pantry. MEMBER DINIZIO: A bathroom, offices? MR. LAW: Right. MEMBER'DINIZIO: And other things? It looks like MR. LAW: Jim, there is a possibility on the bottom part of one of the bays, they'll be like a reception area because as people walk in someone will greet them so there could be two desk there and to the extent that is office space. There could be some office space on the first floor. It's just natural so people could, as they come in whether it's the Fed X delivery, or a guest, there'll be somebody to greet them at the door. MEMBER DINIZIO: And then the shed that you have on there now, is that going to stay? MR. LAW: No, that will be the - MEMBER DINIZIO: The generator, that'll stay? Page 122 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. LAW: That'll be inside. MEMBER DINIZIO: Inside the a- MR. LAW: Shed. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before Ms. Collins jumps in I just need to ask you one question. Has there been any appreciable change in activities on the island since you have come before us? It's still used primarily as a hunting preserve with invited guests, OK, but there's been no appreciable change to your knowledge? MR. LAW: Correct and again, any activity is during the colder months when the shoots occur during the regular hunting season. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. LAW: And a return of guests come on to the island. On a daily basis, there are day to day staff members that go and do the day to day care taking of the property but no appreciable. If anything, over the last two years activity has significantly declined and we demonstrate that with just a payroll which is also significantly declined. The number of bodies employed has significantly been reduced because most of the activity there has been reduced accordingly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to go back to a little bit about what you said about the water and the water access. Now right now you have what's more the subject property and I know what that looks like, and right next to it, is the public boat ramp and then there's a piece of crummy property. And then there's the I wouldn't call it ramp but the dock, or whatever you want to call it. MR. LAW: It's all part of the same parcel. MEMBER COLLINS: .Where your boats come in? No, lunderstand they're part of the same parcel but I'm just picturing it visually. MR. LAW: Good, yes. ,¢ Page 123 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: And I think you said, that the Robin Island boats will continue to come in and leave from the same spot they do now. MR. LAW: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: The putting this building up doesn't mean that the boats are going to move up there to some new docking facility. Is that right? MR. LAW: You're absolutely correct. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just wanted to make sure I had that right. I don't think I have any other question. That was the only thing that I wasn't clear on. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You did allude Mr. Law to another issue and that is, that once this building is constructed, Mr. Bacon is now going to move toward the Marina area. Is that what your anticipation was? I mean that area that Ms. Collins was referring to as crummy, the decade pilings and stuff would then be the next process of resurgent? MR. LAW: Yes. We want to enhance that entire area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. LAW: And that crummy area, my understanding that's where the actual oyster factory was located. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. LAW: And which burnt down and we want to clean that up and what the DEC has asked us to do and we're on the verge of voluntarily agreeing to is to restore the wetland now with nice tidal plantings and again, to beautify the area to also stabilize with a new bulkhead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora we come to you at the hour of twenty after eleven. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you address why the variance was required? MR. LAW: The side area variance? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. Page 124 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. LAW: We submitted a Building Permit. What we tried to do, was locate the structure as far from the tidal wetland as possible. And to the extent we could come back up. What we also did in locating the building there, was to give us optimum ability to maneuver vehicles in and out of the. garage. And the standard is 15 feet, while proposal is 6-1/2 feet and thus, we need a variance for 8-1/2 feet and we think that is not substantial. Again, but the major reason is to keep it as far from tidal wetland as possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 8-1/2 feet or 6-1/2 feet? MR. LAW: Our proposal is to locate 6-1/2 feet. So since the standard is 15, our variance request is 8-1/2 feet. That's the only variance we need from the Town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, George? MEMBER HORNING: Can you show us on the map exactly where the dock is going? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the people, Mr. Homing is from Fishers Island and he's been there but he doesn't recollect. (change tape) (Parties are having a private discussion regarding the dock). OK, so I guess we'll leave it open now to the public and see what there comments are and then we'll try to reflect upon those. Is there anybody that would like to voice a concern or who has a consideration that they would like to discuss? Yes, Ma'am? If you'll just use the mike and state your name. MS. ROGERS: My name is Patsy Rogers. I'm a resident of New Suffolk and have been for 20 years and I have this distinct unpleasure to watch the boats go back and forth, and back and .forth and back and forth, arid back and forth, 355 days a year. But I understand that's not the issue before us nor is the constant gunfire that was heard on numerous weekends in my, practically in my front yard which I also do not like. I'm concerned about what the building looks like. I'm concerned about how gigantic it is. I'm concerned about why it has to be so close to the property line. I'm extremely concerned about the sewage situation which is a disaster in New Suffolk every time it even rains and to have you know, anything added is going to create havoc. We all ready have the town down there with their pump truck every time there's an inch of rain and they put in new this and new that and:do the other thing and nothing ~¢hanges and we're still flooded so that I can give every morning concern. Having a building 50 feet long even if it is only 20 feet high by somebody's measurements does not mean it's not like having that little square building that it's what 15 x 15 maybe? It's a small building. We're talking about a giant building and perhaps use transportation is what will happen but I'm a little skeptical about whether putting Page 125 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals up that size of a building with that many parking spaces is the indication considering what else there is down there. New Suffolk has been changed very, very much by the presence of Mr. Bacon's holding engineer. I'm sure he has this motivation that his client ( ) so on but for those of us who live there before, it has changed our lives even when traffic hits. It's partly not all them, it's partly Legends also. Traffic has change numerously. There are cars and trucks parked all over the place where there never use to be any all winter and things are very different. So I just want to say that I think you should watch very carefully and consider very carefully, particularly, particularly the sewage system I'm really concerned about that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? MS. GOODMAN: This is going to be very short because I'm practically unconscious. I'm Lucille Field Goodman and I live in New Suffolk and have for over 20 years and I love it. You've all been there and you know how unique it is. It's like a playroom. I want to say I'm very grateful to Mr. Bacon for some of the good, positive things, that have happened from his becoming the owner of Robins Island. We look forward to a better tax base, a little school and we appreciate the donations that he's made for Civic events but I have a big issue with some of his philosophical approaches to life, and the world such as shooting beautiful pheasants, that come to be rescued in our backyard, they flee Robins Island. So we save as many as we can. But other than that of course the gunfire. But we understand the different strokes for different folks. Here is what concerns me the most. The beauty, the esthetics of lower New Suffolk. When we first came there the Oyster factory was still there. It was a great beauty in that the broken down disrepair that had a natural look on the shore, the level where the water is. It burned down and now there are aside from the trailer and the docks and what have you, there are boats that are waiting there to go into the water. Boats belong there. It's a shore environment. The office building that Louis Bacon's Enterprises has used is across the street. There's an office building and there's a Post Office and there's some land and some residences. That's across First Street. That still, shall we say a little commercial area. It's our downtown New Suffolk along with an art gallery and two restaurants. The rest is boat industry. If You take this structure that is being proposed and put it at the shore line the look of New Suffolk changes forever. The esthetic of New Suffolk changes forever. Look how it has changed by the monument and: flag pole that was put up at the public beach to commensurate the submarine base. It has changed the entire look. I'm not making a pejorative statement, I'm just saying that it's changed. That's just one monument, and one flag pole indifferent. Imagine what this building will be down there, which will flood just the way the street flood so that we practically need a rowboat to get to the post office. What will happen to the sanitation debris in the cesspools and Page 126 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals other sanitary conveyances? We're talking about unsanitary, possible unsanitary conditions. How will they get permits from the Health Department for debris and waste products that will make a hazardous place for Peconic Bay? Our Bay which suffers enough as you know from other problems that we're still trying to clean up. So I ask you to think all these thoughts, the impact. Put yourself in the dwelling place of New Suffolk. You live there, you want it to be as safe, as natural, and clean as possible. Sure they should have their office building. Sure they have to have changes is required. But not in a way that endangers the community and really changes the esthetic in a way that cannot be redeemed ever. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. REAUSSON: My name is Stephen Reausson. I live in New Suffolk as well. I have just two letters with me from other residents who couldn't be here tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. REAUSSON: I'm disappointed that this had to be the last item on the Agenda tonight because there were others here, people I recognized in the audience. We're all very tired, and you're very tired and we've yet to talk about this important issue. The price for the preservation of Robins Island has been very high. We've basically lost the esthetic of our waterfront in New Suffolk. i'd like to believe that as these gentlemen had said, that this is a move towards beatification and enhancement. However, as far as what has happened on the New Suffolk side, of the haulings, the track record is not very good. if you come down to New Suffolk right now, it's really a disaster and it's not a disaster because it's always been a disaster. It's a disaster because it's become a "disaster in the last three years, and you know why we have you .know, this Mt. Everest pile of sand, 500 feet higher i don't know what, which completely blocks the view of the water from just about everywhere over where the rocks are down at the end of the beach there. I still don't understand, there was you know, there was some hope when there was a backhoe there for a while, hoping that sand would get moved and kind of spread around and so forth, but now the backhoe is gone and the pile is still there. So I don't have a lot of faith that this is going to .be all that beautiful. I look at the plans for this building, this building is massive. How many houses in that part of New Suffolk are 3600 sq. ft.? I mean it's not;:even close. It's by far the biggest building down there. I meanit'll be like the galley hoe, and you know, that's basically it. So I don't see this as really being kind of consistent with our community. Our waterfront. Our esthetic. I won't repeat the concerns that were already voiced. You know those exactly. Looking at the architectural plan, the side of the building that faces the hotel that we all frequent everyday is rather monolithic. There's really no detail on that side Page 127 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals of the building. There's just two small windows and a just big block side of the building 30 feet wide, two stories high and you know which obviously is an issue that will have to be addressed and I mean, I guess that's basically it. I mean I just don't see how this kind of fits in with what our rule of character isall about. I think everyone here who came tonight to speak about every issue is basically talking about the same, basically the same premise, the same feeling. But I think this is one that not only affects just the three neighbors, it really affects everybody in our community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: Is square footage for the office, 18007 MR. LAW: The footprint is 1800, the post office will be 3600 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes Ma'am, we're sorry. MS. MANNING: My name is Alison Manning. ! live in New Suffolk. I actually live on Second Street, right across the street from the ramp and the whole area, ( ) go back and forth. So rm very familiar with the traffic since it's right outside my bedroom window so I can see and hear the cars going by down to bring his guest down on weekends and the cars that fill the parking lot when their service people going over there as well as the traffic that goes back and forth on the boat. I picked up something that the Chairman mentioned earlier in the evening about what a Special Exception stands for. It's not necessarily a right that you have. It's one ordered by the Board under certain circumstances to accommodate whether the need of the applicant might be. Special Exception in this case seems to be one of the squeezed in to accommodate the fact that Mr. Bacon would like to build his property in order to accommodate his office and expand whatever other facility he has for his guest and his work. ! gather he works out of the office as well. It's not just his guest and his own but to conduct his business and if he's looking to expand that property and this is an exception and as I gather the space is going to be lined up. There's going to be 18 parking spaces as well but when he went to the Building Inspector to find a way to build this building, he was told that the way to do it, was to try and take it and call it a ferry terminal. Just the fact, that there's an attempt being made to try and find a way to make this work, because of the zoning there in, suggest that the Board -~:~ Should further scrutinize whether in fact that would. If the code provides you can build a ferry terminal there, which I'm not sure that it does. It simply property that you agree to allow for a ferry terminal. There never was a ferry terminal there. It was a commercial venture. An oyster industry that died thirty years ago and there's now an attempt to call it something like that to find a way around the code but there is no other way in which you could possibly get a building like Page 128 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals that, or use that property for that use. He's using it to run his office. He's using it to let his guest come. He's got an 18 car parking garage around the building and four cars underneath. I think it's inconsistent with what that property has been historically as far back as I can remember for the last almost 50wears that I've lived in New Suffolk and certainly well beyond that as you can see from the look of that barrier of land when you looked at the photographs that was entered during the 100th anniversary of the homes and the (). I mean, I just think that the Board should think whether or not the circumstances of him needing a place to run his office isn't really something that warrants a Special Exception as the Chairman referred to earlier and whether or not consideration of how this will impact the land, the town, the character of New Suffolk as well as the more consideration of water and sewage and life is something that justifies them and the application (). '~ ' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Law, in light of some of the discussion here, is there a possibility that some of these parking spaces could be scaled down and some more buffering put in and possibly a little more uniqueness to the building, such as more of a New England flavor or something in that nature? MR. LAW: First of all, the parking. I believe we now have spaces. We have shown our compliance with Town Code - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. LAW: To the extent we don't provide that many because that would trigger another variance and you know, we're trying to submit a plan that was 99% conformance. That is something that I think you should discuss that to the extent we could reduce some parking..My understanding is that we need for that many because some of the spots are just, they're not used all day long and of these spots there are people visiting so they're not parking on the street. As for the Marina look we believe to have called the Architectural Review Board today and they were most impressed with our submittals and we actually gave them building materials which have a quite a nautical look, weathered look, a look if anybody noticed that some of the Board Members have when Mr. Bacon at great expense refurbished and finished the main house over Robins Island that one would think that it was there for one hundred years. He's not looking to do anything to visuallY hurt or negatively impact this opportunity. It would be those things with the goal once he's done, in having people pass by and think that the building may have been there all along and so the architectural and structural materials were strive to achieve that goal. Page 129 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Yeah, I was unaware of that until that issue was just brought up. Yes Sir? MR. MAUL: MY-name is George Maul and I own the property that Robbins Island is now renting and using it as an office and I just wanted to say, that ! think that Mr. Bacon has an unique opportunity in New Suffolk to do something good and I think he's done some good things on Robbins Island and I hope that he can find some way to continue to do more good things in the New Suffolk area. I'd also like to say, that I don't think anyone who represents Robins Island here, has yet lived through one of these storms that inflict the waterfront area of New Suffolk on a regular basis. I want to compel them because I don't really have an opportunity to speak to them that when those storms come in, everything that's on the shore front that is loose ends up 200 feet further inland than it is. Now if that happens to be their ferry graft or their latest load of railroad ties or whatever else might be loose, that stuff will find itself in the windows of people's homes in the area. I'm sure that some of the people who witnessed the last storm are familiar with the fact that boats went through the front windows of the emporium. Again I'd just like to say, that I think that representatives of Robins Island generally are trying to do a good thing but I also have to say that my experience I think I need to tell the Board and these gentlemen, that my experience with Robins Island's personnel has been that they do not really seem to take as much care as they should with some of the things that they do. When they rent my house, they have left the windows open during hurricanes, and gone away for the weekends, and when I arrived one day the time that the service had been cut, the line had been plowed under the street and now my home was connected to the generator across the street even though I have no longer have any control over the electrical service on my building. I think that was an oversight on Robins Island's part, and it's very difficult to talk to Robins Island because the personnel changes on a regular basis and I want to make the Board aware and these gentlemen aware of the fact that you know, it's obvious that huge amounts of money, huge amounts of power and that people who have these huge amount of money and huge amounts of power, have a tendency towards arrogance and they do not always have the best interest of the community in mind. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm trying to figure out Sir, where're you going with this? That's up to the applicant. MR. MAUL: I just want to make the Board aware of what goes on at Robins Island, that's all ! have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. OK, if you could Mr. Law, just give us some indication either by letter of your meeting with the Architectural Review Page 130 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals Board so that we can make these people aware that there is a move toward placing this building in a location that your placing it and it will look somewhat and please this,,~has nothing to do with the normal specifications of, or, the criteria we use f(~r~:Special Exceptions but at least we'll put their thoughts to rest in reference to the size and how it will conform to the community because I love New Suffolk. I boat in New Suffolk and it' the only solace that I really have to be honest with you so I do feel, you know, all of your comments are of great domain interest to me. Is there anybody else would like to speak? MS. MANNING: I just have one question. Mr. Law has it figured that the 18 parking spaces are required and that's because they're required because of the fact of the ferry terminal? He deems that Special Exception to build a ferry terminal, that he has to have 18 parking spaces? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to let him answer that question. Let me address the ferry terminal issue just one second, OK? This is an area that the Building Inspector used to determine what his feelings are concerning this particular piece of property for this particular use. This Board may not determine this to be a ferry terminal. This may be a maintenance building. So I don't want you to think quite honestly that this is a ferry terminal. It's very simply a building that's used in conjunction with this man's business. So I mean we haven't even discussed that issue at this particular point. MS. MANNING: So maybe if he's building by code requires 18 parking spaces? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well no, that's what Mr. Law is saying. Now, we're going to ask him - MEMBER TORTORA: A ferry, a private ferry terminal requires a Special Exception and that's what - MEMBER COLLINS: That's why they're here. MEMBER TORTORA: That's why they're here. MEMBER COLLINS: May I speak to the parking, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: The building has 1800 sq. ft. footprint and the upstairs is predominantly intended for office space as I understand it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. Page 131 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: In our Code, the requirement for parking for an office space is one parking place per 100 sq. ft. That's where the 18 came from. MS. MANNING: So if you give him Special Exception, of his being in commercial establishment, that he has to meet certain parking requirements? Whatever you call it, ferry terminal or - MEMBER COLLINS: Parking requirements are part of the whole process of the Building Code. You can't build a building without parking space. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Any kind of commercial. MS. MANNING: He's zoned for commercial maintenance or whatever you call it. MEMBER TORTORA: He's zoned for Marine use. MR. REAUSSON: So just on that point, can there be some revision to that given the fact that there is a huge parking lot immediately adjacent which for nine months out of the year gets so little use? Just on that issue, given the fact that there's some parking immediately adjacent which gets so little use for so much of the year, is that something that can be reviewed? Do we really need to add 18 more spots? I mean, how much pavement do we need down there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's really a Planning Board issue. It's an issue that ~ asked Mr. Law to address. I mean, I don't know. MEMBER DINiZIO: Comment? May I, Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know I really think you got to look at this in all fashions and if this is M2, you've got to think about what actually could go here. You know what they allow by way without a Special Exception and you know, although the lady had mentioned boats and boats are down there, if you could pick your Port of Egypt, and those big buildings, one of those would fit on here just nice. According to some of this property you couldn't cover with a metal building OK?, or rack Storage three boats high. And :with over 30% of this property. So, you know, when we consider that, certainly when, you know, we try to mitigate you know, the harmony of the community but you can't just take Mr. Bacon's application as a you know, something that's to offend you. You've got to think about the uses that could be here also that allow by right and they certainly are much in my opinion would not be what I would want to look out Page 132 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals there. You know without Mr. Law, Mr. Bacon's shingles and you know, nice, you know, It doesn't necessarily have to be pavement, it can just be cedar, it could be you know whatever they decide on and the Planning Board does a fairly good job at that but I would hope, that you folks could consider that if you need to go down and talk to the Building Clerk and ask him what could be allowed there? You'll be surprised at you know some of the things aren't so high even though they're Marine uses, you might be better off catching them. The parking part of it. Listen, it's their way and they're required to provide that. They can't rent it from somebody else it's got to be on their piece of property. So it's you know, the 18 space you know it seems like a lot but again, it cuts down the size of the building. Certainly because they have to supply the 18 space so it give you a little more view and certainly you know, I don't know, it still has to be worked out. I wouldn't touch that with pins and pole but i've see a lot worse situations. Somehow they get a you know, sanitary system there, so that's all ! have to say Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Anything else anybody else like to say? OK. Seeing no further hands I'll make a motion, yes. MR. LAW: No, I'm saying the people are done right? I know, it's late but you've got to let me comment to some of this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, sure, go ahead. MR. LAW: As for my other comments i will provide them to you in writing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. MR. LAW: First I'd like to state that I appreciate all the comments made by the various individuals here today. We had over the past few years tried to be a good neighbor and become a part of the community in more than just the New Suffolk area throughout the Town of Southold. So we don't take their concerns lightly to an extent. If we can addressed them, we will try to address them. There are certain things and certain points that were made regarding the size of the building. To the extend we could reduce the size of it. You know where we can. Will we attempt to do that? Yes, but I think as Mr. Dinizio was alluding to before, this building is not as big as it could be under the Code. I mean we could actually come in with a bigger building. We could build a single family home on this property a bigger structure than what is currently proposed without Zoning Board approval, without Planning Board approval. A simple building permit application to the Building Department once we get our Health Department Permits of course, and there are a whole lot of other things we can do on the property that we're not proposing. We are doing something that we Page 133 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals are permitted to do. Special Permit is not a variance. Special Permit is something that is permitted under the zoning and as long as we comply with the standards we're entitled to receive it. The amount of people that would be utilizing the structure on a daily basis is typically less than~(). Again, you've got a single family house constructed on the site, you can't regulate the amount of children a family has and they have eight children. I'm a fifth of eight and you know you can have ten people living in that house. That's more than we will have on a daily basis in our building. The point that Mr. Manning raised about when Mr. Bacon is going to run his business. He doesn't run his business. His business is in Manhattan. He doesn't run his business out of New Suffolk. This facility and the facility that we are now in the rented quarters for, are used to support the activities for private residential recreation use over Robins Island. This is not a commercial business operation. It is a, the activities are use to support private residential recreation component over Robins Island. i think it's most unfortunate, that our landlord comes down here and raises landlord/tenant issues and it makes a representation that the people and the employees change so frequently that he doesn't know who to talk to. You do look familiar now and we have met five years ago. i've been representing Mr. Bacon since day one in New Suffolk. We've had concern. I told you on more than one occasion, if you have concern of things that go wrong on in New Suffolk, feel free to call me. Daryl Volinski here tonight, has been with Mr. Bacon in New Suffolk since day one. Active member in the Greenport Fire Department. Active member in the Southold Community. We're here, we're available and if people have concerns, feel free to call us. Again, this is an unfair attempt to raise landlord/tenant issues at a public hearing on a Special Permit Application and we will again, we will work with the Board. We will work with the community to try and do something that is both esthetically pleasing and it will not have a negative impact on the community in the area. Our proposal, everything we're doing now in the community we Will be~doing that in our new structure. We're not looking to increase activities. We're looking to have our own structure that we're entitled to under the law and we're looking to beautify the area and again, we are here for the long term and we're not looking to do something that's going to hurt this community. We want to do something that is both beneficial to the property as well as to the community and I'm sincere in saying that we will try to address some of the concerns raised to the extent we can and any concerns that the Board has and we will try to address as well. As you said Mr. Chairman, that this is one part of the process, there's a Planning Board, site plan requirement where there's another opportunity for a Public"Hearing and some of these isSues perhaps might be better addressed during the Planning Board issues not to deny anybody's right to make any comments here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What I was going to do before was in the anticipation of I wasn't actually going to close the hearing now because you Page 134 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals were going to submit some documents to us. I just don't know if it wouldn't be better to put you as number I on June 8th and just have you come back to us with a you know, we'll review your Special Exception issues that you want to raise or a you know, if you have any other things that you may what to bring to us on June 8th, or you want, maybe you know, I'll ask the Board, maybe just close the hearing pending the receipt of it. MR. LAW: That would be my preference - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Close the hearing? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't want to close the hearing? MEMBER TORTORA: I feel to review. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What do you want to do? MEMBER TORTORA: I don't want to have to reopen the hearing. MR. LAW: i offered to submit things in writing. Again, in light of the hour, everybody's tired. I did not make that suggestion to you. Adversely impact my client's application to delay it and to the extent my suggestion is going to do that I'm going to with your indulgence insist on making these points on record. But I don't want to have to do this. I want to work with the Board as well. It's almost midnight and so I'll put it back in your lap. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Submit them before Wednesday and we'll review them Wednesday and then we'll close the hearing on Wednesday, OK?, if that's alright with you? MR. LAW: That sounds alright, that's acceptable. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Are you saying, to recess or you're thinking to close this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To recess it to Wednesday and we'll accept the documents and review them and then we'll close the hearing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: To what time on Wednesday? Page 135 - May 4, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Put it on the Agenda at 6:55 before the other two public hearings. It's a matter of a, you know as a pro forma act, we're going to look at the ap.,p?ication, if we have any questions at that point we won't close the hearing. T~t s it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Public comments too though, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Well we'll accept five minutes of public comments, that's it. You know if anybody has any comments, that's it. And if we have any comments in writing, we'll afford them two week to submit the comments to you, then you know, we can be back and forth situation, whatever. OK? MR. LAW: That'll be fine. Thank you very much for all you time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you everybody for your courtesy. Thank you for your comments. So I will recess the hearing until 6:55 on Wednesday. MEMBER DINIZlO: Second. See Minutes for Resolution End of Hearings. Prepared by Lucy Farrell PHMAY4 RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE c~T~T'~7~,LD ~'~'~'-'-' '~ ........ ,_,~ ~ CLERK Town Clerk, Town