Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/06/2000 HEARING INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS HELD July 6, 2000 Page 1 - Appl. No. 4829- DR. ANTHONY PELUSO 4 ~ Appl. No. 4835 - WILLIAM F. & GLORIA BERTODATTI 5 - Appl. No. 4838 - EDWARD SIDOR 8 - Appl. No. 4837 - HARRY CASHY & MARIA MISTHOS 28 - Appl. No. 4833 - JOHN & HELEN BERDINKA 31 -Appl. No. 4828 - ROBERT D'URSO & RICHARD OVERHULS (Owners), & MICHAEL DeLUCA (Contract Vendee) 43 - Appl. No. 4826 - WILLIAM PENNY III (Continued from June 8, 2000, hearing calendar) 44 - Appl. No. 4813 - A & S SOUTHOLD OIL CORP. (With E. M. & T. INC.) (Continued from prior hearing calendars) 54-Appl. No. 4836- VIVIAN KOCH 71 -Appl. No. 4818-C. MESKOURI Page 1 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BOARD OF APPEALS July 6, 2000 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) 6:37 P.M. - Appl. No. 4829 - DR. ANTHONY PELUSO Proposed garage addition with insufficient yard setback at 185 Inlet Drive, Greenport. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a continuation from the last regularly scheduled meeting. How are you tonight Sir, and your wife? If you could use the mike for us. How have you been? DR. PELUSO: Fine thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We notice that you have changed the location and moved the garage landward from the property line? DR. PELUSO: Yes we moved it. If you look at the two drawings, you'll see that the little back end of the garage is still 23'4". The front has been changed to 13'6". As a result we've compromised some of the use ( ) near the kitchen window in the back. We've compromised the landing inside to access to the house. It does mean that because we'll have to park one at an angle and another one you know. The garage door will only admit one car at a time. We may have to lose one tree in the back depending upon the foundation that is put in. So we've tried to a, possible storage space that's been compromised also. We don't know what exactly we're going to do with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We did receive two letters from your neighbors and they seem to be pretty much in favor of the whole - DR. PELUSO: Yes, they are on both sides of us. One person across the street, they're from Connecticut. They weren't around. They just came today. You. know they have friends in the house. So I know they don't object and the gentleman who was .here, I frankly think that his objection was more to do with the fact, that I asked him to pick up his trash which I must say, which is as long as you counter this high, it sat here all winter and a tree that fractured on his property that I got Greenport Utilities to cut so it wouldn't interfere with the wires but then he left hanging there which was a danger to school bus, myself, anybody who would go by. So that asking him to be an all year round Page 2 ~ July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals responsible person which apparently he's never had to do up until this particular point. So I thought that was what he was reacting to. He didn't argue or anything. I'm just request at the time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are there any further questions of the doctor or his wife? MEMBER COLLINS: Can I just ask a question about numbers? I saw your revised drawing of course, and the setback from the property line I guess we would call it the northerly, on the right-hand side, in your original plan the setback you proposed was 4'2" which as you saw this Board thought was not a winner. DR. PELUSO: Yes, I understand. MEMBER COLLINS: The revised plan said, 7'2"? Do I have that right? So, it's a 3 foot difference? DR. PELUSO: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: And that 3 foot is achieved by trimming the front of the garage by 3 feet? DR. PELUSO: In moving part of the garage back more, to compromising any part of the kitchen window which we didn't entirely take away. MEMBER COLLINS: No, I just wanted to make sure I understood the numbers. Thank you. DR. PELUSO: Just one other thing too. Although it has been suggested, and it seems like all the space on the other side, I mean to have built a garage on the other side meant that one would come in off the living room, and walk approximately 50 feet before you got to a kitchen cabinet. And as you know, from what you said, you know of the design of that house, and this was the most secured and safe and vital option that we have. So we appreciate your consideration. Any other questions I'd like to be able to answer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any other questions from the Board? I guess not doctor. We hope to have a decision for you. If the meeting is not too late tonight, we hope to have a decision tonight. DR. PELUSO: I see, so then should I call tomorrow. Page 3 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. DR. PELUSO: Thank you again. I do appreciate your concerns. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Don't leave until I close the hearing. I've got 'to close the hearing. Don't leave until I close the hearing. 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 4 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 6:41 - Appl. No. 4835 - WILLIAM F. & GLORIA BERTODATTI Contract Vendees ( Limpet Corp.) This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's May 12, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. The reason that the application for a Building Permit for a one-family dwelling was disapproved is that the proposed structure is located at 20 feet with a cantilever and 18 feet in the rear, and the Code requires a minimum rear yard of 35 feet on this 11,107+ sq. ft. lot. Location of Property: 1510 East Gillette Drive, East Marion; Parcel 1000-38-3-25. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Builder has not shown up yet. Waiting for him. 7:44 P.M.-CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We were holding Bertodatti in abeyance. Is he or she there? Mr. DiNicole? At this particular point then we're going to hold this over until the August meeting and that's it. We have to ask him specific questions. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So you're opening it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm opening it and I'm recessing it until August. if for some reason he shows up before the end of the meeting we can change that. I'm making a motion to recess it at this time. MEMBER HORNING: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 5 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 6:43 P.M. - Appl. 4838 - EDWARD $1DOR This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33 based on the Building Department's June 9, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. The reason that applicant's request for a Building Permit was disapproved is that the subject lot has two front yards, and the proposed accessory structure is located within the front yard on the eastern side of the lot. Location of Property: 200 Conklin Road, Mattituck, N.Y. Parcel 1000-139-4-12.2 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Sidor how are you tonight? What would you like to tell us about your storage building? We need to grill you at the mike. MR. SIDOR: I have a need for a storage building. My style living is, I don't leave my vehicles outside. I've accumulated so much stuff, that to the point, I'm using one of my garages as a storage area. So I need a storage area. Apparently I'm in violation of the present zoning so that's why I'm here tonight. I spoke to all of my neighbors. No-one has any objections. I don't believe anyone has. Actually the way everything is laid out right there now, is the (). As far as my property being wooded, there's really only one neighbor that will be right ne>rt door to it, Mr. King. What I've done is try, I've made the building that I'm proposing smaller than his house so as he comes out of his front door, he won't see it. As he comes out his back door, sits on his deck, he won't see .it. So, I've made it smaller only to, you know, so I'd be a good neighbor. Also, I've moved it further away from the line so it's not too close to him. And also, it's going to be built in the same style as all the other houses in the neighborhood. Wood shingles, same color roofs, everything, so. I've try to make everything fit into the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now you merged this lot with the house lot? Is that what you did? MR. SIDOR: Years ago. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Years ago. OK, good. MR. SIDOR: I made it into one big lot years ago. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It was three lots really, technically. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was three lots at one time? MR. SIDOR: Yes, they were 50 foot lots. They were combined into one lot. Page 6 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Which was will the doors face? Toward the road? MR. SIDOR: No, I'm putting an overhead door to face south which would be just looking into the wooded area. ! didn't want you know my neighbor across the street to look at my overhead door. I got an overhead door for convenience, not for to use as a garage because I know it's a lot easier to get stuff in and out with an overhead door. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, no qUestion about it. Right, those are some of the questions that came up when we reviewed the file and we'll start with Mr. Horning. Any questions of Mr. Sidor? : : MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Hello. It's 47 feet from Mary's Drive? MR. SIDOR: Yes, Mary's Road. Actually it has Drive but it's Road here. MEMBER TORTORA: I didn't know. When I drove by there it, you know, it's a beautiful wooded area and you have huge lots and I expect you don't have any problems. MR. SlDOR: We have grass there. I had it hydra-seeded in the interim so you know, so my neighbors wouldn't have to look at a bare lot. I just cleaned it this past spring. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I think it's pretty well buffered. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, my only concern was that when going by on Mary's Road. it not stick out like a sore thumb and from what you said about the design, it sounds like it's not going to. MR. SlDOR: Yeah and as I said, I'm still leaving it in the same style. My neighbors house, wood shingles, same roof. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, because the neighbors of course on Mary's Road, that is their front yard, and your building will I guess ~ Page 7 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. SlDOR: It's my front yard too. MEMBER COLLINS:; What you say, not, it will not square at their buildings, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. We're on a roll here. Anybody else 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 TORTORA: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 8 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 6:51 P.M. - Appl. No. 4837 - HARRY CASHY & MARIA MISTHOS. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4(1) based on the Building Department's May 2, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. The reason stated for the diSapproval is that the accessory in-ground swimming pool and hot tub are proposed at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff or bank of the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 1900 Hyatt Road, Southold. Parcel 1000- 50-1-3. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, can I have the Affidavit of Posting. (Affidavit handed up). How are you tonight Sir. CHARLES R. CUDDY, ESQ.: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You might just as well stay right up there, we're ready to go. Any time your ready, Mr. Cuddy. MR. CUDDY: I'm Charles Cuddy. I represent the applicants who have property at Hyatt Road, in Southold. This is an application to permit to go into the bluff area 26 feet from the top of the bluff line. The purpose of that is to build a pool. The pool is to have surrounded a brick patio area at the ground level. The patio will be in sand. It will not be in concrete. So there won't be anything affected seriously by it. The pool as shown on the survey is a pool that in dimension is 40 x 20 x 18 feet. The patio area itself is 70 feet across, 30 feet deep. This house was built at the site that it's on because the location was dictated by the Health Department. The applicant could not go forward of the line that he is on. That is, could not go closer to the street because the well and cesspool constraints dictated by the Health Department put his house right where it is. Mr. Ingegno is here, who is the surveyor, and can also indicate to you but I am stating it to you on behalf of the applicant, that his house is there because that was where he had to put his house. What we're asking the Board for is essentially a 26 foot variance to permit that patio area and the pool to go into the bluff area. We're aware of concerns that have been expressed about drainage. I'm aware of the Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation statement. We have delivered today and I believe as part of the record Mr. Chairman, a statement from Cronin & Cronin Engineers indicating, that they're satisfied that we can place sufficient drainage at this site, sufficient capacity drainage rings so that there won't be any run-off that will adversely effect any of the neighbors. We believe that this is an appropriate application. Certainly having a swimming pool along this area is not an unusual amenity to a house. It's an amenity that a lot of people have. Unfortunately, because of the location we have to somewhat into the bluff area. But our engineers have indicated and I think the County confirms it that this does not destabilize the bluff. The main Page 9 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals concern is with drainage. We would say to you two things. That one, we will have an engineer certify that the run-off will be contained on our site, and we will produce that at the end .of our construction so that part of getting the C.O. will be that we will produce for you an engineer's certification, that there will be no run- off that cannot be contained on our site, and that we have sufficient drywells to contain that. We also note there was some concern about the fence going into the foliage area. We will move the fence back if the Board desires so that it does not cut into that area. For those of you who have been here, this is a long walk down the steps but this is a well-vegetated area. This is not a bluff that's in any destabilization. I would think at this point, that what the applicant is saying to you is that he recognizes that he is asking for a variance. The variance is not a significant variance but it is a variance going to the bluff area. It does not cause destabilization. But we are aware of drainage concerns, and we will take care of all of those concerns. I'd be pleased if the Board has any questions. And to let you know that the Cashys are here. As I said, Mr. Ingegno is here and we are as I said, willing to produce a certificate from our engineer that we have taken care of the drainage concern. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two quick things. The pool itself would not be linked to the house in any way, is that correct? MR. CUDDY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because we have a brick patio laid in sand which there is no way to anchor that to the house. ' Number 2, I think we've gotten to the point when we deal with these applications that we are significantly going to be discussing gunite pools as opposed to liner pools. Is this a gunite pool? MR. CASHY: That it is. MR. CUDDY: I believe it is. Mr. Cashy says yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I'm saying that in general. I'm making a generalization because of fragile nature of 'the top of the bluff. Basically, a gunite pool is even more substantial than the foundation that the house is sitting or~. MR. CUDDY: The answer to that is, that it will be a gunite pool. Page 10 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At that juncture, this pool is never anticipated to be enclosed, ls that correct? MR. CUDDY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions Sir? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it looks to me like according to these contour lines, that you can start at about 50 foot contour, and go down to 42? (Adjusted microphones at this point.) MR. CUDDY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: How does that, how is that going to be built? Are you building it up, or are you digging into - MR. CUDDY: On the east side we'd be digging in. The grade would come out of the middle, and we go down on the east side and try to maintain the grade as we go along to the west side. MEMBER DINIZIO: So you'll probably build it up where the hot tub is, and lower it? MR. CUDDY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, what are you putting you know, on that side of the-, what's going to hold that pool and the sand and ali of that on the - MR. CUDDY: There's going to be a retaining area that's going to built along the edge of it, so that that will be behind it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that wooden or concrete? MR. CUDDY: Yes, it should be wooden. It shows it on here but that's what it is. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, your drainage and that, how are you going to attack the drainage? MR. CUDDY: The drainage will be, two piped then will be off to the side, so it'll be the Iow point of trying to catch which is coming to that little point of the right because it goes across approximately 10 to 12 feet as it goes across the lot. Page 11 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I think I'll pass for now, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I'll reserve my comments. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: I won't ask any questions at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. So, I guess what we'll see is what we'll develop throughout the hearing. As you know, we have a request to hold this hearing over until the next regularly scheduled meeting, and we'll deal with that aspect at the end of the hearing. MR. CUDDY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody would like to speak in favor? Does the Board have any questions of Mr. Ingegno? Mr. Ingegno has become a renowned surveyor in this area, and I see him on all kinds of stuff. Any questions of Mr. Ingegno while he's here? I guess not. We thank you for coming. Anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes, Ma'am. Would you state your name for the record. MS. BUTZ: Yes, Sir. My name is Mary Butz, and I am one of the owners of 2022 Hyatt Road which is right next door. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Standing on the street, is it on the left or the right? MS. BUTZ: On the west. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MS. BUTZ: I'm on the right. On the west side. I'm going down the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going down the road more towards BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's on the left though. Page 12 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MS. BUTZ: More towards Kenny Beach. are difficult issues. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry. I'm from Brooklyn. East, west, these MS. BUTZ: Alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't mean to confuse you. MS. BUTZ: OK, anything of that nature can. I first became aware of this on, I think it was Thursday evening that this was going on. Apparently the registered letters were sent to the previous owner as opposed to us: And I wrote a handwritten letter which nobody does today. Everybody does computers so you can tell how distressed I was. A handwritten letter, and presented it to your office on Friday, in the hope of having this be a continuance. Continuance which is what I believe it is called, and the very little time that I've had between then and now, since it's Independence weekend, I mean you try and getting somebody. The very little time I've had between then and now has led me to believe that a very minor investigation that I've done, has led me to believe, that this will be harmful, very, very harmful to the property that I own. The drainage issue is an issue of tremendous concern to me. The inquiries I've made of the people who have lived in the area, neighbors, people who have been there, and the previous owner, all, everyone has told the same tale, and that tale is, when this house was built that that property formerly the Lowell property suffered enormously. The lawn was flooded, the basement was flooded and the path going down to the beach was flooded as well. They're terrific drainage issues. I'm in the process of trying to find out who to hire about this and where to go about this. But that taken aside, my novice not knowing east, west, north, south, left or right. My novice analysis of this is, that I am firmly opposed to it for several reasons. (1) certainly my own holdings; (2) the impact it will have on the bluff. I invested my life savings, and this is my primary residence in that piece of property because it was beautiful and I want it to remain so and i cannot be clearer about this. And it's uncomfortable because these folks are nice neighbors and this is an uncomfortable kind of place to be but I cannot be silent and I know there are several others who - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I share something with you apart from the drainage issue and I brought this up before and I don't mean to be redundant with this Board, but it's very important that we do so. This Board took over a series of three meetings. A pool issue in Mattituck with a bluff that's higher than yours, that's not a sarcastic statement, OK. It's equally as beautiful as yours and the applicants. However, much more frail in reference to the foliation of the bluff Page 13 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts. of Hearings Board of Appeals and the stability of the bluff. And they brought in engineers and again, this has nothing to do with the main issue. I think that one of the main issues that your concerned about is the issue of drainage at this point. They brought in engineers and there was an engineering study done that the weight of the pool with the water in it was actually lighter than compacted soil as rain water hits it and compacts it down on the property. And we found that to be a very interesting aspect in dealing with these particular applications. So the Board very simply does one thing. The first thing we do is we contact Soil & Water Conservation. I don't know if you get a copy of that report. MS. BUTZ: Yes, I got it, ! was able to get a copy today. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't construe~:that to be law, but we are very happy, that there is an agency out there that assists us in looking at these applications. Number 2, based upon my conversation with counsel, we make sure that these accessory structures are never linked to the house. Number 3, you heard me say, that we are concerned about the pool and its stability and that is, is it a gunite pool and we are with the understanding that it is a gunite pool. Number 4, the drainage issue because pools occasionally, the pool filter has to be reversed and sometimes the pool itself overflows based upon water or whatever the case might be. And these are all issues that concern us apart from the other main drainage issue that you're concerned about, which you're investigating. I am not speaking for this Board. I'm speaking as an individual. I'Ve been here a long time. I'm not saying that I'm a well-versed person in pools on bluffs. We do grant a substantial amount. Most of them we push them back a little bit farther. We shrink the pool a little bit and we go back and look at it when they're done and they really have very little environmental hazard once they're completed and they go through our review. And I have no objection in giving you the time to evaluate this drainage issue. But what I need to do, is make an appointment with you on a Saturday and go over and look at your property because I want to see your concern from a grass roots point of view. I'm not going to discuss that concern with you at that point. I'm just very simply there to see how your concern basically lines up with everything that we are discussing here and in no way am I second guessing your concern. These are very valuable pieces of property. These are extremely probably the nicest pieces of property in all of Southold on the Sound. What's the date of our next meeting? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: August 10th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: August 10th. What's the weekend before that? That is Thursday, somewhere around the - Page 14 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: 5th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 5th, OK, alright. MS. BUTZ: 5th of August? There are several people who wish to speak as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I know. I think what I'll do is, if you will just leave us your name and telephone number and I'm not positive I'm going to be here on August 5th, but I'll be here the weekend before that, which is seven days prior, which is the end of July. So, if I could meet you out here and you know, just take a look at the entire area because that concerns me deeply. MS. BUTZ: I'll have to check my,business schedule, i travel quite a bit, so [iii have to find out. I even stated that in the letter as well. So this just hit me like a bolt of lighting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. MS. BUTZ: And there are several others who wish to speak. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely, we'll continue. Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, wait, Mr. Dinizio has a question of you Ma'am. MEMBER DINIZlO: You mentioned about when they built the house. You said, it caused problems on a piece of property that you currently own? MS. BUTZ: Correct, yeah. MEMBER DINIZlO: Has that been corrected MS. BUTZ: To my knowledge yes. For the current disposition of the house I believe yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean do you live there now? MS. BUTZ: Yep. MEMBER DINIZlO: So you have no complaints about what happens now when it rains with the house there? Page 15 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MS. BUTZ: No, not yet. I've only lived there since September 19th. MEMBER DINIZlO: OK, no, no, no, I understand that but what I'm looking at here is, do we know what they did to correct that problem~, or was it just - MS. BUTZ: That we have to do some investigation on. It would only be hearsay at this point. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Ma'am. MS. RAVITCH: Good?evening. My name is Diane Ravitch. I am co-owner of 2022 Hyatt Road. I was recently appointed a Member of the Southold Landmark Preservation Commission and our house is not yet a landmark. Yet, it may soon be because it's a original part of the Marshall Estate which was moved from about a mile east of where we are now. I'm very unhappy about having to be at the hearing because I think the Cashys are lovely people, and very fine neighbors, and it's a very uncomfortable position for neighbors to be in, so I would wish that this were not taking place. But my concern was, first of all we didn't receive notice. I received a registered notice, a registered letter yesterday giving me in effect 24 hours notice. Now the Clerk of this Commission knows that I stopped by Friday, because I heard from neighbors, that there was going to be a hearing and I don't think, that is an appropriate way for a next door neighbor to find out about it, and there was some confusion about why the letter was sent to the previous owner because we've owned this property since September, and we do get tax bills. They haven't missed us once on getting reassessed and so forth. My concern in addition to not getting notice, and not having time to investigate this is that there is a very different pitch in the property between one that's under consideration and our as an next door neighbors. Their highest point at the eastern end of their property is 54 feet high. Their lowest point I believe is 40 feet. So, they have a 14 foot pitch on their property, rolling down to ours, and our then drops then to about 35 feet. So, it's almost a 20 foot drop and we saw an architect today who said, your property is a catchment basement for the property next door. So, our drainage concerns are very serious concerns. We're very concerned, that this could have an impact on what is a historic house which is 100 years old, and we feel that our property is very much aggress from the kinds of changes that are being proposed and there would have to be very extensive preparations made to assure us, that our house will not be flooded as it was before, andwe learned only today, the full extent of the damage which was that the lawn had to be replaced, the driveway was damaged, the whole area was under water as a result of the work under Page 16 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals construction. So, needless to say, this is not just an esthetic issue, it's a very serious structure concern for us. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Thank you.: ::!: i::~ MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Before this lady sits down. MRS. RAVlTCH: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry, I just want to get clear in my head, which property is yours. MS. RAVITCH: 2022 Hyatt Road. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry. MS. RAVlTCH: I'm sorry, it's the property directly to the west of the Cashy property. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, that's formerly Lowell? MS. RAVlTCH: The former Lowell property. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry, I thought formerly Lowell was Ms. Butz's property. MS. RAVlTCH: No, we're co-owners of this property. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, thank you. The same property. MS. RAVlTCH: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Next person. Yes Ma'am. How are. you tonight? MS. JUDGE: I'm Diane Judge along with Peggy Hadley. I own a house adjacent to the capping of this house, just above the Butz-Ravitch house, on half the lot. I'm not against swimming pools. I wish I could afford one what with the jelly fish. But I'm here to voice objections to the consideration of variance. To use 26 illegal feet of dunes for the purpose of building a swimming pool, hot tub and Page 17 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals brick terracing, into the precious dunes on the Southold inlet. The point is, that between Horton's light and Kenny Lane, there are some 20 houses maybe. I don't know, I've never counted them. Most of them cannot be seen from the magnificent beach along the sound. What happens if the Town of Southold allows its law against encroachment on the beach to be bent this one time? Why Mr. & Mrs. Toedter, the people who live on the eastern side of Misthos's house, will be on the phone next year themselves asking for a similar swimming pool, and how about Jack LeLane, he'll be there next, and probably even Diane Ravitch and Mary Butz will start thinking about putting in a swimming pool. I mean Liz Worths, Otto Lindermayer, Rayne Norman, the Lesters, the people who own Zone Bluff. I noticed last week they're surveying the only empty lot on this road. Obviously it's for sale. Once you see a beautiful swimming pool right on the dunes you have the right.to expect that you can do the very same thing yourself. Certainly, someone new will see that and want. We are being ask to give 26 feet of dune. That's one-fourth of the illegally forbidden zone. They can't do it all from one side. Bulldozers, backhoes, cement throwers, they have to go around. They have to cut into this dune no matter what anybody says. It's not possible to do it in any other way. To grant this variance would be opening too many steps to too many diving boards. Furthermore, behind all of the beach front to the east is a rather- steep hillside which naturally configures to the run- off. Much of the woodsy sites on the hill have been converted to lawns, and in some case nothing but muddy driveways to accommodate the trucks. I'm sorry, I'm out of whack here. I left out a paragraph. Let me back-up a second. Furthermore, behind all of the beach front to the east is a rather steep hillside which naturally contributes to the run-off. Much of the woodsy sites on the hill have been converted to lawns, and in some cases, nothing but muddy driveways. East of this location, just such a driveway and drain pipe, and I do think they put in a drivewell to take off the runway after they built the house. And I personally saw the damage that was done to the Lowell's basement, and to their lawn which the people had to reseed at least three times in the course of one summer. Plus the Lowells had to put a tar strip on the bottom of their ddveway and a cement thing guiding the water down because there is a right-of- way, where seven or eight houses use of this path to the beach which was once a for road runners. It's the only natural cut in this point of the island, and this is only going to add further to the erosion of that beach. If you go down there today, you will see half of the sand and dirt from the Lowells, abuts Ravitch's property out on the dunes. Just to the east there's a house that has a similar drain pipe whether it's legal or illegal I don't know but they have a driveway and a drain pipe leading out to the dunes, and last year at least 35 feet of dune fell into the sea. All of these enormouS big black pine trees, you can still see their trunks as you're sitting on the beach. They lost their steps. They lost everything. And my concern really is not as I say about swimming pools. I think the people are lovely people. I don't object to anything they're doing except the Page 18 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals law. The laws must be fair and sound to begin with. You all made them. assume Southold fathers who go to Zoning Law deemed it to be fair and correct. It would be unfair, and incorrect to everyone on Hyatt Drive. Everyone who uses the public beach, and all of natures creatures who depend on this habitat of what: was and could still be the bucolic North Fork. I cannot see again you bend the law this time, you're going to be bending it 14 or 15 times in the next few years and that was my objection. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Next person. Good evening Sir. MR. MULLADY: Good evening. My name is John Mullady of. My wife and ! own a parcel of property. Five parcels to the east of town property in question. Again, I'm not here to. discuss swimming pools, except one correction that the gentleman who was talking earlier said there are numbers of swimming pool up there. There are about 36 home sites in the area ( ) an extension. As far as my knowledge there are two pools. So, I mean, a number of, yeah, two is a number. All I wanted to say merely was that a ruling of 100 feet, I don't think that .was pulled out of the air by somebody who said, that's a nice number. 26 feet is a quarter of it. To take the quarter of this piece of wood which is if it were solid to the floor, take a quarter of it off, and cut out what's holding it by at least 14 feet on one end, and maybe 8 on the other end, you've got a tremendous whole line made here. That's going to be petitioned or supported by ( )~ Will it work? Well, there's one way you can find out is to do it. However, I would just like to mention, that the property directly contiguous to ours, on the east, two years ago, one Saturday night, the entire top of the bluff and vegetation disappeared, and the gentleman who owns the property was away, came back that night, Saturday night, got up Sunday morning and looked out and said, what's different out there? What's different out there was that it was all gone. Why did it all go because he was building? No, he wasn't building, there were no machines back there. He wasn't digging anything. The house has been there probably for 15-17 years. There's been nothing changed there except this thing went one day. Why did it go? I have no idea. I asked Mother Nature but she hasn't you know, E-Mailed me back yet. These things happen. Unfortunately, they happen. I'm next door. I lost some bluff. I'm concerned about all of the bluff. If you go from the Lighthouse at Horton's Point, east or west, you will see where it's eroded, and I know you people have all seen that. Peconic Shores, part of it, is a disaster. We have some vegetation on the bluff? Yes, sure..The property next door to me was highly vegetated. Overnight it wasn't. He wasn't putting in.. a swimming pool. I'm not saying that would make it happen or not happen. But it seems to me, you're going to cut out that big a piece of property, and that much of a retaining a natural retaining behind it, something is going to change there. I would prefer not to see it change that way. It seems to me, that the rules are the rules, and breaking them or bending them, for something of this Page 19 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals nature, I think is poor establishment. Terrible precedent that a lot of people here today, or tomorrow might regret. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else? Yes Ma'am. MRS. TOEDTER: I'm Mrs. Toedter. I'm on the other side of the property. I did send a letter. Did you enter that into the file? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I believe we did. MRS. TOEDTER: The letter? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I believe we did. MRS. TOEDTER: OK, but one point that no-one else seems to make is, we own our pumps and wells are in the back and the cesspools are in the front, naturally we had to do it that way. If anything happens when they put in the cesspools with all the septic systems and everything, I don't know that what do you do with your, if they disrupt wants going on there? I think there's a lot of big problerns that-could go on up there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We would hope there's no disruption. MRS. TOEDTER: We would all hope. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you say in the back. You're saying the cesspools are in the front of the house, or in the back of the house? MEMBER COLLINS: Roadside. MRS. TOEDTER: It depends on what you're calling the front. MEMBER COLLINS: Roadside. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're on the roadside. MRS. TOEDTER: Actually on the dirt roadside and the cesspools - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just say one thing, OK? The third lady that spoke tonight concerned herself about heavy machinery. We've gotten this thing down to the point, when I say thing in general, I'm making a generic statement. We allow one backhoe, alright. One small to medium size backhoe in the construction of these pools. I don't care if it costs the man 20 or the lady Page 20 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals $25,000 to pump the cement in over the top of their house with a cement pump. But there is no heavy equipment allowed in the construction of any swimming pool in the Town of Southold, on a bluff, on a dune, at this particular time, if it's granted by this Board. That is clearly stated within these deci'sipns, and we have started this process also. I am not orchestrating. I am not pushing for the swimming pool in any way, manner or form. I'm just telling you, that we are trying to take every possible precaution. That is - MRS. TOEDTER: The weight of the cement and the weight of the water? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Everything is taken into consideration. We are not an environmental group. But I assure you, if it requires triple layering of some type of barrier when it's being constructed, rm talking about straw or hay or anything. The least amount of defoliation of the grassed area when it's being constructed, so on and so forth. These are very important factors for us to concern ourselves with in the construction of these pools. Again, I'm not orchestrating this application. I am not trying to push for. I'm just telling you, that these are things that we do. When the swimming pool is done, we go back and look at it. (change tape) between the houses to the west, and that concerns me, and that's the reason why I want to look at them. I want to look at this Valley issue that's in between. I'm not an engineer but I want to look at it anyway. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I want to see what these ladies are talking about. MRS. TOEDTER: Is there a cesspool right there where they want to put the pool? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MRS. TOEDTER: There's a pipe. I guess that's the drain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no knowledge of any cesspool. The cesspool is in front of the house. MRS. TOEDTER: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So let us do our job. You know we're going to carry this on to the next hearing and I will look at that in between the two hearings. I think this lady in back had a question there but we'll wait until you sit down. So, we'll take all of your concerns and we'll deal with them and that's why your here to voice your concerns. Page 21 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. TOEDTER: I thought maybe you had already investigated and that's why you're - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have been to the site. I am very happy about the bluff itself because it's not that frail. In reference to it's very well foliated and you know, that makes me very happy. Unfortunately, I had shorts on that day, and I get poison ivy like you will not believe, so I did not walk anywhere, maybe within 30 feet down the bluff and I didn't go all the way. Normally I go all the way. But we will take everything into consideration. So please - MRS. TOEDTER: I'm sorry I missed the beginning of the meeting. I didn't know if I could get here. That's why I wrote the letter. You took into consideration the fact that you passed a law,',.:¢and now they want the circumventure of ..law, and you'll probably pass the law - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just explain this? I said this at nauseum, and this has nothing to do and I will reflect upon this also. When this law went on the books, I discussed it with the orchestrater of the law, and I told him, that this will create a tremendous problem for people that have existing dwellings, and people that want to build new dwellings, on smaller lots. This is not necessarily a smaller lot. But we had heard from counsel, that they were mandated to put the.house in this location. That does not mean that we constantly push this 100 foot issue. The orchestrater of this law told me, all he wants us to do is look at every individual application, and he wants us to minimize the type of construction that we have. That doesn't mean the law doesn't stand. It stands. Only this Board can vary it and only this Board will vary it, and that's the way it's been since the law has been effect. MRS. TOEDTER: What is it like between houses, because you know someone calls it's pretty, they carry the sound and that's why rm trying how many feet it has to be from another house? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no law in that respect. MRS. TOEDTER: Because I know the people below them, their bedroom, the Lowell's bedroom is right next to the water there, and that's the water ( ) over and if a pool were there, you could hardly even and people were jumping in and out at night, they could hardly usethat room as a bedroom. ~' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. MRS. TOEDTER: There's no law about that? Page 22 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So let us do our job. Let us continue the process throughout this hearing, into the next hearing which will be in August and we will report back to you what we found, and we always do, and then we'll - MRS. TOEDTER: We're unfortunate are on that side of the bluff, because we don't have as much on the other side but it's starting, and just last winter what use to be better crossing to that bulkhead down, and so it's a, it's been fragile. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They are fragile. Thank you. MRS. TOEDTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ma'am, I believe you had, I don't mean to point at you, but I believe you had a question before that you wanted to - MS. When you said no heavy equipment. How big is a truck that brings the water in alone? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The truck has to remain in the front of the house. There is nothing that is allowed to the rear of the dwelling except for, except for a small backhoe to dig the hole. That is it. That's the condition. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, can I put two cents in? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but this lady hasn't - MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought Ms. Butz had finished. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm~:'sorry, again I apologize for pointing at you. MS. MITZNER: I know this is going to be (). I feel very strongly about it. Terry and Jennie had me here tonight cause I - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need your name for the record. MS. MITZNER: Melanie Mitzner and I bought their house on 1050 Hyatt Road. And I have, I was in on the hearing on the other, well i wasn't on the other side because I Was happy that the property was:large and they couldn't develop i~:i When a very delicate ( ) system they are more protected and there is a bluff that has collapsed within five or six properties or less in that area, just due to north eastern rainfall run-off tide, whatever you know is happening. I think that building in that location is taking an undue risk, and the bottom line is, when it's nature against man, we all very well know who wins out. Page 23 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. You want to make a statement Ms. Collins? MS. BUTZ: Sir, when is the next meeting going to be, did you say? MEMBER TORTORA: August 6th. MEMBER COLLINS: No, 10th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: August 10th. MS, BUTZ: 10th, ©K. ! have to see you after this, is that;correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, if you would call me tomorrow. Call the office tomorrow and just leave your phone number and we'll set up some date that's convenient for everyone. MS. BUTZ: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean it's not necessary if this nice lady sitting . next to you is going to be there, you don't have to be there. MS. BUTZ: I own 50% of it. I want to be there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MS. BUTZ: This is my primary residence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; I understand. I mean I'm not trying to strip you of that. MS. BUTZ: It's not my summer home. This is what I own, but I wanted to ask one more question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MS. BUTZ: I have to go and check my calendar. I may have to postpone this. We may have to have another discussion like I don't know if I'm going to be here August 10th. This all came like gang busters. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ! understand. Page 24 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MS. BUTZ: Alright? MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman. That particular lady I think is the one who mentioned the right-of-way: Can someone tell us more about it? This is right, ~: of-way that you say is used a - MS. RAVITCH: On the property that we jointly own there's a right-of-way and there are several families that are entitled to come through that right-of-way to the beach and it's on the west side of the property that we own leading from our driveway down to the beach. MEMBER COLLINS: It's a footpath, right? MS. RAVlTCH: It's a right-of-way. It's a footpath. MEMBER COLLINS: Footpath, OK. MS. RAVlTCH: And it was as I mentioned earlier washed out during the construction of this home. This home by the way, was constructed after the passage of the 100 foot requirements as I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: H'm, h'm. OK, Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted briefly to address a couple of comments to the neighbors which I think they deserve to hear from us. We hear frequently at this Board, we must obey the absolute letter of the law. The law is the law. Someone here tonight used the word, circumvent with respect to the request for a variance. It's not circumventional of law. The State of New York, the Law of the State of New York, says that if a locality has zoning setbacks and other things like that, a locality must have a Zoning Board of Appeal as an Appeal Board for people who are unable to do what they want with their property because of zoning and our job is to balance and to weigh and the State tells us that's our job. And the laws are on the books, and the laws are the laws and it's our job to hear appeals from them and it's not circumventing the law. I just don't want you folks to think, that there's something predacious about our appeals process. This is the way it's suppose to work. Thank you Mr. Chairman. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I make a comment also that may be helpful to you folks? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Page 25 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: If I were to hear from say, an expert on your side. Say you go out and find an expert on your side, I'd want to hear about three things. One is if that erosion is still going on from the house and whether it's still effecting your property? The second one is, if I could hear an expert tel.l~me, why that bluff that you say went down five lots, why it went down? Give me a reason because living here all my life, it doesn't just happen overnight. There's always some way, some how something has happened, and if you can bring a reason and I'm not suspecting what the reason will be good or bad to this applicant, but certainly would be helpful for me if you want to inject that into this conversation. If it's helpful to you, good. If it's not, you know, maybe you don't bring it up. And certainly, I think that the 100 foot setback as I've always seen it, you know, it's just that. It's a 100 foot setback and you try to live by that, as much as you possibly can but when the other zoning laws, the other laws gave him a waiver, a person a use of his property, you know he has to have a place to seek relief because you know he's a taxpayer just like anybody else. And I can probably say from my point of view, that this application will look much different when we're done with it, and I know you're probably all friends and I hope you all leave friends, but if you can inject and try to show us you know, why, give me a concrete reason as to why you think that this particular pool will cause any erosion at all. You know there are experts. People that may be able to say, give a good reason for that. I'm certainly willing to hear it. I do know seating on this Board now for 14 years, you can build this close to a bluff, and you can do so without disturbing that bluff. But you know, if you have concerns, and you know, express your concerns to an expert and he can explain to us, I have no problem whatsoever, you know believing that fact. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we are at this particular point, we requested, oh, you want to say something? Pardon me. MEMBER TORTORA: I just like to ask the attorney for the applicant. have CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy. At that point, if it's alright with everyone then we're going to recess until the next regularly scheduled meeting. MS. BUTZ: Or later if necessary. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You'll have to send us a letter on that respect. MS. BUTZ: I shall do so but I want that on the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you. Right. Mr. Cuddy. I don't know if he can hear Page 26 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: How high is that retaining wall? MR. CUDDY: The retaining wall that's on - MEMBER TORTORA: The retaining wall of, the timber retaining wall that holds the brick patio? MR. CUDDY: You mean the proposed wall - MEMBER COLLINS: The proposed. MR. CUDDY: There, Ithink probably Mr. Ignego could say how high. MR. IGNEGO: It's going to be approximately 4 to 5 feet high. They intend to dig into the east side by about 3 feet and then fill to about an 8 or 9 foot difference in elevation. MEMBER TORTORA: It's going to be graded? MR. CUDDY: It's going be graded to the middle. MR. IGNEGO: The middle will be the center grade and then they'll cut into the eastern and fill to the west. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, the other thing I was reading Soil & Conservation and you read the report, you know the concerns. One of the concerns was, that the erosion would be compounded from the brick patio being impermeable surface but I wondered if you come with any options on that? MEMBER COLLINS: It's in sand. MR. CUDDY: Two points that I was making. One was that the brick surface is not going to be completely impervious because of the placement of the sand, which probably makes it very little different from hard dirt that would be packed at that site. Secondly, that's the purpose of having to drainage it at the south west corner. Any run-off that would come by virtue of the elevation at that point, would be picked up by the drainage pools that would be there, and we, that's why I indicated initially~ that we're willing to have our engineers, Cronin & Cronin, certify to the Board, that what we proposed would be adequate to take all of the drainage run-off and will not go on to the neighbor's property, and i understand that concern. Page 27 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Well, the other question we always ask, and you know the question is, is this the minimum setback that you can live with? MR. CUDDY: Well I would say, that,:there's a few feet less but not an awful lot the way this pool is setup here. With the pool as you can see is a basically a 20 foot cross pool. As far as the width of it goes, coming from the deck out towards the bluff area, part of that pool as a matter of fact is within with the inside of the liner, that's probably 2 to 3 feet. I would think, that there's very little I think you can cut-off and still have an adequate pool. We probably could cut some of it but not an awful lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. George, you have a question? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again, at this particular point, we're in recess. I will make a motion recessing it to the next regularly scheduled meeting, which at this time is August 10th. However, unless I get a letter from you, (Ms. Butz), it will be up to the Board to make that determination then at that point, OK? MS. BUTZ: Yes, I understand. But I do need sometime to get my own expert witness as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand and you'll give us a call tomorrow and leave your telephone number. MS. BUTZ: I won't be back at work until Monday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's fine. This is not going to be until the end of July anyway. MS. BUTZ: This has been a wonderful vacation. I wanted to tell you all that I had a wonderful time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're sorry about that but we would like you to call us so that I can make an appointment with you around the 27th, 28th, 29th of July, whatever. MS. BUTZ: Absolutely, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes, that is a motion. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 28 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:38 P. M. - Appli. No. 4833 - JOHN & HELEN BERDINKA This is a request for a Variance based on the Building Department's March 28, 2000 NotiCe of Disapproval. The reason stated for the disapproval is under that Article Ill-A, Section 100-30A.4, the Bulk Schedule requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. in this R-40 Residential Zone District and that the proposed lot line change creates a lot with a greater degree of non-conformity. Location of Property: 1260 and 1330 Factory Avenue, Mattituck; Parcel Nos. 1000-142-1-7 &8. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Ross how are you tonight Sir? you. :¢..~, ;' MR. ROSS: Good. Good to see you. Good evening. It's nice to see CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us about this, these two properties? MR. ROSS: It's a rather simple matter. May I hand up the Affidavit of Posting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MR. ROSS: Jack and Helen Berdinka are seeking an area variance so that would permit them to complete a lot line change. There's an application pending before the Planning Board for the lot line change. The lots are located on the east side on Factory Avenue, in Mattituck. There at Tax Map Lot number, of Section 142, BIk. 1, Lots 7 and 8. It's in an R-40 Zone. Jack and Helen Berdinka, they live on lot number, lot 7, which is presently the smaller. The smaller lot is 9,325 sq. ft. Lot 8, is 9,950. They seek to increase Lot 7 by 2,260 sq. ft. which is about 25% increase which would decrease Lot 8 by the same amount which is about 22% of that lot. That would result in Lot 7 in being 11,585 and Lot 8, being 7,690. They seek this because they want to increase the side yard of their home. Their home is the larger of the two residences on the lots and right now their southern side is very close to the border. They're merely seeking to make their lot larger. Looking to the factors and Town Law 267, I submit that it would be a great benefit to the Berdinkas. It's their home. It would increase their peaceful enjoyment of it. There's no other way to achieve what they're trying to do. The changes, not substantial especially in lights'of there's really not going to be any physical change to the property. There will be no adverse impact to the neighborhood and the hardship is not self-created. The frontage is right now, 66 feet, 66 feet, it will be 82 and 50. There's a Tax Map that was handed up for reference and the Board will see there's a number of 50 foot lots in the neighborhood and some smaller. Basically the relief is Page 29 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals requested as i indicated to create a larger lot for the residential home of the Berdinkas. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't have any objection to it. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. Ross? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, nothing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I parked in the street. I didn't walk around the properties but I looked at them pretty carefully and I just want to make sure I understand what I was seeing'. The lot that they want to, or met,: is the one towards the north road on your left when you're standing in the street looking at the properties? Is that right? MR. ROSS: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: With the bigger house? MR. ROSS: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: You surprised me by saying that, that was actually the smaller of the lots, and I've just got out the survey. 1 guess the difference which is fairly modest is just because one of them has a slight pie shape to it. MR. ROSS: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And it picks up a few hundred additional square feet. So basically the two lots are now more or less the same size? MR. ROSS: Very similar, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: And this is like a 20 odd percent shift. Have the Berdinkas rented the house on a, is the house on number 8 lot been a rental property? MR. ROSS: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just wanted to make sure I understood what I had seen. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? Page 30 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: No I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: Lora asked my question. the other house. I'm curious as to who occupied CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We thank you Mr. Ross, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. MR. ROSS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybady 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 TORTORA: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 31 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 7:45 P.M. - Appl. No. 4828 - ROBERT D'URSO & RICHARD OVERHULS (Owners), and MICHAEL DeLUCA (Contract Vendee). This is a request for a Lot Waiver as provided under Article II, Section 100-26 to unmerge Lot 1000-106-6-35 from 1000-106-6-34. On May 8, 2000 a Notice of Disapproval was issued stating that Lot 34 merged with adjacent Lot 35 pursuant to Section 100-25A of the Zoning Code. Location of Property: 1645 Bayview Avenue, Part of Lots H & I, on the Map of Shores Acres, Mattituck, N.Y. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now I am at this particular time going to turn the meeting back over to Mr. Dinizio for the D'Urso & Overhuls. MEMBER DINIZIO:'~ Anybody wish to speak on behalf of the applicant? DAVID OLSEN, ESQ.: Good evening. My name is David OIsen. I'm the attorney for the applicants and I have my law offices at Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. This is a request for a waiver of merger as provided under Article II, Section 100-26 to unmerge Lot 1000-106-6-35 from 1000-106-6-34. Michael DeLuca is presently under contract to purchase Lot number 34 from Robert D'Urso and Richard Overhuls. Tax Lot 34 was purchased by Robert D'Urso and Richard Overhuls on August 29, 1986, in Liber 10121, Page 581. They purchased said lot from a Steven P. Sanders and Albert Schwartz but purchased a lot from Dorothy A. Byme by Deed dated December 16, 1985, Liber 9948, Page 245. Robert D'Urso and Richard Overhuls also purchased Tax Lot 35 on August 29, 1986 in Liber 10121, Page 577 from Nicholas Johnnidis, who in return also have purchased said lot from Dorothy A. Byme on December 16, 1985, Liber 9948, Page 249. On June 30, 1988, Robert D'Urso and Richard Overhuls, sold Tax Lot 35, to Charles and Valerie Allen, by Deed dated 6/30/88, in Liber 10671, Page 585. A Building Permit was issued to'the Aliens on June 17, 1988, under Building Permit #17120 and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued by the Southold Town Building Department, Tax Lot 35, C. O. number Z17837. I've submitted here with a copy of the Building Permit, Certificate of Occupancy for Tax Lot 35. This application is a necessity by the passage of merger lot and to the code on November 28, 1995, under Article 2, Section 100- 25A, which states that "A non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot which has been held in common ownership for the first lot at anytime after July 1, 1983." On Lot 35, it was sold by the applicants on June 30, 1-'988, the merger law was not in effect. Thus, enabling the town to issue Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy. Tax Lot 34, which is the subject of this application is now standing by itself, was caught in the trap of the merger law language that speaks about common ownership, and parcels as far back as 1983. At this point in time, the two lots are no longer in common ownership, with one lot vacant and one lot improved by two separate Page 32 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals owners. The Applicant and Contract Vendee, is Mr. & Mrs. DeLuca, who obtained approval from the Suffolk County Health Department, Tax Lot 34. But before the purchase can be completed, a waiver of merger must be approved by the Zoning Board. In rewiewing the standard set forth in Section 100-26 in the Southold Town Code, which the Board should consider in determining any application for the waiver of merger, I wish to make the following comments. Tax Lot 34, is currently single and separate ownership and Tax Lot 35, is also single and separate ownership since June of 1988. The Town of Southold has already approved the Building Permits Certificate of Occupancy for Tax Lot 35, for a single family residence. The subject property is known as and by parts of Lots H and ! on a certain map entitled, Map of Shore Acres situate in Mattituck, filed in Suffolk County Clerk's Office on January 3, 1914, as Map #41. The granting of the waiver of merge~ will not result in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood. Upon review of the Suffolk County Tax Map, Lot 34 is generally in keeping with the size and shape of other parcels in the area. The waiver was recognized Tax Lot 34 that will be consistent in size and shape of other lots in that neighborhood. The Village grant the waiver of merger for Tax Lot 34, would result in an unbuildable parcel. This would result in severe economic loss to Mr. D'Ursol, Mr. Overhuls, who under contract to sell Lot 34 for a price of $43,000. The Village grant the waiver would result in allowing virtually losses. The granting of a waiver of merger would not effect any near-by environmental flood areas. For all the above reasons stated, I request that the Board will favorably grant this application. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. Well I have no questions so I'll just start with George guess. MEMBER HORNING: So the whole idea of unmerging is so that he can sell it to this fellow, that's it? But if it was merged - :: MR. DAVID OLSEN: Well essentially, if it's not, if the merger isn't granted, if the waiver of merger isn't granted, they really can't sell to anybody because the lot becomes - MEMBER HORNING: thing. MR. DAVID OLSEN: At a much reduced price. MEMBER HORNING: I have no other questions. MEMBER DINIZlO: Lydia? Part of the other end and then they would sell the whole Page 33 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: You said, that when the lot was sold, the improved lot was sold, - MR. DAVID OLSEN: It was an unimproved lot. MEMBER COLLINS: It was unimproved when it was sold. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, it is improved now. That when it was sold, that the merger law was not in effect at that time? Is that correct? MR. DAVID OLSEN: That's right. MEMBER TORTORA: And the year of that was? MR. DAVID OLSEN: It was I believe 19- MEMBER COLLINS: June of 88. MR. DAVID OLSEN: June of 1988. MEMBER TORTORA: It was single and separate law at that time. This particular law was not in effect but there was a single and separate law in the Town of Southold. MR. DAVID OLSEN: That's right. The town issued a C.O. for Lot 34 only. Lot 35, excuse me. MEMBER TORTORA: That's all I have now. MEMBER DINIZIO: Lora? MEMBER COLLINS: I'm just going to state for the record, that these merger cases like this totally confuse me. We had a case somewhat like this. I can't remember the name of it. Within the last year and a half and I said, it sounds like an Ex post facto law to me because when it was enacted in 1995, there wasn't a blessed thing that Messrs. D'Urso and Overhuls could do to avoid the prior common ownership. But, my colleagues on the Board, Mrs. Tortora and Mr. Dinizio, both more or less jumped on me that night and said, but, as Lydia just said now, there was a single and separate law at the time and no-one has ever explained to me exactly how it would have operated it, at the time and whether it counters Mr. Olsen's argument because Mr. Olsen's argument to me, is a very clear one, like, there wasn't anything his client do about it. Just for the sake of this deliberation, does either one of you want to enlighten me a little? Page 34 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals I'm not going to ask Mr. Olsen because I don't think that would be quite fair. We haven't asked him to do that homework. MEMBER TORTORA: i think what would be enlightening, except ~ wasn't r~Ot;~ on the Board at the time but I'm sure the Board's secretary has a copy of the Town Code as it read at that time. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well there's also court precedence. We had a couple of case laws on it which confirmed the merger single and separate MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, no, these are not, I'm sorry - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: If you like to see it, we can show you the - MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, no. I would like to bring it out now. MEMBER TORTORA: What the law was. In other words, and I'm not an expert on it, but the merger law was in existence since 1983 or 84 I believe it was. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, that's really what I'm getting at. MEMBER TORTORA: And there was a single. At the time it was not called a merger law. It was called a Single and Separate Ownership Law and there was an exemption list. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, the subdivision that were exempted. I understand that, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Many, many, many old lot subdivisions, were exempted from it. The Merger Law is merely a change in name and o MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, no, it did a lot more than that. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes it did. It's a change in name but the principal of single and separate ownership dates back to 1983. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just wanted to hear ;this said in the context of this hearing, because it is relevant because what you had was, the applicants Messrs. D'Urso and Overhuls in 1986 acquired these t~o adjacent lots and they owned the two of them for two years and then in 88 they sold one of them to the Aliens and the Aliens got a Building Permit and they got a C. of O. and went happily on their way. And I think what you're telling me is, that at the time if the Page 35 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings::: Board of Appeals law had been understood, observed, and forced, whatever the relevant word is, that a merger would have been found at that time. Am I understanding it? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's right: MEMBER TORTORA: That's my reading. MEMBER COLLINS: That's why I get confused because I didn't go through any of this. Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: confusing and a - MEMBER COLLINS: I want you to Well I do too. know Lora, I feel that the whole law is MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly merging just because you've got a name on a deed is the most absurd thing. That's the reason why I'm not commenting on it. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, we, the Board knows Mr. Dinizio. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's good that we have a waiver though. A waiver procedure. MEMBER DINiZlO: Anything else Mr. Olsen to add to this? MR. DAVID OLSEN: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess i'll ask if anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? ~ '~ MR. DAVID OLSEN: Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. Is there anybody? I don't see anybody. Is there anybody would like to speak against the application? MS. WILLIAMS: Hi, my name is Cathy Williams. I'm the lot 35 that is merged. I am glad that there are other people confused because I'm also confused myself. I'll begin by saying we moved here from Brentwood and we came to Mattituck for the purpose of living in a nice wooded area and it was to our understanding that there would be no, that lot between myself and the Sweeneys would be unbuildable. Their real estate people told them that only one or two other houses could be built, which the other one was mine. So, when people come to look at it, we would see the "for sale' sign and when people came to look at it, I Page 36 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals was always confused but I didn't want to get involved, and I wanted to mind my own business, but the deals always fell through and I just assumed because it was an unbuildable lot, because that's what we all believed it to be, an unbuildable lot. It's been going on for 7 years since I~ve lived there. They come, they go, it never works out. This last gentleman again, I said the same thing. You know I was walking the dog. I just said, you know it just never seems to work out. I don't want to get involved. I don't feel that I have the right, or the knowledge about it to even get involved in that. But again, it was my understanding, that this lot was unbuildable. Also, I think the reason that they stated that law was because they wanted to decrease the density. And I'm all for that coming from the surroundings I grew up in, when I was a child. Mr. D'Urso, what I'm confused about is, I'm not really buying the hardship area because I feel that, that single 'search should have taken place that would of shown them that, that lot was unbuildable. I believe these people to be investors and I work for the Stock Market and with every investment comes some degree of risk, and ! believe that something happens somewhere along the lines where some lawyers did not do their homework which would have found, that this lot is not buildable, and which myself and my neighbors also believed. You know as far as any kind of hardship for the current owner, his contract is contingent upon getting a Building Permit. I thought I heard someone say, that there was a Building Permit already in action. I thought that you know, unless these lots are unmerged, how could you have gotten a Building Permit? I'm not really buying the hardship for two reasons because I think the gentleman in contract now, i have a copy of his contract right here, that is contingent on receiving a Building Permit and the unmerger, and also Mr. D'Urso, I think something must have happen there as far as I don't believe they did that single search that you're talking about, that I'm not familiar with but that would have shown that, that lot would be unbuildable. I've researched and got a couple of case studies where, were actually Smithtown case they adhered to the Zoning Laws, and also the Southold Town Board reversed the decision regarding you know, not going to the merger, you know, for not going for unmerging the lots. As far as the transfer of ownership, I'm confused about that myself. But we're currently Lot 35, merging with that Lot 34 which we always believed to be unbuildable. If they do build a house on that lot, we're talking 12 feet from my property. The ramp that goes off my bedroom we would have to take it down. We would have to take a ramp off the back of our bedroom because their lot is literally right on top of our lot. I would just like you to take into account, that I think the law was made for a good reason. I think the houses that are going; up in our neighborhood are very rapid moving, and I would like to find out more about why Mr. D'Urso didn't find out that, that lot was unbuildable before he kept trying to sell to all of these people, or maybe ~'m wrong. I'm not even sure. Page 37 - July 6, 2000 :'":Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, thank you. I believe the Building Permit he was talking about was your Building Permit. MS. WILLIAMS: MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, either house. He was saying, that they split the lots, you know, they got a Building Permit for 35. That's you lot, right? MS. WILLIAMS: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what he was talking about. MS. WILLIAMS: OK. MEMBER HORNING: Jim, could I get some clarification from that lady? MEMBER DINIZIO: Sure, Ma'am. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: I'm curious. You were talking about having to remove a something from your property. Are you suggesting, that Your property is non- conforming also? MS. WILLIAMS: No, my property. My back, my bedroom, there's a ramp that goes off the back of my bedroom. That ends right at the property line. So in other words, if you go, here I have a picture of it. I don't know if you'll be able to see it. But we would have to just take that off. We would have to just remove 'that because our property would end right there. There's our bedroom,-that's their property line, right on top of that. OK, that's what it looks like also. MEMBER HORNING: And why would you have to do that? MEMBER DINiZIO: Could we keep this? MS. WILLIAMS: Because we could no longer walk down it, correct? MEMBER HORNING: I don't know. MS. WILLIAMS: Not with, one step off that ramp, we're on their property. So, that's what we would have to do. MEMBER COLLINS: Well that's the nature of property lines. Page 38 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're saying, that to get off this ramp, you have to step on to somebody else's property? MS. WILLIAMS: But it was never a concern to us, because we always believed it to be unbuildable. We have our swing set there. MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, you have a swing set on their property? Dave you getting this? Can we keep these? MS. WILLIAMS: We're just playing in the woods. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, is thatiall you have George? Thank you very much Ma'am. Is there anybody else that would wish to speak? Please state your name. MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Donald Williams. I'm Kathrine husband. We also own the ( ) lot. Like my wife says, if you see from that picture, my property line ends 12 foot from where the new lot starts. Had I known that was a buildable lot, maybe I would have taken a more aggressive approach to purchase that. As you might be able to understand I mean who would want someone to build 12 foot away from their master bedroom. That's my master bedroom in the picture. My wife and that's my neighbor sitting in the kitchen, you know, having coffee here. I think it's rather close to us. I think the kitchen, the property is almost, it's unbuildable. I mean I don't know professionally, you know from an engineer's report how he could build a house on there. I can tell you this. I have a, my driveway faces the east side of Bayview Avenue facing Mattituck. Again ! can tell you I have probably the best sleigh ride driveway in Mattituck from the kitChen to the driveway. I don't see how you can put up a house safely :::up there. I think you would lose half of the hill there. It would all wash out. I would just like to know, or see a picture of how they're going to go about this. It doesn't seem feasibly possible. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman? If Mr. Williams is done, could I ask counsel a questions. MEMBER DINIZIO (Acting Chairman) Yes, just hold on just for a second. Do you, are you finished with this gentleman? ,.: MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, I thought he was done. I'm sorry. I thought he was finished. Page 39 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think we could require the applicant to show us how he's going to go about that house. But certainly he cannot be of any detriment to your property and the Building Inspector would ensure that, that would happen certainly. But as far as us saying, how a person goes about building a house, we have no control over how they do that. If they, the nature of this application is just whether or not someone could build on that piece of property. If they had to come back to us for a variance because they were too close to your property line, or you know, they needed a setback variance, then we could certainly place restrictions on run-off, you know, haybale things such as that but beyond the scope of this meeting, we wouldn't even, we had no idea. I'm not a builder and we, this application doesn't address that. MR, WILLIAMS: OK, also, like I said, we can't do less than a, it's a very pristine and quiet block. I don't want to see another Levittown in Mattituck and I feel if there's anything we can do. If I can save 100 sq. ft. of Mattituck new development, I mean, so be it, and I think that's what you'll get from the rest of my neighbors. Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. Lora, do you need to ask that question now? MEMBER COLLINS: I might as well. (changed tape). It says lots merged under certain circumstances. They're too small and they have common ownership. This Board can waive the merger and there are things we're suppose to look at, and Mr. OIsen listed them for us, and I don't know whether everyone was fully tuned in. But one of them has to do with the natural details and character of the property, and this is a really steep piece of property. And the drawing with the sought of hypothetical house that was submitted here, it's just a rectangle placed on the land. It certainly looks like it would have to cut sharply into the property. Could you just. enlighten us a little bit more about, I realize nobody has specifically designed a house yet that's goner go on the property but? MR. DAVID OLSEN: I don't know if they've gotten to that point yet, because we had to - MEMBER COLLINS: Right. But, you under, understand the concern, I mean one of the things we are suppose to look at is, is what happens to the contour of the land. MR. DAVID OLSEN: I understand. I don't think that he plans on doing anything that would destroy any of the land. Two things I would like to point out. Mr. & Mrs. Williams were making arguments which essentially what seems like they would achieve is, they want to treat this lot different than the lot they bought Page 40 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals which if one merged the other would merge. They have a C.O. and a house now on that one lot. We're asking for the same thing here. In terms of the economics of it, it would certainly be a hardship on not only the Contract Vendee by the Contract Vendor. The seller of this property would essentially not be able to sell to anybody else. Aside from the Williams or the other neighbor but why would they buy it when right now, there using it you know, they have that vacant land next to them anyway. Nobody else can buy it. I guess nobody is going to buy something in the middle of two lots which are already built on, besides those neighbors. And Mr. DeLuca, the person hoping to buy this lot, has already spent a lot of money. He's gotten surveys, he's gotten Health Department approval and hardship (). One other thing I'd like to point out is, that this lot would be essentially the same exact size as tot 35. · i'!':~ MEMBER DINIZlO; I think that Mr. Olsen, you know, I think Lora has brought up a good question in that you know, you're going to be cutting 8 feet into that bank or whatever you want to call it, hill, to build a house one way or the other. MR. DAVID OLSEN ' Well he would have to meet all the, he would have to meet all the standards set by the Building Department. It's understood. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK MR. DAVID OLSEN: From the setbacks and other things. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I'm satisfied with that. And certainly, if you need the variance you'll be back to us anyway. MR. DAVID OLSEN: That's right. :, MEMBER DINIZIO: O1( Is there anybody else that would like to speak? MR. WELLS: Howard Wells, Mattituck. As an excavator after 45 years, I feel qualified to offer an opinion and feasibility to build on lot number 34. If I merged from Lot 35. First of all, there's a 13 foot rise and 40 foot, in the 40 foot setback, that's 20 degrees. This is just to the cellar floor or garage door, whichever you want to call it. But a no-level pad in front of the garage and with a 20 foot level pad in front of the garage, I think you require.that, your rise in the driveway would mean 1'3 feet and 20 feet. That's about 33 degrees. Maximum rise, maximum slope on the road, I don't care what degrees is about 30 degrees, even a jeep would hardly make that. And 30 foot more to the back wall of the proposed house is another 11 foot rise in topography which puts top of a normal 8 foot cellar three foot below grade. By the time you clear for a house, water line Page 41 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals cesspool, and lines, with a driveway, I believe it would be necessary to lose move the trees and brush for at least 100 foot back. MEMBER DIN'I.ZIO: And the reason.for that is again? Could you just state thati.: sir? MR. WELLS: Pardon. MEMBER DINIZIO: You said you wanted to be, you said 100 foot back, even these trees. What would be the reason for that? MR. WELLS: Well, you've got a 40 foot setback plus 30 foot is 70 and the hill is still geing up. You've got to cut into the hill~? putin at least two sets of retaining walls. As an expert, I've done some and I wouldn't attempt it. Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you, Mr. Wells. MR. WELLS: You wouldn't even want to give it a try. MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there anybody else would like to speak? AL RICHARDS: Good evening. My name is Al Richards and I'm joint owner of property to the east of Lot 35 and I was greatly relieved to hear that there wats some confusion on the Board, because I came in here tonight really baffled about merged lots, when it happened, how it happened, delighted to hear that I'm not alone in that. ! would say up front, I think that the statute that was enacted merging the lots is morally bankrupt, and my personal opinion contrary to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But the fact is, that it is a law, and I'm nothere to settle the moral issue of it. Under the single and separate concept, I believe that this property merged, let me back up. I believe that the property became subject to one acre zoning back in 1971. In 1983, under single and separate it merged. Subsequently, there have been three purchasers of this property, subsequent to 1983. So I would submit that the current owners problem is a self induced problem. There was amble time for the purchasers to review the title and the history of this property. This lot if the unmerging is approved will create the second smallest lot in this neighborhood. And I believe, although I'm not an engineer, I think that this lot would be about 10 or 11% smaller, than Lot35. I also believe, that Lot 35, the Lot 35 site plan approval Building Permit C.O., were probably issued on the assumption, that Lot 34 was not buildable. There were some rather heroic steps made to render Lot 35 buildable. I don't know that for a fact; and I'm not suggesting that ! do. But I think that, that is an issue here, whether Lot 35 was approved on the assumption Page 42 - July 6, 2000 ?T~anscripts of Hearings Board of Appeals that Lot 34 and Lot 35 had merged, and there was only one building to go up in that area. That's all I have to say on it. Thank you very much. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you Mr. Richards. Would you like to rebut? Sure. MR. DAVID OLSEN: If those two lots hadn't indeed merged at the time, there would be more than one lot, but the Southold Town Building Department issued a C. O. for only 35 and not 35 and 34 combined for a larger lot. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so is there anybody else would like to speak on this application? MR. SWEENEY: My name is Steve Sweeney. I own the lot on the other side of this property we're talking about. Listening to Howard, knowing his years of experience I don't know how they could build a retaining wall that would hold on for a lifetime without anybody guaranteeing me, that my property will never cave in, or the Wells' property. When I bought my house, 17, or 18 years ago, it was one lot. In fact I always understood by my real estate person, that there would only two houses built between me and the water, and those houses have since been built. There's also the creek right there that if they build a driveway now, you know, with that concerns about drainage running into the creek, and it's just a, it's also going to be crowded. I don't know, I just love it the way it is up there now, and I don't want to see a house built there, and you know, when I bought my house, it was one lot, and I don't know how they were ever going to separate it. I could, you know, if you grant this, I could say then, I could separate my lot also, because my lot is also is actually bigger than those two lots put together, and I wouldn't want to do that. Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you Sir. Is there anybody else? Anythingfrom the Board? OK, well I'll make a motion that a, what do you feel? You want to close this? MEMBER COLLINS: Close the hearing, pending - MEMBER DINIZIO: You need anymore information? No? motion that we close this hearing and I guess vote on it when. MEMBER COLLINS: Decide'it later. At a later date. MEMBER DINIZIO: At a later date? OK. I'll make that motion. See Minutes for Resolution. OK, I'll make a Page 43 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 8:28 P.M. - Appli. No. 4826 - WILLIAM PENNY III (Continued from June 8, 2000, hearing calendar.) Proposed bUilding greater than 60 ft. wide along C.R. 48, Southold; Parcel 1000-: 55-5-2.2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are recessing that to the next regularly scheduled meeting at the request of the applicant, or Agent for the apPlicant. So, I'll 'make a motion. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So that date is August? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: August 10th BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: August 10th. Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS; So moved. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 44 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 8:29 P.M. - Appl. No. 4813 - A & S SOUTHOLD OIL CORP./E.M.T., INC. (Continued from prior hearing calendars.) Proposed canopy with request for Variance on front yard setback and addition building with insufficient rear yard setback at 49610 Main Road, (and Bayview Road), Southold; Parcel No. 1000-70-7-4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Strang, as you know, we haven't grilled you on this to any grade of degree, so we are about the, we're not really in the grilling mood tonight but we want you to know that we could grill you. MR. STRANG: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have furnished us with copies of canopies which we appreciate. The most latest situation these are congest things that come into my head of all the things I've read for all the hearings, that the sidewalks are going to be removed? MR. STRANG: As of a recent correspondence I received from the DOT, they have asked that we re-apply or resubmit I should say, our site plan deleting the sidewalks at this point in time and substituting landscaping grass or whatever those areas are suppose to be paved, which we have no objection to at all. I think it's a better solution to begin with. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you going to do that? MR. STRANG: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I just want the:,Board to know for the record, that I have been at this site seven times between now and the last hearing. The sixth and seventh time I have been there, I have been there in early evening, between 8:30 and after 9:00. I'm getting the feeling of the concern of the neighbors, and we go from there. I just want everybody to be aware of that. The other request in reference to the earth tone colors, what is the situation with that? MR. STRANG: Alright, we a, prior to receiving that correspondence from this Board, we had submitted an application to the Ar6hitectural Review Committee for their review as part of the Planning Board process and as you, I'm sure are aware this is a, it's referred to as a branded gasoline station. That is, it's a Gulf which is one of the major brands in the country, and they have their particular color scheme that's considered to be part and parcel with their stations, which of course is the blue and the orange. We made our application to the ARC given Page 45 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals the fact, that we would be using those colors. They reviewed it, and we heard that, that was acceptable to them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How much orange is the question? :~ ' MR. STRANG: Well the orange is a border around the perimeter of the canopy with the major part of the canopy being the royal blue. And of course, there would be a gulf logo. Now, that's what was submitted prior to receiving this Board's recommendation of asking us to give consideration to a different color scheme. We are at the moment waiting for some feedback from Gulf as to whether they would accept an alternate to their standard color scheme. Don't know if their colors are going to be something acceptable to them. But the preference obviously would '-..be to maintain continuity of the brandecl:;~.:-~color scheme. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. So how long do you think it'll take before they get back to you? MR. STRANG: I would expect an answer within the next couple of days on that actually. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, the next issue is, has there been any minimizing of the size of the canopy? MR. STRANG: I discussed the canopy size with both the owner and the several contractors if you will, who install canopies as a regular course of their business. And the size that we propose is pretty much considered the, if you will, "the standard~ it's the minimal that would be considered acceptable as far as against a standard canopy. It is pretty small at this station specifically because of the fact, that it's strictly a two island station. I've discussed it with my client. His feeling is, that as much as he'd really like to keep it the size presented since that is pretty much the minimum size, the most he can probably shrink it is a foot in each direction which is almost, you know, unreceptible from the ground, or the road, or anywhere else if you were to do it but that's about the maximum that he could do and still have it provide the necessary protection that it's intended to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so we're moving in a forwarding direction again. 'So, the issue is, do we clOSe the hearing? Where Are we with the Planning Board? I know that we had done letters and a - MR. STRANG: Well, yeah, I wanted to address that with this Board if we can before we move it any further. And I just did also want to confirm, that this Board did receive the letter I forwarded from the fire suppression people with request to Page 46 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals the code requirement that there be fire suppression at the stations and in the canopy. So I'm assuming that was in fact received which was one of the things that was asked for the last time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does that minimize your applicant's fire cost for insurance? MR. STRANG: To the best of my knowledge, it does have somewhat of an impact on it, because it's a superior system, state of the art system, it provides more fire suppression that is provided without a canopy. So, it would have somewhat of a positive impact on this. A couple of other issues with respect to the Planning Board and again, I did address a letter to this Board after having received a~copy of the Planning Board's commentS.which caught me completely off guard given the fact, that the first meeting we had with the Planning Board on this matter was September 20th of last year, a pre,submission conference in which we reviewed this project with them, on both the convenience store use and the canopy installation, and we've had numerous meetings with them subsequent to that with respect to addressing site issues, parking and curbing and things of that nature, and never once did they make mention the fact, that they had serious subversion to the canopy as they addressed in their letter. You know, even went so far as to have us move ahead with making application to the DOT in the light to get their input on as well with respect to site issues. So I'm totally caught off guard with that comment. I have scheduled a meeting with them on the 10th of this month, next Monday, to find out exactly where that comment came from because subsequent to the last meeting at this Board, when it was asked for me to find out from the Planning Board what was up, and i asked them why they hadn't responded to you with respect to this particular project, they indicated that they had addressed it at the previous work session, and it was adetermination made, that they weren't going to make a comment on it, similar t° what they said in this letter with respect to the bump out: in the back. And, but for some reason, it never put in writing, and went from their office to yours. So then when they did respond to it in this letter all of a sudden they did a 180 on it which again just caught me off guard. We'll have to find out what that's all about. Otherwise in that, I think we've addressed all your questions except one, which had to do with the hours of operation you asked the last time. And presently the hours of operation are six in the morning until :ten in the evening during winter hours with the potential of to discuss the whole :thing until midnight during the summer time when items big Season. They~;~don't really foresee any changes in that in the immediate future although l~ey wouldn't;want that to be a condition for a variance. But that's what they foresee as the need for that station. Page 47 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have never brought this issue up before. But although I'm constantly barraged with this issue. As you know we have probably the most unique McDonalds anywhere that exists which is something I've had to live with since 1991 and at least one other Member of the Board to date. So if we so move with something as unique as this particular one, that's the reason why we're discussing minimum size of canopies, different color schemes and so on and so forth, something that would fit in that won't look obtrusive. Not that it's, you know, we're basically not a person, not a Board that deals with colors as you're aware, that's really dealt with a site plan issue so I'm sure I'll hear with the Planning Board on that issue but that's not neither here nor there at this point. But we're trying to get something that looks amenable to everybody. MR. STRANG: Understandable and my client is also trying to be a good neighbor as well and it was hopeful, that the biggest issue as he saw it, was addressing one traffic flow, number 1 and number 2, addressing site light and he was opting the position that the canopy site improvement would just dispose those issues. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, so you think we can wrap this up in August then? On August 10th? MR. STRANG: If the Board wants to hold it over to that point, I'm sure we can. I guess you'll have to hold the meeting open for, you were to close the meeting if I were to get you the information with regard to the canopy colors, would that be something that you can do? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I was just more concerned in hearing from the Planning Board where that issue came from, that caught us off guard also and that's why I'd like some input from you on that and of course we won't have until- I'm not trying to drag this thing along, but we are a, it's certainly a concern on my part. MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you talking about the Planning Board being opposed to it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it's my intention to go to that meeting Mr. Strang. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, so you're going to report back to us. MEMBER DINIZIO: I certainly will. Now, whether we can close the hearing or not, that's certainly between you - Page 48 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, leave it open until we get, I mean, you know it's only a matter of cost that we close it at that point. I mean we're certainly going to take.testimony from the neighbors at that point as we will tonight. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I was wondering just how the Board felt. How much weight could that particular sentence in that memo carries? MEMBER HORNING: What sentence? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well the Board is opposed to a canopy at this location because of esthetic and lists the reasons. And I, the moment that I read that, Linda was kind enough to put me ir) touch with Bob Kassner, although I'm not going to inject his testimony. I'm going to let him do It himself, I found his comments unacceptable. Therefore, you know, I thought the best way to do this, would be for me to go down there, i do not intend to ask a question or speak a word. But just to listen to their explanation if, Mr. Strang seeks it. That way i'11 hear the same explanation that Mr. Strang. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we'll go from there. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you Jim. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK? MR. STRANG: No, I intend to seek some sought of interest to this. MEMBER DINIZiO: I got that impression from your letter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so, let's close it as a matter of cost of action on it then. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Hopefully a very quiok question. This is a true statement that I'm making, right? There's no alterations to the pumps, or the underground storage of the gasoline? MR. STRANG: There will be no further changes to what's there with respect to what exists. The tanks have already been upgraded to present day standards, and the pumps have recently within the last year to eighteen months have been Page 49 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals also upgraded to current standards. So, there will be no need to make any changes to the pumps, the islands, or the underground storage facility. MEMBER HORNING: Did they consider a canopy at the time that you referred to when they upgraded the pumps? MR. STRANG: They were probably maybe not in position, and I'm speculating at this point, they may not have been in position financially to address it at that time, since it was a major undertaking with respect to expenses to upgrade the underground storage and the liking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes? MEMBER TORTORA: I do not want to mislead you. I've been concerned about the size of the canopy from the very first hearing as you know. MR. STRANG: H'm. h'm. MEMBER TORTORA: I've been concerned about the one foot setback. They should keep the setback. It's a very small piece of property. It's a very unusual shape piece of property. And it's also at a very dangerous intersection. And I think that by placing the canopy two foot from the sideyards on both sides, it's too close. I've made no bones about it. The other thing is, when I was going across Ackerly Pond Road tonight, Bayview Road comes down to Main Road like this, the gas station is here, and when I got to that intersection here, Ackerly Pond and Main Road, I looked across, and I said to myself, if there was a canopy there, would I be able to see cars coming down Bayview Road, or would it block the vision? And that's a real concern Mr. Strang, because that is a very dangerous intersection but yes, I think that the-canopy :is going to be too big for the property. It's not, the canopy is not too big, it's too big for the prope¢[y. There are plenty of canopies at gas stations all over Southold that are similar size, but they are larger piece of property, and they have much larger setbacks. So, those are my concerns. MR. STRANG: I can appreciate those concerns and if we had a large piece of property, obviously it would eliminate that concern. But we don't we're stuck with the piece of property that we have and the relationship to move the canopy ,back further from the property line is going to'~basically eliminate it's purpose because the pump island itself is only 10 feet from the property line. MEMBER TORTORA: Well I, why don't you do what I did, and ( ) up to the light, from Ackerly Pond Road and a, because I am concerned. If that canopy is Page 50 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals going to block vision from both from Bayview Road and from cars going from Ackerly Pond Road across you're going to create a blinding spot. MR. STRANG: I appreciate that. I'm not sure that I necessary con:cur with that idea because I have traveled that regularly since I do go home regularly on Main Bayview Road, and sometimes come down Ackerly Pond to get across, and it is a dangerous intersection. So, I try to avoid it when ! can that particular path of travel. The height of the canopy again is such, that it's elevated to the point where you'll be seen underneath it, because Ackerly Pond Road actually is lower than our site, the canopy is elevated. So, you'll be seen underneath the canopy. So, I don't necessarily you know, think that, that's a, you know, as much of an issue as you may be visualizing it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to return to a something that was emphasized in the testimony but now that I've, which is the whole safety aspect of this. Your client and you on his behalf made a strong point, that a canopies requires suppression systems over gasoline pumps are a safer environment then gasoline pumps without that kind of fire suppression, and you submitted to us, this letter from this company that's in the business of putting in canopies and such, the Fire Guard of Long Island, and they have a statement in here, "The requirement for fire suppression systems over fueling pumps has been part of the Codes, Rules and Regulations of New York State since 1984." But there's, I mean, this station can legally operate the way it is now. There not defying any, I mean their not sought of being grandfathered into an unsafe system are they? MR. STRANG: No, they are in full compliance at the moment with a, 1'11 say restricted for the lack of a better word at the moment, system, suppression systems is strictly over the pump islands which strictly protects the pumps themselves and nothing else. MEMBER COLLINS: H'm, h'm. MR. STRANG: If you were to visit the station you'll see it. You've got the big red ( ) canisters hanging there, you've got the piping hanging out with nozzles hanging out. It's totally exposed and that's strictly the pump island itself. It does not protect the vehicles adjacent to - ~:~' ~- ' MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, I, I, live around the corner and I sometimes buy gas there and I know what's there. I just wanted to explore that question of what, they do not need to put this canopy in to come into compliance with law?. They are complying with the law? Page 51 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. STRANG: No, but the canopy does provide additional protection. MEMBER COLLINS:~ Provides something additional. OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again, I want to reserve the right in telling you, that this Board will reserve, I'm sorry, I want to state, that this Board again will reserve the right to deal with the lighting aspect assuming that we garner enough votes to approve this application. MR. STRANG: That's underStood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER::~:Mr. Dinizio, anything else? MEMBER DINIZlO: No, that's all. What time is that meeting? MR. STRANG: I'm waiting to hear back from Mr. Kassner on that. I'm assuming it's a late afternoon meeting. Probably I believe he said, there's a public hearing that starts at 5:30, so he suspects that, that will be concluded and there will be a work session abOut 6-6:15. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, thanks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Strang. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes Sir? How are you tonight. MR. TRUNCE: I'm good. HoW are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good thanks. MR. TRUNCE: It's nice to see you again. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nice seeing you. MR. TRUNCE: I really appreciate the things that were covered here tonight because they really addressed as you know my concerns. As I've gone over this again~ and again, you know, from my',. standpoint, I can't see that they. really demonstrated any need or hardship. The pumps that are there, it existed as it does now when the station was bought. You know canopies in this weather I think do minimal. At minimal, it'll effect as far as protect the people from the weather. The fire suppression systems there, all of that. As far as, you know, the actual look at the canopy, I just have a question for Mr. Strang. It's like Page 52 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals endless touch time here. It's like is the owner of the station paying for this canopy, or is - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The question has to!-;rbe posed to us. MR. TRUNCE: OK, sorry. Is the canopy being paid for by the property owner, or is it something that comes with the franchise from Gulf? And - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: before, and if Mr. Strang so chooses to answer that question, OK. that done with car dealerships, alright, where car dealerships Franchisees have required them to put signs up. MR. TRUNCE: H'm, h'm. We've had that question posed to us by the way We've had have their CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we don't care what the Franchisee says. MR. TRUNCE: Right, because you know this is basically a sign. I mean it's a piece of advertising, and you know, if this were a sign, I think we would be looking at it a whole different way. You know, the lighting thing which we haven't talked about, you know, I said last time and I don' t want to take up a lot of time but you know, with all due respect, the lighting problem that I could see, it could be solved with a ladder and a can of spray paint by just blocking out the part of the light that hangs below the fixture itself. I've seen that you know, suppressed lighting in different ways. So again, as I go around this again, again and again, I don't see you know, I don't see a particular reason, and if this guy is putting money out of his pocket to pay for this thing, which must be tens of thousands of dollars, it's like you know, why would he hire Mr. Strang and go through this trouble. You know, .I did also see a copy of the Planning Board's letter,' there were some other issues about environmental concerns for run-off, all of those storm drains drainage, directly into Jockey Creek. So, you know, I'm just kind of perplexed that you know, this is even something that they would be pursuing. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Strang do you want to answer that? MR. STRANG: Sure, I'd be happy to answer Mr. Trunce's questions, it has to do with the one'with respect to canepy. The canopy is being constrUcted and erected by the owner out-of-pocket expense, his, and it's not at the mandate of the Franchise Company of Gulf that is doing this. He's doing it because he believes it's the right thing to do. Again, addresses the issue of lighting, addresses the issue of fire safety to a point which comes to the State of New York, and it is a sizable investment on his part of the station but he believes that Page 53 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals he's doing the right thing with respect to lighting. It's not that, obviously there's some benefit to him, but you know, it is a major investment and it's one that he opting to do, not one that he's being forced to do by the Gulf Corporation. The lighting, the issue trying to mask the lightfrig that's there somehow to eliminate or reduce still offers sought of like a bandied approach to the issue and may or may not be effective changing the light completely as shown in the one brochure that we presented: You can see how effective the lighting can be contained that's put into the canopy as opposed to the light fixture on a pole. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I don't want to restrict anybody but I do want to move along. We will hold this over until August. Is there anybody that will not be here on August 10th that would like to speak against this application?~ Seeing no hands I'll make a motion', recessing the hearing until August 10th. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 54 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 8:53 P.M.- Appli. No. 4836- VIVIAN KOCH This is a request for an interpretation of the Zoning Code, Section 100-13, regarding the setba0k(S) referred to in the Building Department's May 9, 2000 Notice of Disapproval, amended June 9, 2000. The June 9, 2000 Amended Notice of Disapproval reads as follows: Proposed (dwelling) construction on non-conforming lot not permitted pursuant to Article XXlV, Section 100~244B which requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, subject lot has right-of- way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage. Setback on that frontage proposed at 12-1/2+- feet from boundary of right-of- way, 20 feet from property line. Location of Property: 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-106-1-47. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore, I just want to tell you, that we, that Mr. Homing will be leaving in approximately 10 minutes to get the ferry, OK, so we'll take a short recess at that point, just to allow him to get his stuff together. MRS. MOORE: Alright. Linda, don't let me forget to give you the cards. I'll get started right away. The reason why we are here before this Board is that really it comes down to the properties, first property and the proposed development of Meskouris' property and how the Building Department has interpreted the Code, its application to this property and the placement of the house. It all arrives from there. If you would refer Mr. Homing because I'm sure you won't be able to hear the whole presentation, my written dissertation that is attached to application, I tried to make it as simple and as clear as possible because there are several issues that I wish to address, and I identified each article as a separate issue, and how we get through this application, and why we believe that the location of the house should be placed at the appropriate setback from the edge of the right-of-way, not where it has been proposed: So, if you be so kind; as to read that, and if you have any questions, you can certainly ask them of me, or present them to the Board, and I'll respond accordingly. To begin with, we start with Article 1, Section 113, it defines Yard Front Right-of-Way and Height of Building. I start with that section, the definition section because right from the beginning we look at what is a front yard, and as you know there has been some legislative change to that definition which was trying to address and give relief for accessory structures. At the time that the legislation was being considered I know Mr. Forrester can attest to this, there were several applications that were before ~his Board, including one of mine?that I recall was Grattan was the~ame of the applicant. It was on Kenny Road and it was a single family house that was built with a right-of-way, that gave access to strictly to a rear property, that was developed like a flag lot. But it was based, it was with a right-of-way. And this particular property had right-of-ways that went along the one side and to the rear of the property. And the Grattans merely wanted to put a pool in their Page 55 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals backyard, and that seemed to be the simplest type of application, and the Board had several of them and the Building Department was being confronted on almost on a daily basis with those type of applications. So it was at that prompting, that:~he Town Board legislated that additional language in the Code which says that, it defines where a street line is, and what a frontyard is. And it says, "Except, if the owner of the lot does not have the right to use or travel over a bordering street, right-of-way or street line, the side of the line bordering that particular street, "and it's bordering and is the first distinguishing mark on this property. This property has a right-of-way, that it falls on the property. It's not border on the property. Going on, 'shall not be considered to be a front yard, and any accessory structure," again, it's addressing accessory structure, "placed in such yard shall comply with the applicable side yard setbacks for the zoning district within which it is located." It was trying to address the limited case of accessory structures being placed in a rear yard where that property was faced with right-of-ways, that they had no use of, no control of, or just because of the way the definition of right-of-ways. The definition of the front yard as it's placed in the code. I included in the application a little drawing because to explain it, I'm very visual and I, excuse my scratch marks but I tried to draw the distinction. We have the first piece of property that is what I described as the Grattan example. An application that you heard a year ago which has a property it has a right-of-way, that gives access to their properties, versus the Meskoris property which has a piece of property, it has a right-of-way that falls on to the property and is not bordering on the property but is on the property. There is no doubt that Meskoris have a right to use this right-of-way at least to the extent that it is on their property. You can't prevent someone from using their own property. They're taxed on it, they use it, they are subject to the rights-of-others to cross it but it is their property to use. So I think right off the bat, the application of that front yard setback of the street, the front yard is misapplied here, and the-reason we're here is because the Building Inspe~or did determine that yes, the measurement of a right-of-way, the right-of-way sets forth in the definition of right-of-way, and I set that forth at the second part of this argument, says that the lines, the yard setbacks and other requirement shall be measured from that right-of-way. The Building Inspector did agree that as to the easterly side they would measure the appropriate setback_ And yes, they do need a variance because they encroach onto what would be their side yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's not over saturate that at this point. Let's hold up right.there; OK. We're going to let Mr. Homing go, and then we!Ce going to ask some questions on what you're saying at that point. MRS. MOORE: OK, on that issue, OK. Page 56 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you George. 9th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: 10th. We'll see you on August CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're going to Fishers Island on August 9th. So we'll see you then George. MEMBER HORNING: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: end of your oonversation. Just briefly tell me what you were saying at the MRS. MOORE: Oh, as far as the use of the right-of-way? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As far as the distinction that you were making between Map #1, and Map # (inaudible). MRS. MOORE: OK, alright. Map #1, if you were dealing even just with a, the way I read the code is - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're saying is, - MRS. MOORE: It's only as to accessory structures that you have that exception. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. MOORE: That's my reading of the language of this code. But more so, it doesn't as far as the use not having, if the owner of the lot does not have a right to use or travel over bordering street, that paragraph, the first design provides an example of that, which is someone who has a right-of-way that gives access to that piece versus the second example, which has a right-of-way, that falls on the property. The underlining owner, owns every bit of that property. It's just made subject to the rights of others. So he could improve it. He could do what he wants with the land providing he doesn't interfere with the rights of others to cross it. So I don't believe that the Meskouris case fits either one as a right-of-way that borders and is not of use to the Meskouris and secondly that paragraph doesn't deal with the Meskouris example which is a principal residence. It's not an accessory that gives that exception to the rule. So the rule of a front yard setback still applies. You still have a front yard where you Page 57 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals have right-of-ways and the measurement of the right--of-way still is made from the line of the right-of-way. That's the first argument. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But wasn't the original application, the setback actually for a deck which is an accessory structure? MRS. MOORE: When it's attached to the principal structure, it's not accessory. The pool is. The pool of it is not attached to the principal structure. It's an accessory structure. The deck is attached to the principal structure and usually decks are. So that the deck ends up, most applications that you have before you, when you have a deck addition, it requires a variance because you got to provide for the setbacks of a principal structure. Otherwise you have decks that go to three feet off the property line. You know, accessory structures are permitted to be three, five feet, depending on the size of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have a question? MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I'm having it hard. I hate to interrupt counsel, I think that's difficult. MRS. MOORE: It's OK, it's going to be interactive use. MEMBER COLLINS: But I want to keep us from being in for an even longer night than we are. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, well, he asked about decks. So, the first application dealt with a deck but it was attached to the house, so it's all a principal structure. MEMBER COLLINS: What's before uSare the denials that you are appealing. You are appealing what the Building Department did and you are saying - MRS. MOORE: I'm saying that there are more denials than what have been issued and that I still have not seen the survey, and the most recent decision but I believe the Building Department did direct the applicant to show a setback from the right-of-way on the easterly side. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, well we have, I mean, you have certainly seen the latest thing I've seen which is the denial:and amended~denial, dated June 9. MRS. MOORE: The June 9th one, yes. Page 58 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of :Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: And it relates to the setback on the easterly side of the property and it recites two setbacks. One from the right-of-way, perimeter and one from the property line. And the complaint - MRS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I don't know that, that (changed tape) MEMBER COLLINS: Is that the trivial aspect of this. The point is that in this denial the Building Inspector stated you require a 40 foot setback on a front yard. It goes without saying, in effect in this denial, that the right-of-way creates a front yard and the denial recites that there are two setbacks depending on which line you measured from. One is 12-1/2 feet, one is 20 feet and clearly neither one of them is 40 and that's the basis of the denial. MRS. MOORE: Correct, so there's a need for a variance. MEMBER COLLINS: We agreed on that. MRS. MOORE: We do agree that there's a need for a variance, MEMBER COLLINS: And your argument is, that it should be measured from the right-of-way and you're telling - MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, OK. Now, - MRS. MOORE: And- MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, no, and you wish to appeal the fact, that the Building Department did not apply this rule on the northerly side where you feel it applies as well. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: We won't get into the fact, that you're trying to say, that the northerly side is a rear yard and not a front yard, because that's whole another can of beans. But you are stating, that they should have applied this. Where do you measure from rule and found that the northerly setback was also inadequate? MRS. MOORE: Correct. Page 59 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Before we spend a lot more time on the meaning of that exception written into the definition of front yard a few months ago, I would like to say, that I don't think it's relevant. I haven't heard anyone say here in any of this testimony, that, that exceptien was applied by the Building Department somehow to bless any of these setbacks. MRS. MOORE: During the course of the hearings, they've been several arguments that have been posed by the applicant as to the reason why it doesn't apply. The Building Inspector can be asked on the record what his reasoning is as to why that northerly right-of-way does not apply. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. So you believe that it may be a factor? That, that exception may be a factor on the northerly side. MRS. M MOORE: I was trying to guess as to what reasoning they used for not requiring a variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I please be aware of one thing. Make everybody aware. That this is a presentation by counsel. This does not have anything specifically related to the hearing that is coming up next. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is her interpretation, her time to refer to this issue, and it's not - MRS. MOORE: I would respectfully disagree on that point. MEMBER COLLINS: She's appealing a specific denial Mr. Chairman, not an:: abstractor. MRS. MOORE: No, I disagree both because I don't know what reasoning - the Building Inspector when he gives an applicant a Notice of Disapproval, explains why they're being rejected. As the neighbor, I have to guess as to why they're not rejecting it. And I have to think, and I listened to the presentations that Christine Rivera presented and some of the arguments have been made, well we've used this section of the code, well we've used this section of the code, and i'-ve looked at all of those sections and said, it doesn't make sense. That's not the way its been applied. That's incorrect. So not only have I actually appealed the Notice of Disapproval applicable to the Meskouris piece, or otherwise I wouldn't have a dght to argue those points but rm also asking the Board to look at the definition sections, the sections that have been addressed and give the Building Department some guidance that now and in the future, this Page 60 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals is the way you're suppose to look at things. So I do have, I have two roads on this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know you know my opinion in reference to'the actual closing of the next hearing, and of course I well versed that at the last hearing, there's no question about it. But in the normal interpretation hearing, we don't get involved in specific situations that are somewhat abstract. MRS. MOORE: See, I disagree because the only time that you get interpretations are where applicants have something or the Building Department has an issue that is applicable to a case because honestly zoning use as you know, very difficult. Zoning cannot be read in a book and abstract the envision. In every single laW'that is created on the books can be applied in a different way, depending on whose reading it, and that's why you get the number of variance you get because it may have been designed or written in such a way but then it gets applied a different way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, lets continue. MRS. MOORE: OK. The issue we talked briefly about the right-of-way, the definition of the right-of-way, which does very clearly identify where the right-of- way shall be measured. When I was, when one of the arguments that was made by Meskouris property owner is, that well we use Koch as an example, and I went and I did some research on when that right-of-way, that measurement of a right-of-way was adopted and it first came in and ! wrote it down here, it first came in to the code by way of some discussion in 84. However, it was adopted in the September of 86, Comprehensive Zoning Code. So when are, 89, did i - CHAIRMAN GCEHRINGER: You~said 86. MRS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry. In 89, excuse me. No, I'm sorry, 84 is when the house is built, in 84 the cottage house was built by the prior owners. The right- of-way legislation and drafts of code language started in September of 86 and there was ultimately adopted as legislation in 1989. So you cannot use Koch as well. They did it. The law was different then and the reason and they were trying to preserve setbacks where you have roadways just as you have front yard setbacks today, front roadways, why you don't build berms and why you have fencings'restrictions, ff's for visibility and appropdate~;~tbacks. $othe logic is there, and it made sense at the time. We have very unique properties in the Town of Southold and some are developed in ways that require variances, i know you don't want to get into the issue of what is a street but I do want to point out and put on the record, that Summit Drive is a street shown on the Town Official Map. It is considered to be front yard and every effort that the owner has Page 61 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of'Hearings Board of Appeals used to push the house forward, has been to start with a rear yard setback calling it front yard of 40 feet, rather than what it is, which is I believe a rear yard. So, for the record we know our position. As to the height of the building we had I know you don't generally get it unless.the Building Department feels that there's a height variance issue. But we are very suspecting that I used the wrong word, that we, but we are concerned that the construction of this house is going to be in such a way, that it's going to artificially raise the grade and artificially bring the house to a height that ordinarily would require a variance. If you were dealing with a flat farm piece, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: BUt this is the part that I discussed with you, that I didn't discuss with you but I discussed with my counsel - MRS. MOORE" OK, your counsel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it's anticipatory. We're not to that point yet. MRS. MOORE: Correct, however- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, but, but, germane subjects. MRS. MOORE: I understand. No, but I know this from the Hirsch case. That was a horrible case. And if I had only known what I know today then, I would have known that they could have built higher just by budging the grade and that's what most of the houses out here that are waterfront, that try to get views do, and that's something that gets done at the Building Department, particularly on a property that haS some slope to it because you end up with moving grades around and making the highest grade, not the average natural grade, which the code defines. They quickly moved dirt around which in this particular case, we had moved it around already. So that was something we wanted to disclose at this point and we're concerned about it. I also have a letter from Joe Fischetti who responded to Consulting Engineer Mareska's letter that states that there are important points that have to be addressed and that the Miskouris' application has now provided certain grading plans certain information that is basic and would have been needed to analysis the placement of the house and why they're claiming it has to be placed where it is. The engineer's letter said, well we need to place the: house here because of rain run-off and concerns about flooding and so on. We're countering that letter and saying, baloney. The Fischetti letter is addressing the May 5th letter that was submitted to the Board and received by the Board on May 8th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Who wrote that letter? Page 62 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Pardon me. That was Steven Mareska P.E. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And that was on the other appeal number? MRS. MOORE: Yes, it was on the other appeal number. If you would be so kind as to put that same Fischetti letter in both files. Thank you. Now, as to my final issue, the reason, another reason that was given, and all of this is in your record, that the an average setback was created here and this is why they have established the setbacks or the Building Department has authorized the setbacks that have been proposed. And again I refer you to the language of the Code, you know, the supplemental regulations that deals with the Establishment of Front Yard Setbacks and says; "Where property in the vicinity is improved with principal buildings with front yards of less than that required~y the provisions of this chapter, the front yard setback shall be the average setback of the existing buildings within 300 feet of the proposed" I looked at front yard. Looked at the definition of front yard. I looked at average, i took the definition from Webster's Dictionary because there's no definition in the Zoning Code. And again, it is not applicable to this case, to the Meskouris case. So, that justification just does not hold water. I don't want to, please read what I've submitted to you. I know that it's late and I don't want to just read what I've already written. We also want to emphasize what we've emphasized all along, which is that this right-of-way has heavy use on it. We know that those who have done the inspection, there have been cars that got stuck. There's visibility problems on this right-of-way. This right-of-way is very steep. So it has all the things going for it that an appropriate front yard setback would require. The appropriate front yard, or rear yard, whichever we choose to apply. There's a reason for it. The Code tried to address the visibility and the use of a right-of- way. This right-of-way gets extensive use and it would make sense to apply the code the way its been written, in '.particular because of the use of this right-of- way and the activity on this right-of-way. ~ would also finally, this point I would like to well, I'll leave the last point for the Meskouds application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're giving us green cards? MRS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's it? MRS. MOORE: That's it for me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I need to ask Ed a question. Mr. Forrester we appreciate at this late hour and as busy as your department is to come in here. Page 63 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. FORRESTER: I see that all the time. Good evening Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you Sir? Normally :if.~ you were not an employee of the Town of Southold, I would swear you in but I'm not going to do that, OK. My conversation has been with you always pragmatic when I speak to you on the phone. My question to you is, and this is not a setup please. Have I ever tried in any of the conversations that I ever had with you, on things that we talk about, the concern, have I ever tried to have you change a front yard to a rear yard, or a side yard to a front yard or any of these combinations? MR. FORRESTER: No, Sir, you've handle them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I find that the uniqueness of Southold and the uniqueness of these properties are something that we live with. Certainly Fishers Island is an example of that when Mr. Horning left us tonight where you have a substantial amount of private roads in the Fishers Island Development Corporation and we see those once a year when we go over there. But so unique are these parcels that are before us, and these nice neighbors that are sitting here, and I'm just telling you a philosophy and I'm using this to basically state one issue, and that is that when your office, being you, or any of your Building Inspectors modify change, or just immediately come out with a Notice of Disapproval? Unless we find in the office that there is something innately wrong with the disapproval which we very rarely do but you know, we'll talk about it if there is. We go with those disapprovals. If you call one thing a front yard we go with 'that front yard. If you call one thing a rear yard, we go with that also. We know that also when you have three front yards as in this particular generic statement that we're using tonight, that one of them could possibly be a rear yard but we're not even questioning that aspect. What we're very simply saying is, that I'm saying is that I accept your second Notice of Disapproval and - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You mean the June 9th one? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The June 9th one, and at this particular point, that's the one that stands, and we go from there. MR. FORRESTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, is there anything you'd like to say? MR. FORRESTER: That was the purpose of the question? Page 64 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts 'of :Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, because the Board Members I'm sure may have some questions. MR. FORRESTER: OK Well, and :[~elieve I have addressed this the last time I was before you but I think this Notice of Disapproval has been amended several times. The application or the configuration of the footprint of this house has been altered. As a result of me writing one Notice of Disapproval, in an effort maybe to minimize its a, it was changed and unchanged from disapproval accordingly. My last amendment to it, was because I have realized and it was brought that I had been measuring from the wrong spot. So, the Code directed me to measure from the end of the right-of-way, realizing that and the past practice from predecessors have not been doing that, I immediately changed the policy' of the department, amended the disa:~roval to the edge of the right-of- way, rather than the property line. With regard to the yard in question, that's why there seems to be so many amendments on this but I have amended disapprovals for many applicants in the past as they have changed their projects in an effort maybe to minimize the impact or to whatever to please themselves. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Without getting to in-depth in this particular conversation we'll let it open to the Board if you don't mind, and just so we can move everything along here. We would really like to keep as generic as possible Mr. Dinizio, and it's a, -what? MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's not a sarcastic statement I assure you. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: it may be a question for Mr. Forrester. t just want to make a comment or two. I took the time to go back through the records of the Board in the 2-1/2 years rye been on it, and looked for all the cases that appeared to involve setbacks that might have involved right-of-ways, and took a look at them. And this case is unusual because in this case, the right-of-way is on the property rather than abutting the property. Almost all of the ones that we see, the right- of-way, is clearly drawn - MR. FORRESTER: Beyond the lot line. :, MEMBER COLLINS: Clearly drawn on the survey as being beyond the lot line and so there is no question. The lot line and the right-of-way line are the same line. MR. FORRESTER: That's my point. Page 65 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: We did have one however recently. I just want to mention this to the Board. It was Edson Kirsch whose property down on Corey Creek, and it was like this one, the.right-of-way, was right on the property, and in fact, the Building Department did in that case, measure the setback for the house from the right-of-way, and not from the property line. So, you know, it was - MR. FORRESTER: They have been inconsistent. MEMBER COLLINS: It was done that way, that one time, and I just thought I'd kind of mention it. i also wanted just to say, while I'm commenting on the testimony, that I thought Ms. Moore's comment about how the language regarding and the right-of-way line:is the thing to use for measuring;yards. How that came to be in the Code she mentioned that it came in 1989, and the Board revision of the Code, and its very difficult to do statutory research around here, because there's so little legislature history but I suspect that, that's correct, and I think that's pretty convincing to me that they did mean, because if you read the Code without that language, the Code clearly says, you measure from the street, the lot- MR. FORRESTER: The lot line. MEMBER COLLINS: And so I do think, that when they put that in the Code, they did mean to say to measure from the right-of-way line. I just want to say those things sought to help clear my own head. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Moore, representing her client as she told us, is claiming, is asserting, that she feels that the Building Department did not do something it ought to have done, which was to have denied the, made a denial on the basis of the northerly setback, Are we going to discuss that with Mr. Forrester? I'd like to: :.; .~ MEMBER TORTORA: Why not? MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just want to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for the privilege, no seriously, thank you, might as well. MEMBER COLLINS: I mean, you know, we had, way back, way back when this first started out, the original, original, denial said, that there's a right-of-way on the northerly side of the property, there's a right-of-way on the easterly side of the property, these are both front yards - MR. FORRESTER: And a road on the southerly side. Page 66 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, and a road on the southerly side. So you've got three front yards. And a later on the issue of the setback on the northerly side disappeared from the denial, and its still out as a denial. And I think, if Ms. Moore was addressing you directly, she would say something like, well, if the denial we're working from, which is the one from June 9, measures the setback on the east from the right--of-way, why haven't you revisited the northerly setback? Why is that one not subject to denial? i guess that's the question. MR. FORRESTER: OK. I was prepared to answer that question whether we do it at this hearing or the next hearing. MEMBER COLLINS: Well I think this is probably the one:, MR. FORRESTER: I'm prepared. The subject property has three front yards. Because of the presence of right-of-ways or streets, the mere presents of them along the boundaries or within the boundaries or outside the boundaries, creates front yards from which setbacks need to be measured whether from the edge of the right-of-way or not. Lots Regulations began to directing on it, on what is going to be required, 40 foot. A 40 foot, what is it a 40 foot front yard? MEMBER COLLINS: H'm, h'm. MR. FORRESTER: In this zone is a required front yard. There are supplementaries. OK, fact number 1, we've got a front yard, and there is no doubt in my mind, we've got a front yard issue on the north side, the east side, and the south side, because it appears to be an issue on the south side at this point. Where I was measuring from on these boundaries. I'll start with the northerly boundary, that was the question. In supplementary, it is a front yard. Supplementary Regulations 100-230A. "Established front yard setback. Where property in the vicinity is improved with principal buildings with front yards of less than that required by the provisions of this chapter, the front yard setback shall be the average setback of the existing building within 300 feet". Property immediately to the west is improved with a setback of actually one foot greater than it was proposed here. The regulations regarding setbacks when that house was built, they may have been built predating this but it's there. It's an existing established front yard setback. In Greenport when some of these houses were built 1905 feet from the street and you want to develop one today, and/or, 'the one on that side is 5 feet, that one is 5 feet, you can put yours 5 feet, why? Because they weren't subject to the same rules but because this exists. I use this because a lot of my determination is not everyone agrees with me, and I've prepared those very sensitive. I've prepared them a long time ago. But that is my determination regarding the north side of this property. When I first wrote it, Page 67 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals that exception did not occur to me. That's why you don't see it in any subsequent disapprovals. Again, it's a, there was a pool involved. It was, the applicant removed it from the project. That was dropped from the disapproval. "So the metamorphosis of this to the one we've got today, and it brings us to where we are today, so I'm now measuring from the edge of the property line. I said 12-1/2 feet. You had a problem with that number. I was just basically, I had the survey of giving me 20 feet, not being a surveyor. There's a 15 foot right-of-way, the line appears to be down the center of it. I took 7-1/2 feet out, ended up with 12-1/2 but plus or minus is what we're looking for 12-1/2 foot setback on the easterly side of the variance. MEMBER COLLINS: May I just finish this thought? Ed, I think the question of the footage on the east side is just an arithmetic. I mean I get 17-1/2, not 12/1/2 but that's just reading the survey. I mean the principals aren't altered by the particular number. Thank you very much for that testimony on the northerly setback. I mean I think that clarifies a great deal of what the Building Department's thinking was. I think that Ms, Moore being in a position of representing a client who wants to contest the Building Department's decision now has a clear statement that of why you did it, and that is sought of what she needed. She was discussing Section 230 without being sure that it was in fact relevant, and you've now made it clear that it was entirely germane and that's very helpful to all of us, and I'll stop right there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: A- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You'll reserve, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: I will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much Sir. MR. FORRESTER: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Mrs. Moore, you're going to ask him questions, then? MRS. MOORE: Well, I'm going to ask the Board, and you can, he may want to respond. His use of 100-230 and I question why he would cf)oose to use it on the northerly right-of-way, and not us it on the easterly right-of-way?. It's inconsistent. One, I believe it's not applicable, and it's because I think that's why it's very important that we have to choose which is a front yard because this Page 68 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals section does not even apply if it's not the front yard, alright. So that's why it's most importantly but front yard. The average setback, and again, it's the definition of how you take an average is by taking two or more improved properties within 300 feet. That does not exist here. Why not?~ake the property on the water side, the sound side, and the property on the other side of Summit Road? And look at those two properties and say, oh, well the average setback there of a front yard is, X, and then apply it on the side yard, or apply it on the north. It just, that rule does not apply on a property that has this many front yards. I would agree, that if you're on a standard subdivision, a Greenport fully developed subdivision. Even where I live I can see up and down the street that the houses were built in the seventies and most of them have setbacks that are anywhere from 30 feet to 40 feet. Then you look at it and whether the Building Department applies that rule, or~ the Zoning Board looks at it, and/or:the relief that's requested. That's when you look at it. It's not, it should not be applied the way it's being applied today with a piece of property that has admittedly 3 road frontages or two right-of-ways and a road frontage. You come up with all kinds of crazy contortions to try to give this applicant something that they don't deserve, and that's where I get so upset because the example that was given, Kirsch, that was my client, and it was very frustrating to try and build a house on a piece of property, that had wetlands surrounded from all over the place, and try to create proper setbacks. So you have to come to the Zoning Board. You have to present your case. You have to prove why you're entitled to the variances and that's the second appeal. That second appeal has not been proven but lets not take the job out of your hands and make the Building Department suddenly the arbitrator of what is an average setback on piece, that we can't even decide on if it's a front yard or a rear yard, So I think that that section is just totally misapplied here, and I love Ed, he and I could sit down and have a drink together, this is not a, we can disagree professionally, and there'll be times when we're on the'sameside, and so much - '~' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, you and I disagree most of the time. MRS. MOORE: That's alright. So that's my point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Tortora, has a final question for you Mr. Forrester and then we're going to wrap this up assuming the other side has not too much to say. I don't mean sarcastically either. MEMBER TORTORA: You said that you had done a ( ) the setback on the north side based on the single, the setback of a single house on the west side. MR. FORRESTER: Correct. Page 69 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: One house. How did you determine that an average could be obtained by one quantitative measurement? MR. FORRESTER: My interpretation of this section of the code, deterrnination regarding, using my interpretation of the section code. It directs me to take the setback of buildings on the same side of the street. Then you go down that side, that's the only one. I think your question you're posing, is how do I get an average of one house? Rhetorically. I'm on an island. I'm the only one on it. I'm 6 feet tall. What's the average height of the people on this island? Six feet. MEMBER TORTORA: I beg to differ. MR. FORRESTER: You beg to differ? MEMBER TORTORA: Right. Only on one reason. The word "average~ is no different than the determination of square footage, or radius, or any other. It's formula math. It's mathematical theorem that has been established for ab'host a 1500 years, and laws of averages, and determination of mathematical averages, there over 2000 years old, so it's not an arbitrary thing. You could go back 300 years in history, and I'd go back into math and look at the word average, it's not going to change. You could go back to 4th grade math. It doesn't change, it's a (). It's a mathematical theorem that has been established for more tha~q 2000 years and there is no, it is physically impossible to take an average of one quantitative. So that's why I ask. MR. FORRESTER: In this case, exception of modifications which ! already have a copy of 230A, there's several of them. They were written and entered into the code to provide some relief in some cases, and they say, property within 300 feet. They didn't say properties. YOLCVe got singulars. You've got plurals. MEMBER TORTORA: I think this code says buildings, Ed. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on that? I think that in all honesty, the people who wrote this law, had no idea about mathematics. What they were looking for is esthetics. They don't want one house jutting out from another house, and that's what we're talking about average here. You know, Mr. Forrestor used his common sense. I believe that the law has very much common sense in it, and you stand at. the property, and read the law, a~d then you try to apply it. And how do you apply it? You look at the house next door, and say OK, don't go any further than that, and that's what the law is saying. That's what this law is always saying. It's always said that to me. ! believe that's saying that to Mr. Forrester, and i think that you know, 1500 years of mathematics have never entered into the thought when the legislatures put this Page 70 - July 6, 2000 TranscriPts of Hearings Board of Appeals down in writing. So, you know, it's late, I don't think we need to waste time on that. I think Mr. Forrester's argument is at least a valid argument. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OKi:we thank you Sir. MR. FORRESTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak? Seeing no hands I11 make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 71 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals 9:30 P.M. -Appl. No. 4818 -C. MESKOURIS This is a request for a Variance based on a June 9, 2000~Amended Notice of Disapproval which reads as follows: Proposed (dwelling) construction on non- conforming lot not permitted pursuant to Article XXlV, Section 100-244B which requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, subject lot has right-of-way across property on easterly boundary creating front yard on that frontage. Setback on that frontage proposed at 12-1/2+- feet from boundary of right-of-- way, 20 feet from property line. Location of Property: 675 Summit Drive, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-106-1-47. 6'HAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What carl:we entertain you in saying tonight? MRS. RIVERA: Mr. Chairman I'm respectfully before you and the Board for the fourth time requesting a variance on the easterly portion of the Meskouris' property at 12-/1/2 feet from the right-of-way measurement, or, 20 feet from the property line and that is all we're before you for and that is what we're requesting, on the easterly portion of Meskouris' property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know I tried to close this hearing at the last regularly scheduled meeting. MRS. RIVERA: And I would respectfully ask that you close it at this one if you possibly can because this is the fourth meeting for what I consider a simple variance on the easterly portion of a piece of property that has been before you, and similar cases have been before you numerous times and I think that we should try to close this hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora, any question of a, no? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. I think that when we come to make this decision whatever we write we're going to have to deal with what the survey actually shows as to whether it's 12~1/2 feet from::the right-of--way or something different. MRS. RIVERA: The right-of-way, is 15 feet, 7-1/2 feet being on Mr. Salise's property. Page 72 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Well, no, no, no, that's not what the survey shows. To begin with, if you get out your ruler, you'll find that the survey says, 15 foot right- of-way but its measure is 10 foot right-of-way. And the property line runs not down the middle:of it, but very close to a, this does not go to the substance here and i don't want to take up time with it. It's really a question of counting because we're being asked for a variance here and the physical facts are what they are. MRS. RIVERA: The nails are in the middle of the road - MEMBER COLLINS: There not in the survey. MRS. RiVERA: But it is definitely 7-1/2 feet is on the Meskouris' property and 7- 1/2 feet on Mr.~S:alise's property. .'~ MEMBER COLLINS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I think that here and before - MRS. RiVERA: Mr. Dinizio, could you speak a little louder. MEMBER DINIZIO: The hearing before shed some light on this hearing. I think it was a good practice to go. I'm certainly all for closing the hearing tonight Jerry, if that's what you'd like to do. And I'm ready to make a decision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, thank you. Thank you. If we need you back we'll call you. MRS. RIVERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore? MRS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. I want to say that the fact, that I as an attorney can get forceful at times, it should not be held against my client. My client has some legitimate concerns here. They have chosen not to get an attorney. If they had an attorney I believe that they would be just as forceful and arguing points back and forth. So Christine is a, I'm using the wrong word, gentleman, buti yes, I want to be sure that it's understood that the most important point to us obviously is the placement of this house. It is to an extent the variance, a variance has, should be granted, or, has to be granted on the easterly side. No variance is required on the northerly side, or should not be required on the northerly side because the house can be built. If you were to choose to deal Page 73 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals with my application and apply it in this case, I would expect that you're going to under this scenario direct them to get a variance. I would hope that they move the house back an appropriate distance, and as far as the importance of a front yard, I think that~You're going to leave yourself very open to people like me coming in on behalf of applicants that if a front yard setback with a right-of-way, is better than what should be rear yard, I'll apply a front yard number. And on a piece of property like this, they're using it to their advantage. We want the house pushed back as far as possible obviously. It has great impact on my client and common sense you said, apply common sense to how the properties are developed. You saw how the Koch property is developed. It's somewhat on an angle and if you look at the closest point, it's on an angle but the majority of the house is going to be blocked by a house set at 40 feet, it will be approximately equal in dfstance to a house that's set at 50 feeb So, I want the Board to be aware of that when their trying to apply common sense to the code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you leave me - MRS. MOORE: Wait, wait, oh, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead. MRS. MOORE: Finally, we want to state again for the record, and I've placed in writing when I sent the notice to adjacent property owners, certified letter to Chris, James and Mary Meskouris who would be the record owners of the property, we again offered to purchase the property at their asking price, the asking price that we knew about of $165. That is how important the development of this property is to my client and they are prepared to build a house that requires no variances from the northerly side and whatever variance you feel is appropriate:from the easterly side because to push :the house to 40 feet would probably, you might still be able to build a 20 foot ranch. So, there is no real need for a variance on the easterly side. A house can be built. It's just a question of the style of the house. So, they have not established the standards for the grant of a variance and we would object to the fact, that the standards have not been met, I want to present to the Board a copy of the letter that we sent to Meskouris' family, so there is no value issue as to the lack of a variance, or a variance if it's not granted, what the effect will be, we're willing to buy the property, and deal with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't mean to get smug about this but really and it's nice of you to bring up the letter but a negotiation requires a meeting of the mind, OK? They have a Contract Vendee and you know, ! don't know what real merit this has at this point, you know what I'm saying? Page 74 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Well I know that when ! have an application before this Board on behalf of the Contract Vendee, or even a seller, you heard it all day, all evening, this evening. Well the financial impact, the practical difficulty of a denial of a variance. There is no practical difficulty. There's ?.no effect on them because my client wants this property. He's willing to buy this property. They haven't set forth any of the standards and there is no basis for it. I think more importantly, we have to get them back in here for a variance if they want to put the house where they want it. More importantly, this variance has to be addressed as to the northerly right-of-way. So that's the reason why I give you the letter. We tried to avoid this. We don't like, certainly I personally don't like the ideal of neighbors fighting. I try to get people to people to cooperate and to settle if at all possible because they have to live near each other, next to each other, and face each other and when you go home, the last thing you-want to do, is look over to the side of you and be aggravated. So to the extent it could be resolved, that's always at least my philosophy is, that should always be present. Mr. & Mrs. Koch had offered at one time, apparently the message, something didn't go through right, the offer is still there. It's on the table and when you're deliberating as to the practical difficulties and balancing, weighing the balancing test, it should favor the Koch family. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just for the purposes of my own mind here at this late hour, you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the measurement should be from the right-of-way which we have the measurement now on the Salise side, on the east side, you are saying that the distance should be what? MRS. MOORE: The, if I applied the right-of, the setback that the Building Department claims, then 40 feet from the right-of-way to - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To, the edge of the right-of-way. MRS. MOORE: The edge of the right-of-way. If you take 40 feet that allows, that still gives you another 40 feet to work with. Take away 15, my math is a little off but take away 15 from 40 that is 25. Can you build a ranch for 25 foot width? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, that's a rear yard. Rear yard is 50 feet. MRS. MOORE: .Well if that's a'_rear yard, then the, distance from the northerly, property should also be a rear yard. We either have to apply one or the other. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But that was the purpose of my asking you. 40 feet is the issue at this point? Page 75 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: 40 feet is - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's your issue? MRS. MOORE: I'm applying 40 feet or 50 feet, regardless of what it is. If you're going, I can't tell you which it is because so far I've been getting two different interpretations. If we apply, I know what the front yard is. The front yard is Summit. That's the only thing I know. And I know the rear yard is the right-of- way. The northerly right-of-way because that's where the back yard would be. That's where a pool would be. That's where a tennis court might be. That's the rear yard. If you're going to call it a front yard, it's not a waterfront house and a pool would need to come for a variance. So you have to, you have to establish rules and decide which rule you're going to follow. So I'm assuming, that, that.: is a rear yard. What we're going to call the easterly right-of-way, whether we call that a front yard as well, we can live with a front yard on that side because that is a narrower, it's a longer property, so a front yard, calling a front yard 40 feet, it still needs a 20 foot front house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But Patricia this is exactly the symmetric.al statement I asked Mr. Forrester. And that is, and I stated very loudly at the last hearing, (changed tape) we are still talking 20 feet is that correct? Regardless of what is interpreted, rear yard, front yard, side yard. I believe I even got carried away at the last hearing and said, I don't care if it's up yard. MRS. MOORE: What I was trying to do is the map. If you were to call this 40 foot setback what size house does it give you? That's really what you should be looking at. What is a reasonable width of a house that is going to be facing whatever direction you're going to give. Whatever footprint you're going to give them. Are you going to give them a wide house that is going to approach the easterly right-of-way? Or are you going to give them a narrower house? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But just tell me in reality how is that fair? And I love the Kochs. They're very nice people. They're sitting right in back of you. But their house is extremely wide. I thought this was setback, not width of house. MRS. MOORE: But you're here on a variance for a setback, right? I'm addressing the issue, what is a reasonable variance for this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: rm aware of that. But you're talking footage and now you're talking width of house. I am concern - Page 76 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: I'm sorry because I go straight to the point which is, what width of the house is going to be a reasonable size house to put on this property? Depending on the dimensions, the footprint. Right now they've got a house that is on county corner that :'~as two bluffs, one 40 foot by 32 feet. Two of those bluffs. If you were to take, you have to design a footprint that is acceptable to you based on the variance that's been requested. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But here we have the same or similar type of lot next door and this gentleman and ladies and gentlemen's house is 64 feet 6 inches long or wide. MRS. MOORE: But there was no variance needed there. Had they required a variance they may not have been;;: that house may not have been built';:!; We're dealing with a request - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But you, yourself told us, that it was prior to 1989 - MRS. MOORE: Exactly, there were no variance necessary from a right-of-way. That was the issue that was addressed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just telling you, that I don't know if it's really fair to bring in the width aspect at this point because we first of all haven't made a decision. Secondly, they've withdrawn the ( ) and the swimming pool for the sole purpose of trying to get this house positioned into an appropriate location. MRS. MOORE: Correct, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So I think the issue really here is the 40 feet, and the issue of established setback as opposed to real world setback' that Mr, s. Tortora was asking Mr. Forrester before, and that's where we are at this point. MRS. MOORE: I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am trying not to cloud the issue at this point so that we know what we're discussing. I realize that - MRS. MOORE: It's very difficult to address the easterly right-of-way as a separate entity from the-northerly dght-of-w~. That's what creates the biggest problem. Because you're creating a footprint that we don't know what that footprint is ultimately going to be. That that's our problem and has been all along our problem because maybe if they pushed the house an appropriate distance and they decided you know what, then give us support, support our application to move towards the easterly right-of-way, that can be considered. Page 77 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts'of Hearings Board of Appeals But they haven't given us any option. They said, we want, what we want, what we want and that's it. No options and they take away things to try and get to the final result and it hasn't been and we haven't tried to delay this process, we're just trying to bring it all togethe¢ because to say, fine we support this application and then have it bite us in the butt when they come in for an application for a variance from the northerly right-of-way, it leaves us, we're at a catch 22. You're asking us for what, what will we go with? What will we accept? And you're asking us to consider that in a vacuum because we don't know where the footprint really is going to go. We don't know how the Board is going to decide on the northerly right-of-way. On the northerly setback. So, we're looking at, so far we've been looking at consensual plans that don't even match what you know, what's been requested. So it's very frustrating. It's frustrating for us because we're segmenting this. We~'re taking little bits at a time and my concern as the lawyer is, looking at the big picture and going, alright, if we'll agree to this, how is it going to affect us here? ! have no idea because I don't know what this end is going to do to us. Do you understand my frustration and I don't try, I'm not trying to be difficult with you. I'm trying to give you - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand your frustration but I just think that sometimes you have a tenancy to put a little too much in, and that's the reason why ! was trying to bring it all together into the particular issue. MRS. MOORE: OK, well that's a lawyer's fault, because I always look to higher authority and say well how is higher authority going to look at this. That's our problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright we're going to wrap this up with Mrs. Rivera and that's it, OK. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. MRS. RIVERA: If you do the map Mr. Chairman, if we take 40 or 47 feet on the easterly portion and measure back, you use that 40 foot setback and you use it from the right-of-way or the property line, that brings you into the middle of the property. The property is 100 feet wide. So we're now at 47 if you use the right- of-way measurement. So what does that leave you going to the westerly side? 53 feet to build a house but then you also have to have a setback from the Ko~'s property, so what does that leave you? MRS. MOORE: That's what I'rn doing. MRS. RIVERA: Approximately, what do you have 10 feet in order to build a house on this lot - Page 78 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: No, 32 feet- ::CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A, a, a, - MEMBER COLLINS: Stop. MRS. MOORE: Sorry, but that's the number i was trying to -. MRS. RIVERA: That 32 brings you 32 and 47. If you take 47 feet back from the right-of-way, that leaves you 53 feet to the property line to the west. MRS. MOORE: Correct. Take 15 feet off off.that, right? MRS. RIVERA: And why are you coming up with 15 feet? Where - MRS. MOORE: Because that's what you have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, let's, let's strap this discourse at this point. MRS. MOORE: I'm sorry, we're just trying to come up with what is the number. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're, we have before us this application for the 12-1/2, if it's 12-1/2 feet or 16-1/2, I don't care which one it is. it doesn't make any difference to me. You want to write a plus or minus it doesn't make any difference to me. And that's what's before us, regardless of and I'm compounding that as of course the interpretation that Mrs. Moore in the prior hearing. So that's where we are at this point. MRS. RIVERA: i come before you responding to the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval and that's where we're at. 12-1/2 feet from the right-of- way, or 20 feet, that's what I'm asking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so that's where we are. Since there are no other hands. Yes, Mr. Meskouris it's a pleasure to see you. i know you and your family, how are you tonight? MR. CHRIS MESKOURiS: Fine. The last part of this whole conversation all turned out to be blocking somebody's view. After when she had said, she offered to buy the property. She was willing to drop everything and she didn't care about nothing because all of a sudden, the property line, this line, the back line, the front line, didn't mean anything, number 1. Number 2, she also quoted that - Page 79 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts of Hearings Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When say she, you're referring to Mrs. Moore, MR. MESKOURIS: Ms. Moore also quoted that they offered me $165,000. Well if they offered me $165,000 for the property, why would I sell it for $1607 I begged the Kochs to take the property. They called me up and told me that they wanted the property, I told them $175,000, he offered me $165, I said. you've got a deal, and I told him, and Ill take a lie detector test, that I want you to have it because you're the one that deserves it because it's right next to you. You should have the property. The people I sold it to, I don't know them from Adam. I don't know the Kochs either but I'm from Mattituck. i've been from Mattituck since 63. We're all neighbors. We're all one big family and I don't believe in:selling to a stranger and put up a tremendous house. Whatever heck they want to put up and to block their thing. So, number one, he offered me $165, I said you have a deal. Two days later ! go down to my car and he says I'm only paying $150. I said you just told me $165 and he said, well that's all I'm paying. Fine, I said, you know what, I have an offer on the table for $160, I11 give it to you for that because I want you to have the property. Mrs. Koch calls me up and tells me, I give the orders in the house. I call the shots. I want to buy the property. I'm going to call you on a Monday after the bank, comes over the house, a lot of people are bothering me, we'll get back to you. Fine, I waited Monday all day, she never made a phone call and then I called the other seller and said, you want the property, it's yours. She calls me on a Tuesday and says, you know we're going to take it. ! said, well I already committed myself. It was Monday, I waited for your call, I canceled my appointment only this way I could wait for you. Then she goes to me, I want to go to contract, but I'm only going to put $1,000 down. Who puts $1,000 down on $165,000 deal? To me that looked like she was going to take the money, put $1,000 down, then she could blow the contract anytime she wants and I,m stuck with nothing. They had their opportunity and I can prove that I have a contract for $160. She offered $165. For $5,000, I wouldn't give it to them, especially if I don't know the other guy? That's it. MRS. MOORE: Excuse me Sir. Did you get the return receipt that I sent you? MR. MESKOURIS: You offered $165,000. I'm in contract for $160,000. Why would I give not? She offered me $165,000 - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pat, alright, Chris. Thank you for clearing that up for us. Page 80 - July 6, 2000 Transcripts.of Hearings Board of Appeals MR. MESKOURIS: I just feel that I'm being called a liar. We're not up to par over here on the situation the way it's been handled, but it was a dirty deal from the beginning. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Chris. So lets close the hearing at this point and we'll wrap this up. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. See Minutes for Resolution. End of Hearing. PHJULY 6 Prepared by ,Lucy Farrell RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE sOUTHOLD TOY~f!~ CLEB2( Town Cxerk, To[,,,n.o~ Sou~hol~