HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/10/2000 HEARING INDEX
TRANSCRIPT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS
HELD August 10, 2000
Page
1 -Appl. No. 4813-A & S GULF (Continued hearing) Postponed by Applicant
1 -Appl. No. 4835- WILLIAM F. & GLORIA BERTODATTI
4 - Appl. No. 4826 - WILLIAM PENNY III
8 - Appl. No. 4839 - WALTER WENCHELL
16 - Appl. No. 4848 - SUSAN LOMANGINO
20 -Appl. No.4840 - MARGARET & EDWIN PISANI
24 -Appl. No. 4842 - JOHN & LISA MOLNAR
28- Appl. No.4843 - M. COGEN & M. HOWARD
30- Appl. No. 4844- DONALD BUSKARD-(Not heard)
30-Appl. No. 4845-ROBERT FRENTZEL
39 -Appl. No. 4847- ROGER YOUNG & ORS.
44- Appl. No. 4847 - HARRY CASHY & MARIA MISTHOS (Postponed 9-14)
44- Appl. No. 4846- W. & K. KNOERSCHILD
49 - Appl. No. 4841 - EMILY & IRA SCHACHTER
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
August 10, 2000
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
(Prepared by Lucy Farrell)
Postponement Requested by Applicant.
6:15 P.M. - Appl, No. 4813 - A & S GULF.(Continued Hearing)
Variance for canopy and addition due to setbacks and lot coverage. Gasoline
station located at the intersection of Main Road and Bayview Road, Southold.
6:40 P. M, - Appl. No. 4835 - WILLIAM F. & GLORIA BERTODATTI, Contract
Vendees (Owner: Limpet Corp.) (Continuation from July 6, 2000). 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: Good evening Sir. What would you tike to tell us?
Could you state your name for the record, please.
MR. DeNICOLA: My name is Peter DeNicola.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do.
MR. DeNICOLA: And I reside at 1695 Chablis Path, Southold.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We know that we had this on the last hearing. The
Board had a couple of questions of you and the question was, why an 18 foot
setback? Rear yard setback?
MR. DeNICOLA: Well the property is 81 feet wide, and to meet the front yard
setback of 35 and the rear yard setback of 35, it leaves 11 feet. The house that's
proposed, is a ranch which is need for the Bertodattis. Mrs. Bertodatti has arthritis
problems and can't climb stairs, and we designed the house to fit that, it's 28 ft.
wide. We did try to narrow the footprint by using the cantilever and you know,
that's basically where we're at right now.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no Suffolk County Water in this area or
Greenport Water or anything available?
Page 2 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MR. DeNICOLA: Water is on the street. Right now there's a moratorium on the
taps. We communicated with the Water Authority you know, see if we can get
some relief there also.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The question I have is, is that why you chose to put
the house where it was, and not closer to the 100 foot mark on the south part of
the property?
MR. DeNICOLA: To separate the septic system from the well. We shifted the
house to one side.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In situation like this I'm not speaking specifically for
the Board because the Board is here to discuss this, but we certainly would not
want to have these applicants to come back for a deck on the rear of this property,
you know, in the rear yard of this property being only 18 feet from the rear yard.
MR. DeNICOLA: Right, we anticipated if there were to be a deck put on there later
on it would go to the side of the house where we're it would be wide open.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Preferably on the south side where you are?
MR. DeNICOLA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, any questions of the builder, at this point?
MEMBER TORTORA: What's the width of the lot? You're 100 foot a -
MEMBER COLLINS: 135 I think.
MEMBER TORTORA: From the deck?
MEMBER COLLINS: The lot.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 81.51 at the north, and 100 at the south. I'm sorry
83.22 at the south.
MEMBER TORTORA: It was the eight at the top that I had trouble. OK, it's 81.
I'm just doing the measurements on this. You're 35 feet from the street line. 35,
24, and 20, right?
MEMBER COLLINS: H'm, h'm.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
Page 3 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MEMBER TORTORA: You've got 2 feet that are unaccounted for.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a cantilever.
MR. DeNiCOLA: It's a cantilever.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, it's a cantilever over the foundation, 2 feet.
MEMBER TORTORA: Oh, it's 2 feet in the front.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 2 feet in the front, 2 feet in the back.
MEMBER COLLINS: No, in the back.
MEMBER TORTORA: So it's the 2 feet in the front, I see.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a one -stow house, right?
MR. DeNICOLA: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: OK. That's all the questions I have.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll see what develops. We thank you Sir for
coming in. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor or against this
application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving
decision until later.
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 4 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
6:45 P.M. - Appl. No. 4826 - WILLIAM PENNY III (Continued from July 6, 2000
hearing calendar at applican'ts request.)
Proposed building greater than 60 ft. wide along C.R. 48, Southold, Parcel 1000-
55-5-2.2
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is anybody representing him at this point?
BOARD OF SECRETARY: Tom McCarthy was going to be here.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is Tom McCarthy present? We'll recess this for 20
minutes. I offer that as a Resolution.
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
8:38 P.M.-CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Chairman opened the hearing, Mr.
McCarthy?
MR. McCARTHY: Tom McCarthy, McCarthy Managements for Mr. Penny, Tidy
Car. There are a few pieces of correspondence we received the last several
weeks and the last time that we appeared before you, you asked us to go to the
Planning Board, and we have made application to the Planning Board, and we've
received copy of Memorandum from the Planning Office to your office regarding
what the Planning Board felt was a deficient, there was a disapproval, and the
Notice of Disapproval that we received from Mr. Forrester stated that, we had our
frontage, the building that we're proposing is 80 x 80, we have to be located on a
corner lot, and as the code states, we need to have maximum of 60 feet on one
side, and our building did not comply with either of that. Also in the application it
showed where our building was located which is 65 feet from the North Road and
that was all laid out for the Building Inspector and he with a conversation before
we applied, he mentioned, that that location he could approve because it was
behind the other improvements that were on the North Road, and it was setback
and had a greater degree of setback than the existing improvements on Route 48.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I unfortunately have to tell you that is changed as of
tonight.
MR. McCARTHY: OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, this Board made a determination tonight based
upon average setbacks, which may have a profound affect upon future
determinations.
MEMBER TORTORA: I wouldn't say profound.
Page 5 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, will have an effect.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You mean because it's only one building? Is
that why?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and this?spect of it. I'm just saying that that's
an issue. Let me just tell you where that's an issue Tom. It's going to be an issue
no matter how you slice it. If you bring here or if you bring it to the Planning Board
because they're very simply not going to approve it, and they've already discussed
that with me, and so, we need to address that issue now. I'll leave it at that point
and let me know where we're going from there. It doesn't have to be this minute,
or, next week, but within the next couple of weeks you've got to let me know where
you're going with it.
MR. McCARTHY: OK, and the determination that you made a -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will affect average setbacks.
MR. McCARTHY: OK, is that something that will be part of the public record that I
have to take a look at in writing?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's not reduced to writing yet.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, it will be.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, of course it will be.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well within five days. No, no, it's not reduced to
writing for the signature of either the Chairperson, or, the Chairperson Pro tem.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yet.
CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: Yet, five days.
MR. McCARTHY: With that information the average setbacks what we're looking
at, is the adjacent parcel to the west, from what I understand has a, they're
currently in front of the Planning Board with a 100 foot setback. There are three
buildings on it, and we would take a look at it, and see how that affects our
setback, which I believe the existing improvements are setback 50-55 feet from
Route 48. I also want to just perhaps make a point. The Building Inspector's
determination said that we had to have 80 feet. We had to have 60 feet on one
street although the appeal looks like it's written up, it says, proposed building
greater than 60 feet wider along Route 48. I propose to this Board, that we're
entitled to our 80 feet on Route 48 as long as we maintain 60 feet facing Youngs
Page 6 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
Avenue according to the code and perhaps our building could even be larger than
80 feet on Route 48 if we were only 60 feet in depth. So, if we were at all applying
for a variance on our frontage, I would propose to the Board, that we're applying
for the depth of the building, not the frontage of the building, and it would still
comply with the code.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need you to reduce that to writing for us.
MR. McCARTHY: Be happy to. And that's basically what i wanted to come down
and discuss and just to let you know, that we are, we have our application into the
Planning Board. We know that there are issues they want to discuss, and we want
to keep it as an open discussion so we can move forward to get Mr. Penny into a
building, and I think that's everyone's cooperative goal is to get that done.
MEMBER TORTORA: There's nothing mentioned in the Notice of Disapproval
regarding a corner lot. Actually the only thing that is mentioned in the Notice of
Disapproval and that's what I'm reading off really is that you have more than 60
feet on one street. That's all and that it exceeds the allowable length by 20 feet.
MR. McCARTHY: But I believe that with other cases that have been in front of the
Board and that portion of the Code says, no single structure shall have more than
60 linear feet on one street but it was pre-supposed by the Board even though our
application is looking for a variance because our building is 80 x 80 and i'm
proposing to you, that that one street that we need to have 60 feet of frontage on is
Youngs Avenue and not Route 48.
MEMBER TORTORA: I see.
Mr. McCARTHY: So, we're continuing to work with the Planning Board on the
issue. We'd like to be on for next month if that's possible.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's going to be a crowded calendar, but we'll try.
OK, any other questions of Mr. McCarthy?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, I'm just realizing that I had probably not read the Notice
of Disapproval as closely as I usually do.
MEMBER TORTORA: It does mention the corner lot but then -
MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, then what does it make of it. But see, the last
paragraph Lydia it says, "the project will exceed the allowable frontage along one
of the street lines."
MEMBER HORNING: It's not the most eloquently written.
Page 7 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MEMBER COLLINS: No, it's not eloquently written.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But you raised an interesting point on that aspect.
MEMBER COLLINS: You know, I frankly don't think the side of the building facing
towards Youngs Avenue, fronts on Youngs Avenue. It's behind the existing
building. It's not a frontage.
MEMBER TORTORA: The section of the -
MR. McCARTHY: But the Code is not a, in saying that if there are any
obstructions, or improvements between the frontage and the proposed
improvements.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, yeah.
MR. McCARTHY: But by code and the setbacks that we have there, perhaps Mr.
Penny could have a 90-95 foot building and still be within the code as long as the
depth was only 60 feet running north to south, that would face along Youngs
Avenue. But he's not proposing that. He's only proposing 80.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MR. McCARTHY: OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. So we'll re-calendar this to September
14th. I offer that as a resolution.
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 8 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
6:45 P.M - Appli. No. 4839 - WALTER WENCHELL
This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B of the
Zoning Ordinance, based upon the Building Department's May 30, 2000 Notice of
Disapproval. Applicant is requesting an addition to existing dwelling, which
application was disapproved for the reason that the rear yard is less than the
required 35 feet. Location of Property: 1210 Hiawathas Path, Southold; Parcel
1000-78-3-65.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is Mr. Wenchell present? Good evening Sir. How
are you? What would you like to tell us? We did go over and look at the property
and I did receive at least one letter from your neighbor objecting to this application.
MR. WENCHELL: We're requesting a variance to build a small porch at the rear
of our home.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I notice it's like in an indentation area in the rear of
the house.
MR. WENCHELL: This is a, actually the setback would probably be 22 feet
instead of 35.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is an enclosed porch, is that correct?
MR. WENCHELL: A screen, no windows, -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I meant screened, i apologize.
MEMBER COLLINS: Roofed and screened.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I like your computer rendering, it's very nice. Will
start with Ms. Collins. Any questions Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Well I guess the question is really very simple Mr. Wenchell,
I know you bough, according to Assessor's records which we always get, you
bought the land several years ago and then you built the house beginning a year,
year and a half or so ago. I guess you got your C.O. almost a year ago. And the
house meets the required front and rear setbacks precisely, and I guess my
question is, why you didn't think about the porch when you were building the
house? This seems like a -
MR. WENCHELL: Well when you sell one house, you buy another house, you're
not sure what the money situation is going to be like at the time. So, when we
Page 9 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
moved into the house, we a, the builder would have put it on if we had asked for it
when the house was being built.
MEMBER COLLINS: Well the builder would have put it on if you had been able to
get a variance at the time for the very sharply reduced setback. I'm just troubled
by the fact that the house was built, the house complies precisely with the setback
requirement so you didn't need a variance to build it. You have a big house for the
lot and now to say, oh, well, gee, we want to go-another 14 feet into a, into the
required setback because we need a porch. It just doesn't track too well. I guess I
wanted your reaction to that, and I think you've given it to us.
MR. WENCHELL: Well I don't think we're asking for anything abnormal. I mean
just about every house in the neighborhood has a porch and I dare say, they
probably had to get a variance. But I mean, most of the houses in the
neighborhood. I have pictures of the houses south of me across the street from
me. And our house is not the biggest house on the block by any means. Some
houses south are much bigger than ours. (inaudible) He said, this is the envelope
you can build a house there. The house fits in the envelope and we had also think
about where the well might be because at that time the Suffolk Water Authority
was not granting any new hook-ups. So we wrote a letter and they finally hooked
up. We had to be away from one corner of the property because had it be in an
area that might have been a well, but a other than that I don't know what I could
do. I thought this was the process. I feel, I don't know, but I don't think this is an
unusual situation. I mean I have a big house, I think it's not that big, I mean
compared to other houses. There are houses south of me, and there are houses
closer to the water that are really beautiful compared to my house.
MEMBER COLLINS: All right, I don't want you to dwell on this comment that I
made, that it's a big house. I think it is a big house. I wasn't trying to say you built
Taj Mahal or anything like that. I have a feeling that you believe, or were told,
well, we're going to build a house exactly within the allowed footprint which you
did, and well, if you need a deck later, you can always get a variance and I think
that's a frame of mind that shouldn't be taken for granted, and I will go no further.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just get the depths of the porch is 15 feet that
you're requesting?
MR. WENCHELL: 15 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I couldn't read if it was 15 or 16.
MR. WENCHELL: Two of which are already rock gardens.
MEMBER COLLINS: 16 Jerry.
Page 10 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it 16 or 15.
MR. WENCHELL: 15 feet but two feet are within the envelope.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MEMBER COLLINS: According to the drawing, the deck is 20 wide, 16 deep. But
2 of those feet are within the existing building setbacks. So, the 14 feet go into the
35 foot required rear yard.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: I think I'm a little concerned. I guess the question I'd ask
is, if you could not reduce the rear of tl3e variance that you're requestirfg? Reduce
the deck.
MR. WENCHELL: I'm sorry I didn't hear you.
MEMBER TORTORA: Could you reduce the size of the deck? The porch? Could
you reduce it so the variance isn't so great?
MR. WENCHELL: How much? What would be acceptable?
MEMBER TORTORA: What could you live with?
MR. WENCHELL: Well I mean in order to sit out there, 15 feet is not a great
amount but a, -
MEMBER TORTORA: Why don't you, usually the Chairman does this. I'm merely
copying the past practice of the Chairman that has been very, very good and
knowledgeable in this, so I'm mimicking what he would naturally say. Consider the
minimum that you could live with because the Board may be inclined to provide
alternate relief. There's concern, we're concerned about what you're proposing.
MR. WENCHELL: What is the Board's concern?
MEMBER TORTORA: That the setback is too close to ( ) areas.
MR. WENCHELL: There are homes within the neighborhood that are identical to
mine. I mean identical as far as the setback and porches. All of a sudden mine is
too big. I don't understand it. I mean I've looked at them. I've done my homework
a little bit. I mean there are porches that are of equal size and of course they were
built a little while ago but -
Page 11 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MEMBER TORTORA: That's the difference.
MR. WENCHELL: That's the difference.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think the, Mr. Wenchell I think what we're asking
you to do is if you won't give us a figure, will You allow us to grant alternate relief in
something? We don't know what each one of us is willing to give at this point.
We're preliminarily into the hearing. It takes three votes to make a decision. Our
fifth member is ill tonight, if we agree on a figure. If you say you'll take alternate
relief then we'll go with that figure. As I said, we don't what it is tonight. We don't
know at this moment. We're not trying to be cagey with you, or a, we're just telling
you we haven't discussed it. But that's how alternate relief works. You know what
I'm saying?
MR. WENCHELL: So cut two feet off of it then?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It may be. I don't know. It may be something like
that, and we'll see what happens. You know there is opposition on this and you
know, so let's see how the hearing goes and we'll get back to you. AIright?
Before you sit down. Mr. Horning?
MEMBER HORNING: I think I want to stress to the Board for perplextion on a,
with a new house, why the porch wasn't included in the original plan so that if you
would have needed a variance, it would have been dealt with -
MR. WENCHELL: As I specified before, I didn't know what my finances was going
to be at the time. That was a $10,000 option that the builder sets. I limited the
option at that time just to make sure I was able to make the transition between the
house I sold, and the house I built. So, we eliminated the porch, the only reason.
MEMBER HORNING: i know but you can get an extension on Building Permits in
such, it would have probably included up until now anyway.
MR. WENCHELL: Well, the ( ) but that was the only reason why. We did it that
way because we weren't sure what it would cost. But we would have the finances
to know how it was going to work out from one place to another.
MEMBER HORNING: But you were saying, that you had intended to put this -
MR. WENCHELL: Absolutely, absolutely. The house we had in the past when we
had the same kind of porch, identical kind of porch, something to sit up, summer
time so you don't get eaten up alive by mosquitoes.
Page 12 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MEMBER HORNING: Well that's a little more disturbing to us in fact, and would of
been if you had it on the plan.
MR. WENCHELL: Pardon?
MEMBER HORNING: It's a little more disturbing to find out that now, because you
can't move your house.
MR. WENCHELL: We didn't realize that was an option, i mean I could attach that
on. The builder didn't make me aware of that. He just told me what the option
would cost and that was the thing I was focusing on at the time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. We'll see how it develops. Anybody
else like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the
application? We're ready Sir. Just state your name.
MR. FINCK: I'm not speaking in favor. I'm talking in opposition.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. We need you to use the podium and
state your name if you would.
MR. FINCK: My name is Edward Fink and I reside in the property behind Mr.
Wenchell. You have I believe my letter of August 4th -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it was your computer rendering.
MR. FINCK: With the exhibits enclosed?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, that's correct.
MR. FINCK: A list of Board has further questions about this i think is self-
explanatory and I don't know that any further comments are required because as
you said, it just mentioned here, he was cognizant of the fact, that this 35 foot
was just covered when the foundation was poured. So therefore, I ask that this
application be denied.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions of this applicant, of this a gentleman?
MEMBER COLLINS: It's a question that Mr. Fink may be able to answer, although
it probably properly goes to Mr. Wenchell, and that is the retaining wall, which ~
could see from looking through and from Wabasso Street. is that on the property
line?
Page 13 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MR. FINCK: No.
MR. WENCHELL: No, 4 foot in.
MEMBER COLLINS: 4 feet into your property. OK, thank you. I just wanted to
understand the layout.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Finck, just a quick question: The size and the
magnitude of the house is the thing that is most disturbing you?
MR. FINCK: Yes, because of the elevation that he proceeded to put around the
house at the time. I showed you pictures of the fill and the spill and so forth. My
property as you can see from the photographs submitted is much lower now, and if
this porch is erected it will be a, if the wall is 42 inches or 3 foot 6 inches high, the
base of his porch will be 3 foot 9, plus 8 foot on top of that and moved in within 20
feet of this wall. So it will actually tower over my property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Is there anything that this applicant could do
in the way of screening that would help you?
MR. FINCK: Well as I said, he knew what he was up against and so did 'the
builder. And I even went down to the Town Hall and inquired about this and Mr.
Forrester advised me that they knew that the 35, rear yard regulation had to be
complied with.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But again, is there anything that could be done in
this application by this applicant to -
MR. FINCK: No, it just overpowers my property with considering the height as well
as the dimensions. '-
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. Is there anybody else would like to
speak against or for?. Mr. Wenchell, anything you'd like to wrap up with.
MR. WENCHELL: Yeah, I'd like to make a couple of comments if I could. He said,
that every tree was removed from the property, (). The footprint of the house
being what it was, the envelope being what it was, the trees had to be removed.
The trees had to be removed where the ( ) was and I had a person come in and
look at the trees, tell me which ones I could save and so on and so forth, and he
advised me, that the trees on the property were mostly not worth keeping because
the tops had snapped off and a lot of trees severed, and upon looking at them,
you could see where they were rotted out. Some of the ones I wanted to save
were cut in front and one that I wanted to save was completely rotted in the center,
and I kept a couple of white oaks which ( ) on the property. One had to be taken
Page 14 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
down later on because it was deceased, and one blew down and had to be cut up.
So I was well advised to take them down at the time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you while you're discussing that issue.
Is there any water problem coming off it? This elevated area? Are your down
spouts going into storm drains?
MR. WENCHELL: That's all been addressed now. There was a problem. I admit
there was a problem but I at the time didn't know about it. I lived 50 miles away at
the time the house was being built. But when I saw it, I told Mr. Finck that I would
take care of it and it would be put back the way it was and it indeed was and the
landscaper would come in and drink coffee, did the landscaping. He'd come in
and move the dirt, reseeded the area, and the retaining wall was built to stop that
problem.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm only presupposing that or post supposing that
supposedly.
MR. WENCHELL: The structure being oversized for the lot, I mean, as far as i
was told, as long as the house fit within the envelope, I could build a house and
that's what I did. I wasn't trying to circumvent anything. I wasn't trying to slip
between the crack. The house fits within in the envelope that's why I built a one-
stow house. It's not a two-stow house. It's more of a modern design and it's not
as traditional as some houses are but we like it, and it's kind of our retirement
home, so, we went with what we had. In fact, we learned a lot.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any type of screening that could lessen the
impact of this house on the neighbor?
MR. WENCHELL: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any type of screening that you could do in
evergreens or something that could lessen the impact?
MR. WENCHELL: Well I'd like to tell you that Mr. Finck has planted three huge
evergreens on his property which have helped it, maybe it helped him a lot and I
had intended to plant trees all along the back of my retaining wall. I planted three
at a cost of $300 a tree but I planted and tried to be in the spaces where his trees
are opened, and hopefully they'll grow up, and it'll give him privacy, and will give
us privacy also. I intend to go across the back and (inaudible-coughing)
additional trees and eventually that will grow up, and it'll be a nice screen but a
they only grow so fast. You can only get them so big. They're fast growing trees
by the way. Another thing is, not a drop of sand was removed when excavation. I
thought the general practice was to dig the foundation, back fill and then top it off
with the sand and I wasn't aware, that there's any kind of thing to take sand away
Page 15 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
and I think one of the reasons I think that Mr. Finck's property is as Iow is, the
general topography of the land Hiawatha's is a heck a lot higher than Wabasso.
So everything if I'm correct, I think at one time, the drainage problem in that area
pretty much floods and Hal put a drainage in there. But the water tends to ruR to
that area. So, just the nature of the property, the neighbor next door to me on the
south of me, they're on a hill, Hiawatha's runs down hill. I mean they own the
property in the back so they could grade it the way they want to. Now it's a
different stow but I bought the property, it was high, it was high on Hiawatha's and
it was Iow in the back.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, have you decided if you'll accept alternate
relief?
MR. WENCHELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGNER: OK.
MR. WENCHELL: One other thing I was kind of a little bit riffed about that they
didn't think my house fitted well with the street of well groomed homes, and I just
like to, these are the houses on the street, and my house is the first one on this.
This is it here and these are houses across the street and they're labeled on the
back.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. The Board Members wanted you to
be aware that we did go down and look at the entire street. So we are aware of
these but we do appreciate them. Any other comments from anyone? Yes Mr.
Finck.
MR. FINCK: I believe you have, Mr. Gunselman is one of the persons that had to
be consulted on this thing here, and I believe you people have a letter dated July
23rd, in which he states his position on this.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. That is correct.
MR. FINCK: Right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comment I'll make a
motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 16 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
7:05 P.M. - Appl. No. 4848 - SUSAN LOMANGINO
This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33, based on the
Building Department's July 6, 2000 Notice of Disapproval which states that
accessory buildings and structures shall be located in the required rear yard. The
subject parcel contains two existing accessory buildings, and the proposed project
calls for movement and construction of a principal dwelling to the south of these
accessory structures placing them in the (southerly) front yard. This property
contains more than one front yard with frontage along Old Main Road (House
#1150) and along the north side of Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, Town of
Southold; Parcel #1000-122-7-8.6 containing 60+ acres.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Torkelson how are you tonight?
MR. TORKELSON: Good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know that you worked tirelessly there informing all
these property owners on Sigbee Road and contiguous owners on this property.
We understand, that this is a 60 acre or 50+ acre parcel of which the Fire
Department that I belonged to burned down the house that was on the property
sometime last year, and now before us is the new house that this lady would like
to build. Is that correct?
MR. TORKELSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is them anything you'd like to tell us about this?
MR. TORKELSON: Well you're aware of the house being burnt down. When the
property was purchased for Mrs. Husing, she had permission to live on the
property as long as she lived and then when the property became available, I had
been in consultation with Susan since before that. When we looked at the house
and figuring to upgrade the house, we saw that most of the house didn't have a
foundation. The house is pretty well substandard so she decided against fixing
that one up and then building a new one. She has those two accessory buildings.
She has one garage for her tractor and she also has an old hog barn, I believe it
is, which we have since fixed up. She does have horses she likes to bring out.
When we talk about building a new house of course we have 58 acres, she was
viewing to get a little bit further away from the road seeing that she was going to
go through the expense, not being aware that we had a problem with the setbacks.
So we looked at the property and we decided that to the rear of the property
roughly 100 feet and over slightly west of the buildings is where she'd like to have
the house. I think the property is unusual because it's so large.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, everything is front yard I think.
Page 17 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MR. TORKELSON: Just about unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Several people questioned me on this application
and having grown up on Sigbee Road, I knew most of the people who were there,
and I told them the problems that existed with the construction of this new house,
this plan. And I guess that kept everybody relatively happy at this point. We'll
start with Ms. Collins, any questions?
MEMBER COLLINS: Well my problem reading the file was that I couldn't find the
existing house, and the application said, "to move and reconstruct" and it's not
there. Now I discovered the Chairman -
MR. TORKELSON: I think it says, removed.
MEMBER COLLINS: Removed, OK, maybe I -
MR. TORKELSON: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was removed by fire.
MEMBER COLLINS: OK, anyway, I was innocent of that, and I've been hunting for
that house. Where was it? Between the accessory buildings and Old Main Road?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was very close to the road. It was within 30 feet of
the property.
MEMBER COLLINS: I figured that was the case. No, I have no problems. This
strikes me as a perfectly straightforward case, and property this size just does not
raise setback issues. I don't have any problem. I just wanted to know where the
house was.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Whose file is this by the way?
MEMBER COLLINS: It's mine.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we could maybe move this tonight.
MEMBER COLLINS: I have drafted.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mrs. Tortora, any questions?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHIRNGER: Are you speechless?
Page 18 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MEMBER COLLINS: She knew where the house was.
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm absolutely speechless because I knew the house was
burnt down, and I don't have any problems with the application.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George?
MEMBER HORNING: What is the landowner's attempt for the parcel itself?
MR. TORKELSON: The parcel itself? i believe in the future she may be looking at
possibly having houses somewhere way down in ( ) her family, her children.
There's no intention at all other than to subdivide the property. There's no
intention of making it a horse stable or a place of business, or anything like that.
It's just a dwelling. She's happy with the land. She has her own horses which she
has a place in Greenlawn which she has her horses. She likes to bring them out
here for the summertime. In fact, she's hoping to get it done, so she could run that
perk up. But she has no funds at all for subdivision.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see what materializes tonight. We may be able
to vote on this. We thank you Sir.
MR. TORKELSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor?
Anybody like to speak against? Yes Sir. I need you to state your name for the
record.
MR. HICKEY: Mr. Hickey, Old Main Road. I was Ms. Husing's neighbor. ~just
want to say as far as Sue Lomangino, I'm 100% for the new home, because it will
keep most of the problems in the area. The property is posted and nobody pays
attention to it, if you know what I mean.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know. I see the quads out there all the times.
MR. HICKEY: Right. There's a lot of other stuff you don't see.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, thank you Mr. Hickey. Anybody else? I think
based upon the situation Ms. Collins, we probably could offer a resolution on this.
MEMBER COLLINS: You want to see what I drafted?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
Page 19
Board of
August 10, 2000
Appeals Hearings
MEMBER COLLINS: You know it's not finished language. It gives you the
elements of what I think the decision is. (Showing the draft to the Board) OK, well
I would move that we grant the variance as requested.
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 20 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
7:15 P.M. - Appl. No. 4840 - MARGARET & EDWIN PISANI
This is a request for a Variance under Article XXVIll, Section 100-239.4 of the
Zoning Ordinance, based on the Building Department's May 31, 2000 Notice of
Disapproval. Applicants are requesting a deck addition to the existing dwelling
and the application for a Building Permit was disapproved for the reason that the
deck addition is less than the required minimum 75 feet from the bulkhead.
Location of Property: 7180 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; Parcel No. 1000-126-
11-9.1
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes Ma'am, could you state your name for the
record please.
MRS. PISANI: I'm Margaret Pisani, 7180 Peconic Bay Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had the distinct pleasure of going back to your
property this morning. It's an absolute magnificent spot. It's truly magnificent, it
was even better because I was carrying a cup of coffee.
MRS. PISANI: Oh, that's good.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Homing. Any questions of this
lady, or would you like me to start some place else?
MEMBER HORNING: I think you could start at the other end.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, I went there and walked around, admired the view, and I
guess I'll just ask you the question about the nature of the bulkheading. Your
bulkhead, or your bulkhead closest to the house is really hidden by that thick, thick
hedge but it's underneath the hedge, and then there's a very steep bulkheaded
drop of what, 15 feet maybe?
MRS. PISANI: Yeah, it's a three- tier bulkhead.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, and then you go down the next level where there's a,
then you hit the second bulkhead after a little landing, and then the third bulkhead
is actually on the water. How old are those bulkheads, do you know?
MRS. PISANI: I know that was repaired in 85. We bought the house in 95.
MEMBER COLLINS: The upper one that holds the lawn in? '-
Page 21 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MRS. PISANI: I'm not too sure. I think maybe all of it was destroyed in one of the
storms.
MEMBER COLLINS: Uh, uh.
MRS. PISANI: And it was rebuilt in 85.
MEMBER COLLINS: I'm asking just sought of to have it in the record. I don't
really have a problem with this because I think that the statute says, 75 feet but
every property is different, and this one, the kind of deck you want to put in, does
not strike me as threatening any bulkheads but I just wanted to have the record
clear on what they do and how old they are. That's all I wanted to ask Jerry.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: The deck that's 12 x 40, what are the dimensions of the
steps?
MRS. PISANI: The steps I think they might be 2 feet out. But since I submitted the
deck, the Permit for those plans, I discovered that there's a sprinkler there. So
what we might have to do, I spoke to the builder. He said, as far as the variance it
wasn't an issue. What we might do is instead of having the deck shown straight
out as you come out of the house, there might be a step down.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To eliminate those steps?
MRS. PISANI: Right. So then, that takes care of two steps, then we wouldn't even
ask to have two steps go out or, cut the deck back in front and stay within the 12
feet but have the steps within -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, within that area?
MRS. PISANI: In that area. We don't want to ask for anymore than 12 feet.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, because the steps shown on the plans I have are 16
feet by-
MRS. PISANI: Wide.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, they would be exempt. ! don't think-
MEMBER COLLINS: No, no.
Page 22 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They're part of the setback.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what we're saying toyou is, I think we're going to
eliminate the steps totally.
MRS. PISANI: That's fine.
MEMBER TORTORA: Because it would be 45 plus 42.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, that adds a lot.
MEMBER HORNING: Well I seek clarification on that. Is that 45? Is that from the
closest corner to the high water of the bulkhead this shows here?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, so the steps would be encroaching into them.
MEMBER HORNING: Right and we're not considering the distance to being
nearer to the bulkhead to the house?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, always to the bulkhead.
MEMBER COLLINS: Well, excuse me Jerry. Would you finish that sentence,
always to the bulkhead on the water.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the waterside.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: On the waterside, right, OK. So on the other end of the
house is not really significant consideration at all then?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. What is unique about this area
George is that there is a limited, a significantly limited beach area. The water
really resides almost to the bulkhead at all times.
MEMBER HORNING: H'm, h'm.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Even at Iow tide. OK, George?
MEMBER HORNING: You answered my question.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. This is not going to be enclosed, is that correct,
at any time Mrs. Pisani?
Page 23 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MRS. PISANI: No, no.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Strictly an open deck?
MRS. PISANI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, all right we'll see what develops throughout the
hearing. We hope to have decision for you shortly and we thank you. Is there
anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to
speak against the application. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the
hearing reserving decision until later.
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 24 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
7:19 P.M.- Appl. No. 4842- JOHN & LISA MOLNAR
This is a request for a Variance under Article XXlII, Section 100-244 of the Zoning
Ordinance, based on the Building Department's June 16, 2000 Notice of
Disapproval. Applicants' request for a Building Permit regarding deck addition was
disapproved for the reason that the deck does not meet the required minimum 50
feet required rear yard. Location: 625 Indian Neck La., Peconic; Parcel 1000-86-
1-4.24.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening, Sir. How are you? Would you state
your name for the record.
MR. MOLNAR: John Molnar.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think we had a prior application on this house when
it was being built.
MR. MOLNAR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know about that?
MR. MOLNAR: Unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had the distinct pleasure of going down one
Saturday morning and seeing the house in its finished condition. It's absolutely
beautiful.
MR. MOLNAR: Oh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us about the deck you're
requesting?
MR. MOLNAR: Just that a rectangular 36 x 15 deck. Unfortunately we didn't know
we needed a variance to put it on.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, do you want to start again Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: Sure. First a simple question. The Notice of Disapproval
from the Building Inspector referred to it as an already built deck but office staff
Ms. Kowalski, wrote, no, it is not already built.
MR. MOLNAR: No.
MEMBER COLLINS: And I assumed that that was correct, that it is not built.
Page 25 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MR. MOLNAR: No, it's not built, no.
MEMBER COLLINS: Because if I had thought it had been I would have gotten out
the car, and walked around behind your house, and I didn't. OK, that's the simple
question. The Chairman just referred to the variance that was needed after the
foundation was poured for that house, which we all remember well. Were you the,
i'm going to use the wrong word but you know, at the time the house was being
built, were you already contracted to buy it? I mean it was your house being built.
MR. MOLNAR: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: OK, and nobody said anything to you about a -
MR. MOLNAR: We didn't know about the variance until after that.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, well we were feeling rather unhappy with your builder
in those days.
MR. MOLNAR: I'm .very unhappy with my builder too.
MEMBER COLLINS: Because we had a series of cases with foundations poured,
and then variances needed which sought of set our teeth on edge.
MR. MOLNAR: Well, you should have seen me a couple of months ago.
MEMBER COLLINS: So it makes me a little scary, a little scary.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're not going to hold that against you.\
MEMBER COLLINS: Well, one should know what the rules are. Tell us about the
land behind your house, the land that your house abuts to the rear. It's marked
something like reserved area or something on the survey.
MR. MOLNAR: Well supposedly there's an additional 21 houses being built back
there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, but the piece directly in back of yours says, open
space.
MEMBER COLLINS: It says, reserved area B on the survey.
MR. MOLNAR: I really don't know.
MEMBER COLLINS: You don't know anything about it?
Page 26 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MR. MOLNAR: No.
MEMBER COLLINS: OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a scenic easement area in back of it.
MEMBER TORTORA: But it's a part of an approved subdivision.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, yes. OK, Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No, I remembered you from the one foot variance before.
Your required rear yard was 50 feet and the foundation was 49 feet.
MR. MOLNAR: Well, the new house is directly-
MEMBER TORTORA: You really do need to talk to your builder about these little
problems.
MR. MOLNAR: i'm tired talking to my builder.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Lets not bring up past things, OK.
MEMBER TORTORA: OK.
MR. MOLNAR: I'm ready to advertise.
MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask you one question about your builder? Did you
discuss the deck with your builder?
MR. MOLNAR: Well at first but the a, it was cost prohibited at the time to put it on
and that's the only reason.
MEMBER HORNING: I'm just ( ) the original plans and what not. From what I
understand, cost back is the reason why it was not on the plan?
MR. MOLNAR: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, we will proceed and see how it goes.
MR. MOLNAR: Thank you.
Page 27 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to
speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application?
Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until
later.
MEMBER TORTORA: Second.
See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 28 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
7:23 P.M. - Appt. No. 4843 - M. COGEN & M. HOWARD
This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B of the
Zoning Ordinance, based upon the Building Department's May 30, 2000 Notice of
Disapproval. Applicants are proposing an addition to the existing dwelling and
were disapproved for the reason that the side yard on the north does not meet the
required minimum of 15 feet. Location: 1395 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue; Parcel
1000-137-4-31.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone here representing them? Good
evening Sir.
MR HEINE: Good evening. Thomas Heine, the Architect for Cogen and Howard.
Handing green cards to Chairman. We are requesting relief from a side yard
setback. The required setback is 15 feet and we're (more than one person
speaking) 12.4 feet. The house was built like in the thirties, so it's an existing
house. It is turned slightly on the property so in order for us to have done an
additional front on the house which is not the waterside, away from the water, it
kind of caused that corner to stick out slightly as a setback angle cross. We did try
to extend the house as far to the south as possible, the bulk of the addition but we
want to go on up to the entry with the existing entry and have a bedroom on the
first floor to the north of that entry. A reasonable size that, could be used, possibly
as a master in the future.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Ms. Collins, questions?
MEMBER COLLINS: I guess you really answered it by saying, we thought this
thing through. My reaction was that i mean I think this addition to this house is a
fine idea and I don't think you have a big problem here but it's such a tiny little
corner of your proposed addition that goes over the line, the question is, why was
it so important that you're going to the trouble of getting a variance for this little
itty-bitty corner of the house?
MR. HEINE: Well I think it's important because we're just trying to, there is an
existing bedroom there which is probably equivalent to what we could get without
the variance and that's a little smaller than the homeowner wanted. Apparently it's
a weekend home but it will be there retirement home and they want to have a good
size bedroom on the first floor in case they can't, you know, don't want to go up
and down the stairs to their current master bedroom at some point.
MEMBER COLLINS: OK, fair enough.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? ~
Page 29 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MEMBER TORTORA: No, I haven't any questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning?
MEMBR HORNING: No questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see what develops. Again I was equally
impressed with the evening last night and went back and looked at the house and
it's magnificent views from that piece of property. The elevation factor is
unbelievable. It really is. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of tlhis
application, or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion
closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 30 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Appl. No. 4844- DONALD BUSKARD -Anybody
here for Buskard which is the next hearing? Anybody want to speak for or
against? The neighbor notices were not properly sent out so therefore we are
barred from having the hearing tonight. So we'll go on to Frentzel.
7:28 P.M. -Appl. No. 4845 - ROBERT FRENTZEL
This is a request for a Variance to Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based on the
Building Department's June 22, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. The Disapproval
denied an application for a Building Permit to construct an addition to a one-family
dwelling for the reason that the addition does not meet the required minimum rear
yard setback of 50 feet. Location of Property: 1900 Old Orchard Lane, East
Marion, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-37-2-9.1.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody here for this hearing? Ms. Doty, how are
you?
MS. DOTY: I'm fine Mr. Chairman, how are you? I have the Affidavit of Posting
was signed for the Board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We're ready whenever you are.
MS. DOTY: The separate parcel is 22,500 sq. fl. property located in Gardiners
Bay Estates. That area is predominately small non-conforming lots and this is
probably the largest in the neighborhood. The applicants are requesting a rear
yard variance of 13 feet 8 inches less than 28%. One could theorize that if they
sold a 17 foot wide strip on the sound side of their property, we wouldn't be here.
We'd have less than 20,000 sq. ft. and rear yard setback of 35 feet with the bluff
but that's not the case before you. The applicants wish to convert the existing
essentially summer bungalow into their retirement home and they want to have the
living space primarily on the first floor. The architect just mentioned it's convenient
for older people to have their living space on the first floor, their master bedroom.
The plans show a master bedroom suite to the back of the property along the north
line of the property following the existing north line of the house. And the living
space will actually focus towards the mature gardens there. The applicants
installed it. I don't know if you all went out to the premises but they are lovely.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's also a significant elevation factor.
MS. DOTY: Yes, as well as that. They're behind the garage. The addition
extends back from the road, which limits the measure impact actually on the
neighborhood. We cold theoretically go down the roadside but that would have a
dramatic impact on the road coming into the house and would, in fact I think that
Page 31 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
(coughing) the street there by extending to the south. This is the most feasible
way of achieving what the applicants' want, which is living space on the first floor
for the retirement home. It is conceivable that a two-story box could be put up
there but unfortunately one of the applicants has arthritic knees and have legs and
that means that's against going up and down the stairs all the time. By focusing
the house to the south and the west, they're actually increasing the privacy for the
neighbor that's closest to them, which is the one to the north because the house is
actually going to go that way and there's not going to be that much activity to the
north. We're also increasing the side yard setback by eliminating two projections
into that side yard setback. So the wall will be no more than, the north side of the
house will be no more than 11 feet, 11.63 feet from the side yard. This is really no
different than what exists in the neighborhood. There are any number of
insufficient setbacks pre-existing I grant you because of the pre-zoning. But for
example across the street, the neighbor it's the McKeon house, it has a 13 foot
rear yard setback. Now that's a 63% variance from the Code. Up the street
there's a 56% variance, for the rear yard and a 46, I have all of this, I'll give it to
you. Next door there's a 30% variance on the side yard because the house n,ext
door toward the north, is only 7 feet off the line. Other configuration of the house,
just don't make sense. If for example the extension were moved to the back of the
garage, which has been suggested, that divides the property in two essentially.
Actually increases the activity on the north side of the property and decreases the
privacy of the neighbors to the north. Linda was kind enough to fax the property of
a letter that the Board received from the neighbor to the north and that person
doesn't seem to ob.iect to the rear yard setback at all. It's an issue of the extension
of the house backwards of which we can do anyway and a second-story could be
put on the existing dwelling without a variance. He makes some comment about
limited views from windows, etcetera but I have a photograph here which I took
before I got the letter of the side of the house which has no windows at all and the
house is actually directed a little bit to the north and the west of, that is the
neighbor to the north of and this is not a spite addition or any effort to strain the
property to the north. This is the logical place to put living quarters over property
existing dwelling and therefore we requested the Board grant less than 14 foot
variance and do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George?
MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned single story but the proposal is for a two-
story addition, is it not?
MS. DOTY: That's correct. I have plans here for the Board, They are simplified
plans which show you what the proposed addition is. It doesn't have all the
plumbing features in it etcetera. I have photographs for the Board and information
on the building property.
Page 32 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MEMBER HORNING: So the letter from the neighbor, which I assume is Peter
Manning. Is that correct?
MEMBER COLLINS: No, he's the one with no problem.
MS. DOTY: No, this is Mr. Fisher.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Fisher.
MEMBER TORTORA: Where is he?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just to the north.
MEMBER HORNING: Do all of these people know that it's a two-story proposed
addition?
MS. DOTY: Let me see. I just was handed this. I hadn't seen it before from Mr.
Manning, which says he supports.
MEMBER HORNING: Right, that's the one I've seen.
MS. DOTY: All right, there is apparently another one from Mr. Fisher, which I think
the Board has. I agree with Mr. Manning of course.
MEMBER HORNING: Does Mr. Manning and other neighbors know that it's a two-
story proposed addition?
MS. DOTY: I can't speak to what they know or don't know. Some of the neighbors
are here I know. I don't know whether they, it's on the plans. It's available in the
Building Department. My client has advised me that Mr. Manning has seen the
plans.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Manning would not be affected because his property is
considerably further away than Mr. Fisher, so naturally.
MS. DOTY: But I believe that Mr. Manning is part of the homeowner's property
where he would 0.
Page 33 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MEMBER TORTORA: True. I realize that the 11 foot side is not an issue because
you're essentially going along the existing footprint of the property.
MS. DOTY: We're actually improving.
MEMBER TORTORA: (more than one person speaking) because it's going to be a
considerable size house and it is going to present a wall that will be 11 feet from
their property. So I guess the question I'm asking is you have such a large parcel
of property and so many options of other places that it could be where you
wouldn't impose on neighbors on either side and you practically wouldn't even be
required to get a rear yard variance. Why wasn't it designed like that?
MS. DO'I'Y: Because of the existing landscaping that was there. The depression
of the land and the fact that the living space on the house, is at the other end of
the house. Now Mrs. Tortora, I do have a photograph of the Fisher's house which
I will hand to the Board but and I took it very innocently on Sunday. This is the
existing dwelling and this is the Fisher's house. So you can see there's not a
window on that side of the house.
MEMBER TORTORA: There isn't. It's still going to be pretty close and you have
so much room on the other side where you wouldn't be required any variance.
That's my only comment.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you just state your name for the record?
MS. FRENTZEL: I'm Melanina Frentzel and I've lived here 56 years of my life and
this is going to be our retirement home and we've worked on these plans. We had
a local architect, which we chose very carefully so everything would be done
exactly right, two years and living in this house, I have another home in Greenport
that is now for sale. We thought of the neighbors. We thought of Sean and
Craige barbequing at night and the barbeque grill going in our window. We
thought of Mrs. Neece with no privacy because if we sit on our deck, she has
absolutely no privacy. Sally has privacy now because we put up a fence because
her evergreen trees are too high and there's absolutely -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ma'am, ma'am, you have to address the Board.
MS. FRENTZEL: So we put a fence up if we were there for the privacy and when
we worked with our architect for two years, we probably will have a pool because
we do have the land for it. We are going to have the grandchildren and children
and they also have children and grandchildren and we were advised that what we
were doing was legal and correct and that's how we did the plan. Not that if you
find it's not that way, but we do want you to know and our Real Estate Committee
kept asking for the plans and I grew up here and I know the most important thing
before anything is to have it approved by you people which I did say to Anne let's
Page 34 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
do it sooner than later and we did it sooner than later, thank goodness because it
was a big surprise for us and we want you to know we didn't do anything to
surprise anyone. We've worked diligently and hard to try to do it the right way for
the community, and if it doesn't work out, hopefully we can address it but that's
how we did it for the privacy of not only our neighbors, ourselves and in the best
area.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: I just Ms. Doty, I just sought of would like to get into the
record something about which you can tell when you look at the property. The
area going from the house, it would be south?
MS. DOTY: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: There's like a ravine in there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what I said. There's a tremendous amount-
MEMBER COLLINS: Which is to say, that it's not really practical without a major
undertaking as the venue for expanding the house. I think you told us that but I'd
like the record -
MS. DOTY: Yes, Mr. Goehringer also addressed the issue of the gully back there.
MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, OK, I just wanted to make sure we had that in the
record. You said in, or whoever wrote the appeal document that there are lots,
you said actually, that if the Frentzels sold part of their land so as to get below
20,000 sq. ft. then the rear setback would only have to be 35.
MS. DOTY: I don't hold a lot of hope - (interrupted).
MEMBER COLLINS: No, I understand. I understand your point but I think that the
appeal document which I actually see was prepared by Amy Martin, in the
architect's office, says, if the surrounding properties all are allowed to have 35 foot
rear setbacks, I think that that's because they're all smaller, is that the case?
MS. DOTY: That's right, they're all less than 20,000 sq. ft.
MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to get that clear. This is an unusually large lot.
MS. DO'FY: For the area, absolutely.
MEMBER COLLINS: And I think perhaps what Mrs. Frentzel was just telling us,
perhaps was that when they were doing all of this work with the architect, they
Page 35 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
perhaps believed that a 35 foot setback was adequate without realizing they were
over a line in the code. OK, thank you.
MS. DOTY: Yes. It was an innocent mistake and they'd like to built their home.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You were going to give us a set of plans?
MS. DOTY: I was going to give you a set of plans, a series of photographs, s~nd
some surveys from adjoining owners.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MS. DOTY: As well as an expansion on the original applications. Does anybody
have any questions?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Mr. Horning.
MEMBER HORNING: I'm curious because the applicant has mentioned 'the
possibility of putting a pool on. The code calls for a pool being in the rear yard.
MS. DOTY: It could go-
MEMBER COLLINS: You could put it in the rear yard, here.
MEMBER HORNING: That's not quite the rear yard.
MEMBER COLLINS: Well, it's rear side. We'll see them again George.
MS. DOTY: I've numbered the photographs on the back and then indicated the
locations of the photographs being taken. These are surveys of adjoining -
properties with setbacks, insufficient setbacks and this is the site plan and these
are the plans for the house, first floor, second floor.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Any other questions George?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We thank you, we'll see what develops.
Anybody else like to speak in favor? Yes, Mr..Torkelson.
MR. TORKELSON: I've been working with the Frentzels and Fairweather-Brown
and I've been over to look at the property. In fact lan and I have been working
together in the hopes of our doing something. The awareness that we had was
that it was a 35 foot setback based on the other houses in the neighborhood.
Again, they're going to get penalized because of the size of their property
Page 36 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
unfortunately but going with the neighbors house, 35 feet, is basically what
everyone else is looking at and that's what they were looking at when they made
the plans and the intentions of doing it. The side yard is tight but it's tighter by the
neighbor than by them, which again, is an unfortunate thing, but again to really
look into make a house that is habitable for themselves. The way the house is, it's
an older house. It has a couple of additions to it. It kind of fits in to build it the way
they have it rather than encroach in ravine or just build a long straight house that
follows the road. So even though it is quite a bit (coughing) the initial 50 foot
setback I think in the character of the neighborhood. It's not objectionable in that
direction.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, any questions of the builder? Anybody
else for? Yes Ma'am.
MS. HEESE: I have some letters. I didn't know if l should have presented them
ahead of time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. It's all right.
Ms. HEESE: I have my own letter, and I don't know whether you want me to read
it, or whether you want to have it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we'll take it. You're certainly welcome to speak
to us, if you'd like to.
MS. HEESE: I just want to say, that i don't know how you can say that I will have
more privacy. This house is going to loom over my property. You can see that my
property extends 20 feet further than the back portion where of his back border
and this house is going to loom over my property. If there are windows for the
back, they're going to see in all of my windows, in my outside shower, on my deck,
which I am having built now and it is just objectionable and I think that themselves
should abide by the letter of the law.
MEMBER HORNING: Ma'am can I ask you a question?
MEMBER COLLINS: Where does she live?
MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned building a deck. You didn't need a variance
did you, for that?
MS. HEESE: No, I didn't a variance. I have my permit.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where exactly do you live Ms. Heese?
MS. HEESE: 75 and 76.
Page 37 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MEMBER TORTORA: Right here.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, OK, right directly to -
MEMBER COLLINS: Where is here, Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: On the Site plan, the corner.
MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, directly behind. So it's catty-corner.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Thank you Mrs. Heese. Who else would like
to speak? Yes Sir, just state your name for the record.
MR. HOGAN: My name is Bob Hogan and I'm a resident in Gardiner Bay Estates.
I have heard some reference to a gully which I am not familiar with but it appears
that if the gully is prohibiting the design, if the gully is in such a location that it
prohibits the addition from going to the south where all of the apparent space is,
then why couldn't this gully be filled and I guess this would be a question to the
architect because at first blush, looking at this layout, there's at least a half a
dozen designs that come to be readily to go in the other direction without in any
way of infringing upon any of the neighbors. So it's a question of the gully. As I
said I'm not familiar with that but maybe that question could be answered. Why
couldn't it be filled and why couldn't this design be proposed in such a way that it
doesn't infringe on anybody else's property? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who would like to answer that? How are you
tonight?
MR. FAIRWEATHER: Fine, thank you. Extending the house to the south, we took
a very conscious effort not to increase the house in its width along the street there.
Most of the houses in Gardiners Bay Estates are 30, 40, 50 feet wide. We had the
right to make this house 100 feet wider if necessary but we really didn't want to
change the character of the neighborhood by doing that. It just seemed
appropriate to extend the house towards the back which will have the least impact
on the neighborhood and also as it's been pointed out, there are topographic
situations on the south side of the property but we are also dealing with a pre-
existing house which we're just trying to extend on to, and the pre-existing house
has L shape already on the north side of the property and we were just extending
back on that side of the property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A question I have that goes back to the question of
Mrs. Heese over here, and that is from an elevation factor, could you supply' us
what you think would be above grade since the grade to the rear of the house falls
away anyway?
Page 38 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MR. FAIRWEATHER: It does and the house actually steps down.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Steps down, right. Could you give us a, it doesn't
have to be tonight. Just send us a letter.
MR. FAIRWEATHER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we can understand. I'm going to go back if it's all
right with the Frentzels and re-look at this piece of property within the next week or
so prior to us making a decision and in the interim would you supply us with that
letter?
MR. FAIRWEATHER: That I will do.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to
speak? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision
until later.
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 39 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
8:06 P.M. - Appl. No. 4847 - ROGER YOUNG & ORS.
This is a request for a Lot Waiver as provided under Article II, Section 100-26 to
unmerge Lot 1000-128-3-12.4 from 1000-128-3-12.5. On June 22, 2000 a Notice
of Disapproval was issued stating that lot 12.4 merged with adjacent lot 12.5
pursuant to Section 100-25A of the Zoning Code. Location of Property: 3495 and
3585 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, N.Y.; also shown on the 1969 Minor
Subdivision Map for Cecil Young.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Olsen, you're here on the Roger Young hearing?
MR. OLSEN: Good evening. My name is Gary Olsen and I'm an attorney-at-law,
having my offices at Main Road, Cutchogue. I am the attorney for the applicant,
Roger H. Young who is the owner of a certain vacant parcel of land designated on
the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000-128-3-12.4. This is an application for a
waiver of merger from tax lot, 1000-128-3-12.5. The property in question is in an
R40 Residential Zone. The square footage of the lot is 21,540 sq. ft. The subject
property is parcel 1 on a 3 lot Minor Subdivision Map prepared for Cecil T. Young
by Alden Young, Surveyor, and approved by the Southold Town Planning Board
on September 15, 1969. Cecil T. Young was the father of the applicant, Roger H.
Young and the father of Susan Pawley, the adjacent landowner and I'll submit to
you, I think you have it in your file but I'll submit a copy of the Minor Subdivision. It
was a three lot minor subdivision, and was signed by John Wickham back on
September 13, 1969. Lots 12.4 and 12.5 have been in single and separate
ownership since September 16, 1988. As of September 16, 1988, lot 12.4, has
been owned by Roger H. Young and lot 12.5 has been owned by his sister Susan
Pawley. The deeds came out of their father Cecil Young and I have copies of the
deeds and the description in each deed refers to the lot numbers on the Minor
Subdivision Map, and then the map was actually stapled to the deeds and was
recorded with the deeds and I'll submit copies of the originating deeds out of Cecil
Young to Roger and others and to Mr. Young, to Roger Young and others also.
Tax Lot 12.4 is the exact parcel approved by the Planning Board and none of the
lines are different or modified from the lot line shown on the approved Minor
Subdivision Map and the applicant is not seeking to have the Board of Appeals
change or modify the lot lines approved by the Planning Board. There was never
any intention on the part of Mr. Young to abandon or give up this vacant lot as a
building parcel. The third parcel in the Minor Subdivision, parcel #3, on the Minor
Subdivision Map, presently contains a one-family residence, which was
constructed in 1975, and the parcel is, conveyed by Cecil T. Young to a Sherwood
Robinson and his wife on October 30, 1971. At any time from the approval of the
Planning Board in September of 1969, to December of I995, when Section 100-31
was removed and replaced by new Section 100-24 and 100-25 of the Code and
Section 100-244 was modified. The Building Department upon application by the
owner, or any successor in interest, would have been granted a Building Permit.
Page 40 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
Lot 12.4 and 12.5 were in separate ownership on the effective date of the new
merger law and this has been affirmed in many cases, which have come before the
Zoning Board of Appeals on these, waiver of merger applications. And I have
copies of four decisions, which addresses the very issue that you have before you
tonight. One of it is the Corwin application, Appeal #4504, the other is Linda
Fessman, Application #4420, the application of a Florence Pavlak, Application
#4418, an application of a Mr. Zevitz, Application #4507. I'm sure there are
others. These are the ones that I was familiar with. I didn't go through all of the
waiver of merger decisions but I'm sure there are many, many, many more that
involve this very issue where the Planning Board gave approval and then this new
merger taw came into effect in 1995 and it's very clear that the Board is consistent
in stating that as long as these lots were in single and separate ownership as the
adoption of the new law, they're recognized lots. Just to read you part of the
Pavlak decision, it says, "as of December 1995 the new local law replaced former
Section 100-31 under the Zoning Codes in effect up unti~ December of 95. Lots on
approved Subdivision Maps approved by resolution and final action of the
Planning Board were recognized as valid lots and received Building Permit." Ai~ of
these cases say the same thing and I'll just submit this to you for your record, in
the Zevit's case it says, "as of December 26, 95, the new lot creation law replaced
former Section 100-31 under the Zoning Code and in effect until December 26, 95.
Lots on Planning Board approved Subdivision Maps were recognized as valid lots
and received Building Permits." So, there's, four cases. Accordingly it is
respectfully submitted that there was and could be no merger when the new law
was enacted since Mr. Young owned no contiguous property as of the date of the
merger law. The merger law retroactively makes buildable lots that were in single
and separate ownership prior to 1995 unbuildable without first applying for a
waiver of merger from the Zoning Board despite the fact that up until December of
95, the Zoning Code in Section 100-31 specifically permitted the Building
Department to grant Building Permits for non-conforming lots created on a Minor
Subdivision approved by the Planning Board prior to May 30, of 1983. It is
respectfully submitted that in situation such as this, the merger law contradicts the
prior Zoning Code. Unfortunately, the present local merger law adopted it in
December of 1995, which discontinued the former allowance of non-conforming
lots on the subdivision, which remained in common ownership, does not contain
provisions which allowed the Building Department to vary from the strict language
of the code and therefore a Notice of Disapproval was issued. Again, I wish to
stress to this Board, that up until the enactment of Section 100-24, 100-25 in
December of 95, this lot has been owned in single and separate ownership by Mr.
Young since 1988, would have been granted a Building Permit for the construction
of a single family residence pursuant to Section 100-31. If the Board however
feels as though the lots in question have indeed merged, we hereby seek relief
under Section 100-26 of the Southold Town Code. This Section of the code gives
the Zoning Board the discretion to waive the merger upon the review of four
criteria. (1.) The waiver will not result in a significant increase in the density of the
neighborhood. As indicated on the copies of the Suffolk County Tax Maps which I
Page 41 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
have provided to the Board, the lot in question is in a residential neighborhood.
Many of the adjoining parcels have been approved. As is evident by tax lots
marked in pink. I've taken the tax maps and outlined in pink, all the lots around
these parcels which have been approved and I'll give that to you now. As you can
see by granting the waiver of merger, it does not change the character or density
of the neighborhood. Granting the waiver of merger will only increase the density
of the neighborhood by one additional lot, which lot was already approved as part
of a minor subdivision as stated earlier. In fact, recognizing the original lot lines is
logical and appropriate when considering the characteristics and appearance of
the neighborhood. (2.) The second factor would be to be considered by the Board
is whether the waiver would recognize a lot that is consistent with the size of the
lots in the neighborhood. The average lot size in the immediate neighborhood is
consistent with the size of lot 12.4. The lot in question is 21,540 sq. ft. Examples
of lots, which are in the immediate neighborhood, would show that this lot is
consistent in size are as follows: Lot #1000-128-6-27 is directly across the street
from 12.4 and is .32 acres. This is smaller than lot 12.4, which is .49 acres. Lot
#1000-128-3-8 which is a few lots away on Delmar Drive is .46 acres. Lot 1000-
128-3-14 which is only a few lots away on Peconic Bay Boulevard is .34 acres. I
wish to submit to the Board a list of the neighboring lots showing whether the lots
have been approved as well as the size of the lots. ,Just to show you that lot 12.4
is consistent with the general size and shape of others in the area. Of course
there are some that are bigger but in general these lots are consistent. (3.) The
third factor to be considered by the Board is whether the waiver will avoid
economic hardship. The lot in question is presently under contract to be sold for a
price of $55,000. If this waiver is not granted, then this lot becomes an
unbuildable lot. As we are all aware a lot that stands alone in present and single
ownership, as the cases here, is virtually worthless if it is not a buildable lot. The
only parties the lot would have any value to would be the adjacent landowners.
However, those landowners would have no reason or empathies to purchase the
land due to the fact that nobody else is likely to purchase it and due to the fact that '-
if the application is denied the lot would not be buildable. Therefore, the
economical loss to the applicant is at least $55,000 which is a significant economic
hardship and I don't know whether I submitted a copy of the contract of sale with
my other papers initially but here 'is a copy which shows that someone is willing to
pay $55,000 if it's buildable. (4.) The final consideration the Board must consider,
is as follows: The natural details and character of the contours and slopes of the
lot will not be significantly changed or altered in any manner and there will not be a
substantial filling of land effecting nearby environmental or flood areas. The lot in
question has a flat topography and the natural contours and slopes of the land will
not need to be altered significantly if at all. Let it be noted, that the Suffolk County
Health Department has approved this lot as a building parcel and I have a copy of
the Health Department approved survey. This approval was just received on April
5, of year 2000. For all the reasons, which I've just stated, I respectfully ask that
the Board look favorably upon this application.
Page 42 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Thank you Mr. Olsen.
Ms. Collins any questions?
MEMBER COLLINS: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. The lots were split several times and i note that in the
splits prior to that this was known as lot 12.1. Both lots were known as 12.1 when
they were recorded in the County in 1988. I have that attendance here. It's
Schedule A referred to in the deed? Believe me, i could be reading this wrong but
that's what I have in front of me.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I've got 12 and part of 12.1.
MEMBER TORTORA: It's also referred to as lot 12.1 in several of the
conveyances. After that, it was separated into 12.4 and 12.5 and I wondered if
they were not merged, and they were recognized, why was it necessary to split
them?
MR. OLSEN: They really weren't split. I submitted, you have copies there of- Mr.
Young, Cecil Young, initially got title from John Young, whom I assume was his
father back in 1940. Then in 1969 he went to the Planning Board and he got a
three lot Minor Subdivision. He did not convey lot 1 and lot 2 of the Minor
Subdivision out until 1986 and there were two deeds. For the subject property he
conveyed lot 1 out to Roger Young who is the applicant and his wife, and Kenneth
and Susan Pawley who is his daughter and son-in-law. The adjacent lot which is
the merged, "merged lot", he did the same. He conveyed those lots out by a deed
in January of 87 to the same four people and in 1988 the four people conveyed tax
lots 12.4 just to Roger Young and tax lot 12.5 just to Susan Pawley. So the lots
that were conveyed out with two separate deeds the description in each one was
for the lots on the minor map. One was for lot 1 and one was for lot 2.
MEMBER TORTORA: All right, I was just confused because of the property cards.
It does say there was a split in 93 and then it shows a split on the other of the two
deeds as showing and a split corresponds to these two deeds which identify as
both parcels as Schedule A, attached here of as lot 12.
MR. OLSEN: The lines were never changed. What happened was in 1988, Roger
Young and Virginia Young, and Susan and Kenneth Pawley who had obtained title
to tax lot 12.5 they conveyed, those four people conveyed just to the Pawleys in
1988 and then Kenneth Pawley and Susan Pawley conveyed a deed out from the
two of them, just to Susan in 1993. Maybe it was at that point that it triggered a
renumbering of the tax map or something, but it's always been lot 2 on the minor
map and the lot in question that I'm dealing with has always been lot number I on
Page 43 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
the minor map and the third lot, was conveyed out by Cecil Young and a house
was built on it in 1975.
MEMBER TORTORA: Well this looks like a I guess it's a the Schedule A that's
referred to in the deed, looks part of the Suffolk County Tax Map at the -
MR. OLSEN: Yeah, but that was before the, they hadn't renumbered yet at that
point. I guess that's what it was. I see what you're saying. It's part of your CPO,
part of 12.1.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reasons for that is that real property hadn't
made their determination of what the new lot number was going to be. But what
you're saying and my question you answered it but I just want to reiterate on the
record, that when Mrs. Tortora refers to the word split, that is not an accurate
determination. What we are saying is, that even though the lots were deeded in,
deeded out, there was never a change of lot lines from that original 69 subdivision.
Is that correct?
MR. OLSEN: Actually there's no meets or bounds description on any of these lots.
It's always referred to as lot 1 on the map and lot 2 on the map.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, that's just referred to on the property tax cards.
MR. OLSEN: It was for numbering purposes with the county.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mr. Horning, any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you Mr. Olsen we'll see what develops. Is '--
there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Mr. Young
how are you tonight? I haven't seen you in a little while.
MR. YOUNG: It's been a while. I'm Myron Young. I own the property behind both
of those and in fact the east lot on the back of that too, and I guess I'd be more
affected than anybody else. I have no real objection to any of this stuff. I got my
lot back in there in 64. It was understood, that those two lots in front of me would
be, one my brother, and one my sister, and that's just the way it's always been and
I've no objection to this. Obviously Roger isn't going to live up here again, and I
think he just wants to get rid of it. But I really don't have any objection. I don't see
where it's going to make any difference to me one way or the other. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no hands I'll
make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
Page 44 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
Appl. No. 4847 - HARRY CASHY & MARIA MISTHOS: Postponed to September
14th. See Minutes for Resolution.
8:28 P.M.- Appl. No. 4846- W. & K. KNOERSCHILD
This is a request for a Variance to Article III, Section 100-33 based on the Building
Department's April 21, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. The Disapproval denied an
application for a Building Permit to construct garage for the reason the garage will
be located in the side yard of proposed new dwelling. Location of Property: 985
Cases' Lane Extension, Cutchogue, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-209-5-14.43
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. State your name for the record.
MR. KNOERSCHILD: Bill Knoerschild.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you? Many of the parcels that we've seen,
this is a very magnificent, beautiful parcel in the Cutchogue area. Could you tell
us why you want to build it in the manner you want to build it?
MR. KNOERSCHILD: Well I'm anxious for a small garage like this so the reason
why I want to build it, is I need the garage space for my cars for one, and the other
in keeping the look of the house, we figured it would look better than a straight row
of garages instead of this way it came across very nicely. The property was big
enough for it. We have these here approvals for the plot plan. Any questions? It
was just an appealing situation.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In reference to the Stasiukiewicz their house is set
back a little bit farther than what you're planning. Is that correct?
MR. KNOERSCHILD: Yes. The garage is set back and their house is actually
facing south where they have water view. My house would not block any of their
viewing. I don't know if you've been there over or not.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, I know it, yeah. The Stasiukiewicz is a friend of
mine. They haven't said anything to me but their still friends of mine.
MR. KNOERSCHILD: i have a couple of letters from a couple of the neighbors
that couldn't attend. I don't know if you want to see those.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, we'll take them.
MR. KNOERSCHILD: I think one was sent to you already, I'm not sure.
Page 45 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Dr. Dubovick. Ms. Collins, questions?
MEMBER COLLINS: i want to be clear about this. The material that you
submitted and the appeal itself refers to this proposed garage and drive through
located on the side yard, and that's the reason for the denial. You also gave us a
picture of rendering I guess you would say, of the proposed house and I can
indeed see a drive through in this building. I gather it's kind of a slightly curved
house with a perhaps a porte-cochere, remember Mr. Fitzgerald was here with a
porte-cochere not too long ago. My problem is, I cannot relate that picture to the
survey, a picture of the house and the garage. They just don't relate in my mind.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean'flip-flop.
MEMBER COLLINS: Well no, it's not a flip-flop Mr, Chairman.
MR. KNOERSCHILD: It's actually flipped from the original application.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: I understand flip. On the survey that I'm looking at which I'm
sure is the only one we have, the house is set at about a 45 degree angle to the
road.
MR. KNOERSCHILD: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: And the garage is actually kind of forward of the house
towards the road, and quite separate and you can see on here, the driveway and a
considerable space between the house and the garage where the driveway would
come in. I suppose you'd use it for parking. But I don't see a drive through, and
that's what the, I just want to understand.
MR. KNOERSCHILD: There's a roof connecting the both.
MEMBER COLLINS: Ah, OK.
MR. KNOERSCHILD: Which goes right into the porch.
MEMBER COLLINS: All right.
MR. KNOERSCHILD: Can you see where it's actually attached?
MEMBER COLLINS: All right, because that was not that clear. Because I think our
reasoning is going to be similar to the case that Mr. Fitzgerald had here not long
ago, and I wanted to get whether this layout was the same. Reading the survey, it
looked like a totally detached garage just seating there.
Page 46 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MR. KNOERSCHILD: No, it is attached. It has a 22 foot roof that-
MEMBER COLLINS: A roof, OK, that makes quite a big difference I think in how
the thing looks. It's clear that you have a big enough piece of parcel, of land to do
this, and my concern as always is, so what does it do to the neighborhood? And
because I couldn't relate the picture to the drawing I wasn't sure but i see now.
Thank you.
MRS. KNOERSCHILD: Excuse me, can i just talk? I'm his wife Kathy.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
MRS. KNOERSCHILD: I'm his wife, Kathy.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do?
MRS. KNOERSCHILD: Hi. We've got nothing but good reviews from all the
neighbors that have seen the plans because we posted a picture of the house on
the property for three, or, four weeks before this notice even came about. So ~
don't think there's a problem with the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're just learning these plans. We saw it for the
first time as Ms. Collins mentioned.
MRS. KNOERSCHILD: OK. The thing is, it's very different from anything around
here. We saw them in a plan book, and I believe it's a house that's probably done
in the south.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's one being constructed on North Bayview -
right now.
MEMBER COLLINS: Right, it looks familiar.
MRS. KNOERSCHILD: Just like it?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, a little bit different.
MEMBR COLLINS: Very familiar.
MRS. KNOERSCHILD: Oh, gosh, we better go look.
Bayview?
Where's that? North
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll give you the directions. It's on a private road.
OK, we thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing.
Page 47 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MEMBER HORNING: I have some questions?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, Mrs. Tortora is next.
MEMBER TORTORA: Well actually my concern was kind of the same as Ms.
Collins. I was trying to figure out if this is attached to the house?
MR. KNOERSCHILD: Yes, it is. You need a minimum of 11 feet to drive through
between the two. But there is, actually there's a roof that does attach it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MEMBER TORTORA: Then we're actually at the same structure that was identical
MEMBER COLLINS: It's just like the porte-cochere.
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: OK, George we're ready.
MEMBER HORNING: Just curious, the one building from the survey shows two
garages. One physically attached to the house and the other one not. Which one
is the real garage?
MR. KNOERSCHILD: They're both garages.
MEMBER HORNING: You're going to have two garages?
MR. KNOERSCHILD: I'm going to have two garages actually to the main house.
The roof will attach the second garage to the main house.
MRS. KNOERSCHILD: It's a total of four car garage which we need for our four
vehicles.
MEMBER HORNING: Everything attached?
MR. KNOERSCHILD: Everything is attached.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So this will be the second plan that we're dealing
with this magnitude.
Page 48 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MRS. KNOERSCHILD: I'm sorry, I didn't know about the first. I would have been
here to see it.
MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman, one final question I'd like to make. Have you
considered other alternative plans?
MR. KNOERSCHILD: Well, we actually felt that it worked out very well on the
property, and when we put it to our architect and also to Young & Young, who did
the original work for us, they felt it would work very well. As far as esthetics
looking from the street, it's going to be very hard to see that it's actually would be a
four car garage. Can I show you how it is laid down here?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely.
MEMBER COLLINS: OK, now I understand why I'm seeing garage doors here.
Because this, this is the garage that's part of the house.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
MEMBER COLLINS: This is the separate one, the roof connecting. OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
MEMBER COLLINS: I just couldn't figure it out. It is just like the Cornell house.
MEMBER HORNING: This is turned around (discussing with Mr. Knoerschild)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think that is probably the interpretation of the
Building Inspector.
MEMBR TORTORA: Yeah, we had a similar application almost identical.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll see what develops throughout 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 HORNING: Second.
See Minutes for Resolution.
Page 49 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
8:48 P. M. - Appl. No. 4841 - EMILY & IRA SCHACHTER
This is a request for a Lot Waiver as provided under Article II, Section 100-26 to
unmerge Lot 1000-76-2-37.2 from 1000-76-2-37.3. On May 10, 2000 a Notice of
Disapproval was issued stating that pursuant to Article II, Section 100-25A of the
Zoning Code, a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or
non-conforming lot which as been held in common ownership with the first lot at
any time after July 1, 1983. (This lot waiver, if granted, would void the 1979 area
variance under Appl. 2614, which contained a condition requiring subdivision
approval from the Planning Board.) Location of Property: 1700 Smith Drive North,
Southold; Goose Neck Estates.
MRS. MOORE: Good evening.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Ms. Moore.
MRS. MOORE: Last but not least. Mr. & Mrs. Schachter are here this evening
and if you have any questions I'm sure they'd be happy to address you. To begin
with we started our application, a waiver of merger application addressed an issue,
which I think you can take initially, and determine whether or not we even have to
be here. Under 124A, as far as lot creation, this is a lot on map of Goose Neck by
G. W. Smith & Sons that was filed of November of 48. It also under the exception
provision, it is a lot that obtained a lot size variance on October 11, 1979 by a
Zoning Board decision, which is appeal #2614. I believe you have it in your file
and I would ask that you refer to it. That decision clearly did grant an area
variance for the lot size. Somewhat of a question is the fact that that decision
said, we'll go back to the Planning Board for subdivision and when ! went looking
for some resolution by the Planning Board, or completion of the process, I could
not find any documentation and I don't think that it was that Mr. & Mrs. Hart did not
follow through with the process. I think that it's most likely that it was done in the
form of a setoff, and the language of the subdivision even in today's code under
106-13 subdivision, which was amended September of 80 and the ZBA decision is
79. So it's about the same time, October 79. So shortly thereafter they would
have been going to the Planning Board and I'm assuming that the same definition
of subdivision was in the books, and subdivision stated that a, let's see, "the term
subdivision shall not include the settle or creation of a single lot from a parcel of
land provided that before any such settle or creation shall take place, the owner
shall submit such proposal to the Planning Board for its approval and
determination of whether such setoff or creation constitutes a subdivision." During
that period of time setoffs generally by the Planning Board might be done by way
of a letter saying, we don't feel this is a subdivision. You don't have to proceed
any further. I looked for that, We could not find it. I asked for a, I will check again
now that there's staff there they may be a little more familiar with their paperwork
keeping processes and if I find anything by all means I'll submit it to the Board. I
Page 50 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
could not find it and I'm hoping that Linda who is even, who is a much better
researcher than I am I'm hoping that you found Something, if you did. Did you find
that the Planning Board anything? Any paperwork?
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I don't research the Planning Board's record
usually no. We use to do that but I didn't get a chance to.
MRS. MOORE: That's all right. Sometimes you surprise me, and you find things
that -
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We had a prior Zoning Board Variance.
MRS. MOORE: Pardon me?
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We had a prior Zoning Board Area Variance.
MRS. MOORE: Yes, that's the one that we, yes, that's why initially we did not
believe we had to be there and the Building Department when I gave them the
Notice of Disapproval asked Ed Forrester, please look at this. I gave him a copy
of the Zoning Board decision and said, based on the definitions and the section of
the Code of 100-24 and 25, it did not appear that we had to be here on this
application. However, nonetheless, we don't want to waste our $150 application
fee.
MEMBER COLLINS: Just to interrupt you Ms. Moore.
MRS. MOORE: Go ahead.
MEMBER COLLINS: I mean that part, you just started to say to us, that you had
discussed with our Building Department, the fact that this decision number -
whatever it was, back in 79 was made authorizing the division of the lot into two
non-conforming lots, and what did they say?
MRS. MOORE: They didn't give me anything in write - they gave me the Notice of
Disapproval.
MEMBR COLLINS: They gave you the Notice of Disapproval.
MRS. MOORE: I mean he said, he would take a look at it. But a lot of time went
between the time of my application for the Notice of Disapproval and the actual
Notice of Disapproval. So I don't know if it was just things -
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yeah, there was nothing really filed. It was
the Planning Board.
Page 51 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MRS. MOORE: There was nothing, no reference?
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, they were suppose to go back, that was
the rule back in 79, to the Planning Board because they give the final stamp on
subdivision.
MRS. MOORE: Exactly, that would have been my conclusion, that they always
even on an area variance on a, because at the time subdivision laws were on the
books.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's right.
MRS. MOORE: You go back to the Planning Board and finish up the process.
That's why I say, I think it would not be consistent with their - all of the paperwork,
everything that they had done for them not to return to the Planning Board. So
there may be something over there that I have not been able to find and that there
staff has not been able to find. As I said, at the time because of the definition of a
setoff, it might be just a simple letter that says, we don't think -
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well that's the other think. I asked the
secretary and she said, there was nothing in the records for minor subdivision but
they you know, that's the only answer Igor.
MRS. MOORE: Exactly, so I'll try one more approach which is their a, I don't know
if they keep, I know your Board keeps resolutions in a resolution book and
(changed tape).
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It will be filed with whom. I'm sorry I didn't'
hear you?
Member TORTORA: If there had been a minor subdivision wouldn't it have been
filed?
MRS. MOORE: No, no, the definition of subdivision in our code excluded setoffs
and in fact, only recently, our setoffs actually something that the Planning Board
had said, you know file. There is no obligation to file. The only obligation under
the law is to file major subdivisions. Minor subdivisions do r~ot have to be filed.
MEMBER TORTORA: I know, I read the area variance. It was granted on the
parcel but it was clearly subject to Planning Board approval and without that
approval -
MRS. MOORE: Well that's why I say, I don't, I think that there is approval and go
back to the definition of 106-13 because the procedures for setoff is just a
essentially a letter blessing. Unless the Planning Board found that a subdivision
Page 52 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
application had to be filed, which would not be consistent with a lot that was
already from a subdivision that was essentially Putting merging two lots and they're
four lots, four lots merged into two. So, the Planning Board would look at this as
the Zoning Board did in 79 and say, well this is kind of a no grainer it's consistent
with the area. We don't feel it's a, we don't feel it's something that should be
denied. Mr. Goehringer did you have something?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, my question was to Mrs. Kowalski and she did
answer that question thinking back at that around the 1982 era.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Actually before September of 79, it was a
grandfather list up until September 11, of 79. This decision was a month after that.
So it just missed that grandfather list.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I refer to it as a laundry list but that's not in there.
Not in a derogatory manner or anything.
MRS. MOORE: Not the 112 list?
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No.
MRS. MOORE: Another list?
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Another list.
MRS. MOORE: A grandfather list?
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My question to you is a, what do we have existing
and what is proposed?
MRS. MOORE: Well, OK. We have going through the, do you want me to go
down your standards or do you want me just to get to the point?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I want to know what's there and what's
proposed.
MRS. MOORE: Oh sure, that's easily done. We had presently there, if you look at
the survey on Smith Drive South, there's Smith, this is actually at the end. Smith
Drive South and Smith Drive North. It's right in front of the beach, the
Homeowner's Association beach. There is presently a house that sits on the one-
half of the property, and a garage that was built on another lot. That is the one
that we recognize there is, we don't wish to unmerge. The lot that we wish to
unmerge is the piece on Smith Drive North, which is actually two parcels from the
Page 53 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
subdivision, the Goose Neck Subdivision. So the house and garage sit on two lots
from the subdivision and the vacant lot is a combination of two lots from that
subdivision, and what they propose to do is to relocate that division line between
those parcels so that the vacant parcels can be developed. It's my understanding
that not only the Harts but, thereafter the other property owners Baumgratz had
thought about building there but the constraints of Health Department constraints
slow the process down and prevented it. There is public water now on this street
and there would be no problem with the development of a small single-family
house on the vacant parcels. So one house, on the two parcels, that could be
situated just about anywhere. It could even be right next to that house or further
down at the time. There's a survey in your file that actually is consistent with what
they would want to do which is develop the house further back from the property
so it creates more space between the homes. Essentially the house is on the
backside of the existing garage. From just your drive around, you can see, that
there is no significant increase in the density of the neighborhood. This
neighborhood is for the most part has been developed completely. Goose Neck
Estates is a very old subdivision and the lots that are on the water are
approximately the same size as these parcels but are constrained by wetlands so
that most of the houses are actually close to the road and the back yards are 'the
wetlands and the private property to the a it looks like the high tide, and Goose
Creek actually cuts into most of the properties there on Smith Drive South. Also
Smith Drive North. Smith Drive South seems to have larger parcels but that has
Goose Creek, which cuts into most of the lots. The town has been issuing and still
issues tax bills, separate tax bills for the two separate parcels and as proposed,
the quarter acre vacant lot has been assessed or has been receiving a tax bill of
$703.31, which is consistent with vacant lot costs. The house is taxed at $3,324,
which for the size of the house is also compatible with what taxing assessed
values are in this area. So the town by way of their tax bill has been recognizing
this as a buildable lot and taxing it accordingly. We've talked about the waiver
would recognize a lot that is consistent with the size of lots in the neighborhood. -
You can see that from the tax map of the area the size of the parcel even if the
Schachter property right now is double, quadruple the size of the properties in the
area. Splitting it would make it still one of the largest, larger lots. Certainly the big
large lots in the center part between Smith Drive South and Smith Drive North and
consistent with the waterfront parcels. The waiver will avoid economic hardship.
The Schachters purchased the property in 97 for $180,000 and at the time
properties that were being sold in this neighborhood were in the range of $1120.
He recalled $112, he said, well maybe it's $120, but even so, it's in the Iow
hundreds so that the lot at the time when they bought it, it was recognized that
they were buying two properties. They were buying the potential for the lot as
well. I checked, there is a sale sign on the Estate of Troutman property and I
check with Mr. Bruer's office. The house sold and the lot is under contract, excuse
me, the house sold of $123 and the lot is under contract for $40,000. The
Schachter lot is actually much larger than the Estate of Troutman parcel, almost
Page 54 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
double the size and they're across from the open space. So, it would be worth
significantly more. A conservative figure would be in the $60,000 range.
MEMBER TORTORA: Where's the Troutman?
MRS. MOORE: Troutman is in the center, two lots down from Terry Place. It goes
from, the lot is on Smith Drive south. It's lot 31 and the house is on Smith Drive
North, tax map #11. The natural details and character contours and slopes of the
lot will not be significantly changed or altered. As we stated, you can see that it's
a very flat vacant parcel. There are no topographic conditions that we would have
to be concerned with. The setbacks that would be required of 35 foot front yard
setbacks which the code now allows for some of these older areas would not
necessitate a variance. So the house could be placed on this property on the
vacant lot without any need for variances. ! have also Linda would catch me
before I left, the green cards.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKi: Thank you Pat.
MRS. MOORE: We also received a very nice letter. Actually William Kispert
called me and I asked him if he would mind sending a letter and he states this is a
letter from August 2nd, "Dear Ms. Moore; In regard to our telephone conversation
of the morning WedneSday, August 2"d, I am writing this letter in support of your
application for Mr. & Mrs. Schachter to separate two wooded parcelS from two
house parcels. The Kispert family has occupied the property directly across from
Smith Drive South from the Schachter property since 1952. We were the fifth
house built in Goose Neck Estates and have known all the homeowners of the
property in question since that time. Again you have our support in you endeavor
and you can relate our support to the Zoning Board of Appeals." And I'll submit
that for your record, the letter for your record as well. I'm almost finished if you
have any questions. I have the tax bills if you need them. Do you have in your file
the tax bills? i think I submitted it with the application.,
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MRS. MOORE: OK, fine. Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: Just that the lots have been combined in common
ownership since 1967. That's a fact.
Page 55 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
MRS. MOORE: Well actually the lots, well the Harts were here. What happened
in 67, I mean there was no problem because it was only until 83 that it became a
problem. The lots were generally identified as lots in the subdivision so that the
property owners would buy them and with all the expectations of being able to
build. At the time we were much more sophisticated now then they were back
then. That's the reason for this.
MEMBER TORTORA: That was the only, you know, the only one thing that just
struck out. There was no intent to separate them out through the years?
Mrs. MOORE: Well I thing the variance application was the significant point.
MEMBER TORTORA: It was but it wasn't, we don't have any evidence that that
was ever effectuated unfortunately.
MRS. MOORE: Well I think that the code speaks by way of the Zoning Board's
variance. The condition and I refer you back to the decision the Zoning Board
criteria for an area variance remained for the most part the same, and 'the
character of the area and the a, that was all addressed at that time, that no change
has occurred. In fact, I don't think any homes have been built there in a very long
time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: There's absolutely no question that they're merged.
Although there's no evidence that the Harts followed through on the bureaucratic
steps they were suppose to take in 79. I am quite influenced by the fact that the
Zoning Board did say, that splitting the property in half was OK with them. The
Harts held the property on July 1, 1983, not realizing what a significant date it was
at the time and thereafter the property has been transferred but always by
separate deed and they've always been in common ownership. I mean that's dear
and it strikes me this is one of those cases like many that we see where families
didn't realize what the story was. The Harts actually since they owned this land in
1983 and were peacefully asleep, didn't know they should have done something
so it wouldn't catch up with them 12 years later. So I'm very sympathetic and I
think you're quite right that the criteria for granting a waiver just don't present
problems.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Ms. Moore. We'll see what develops
throughout the hearing.
MRS. MOORE: Thank you.
Page 56 August 10, 2000
Board of Appeals Hearings
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak iii'favor of
this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands
I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
(End of Hearings.)
NEWPhaugl0
Prepared by Lucy Farrell