HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/18/2002 HEARSOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS
HELD APRIL 18, 2002
(Prepared by Paula Quintieri)
Present were:
Chairman Goehringer
Member Tortora
Member Homing
Member Oliva
Member Orlando
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5:34 p.m. Appl. No. 5045 - FLOYD KING TRUST. (Continuation ti'om January 10,
2002 Hearing Calendar as requested by applicant.)
CHAIRMAN: 1 believe Mr. Lark is representing. How are you tonight sir?
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Good afternoon. This application is basically tbr an approval
of a lot line change. Both parcels are owned by the same entity, the Floyd F. King, Jr.
revocable Trust. However, since the death of Mr. King, the trust is no longer revocable
its irrevocable and the successor trustee, Susan King, is here tonight if you have any
questions. She is acting in the capacity as successor trustee trying to fill the mandate of
the trust, which became effective on the death of Floyd King Jr. We have two parcels
involved here. I believe you have the survey by Mr. Lendowski, dated June 7, 2001.
Parcel One is on there and Parcel Two. Parcel One is known, as the reference is the Bay
Breeze and Parcel Two is Salt Air. What the surveyor did to follow the dictates of the
trust was to come down, and I've outlined it in the map of Parcel One and I'll hand it up it
makes it a little bit easier to follow. What he did is the trust provided by Parcel One goes
to one of the heirs together with 85 feet of shorefront. And since the property is more or
less bisected by a right-of-way, a town 15 foot right-of-way which serves not only Parcel
One but serves a bunch of other parcels to the north. We felt it best just to go ahead and
come down one side and you can see take it over to say 85 feet of shorefront. Parcel
Two, which presently owns the entire right-of-way that was shortcut. So what you have
is two nonconforming parcels and when it's ali said and done you have two remaining
nonconforming parcels. Basically, that's what the application is. I put Salt Air in green
and the Bay Breeze in red so you could follow it a little bit easier. Because both of the
parcels are nonconforming and they have been since prior zoning, and I'll cover it in a
couple of minutes, which was enacted here in Southold in 1957. 138.3 as the Building
Inspector points out requires that since we're proposing to alter the existing property
lines, the Board of Appeals has to pass on it. We reflect, the applicant is asking for a
variance that is akin a way with the zoning regulations as it effects both parcels.
Page 2, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Healing []anscript
Town of Sout hold
Immediately speaking it is lbr an Area Variance, so that the lots can be split as is
proposed. The Board is aware in order to make a determination for an Area Variance the
Board has to engage in the balancing test weighing the benefit tbr the applicant, and on
the other hand wcighing that against the detriment to the health and safety and welfare of
the community. It is the applicant's position, and you should make this analysis, that
there is in fact no detriment to the community. The main reason is what is there today
will remain there tomorrow. As a matter of tact, when I was analyzing this thing, if this
request for variance is granted it really reduces any possible effort expand either the
buildings on either property because of what's happening when you look at those lot lines
especially with the salt air. It would eliminate what's in the future, so what you see is
what's going to be there there will be no expansion. Further down in the application we
result in no increase to density to the neighborhood. The two lots exist today just as they
will in the future although one has a few extra square feet and I think the determining
square fiootage was, the difference is 2699, call it 2700 square feet is what we're dealing
with. Taking one to the other with this proposal. It is the heir's intention to leave the
property basically just the way it is, which is nothing more than a rental of the summer
cottages, which are the two, Bay Breeze and Salt Air. The granting of the variance will
avoid any economic to the applicant which is the trust because the trust dictates what the
Susan King, the successor trustee is trying to do here with this application. Lastly, there's
going to be no change in the topography or the character or the contours of the land. As I
said, the buildings will remain the same. In effecL it is an invisible property line, which
will change absolutely nothing. The t~ee at the present time, as I indicated, was the
revocable trust. Mr. King passed away in July 15, 1999 and as I indicated, the trust now
becomes irrevocable and she as a fiduciary has to follow its dictates. Originally the two
parcels were part of a larger tract of land, which was acquired by Floyd King, Sr. back in
the 1930's. I have here the appreciation of the whole thing. I've got a survey of Van Tuyl
done in 1959 which lays out all of the Kings properties. When the grandfather died, and
that was really known in the Orient as the Bay House tourist complex; and they named
each one of the individual cottages you can see, they all have their individual names, they
said Bay Breeze, Revolutionary and it goes on. They were all used as summer homes.
When he died, his two children basically inherited the property, which was Floyd King
Jr., the applicant's father and Margaret Hendricks. And over the years the properties were
sold with the exception that Floyd kept these two parcels, the Salt Air and the Bay
Breeze, which is the subject of the application. And as 1 say everything downhill, with the
exception of one cottage called Sunset on there, they're all still there pretty much in the
same situation except some of them had them converted to year round homes ever since
the late 197Us. But these two are not, they're strictly just summer. The Salt Air, just for
apiece of history, cottage was remodeled in 1939 by the King Family and it's pretty much
stayed the same today as it was when it was remodeled to a one-family cottage. Prior to
that just for the Historical Society maintains it as a candy and tobacco store and uses the
vault for the Orient Coronet Band back in the 1920's and before, lt's been there a long,
long while. Bay Breeze, which is on Parcel Two somewhere around the late 1930's,
1940's was moved from the comer Fletcher and Vincent Streets to its present location
where it has remained there ever since and is used as a summer cottage. That's a brief
history. The other interesting thing to note which really surprised me in talking to Susan,
was that some of the families, I say families; have rented there for over sixty years
Page 3~ Aplil I 8, 2002
ZBA Public Hem'ing hansc~ipl
I'own olSou/bold
continuously during the summer. It's the same if you rent row, year after year, after year
and its utilized primarily historically f?om Memorial Day probably now towards the end
of September, but historically to Labor Day. So everything, as 1 say, and Mr. King Susan
referred to me, had many offers either one or both of those properties and the main reason
that he didn't and instructed the family to keep it there was he didn't know what to do
with thc tenants. Because they had become thmily, it's over four gencrations and he
didn't know what to do with it. So he just kept it and well, Susan has inherited the
problem. The application that is submitted to you for thc area variance, I think meets the
criteria that the Board has to consider in deciding the balancing test. As indicated in the
application there are two houses on the property and all that's going to change is this
invisible boundary line giving each 85 fcet? That's going to be about the extent of that.
There's no other method that can be feasible because to follow the dictates of thc trust, I
think Lendowski said the most practical and feasible way to accommodate that so that the
use of the properties would have 85 feet of shorefront. Like I say, its swap of land at the
2699 square feet. There's nothing substantial there because nothing will change. There's
no increase in density, everything is exactly the same, so I kind of feel funny making this
application because nothing is going to change. It's not going to, one of the family
members is going to own one of them, and the other family members is going to own the
other one, so that they can distribute the trust. That's her problem. She wants to get rid
of the trust and distribute it and in order to do that; this is what she's faced with. And its
been noted that the difficulty is not self-created because Susan is here as a successor
trustce. She is just tbllowing the dictates of the instrument, which has been in cffect for
many years. Like I say, there'll be no construction of any structure or new construction
and nothing is contrary. Nothing but the nonnal repairs that have been going on over the
years. So if the Board has any questions, Susan is here to answer them. I understand she
was boru and raised in this neighborhood, so she knows the property intimately.
CHAIRMAN: Ruth, any questions?
MEMBER OLIVA: No.
CHAIRMAN: Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: How do you propose to have access to Lot #17
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Lot #1 being Bay Breeze?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: The way it is today on the right-of-way. See that right-of-way
services that property by half a dozen properties to the north. It's an approved Town
right-of-way.
MEMBER TORTORA: it's a private right-of-way, right?
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Yes.
Page 4, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Heal(rig Dmasclipt
'[own of S~)uthold
MEMBER TORTORA: Is the lot area that is on the survey iucluding right-of-way?
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Yes. The Salt Air parcel, which he has in his calculations,
does include the right-of-way. You know Salt Air is a little postage stamp, but it does
include the right-of-way. That's the way they laid it out.
MEMBER TORTORA: The only reason I'm saying is that if you look on your definition
to the Code, you'll find that lot area excludes private right-of-way. So what we actually
need is the actual square footage minus the right-of-way.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: He could have made it two parcels excluded the right-of-way,
and that was kind of absurd because they do pay taxes on that right-of-way.
MEMBER TORTORA: Ihn sure they do.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: So that's why, it would be one tax lot. That was the reason for
it. Yes, I could have, well I can't have him he's gone his eternal reward, but I could have
it calculated. There's an irregular line to it, so I just can't do it offthe top of my head.
MEMBER TORTORA: It's just a matter of paperwork.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Okay I can do that. I just have to get to somebody with the
Photometer to do it because there are irregular lines as you can see.
MEMBER TORTORA: No questions.
CHAIRMAN: Vincent?
MEMBER ORLANDO: Lot #1 or Parcel #1 the reason for the parcel in the front is just
to have legal beachfront property?
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: That's what the trust said. Gave it to one heir together with 85
feet ofshoret?ont. That's exactly what the trust says.
MEMBER ORLANDO: And obviously the little triangle on the beach is non-build able?
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Right. There's nothing that can build there in the future.
Forget about it. They just can't. There's no room.
MEMBER HORN1NG: You mentioned (inaudible - voice too low)
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: I could give you a list of names. 1 don't know them offthe top
of my head. But I know them are a half a dozen people. Isn't one? And there
was a new house because a major construction over there was done. Construction has
been completed. I would say six.
Page 5, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Heating Tnmscript
MEMBER HORN1NG: How is access to Parcel One, do they bring vehicles in there?
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Yes. It's an established right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN: lt's the only way of getting to those houses.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: They're landlocked. In other words they're just shore front
this right-of-way, which bisects their property they don't go out
MEMBER HORNING: (inaudible)
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: It goes back quite a ways. A quarter ora mile anyway isn't it?
MEMBER TORTORA: Oh yes.
CHAIRMAN: Almost over to Skippers Lane.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ,: Right, just shy of it, I think the historical property is there.
MEMBER ORLANDO: So right now this is on one deed?
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: No two deeds. The one deed encompasses what is Parcel Two
with the old right-of-way, which you see there. And the other one is just that little
triangular piece. He's got the area calculated what's before and after there.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Lark. We'll see what happens throughout the hearing.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Okay
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application?
Anybody like to speak against the application? Any further questions ladies and
gentlemen? We would like to bid you a good night and make a motion closing the
hearing, reserving decision until later.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: So you want that square footage of the actual roadway?
MEMBER TORTORA: Actually what it is, less the right-of-way.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Okay, I have to get that.
MEMBER TORTORA: It's just a paperwork item.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: I understand. Okay, I'll get that to you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Page 6, AptsI I g. 2002
ZBA Public Ileming I mnscript
Town of Sotlthold
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
5:52 p.m. Appl. No. 5082 PAUL AHLERS. This is a request for a Variance under
Section 100-33C and 100-30A.4, based on the Building Department's January 8, 2002,
updated April 9, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, regarding applicant's plan to locate an
accessory storage building with a setback at less than five feet from the side property line
and less than 40 feet from the front property line, at 1905 Gull Pond Lane, Greenporti 35-
4-16.
CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight sir'?
PAUL AHLERS: Fine, warm.
CHAIRMAN: You are the gentleman with the proposed storage shed is that correct?
PAUL AHLERS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN: Is there any particular reason why you chose to put it where you did?
PAUL AHLERS: The way the house and everything is situated there, [ think it would be
the least offensive and the best location for us. There's no way to really do it conforming.
CHAIRMAN: Is it a one-story storage building'?
PAUL AHLERS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Primarily used in conjunction with the pool and any other accessory items
you need to put in, is that correct?
PAUL AHLERS: That's correct. Because we have a one-car garage and they're again, we
can't make it any larger.
CHAIRMAN: And what utility will that have, just electricity?
PAUL AHLERS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Do you have any questions of Mr. Ahlers?
MEMBER ORLANDO: No, I visited the site and spoke with him and he answered my
questions when I was on site.
CHAIRMAN: Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
Page 7, April I g, 2002
ZBA Public [Icming Tt'anscripl
]'own o[' Southold
CHAIRMAN: Ruth?
MEMBER OLIVA: 1 was there too, and he answered my questions too. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Okay we'll see what develops throughout the hcaring. Please do not leave
until we close this hearing.
PAUL AHLERS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application'?
Anybody that would like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a
motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
5:53 p.m. Appl. No. 5083 ANTHONY CARNESI. This is a request for a Variance
under Section 100-242A and 100-244B based on the Building Department's January 25,
2002 Amended Notice of Disapproval regarding applicant's building permit application
for the "as built" location of additinn(s)/alterations, at 3565 Cedar Beach Road, Southold;
93-1-6.2. The reasons stated in the Notice of Disapproval is that the "as built" dwelling is
less than 15 feet and 20 feet on the side yards, and has a total side yard of less than 35
feet, and the proposed addition/alteration increases the degrcc of non-conformance.
CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir.
DON BRACKIN: My name is Don Brackin.
CHAIRMAN: What would you like to sell us?
DON BRACKIN: I'm here .just to represent Mr. Camesi. His architect wasn't available
for this meeting, and I'm familiar with the property and if you have any questions I could
probably answer a lot of them.
CHAIRMAN: The nature of this application is what?
DON BRACKIN: The "as built" survey of this "as built" home. The setback requirements
Are not being met. This is also a nonconforming piece.
MEMBER TORTORA: Could you pick the microphone up because we won't pick you
up on tape?
DON BRACKIN: This house has a nonconforming setback, had a noncontbrming
setback previously in 1964. Now they have a deck that's within three feet of the side
yard. As far as I can understand from what this application says. I think if you go back
to 1964 its pretty much the same kind of idea, these houses existed. It was an oddball
Page 8, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public llearmg Transcript
thing, but this is what the Board gave as a relief. It hasn't really' encroached in any way in
terms of the size of the house. It's not taking away from the area. 1 think that's the only
thing (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN: I get 5' 8". 5.8 but I'm not going to quibble on
DON BRACKIN: The numbers were thrown around a couple of times.
CHAIRMAN: I just wanted a clear record that's all.
DON BRACK1N: The adjacent neighbors are uot fighting this as far as I know. The
original survey, if it has changed was actually taken away from the setback to the other
neighbor to the west or north. I get mixed up down that side.
CHAIRMAN: George any questions of this gentleman?
MEMBER HORNING: How did you get the "as built"?
DON BRACKIN: I wasn't involved in that, I don't know. I'm a friend and colleague so
he couldn't make it; he's in the city. I tried to bring this up to (inaudible due to loud fan
blowing) Its been documented. I know that you have an elevation certificate showing
you where it is. That's what I do know.
MEMBER ORLANDO: And the reason you've ventured your time because you want to
get in compliance because they're going to do what?
DON BRACKIN: They just want to have a C.G. As far as I know.
CHAIRMAN: Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: ! just note that on the Disapproval it says the lot coverage is
23%?
DON BRACKIN: The lot coverage is 23%. If you look at the survey it's a strange bird.
That's the way it was sub-divided in the 60's.
MEMBER TORTORA: So the deck pushed to 23%. So they're two
variances involved, that is what I'm getting at.
DON BRACK1N: To be honest, I looked at the application tonight and I didn't see that
that was. But if you say so, 1'11 go with that.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's what I was going to ask you. i'm just looking at the
Notice of Disapproval, and I'm wondering how they came up with the, it says total lot
coverage 23%. That would be two variances not one.
Page 9, April 18. 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Fmnscfipt
CHAIRMAN: I just remembered that there are two houses on the property.
DON BRACKIN: That second one is an accessory building on this lot. So I guess
CHAIRMAN: There's no habitability on that second building?
DON BRACKIN: There was at one point, it's no longer habitable. It was taken back to
what it was, a garage.
MEMBER TORTORA: See because, I'm looking, there are two Notices of Disapproval
issued on this, one is January 22'*d, one was amended the 25th. And the first Notice of
Disapproval put it at 18%, and the second Notice of Disapproval put the lot coverage at
23%. The reason I'm bringing it up is very simply this, suppose the Board was inclined
to issue you a Variance of some sort regarding the deck. Then you go back to the
Building Department and the Building Department says hey, your lot coverage is 23%.
You're only allowed 20%. You go back to the ZBA. That's why I'm trying to clear up
the issue now.
DON BRACKIN: To be honest with you, without knowing the Building Department
might have changed that second one as far as I know. 1 was told it was only denied once.
CHAIRMAN: Would you do us a favor and just check'? We're not going to make a
decision on this for two weeks anyway.
DON BRACK1N: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: Please check with the Building Department and/or the calculations.
MEMBER TORTORA: How they came up with the 23%.
CHAIRMAN: How they came up with the 23%. See if the 23% is correct. That's all
we're concerned about. What we're trying to do is streamline your application or your
friend's application. We don't want you to leave here and then have to come back and see
us over the summer.
MEMBER TORTORA: And as far as I can see, the only difference between the two
Notices of Disapproval is the lot coverage. That's why, as the Chairman said, we don't
want you to have to go around in circles.
DON BRACKIN: I do find it hard without asking the Building Department to see how
they came (inaudible due to fan)
MEMBER TORTORA: Just ask them. Just say the Zoning Board wants to know how
you, on the Notice of Disapproval you say 23% lot coverage. Please give those
calculations the Zoning Board has requested it so we can conform my application.
ZBA Public Heming Transcript
[k)wn of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Let me just am a little more descriptive and that is that there's always a
possibility that they could'ye made a mistake. So you could go back to thc surveyor and
say to them is the lot coverage 23%? And that would tell us the whole story.
DON BRACKEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: We would appreciate that. We need that within the next, definitely befbre
May 1 st.
DON BRACKIN: Also what you're saying is if it is 23%, we have to give up our second
variance?
MEMBER TORTORA: That is the second variance.
DON BRACKIN: And there would be a second application for a variance?
MEMBER TORTORA: I think we can handle it.
CHAIRMAN: I think we can handle it with this application.
MEMBER TORTORA: We need to get it clarified right now.
DON BRACKIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: Just don't leave tonight until we close this hearing. Okay.
DON BRACKEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: Ruth?
MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, I'm rather confused. Why wasn't the building permit denied,
theyjust put it on without a building permit, the deck?
DON BRACKEN: As far as I know, the building permit was turned down for whatever.
CHAIRMAN: Why wasn't it denied for the 3% over is that what you're saying?
MEMBER OLIVA: Right, yes. It's so close to the property line you're not within your
bounds there. But why wasn't there a Notice of Disapproval when it was built?
DON BRACK1N: At one point, there was a certificate of existing use and it was
confusing even to the Building Department that this had been subdivided.
MEMBER OLIVA: I know it's very odd down there, I was down there.
ZBA Public Hem-rog Ttansciipt
Town of Southold
DON BRACKIN: Well, no one knew this was subdivided until it was purchased. The
first owner applied in 1964. Sorry, but never filed this application. (Inaudible) it was
subdivided this way. So there's confusion paperwork wise because it was found in the
back of your offices originally. So its been funny in terms of each place Ibllowing this.
There's no paper trail because it was the early 60%, there wasn't good record keeping. I
don't know.
MEMBER OLIVA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Again, we're going to go through the hearing, I just don't want you to
leave if somebody has some question regarding.
DON BRAKIN: Sure, and I'm going to check with the Building Department to see how
that happened.
CHAIRMAN: And sometimes it's better to go back to the surveyor. They're going to
calculate it with a machine as opposed to by hand.
(more talking between Chairman and Mr. Brakin but inaudible due to tan).
MEMBER ORLANDO: to build the deck?
DON BRAKIN: The deck is within the last year, the last year or two.
MEMBER ORLANDO: So it was put on after it was purchased in 2000?
DON BRAKIN: Right.
MEMBER TORTORA: They built it illegally right? That's why you're here.
DON BRAK1N: That's right.
MEMBER OLIVA: Thank you.
MEMBER TORTORA: We all understand.
DON BRAK1N: We're trying to catch up. Actually I'm just here to help him.
CHAIRMAN: So the resolution in closing this hearing would be you to verify those
figures with us, whichever way you chose to do it. We need something in writing.
(Member Tortora and Chairman talking at the same time, words unclear)
DON BRAKIN: To certify that its less than 20%, you have no problem or even if its 23.
No problem, thank you very much.
Page 12, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public [leafing Tt'anscript
CHAIRMAN: ls there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this
application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision
until later. Mr. Brakin that's it you're welcome to leave sir.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
6:04 p.m. Appl. No. 5084 - 640 CHURCH ST., LLC. This is a request t'or a Variance
under Sections 100-143.A and 100-142, bascd on the Building Department's January 10,
2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing to construct a new building located
in the Light Industrial Zone District, with a building frontage (width) greater than 60 ft.
long, and at less than 70 feet from the rear property line, al 640 Church Lane, Cutchogue;
96-1-11.1.
TOM MCCARTHY: Good evening, Tom McCarthy, McCarthy Management, Southold.
I am a principle on the 640 Church St. LLC, one of the principles that owns this property,
this application. The gentleman we are presently contracted to sell this property to is Mr.
Gene Chituk, Chituk Pools in Cutchogue who runs a pool construction business. He is a
local gentleman. He is looking for a place to operate his business out of. He is presently
renting space in Cutchogue and he is looking to become an owner and put up his own
building and operate out of his own site. Just a little background on how we came to this
point. 1 happen to own this piece of property and have been before this Board numerous
times and are i~airly familiar with the zoning code of Chapter 110 of Southold. When
Gene came to me what sort of a building can we fit on this property in order to house my
business? And what I did is, I went to the zoning codebook that we have and looked at
what our front, side and rear yard setbacks should be and the length of the building. And !
counseled Gene, and with a little bit of egg on my face at the moment, because the
Building Department has sent me to the Zoning Board saying that my application is not
allowable because of zoning. The zoning code, the reason why I'm here, is for a non-
conforming front and rear setbacks, as well as, the distance from the street. I would like
to deal with the first two issues, which is the front and the rear yard setback. The zoning
code falls into the bulk schedule at the end of the code and it deals with conforming lots,
in this case, light industrial district 40,000 square feet minimum lot area. For those lots
that don't conform to bulk schedule, it tells us that we need to go over to 100-244 non-
conforming lots. And the purpose of that section of the code is to provide minimum
standards for granting the building permit for the principal buildings of lots which are
recognized by the Town under Chapter 100-24 are non-conforming and have not merged.
This lot has not merged and is non-conforming because it has Iess than 40,000 square feet
of lot area in a 40,000 square foot zone. So looking at the code it tells us, within 20,000
and 49,999 feet our front yard setback is 40 feet and our rear yard setback is 50 feet. I
thought that was pretty unambiguous. It doesn't say, as the Building Department has
determined, that these non-conforming lots are only residential non-confbnning lots. The
building code does not say that this is only used fbr residential properties. In a light
industrial district, a non-conforming lot and my application I thought, complies with the
front and the rear yard setback, as dictated to us in the code. The Building Inspector
doesn't feel that way, and that's one of the reasons why we're here and ! differ with him in
that interpretation. And the very reason why the site plan, as submitted, has the front and
Page 13, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public llcming hansctipt
Town t~f S~uthold
the rear yard setbacks as they're shown, is so that we didn't need to come to this Board.
That we didn't need that of a Variance. We are not looking [hr something that was not
allowed in zoning We weren't looking to ask for anything special, we're looking to
comply with the code and we're not here to say we're looking for somc sort of special
treatment. We're just looking to say this is what the code allows os to do, and that's what
wc'd like to do with this piece of property. A little bit of history, if I may on the property.
The property itself was purchased by the Trustees of the First Baptist Church in
Cutchogue from the McBrides and I have a deed going back to the 15th day of December
1925. I would like to just offer that the Board if I may and it shows the parcel in the
works. I say the parcel in works, the Church over the course of time had sold numerous
parts out of their entire parcel that they held and this is in the District 96-1 and we happen
to own 11.1. But the sun'ounding properties in that area arc all part of that parcel that
they bought from McBride which was done prior to meeting the approval of the Planning
Board of the Town and it was done by deed. There have been several mistakes in some
of the deed descriptions, but they tended to work themselves out over time. I also submit
to you, this is actually a map that the town sent to me regarding the takings at the dump,
the landfill. And it actually shows these properties and it shows some of the properties
that needed temporary easements from the town and it describes how we get to our piece
as a private right-of-way.
MEMBER OLIVA: Who owns the right-of-way? Doesn't the Church?
TOM MCCARTHY: The Church owns the right-of-way. Its actually, its an unusual
piece of property because of the way it had been subdivided over time. The property that
the Church owns that they're left with as a remainder parcel is actually in a Z shape and
they transferred out of other parcels over the course of time. And it's not very
distinguishable just looking at the Tax Map initially. If you look at it highlighted, you
can see where the Church still remains. So we have, in our deed, a right to travel across
that 28 l:bot right-of-way that the Church when they sold the parcel initially, they granted
the right to travel across the right-of-way to the initial holder of the property and that has
been subsequently transferred down through the channel title across the years to myself.
I'd like to make a clarification this evening, and that has to do with the address of the
property. I've made a mistake with the address of the property and it's only through a
little bit of research that I found that out. I looked at the Town Property Tax Card and
that's how 1 based my decision on how we were describing this piece of property and its
listed as 640 Church Lane. Then it goes on to say that the parcel that's abutting my
parcel to the east is a private road, I just like to offer that to you. They don't say that the
parcel that's abutting my property is Church Lane. Somewhat leading into the issue ora
street and where the street happens to be. I believe that the address at one point was 640
Church Lane and actually mistakeningly created the LLC and we called it Church Street.
But I feel that it's neither. In .just going down and taking a look at any of the town
records and I can't really find Church Street listed as a town road. The only thing that I
can find that has some semblance to Church Street, where it is and what it is, I'm sorry
Church Lane, where it is and what it is, is the picture I took this evening right in front of
the Church and Church Lane is actually a piece of property that runs to the east side of
the Church, not this particular right-of-way. It has a sign there. That's a view looking up
Page 14, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town ol' Southold
Church Lane. And Church Lane came into being, it had been an access road for the
Town of Southold running to the east of the church right into parcel which is now part of
the landfill because the Town did not own the entire frontage that it owns on Route 48
right now. They only had an access point there when it went back and opencd up to the
landfill. Subsequently, they acquired other properties along Route 48 and created the
entire frontage that they have. It is my opinion that Church Lane is the Ibrmer access
road that went back to the property in the rear, which was the landfill, and it's not the
fight-of-way that we're speaking about. I have a survey from takings of what was County
Road 27 and it was done Suffolk County Department of Public Works, which actually
shows the Town of Southold flag lot, as well as the adjacent properties on 48. This
actually shows a little better detailing right at the entrance to where Church Lane comes
next to the Church.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. McCarthy, we need to speed this up a little.
TOM MCCARTHY: The reason why I'm getting to the issue of Church Lane and the
issue being where it is, is that I don't feel that it's a street and this is the third reason why
I'm here, I've been denied a Building Permit because under the opinion of the principle-
building inspector I had more than 60 feet of frontage on a street. I don't believe I'm on a
street. I believe I'm on a private right-of-way. That private right-of-way is not a street.
And even Church Lane is not listed in Southold Town Roads. Which happens to go to
what is a definition of a street. It needs to be listed on the Town listing. In order for the
provision to apply according to the Code, it needs to be a street, which is an existing
Town, County, State or Highway, which we don't have, street shown on an approved sub-
division, we don't have. A Street shown on a map filed with the County Clerk, we don't
have. And a street shown on the Town Official Map, which we don't have.
MEMBER TORTORA: Sounds like you read an interpretation that this Board did a
couple of years ago.
TOM MCCARTHY: To be honest with you, this is my opinion. I understand we are
going to hear from some of the other tblks that are here tonight and have to address
whatever questions, but, in my opinion, I don't feel I should be here.
MEMBER TORTORA: On the issue of, its going to take us time to review all of the
documents, and I will, I will go through them very thoroughly to review them to see if it
is an official road. If it is not an official road, and it is not a street, then the Board has in
the past, usually concurred with on this. If it's not on an official map, it's a private right-
of-way, you have a deed to the right-of-way, and then we'll go to that issue. What you're
asking for is essence, is a reversal of the Building Department's determination that the
bulk schedule should apply to a non-conIbrming lot.
TOM MCCARTHY: I don't believe that I need a variance according to the code, but
that's up to you to decide. I believe that 1 conform to the code in all three aspects of why
I'm here.
Page 15, April 18. 2002
ZBA Public [[earmg TIanscript
Town Ol' Soulhold
MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, now I'm going to cast back to Jerry in the event that the
Board does uot agree with you and is not willing to reverse the Building Department's
determination, which you addressed the area variance so you don't have to come back.
TOM MCCARTHY: I'd be happy to do that
MEMBER TORTORA: For the rear yard setback and also, the width of the building
because that is definitely not a reversal that it is the way it is. The third thing is to
address, taking that 100 feet and knocking something off of it.
TOM MCCARTHY: And what would the basis be, knocking off of it, if it were not a
street?
MEMBER TORTORA: Because whether it's a street or not, the width of the building
would still exceed the code. You're talking about the setback correct?
TOM MCCARTHY: Three issues, front and rear yard setback, which might conform to
the non-conforming bulk schedule. The definition of a street and the portion of the code
that says that you cannot have any more than 100 feet of building facing the street. We
have 50 feet facing 48.
MEMBER TORTORA: The Board has not dealt with this particular type of thing before,
but the bottom line is that we're always required to grant the minimum variance
necessary. The burden of proof is on you to prove why this building cannot less than 100
fcet long.
TOM MCCARTHY: Ifl were seeking a variance?
MEMBER TORTORA: Correct.
TOM MCCARTHY: In my opinion, my impression is I would be happy to speak with
you regarding that, if you find that the law is not in my favor, that says that all things that
are presented to you to night defines that as a street and I need to comply with the 100
tbot.
CHAIRMAN: I think what we can do is we can ask you to do at this point is, reduce it to
writing.
TOM MCCARTHY: You'd have me do that? Speaking with Mr. Chituk also this
evening and the very reason why we have this particular site plan is so that we did not
need a variance. There are other locations that maybe we can take and turn this building
so perhaps it would be better for the neighbors across the street. But the reason why we
didn't do that is we felt that we were complying with the code, as it exists. We could
rotate the building 90 degrees and put it up towards the northerly property line and run it
parallel. Perhaps that would be better for the neighbors.
Page 16, Ap:51 18, 20((2
ZBA Public Ilcadng Transcdpl
Town o[' Southold
CHAIRMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Have you approached the neighbors of this property'?
TOM MCCARTHY: Across the right-of-way, I'll give you a copy of my tax card, which
pulls it out incorrectly as well.
MEMBER HORNING: I'd like to clarify that.
TOM MCARTHY: Thank you. l've been so used to saying that I'm incorrect as well.
The photo proves that Church Lane is on the east side of the Church. I have just have a
letter from the neighbor to the rear Mr. Krudop, who recently purchased some property
and had an application in fi'ont of this Board stating that he has no objection.
CHAIRMAN: Mr~ McCarthy I'm getting the impression that we may want to hold this
over to the special meeting on May 2'~°, 2002, so we would like you to reduce those
standards that you feel may be in germane to writing and let us have a chance to look at
them, preferably by May Ist or so. Or maybe even the 30th of April.
TOM MCCARTHY: 1 would be happy to do it.
CHAIRMAN: We'll hear testimony from the nice people that came tonight that are not
only the Church people but, of course, some contiguous neighbors, or adjacent.
TOM MCCARTHY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to
speak against? In the back please?
DEACON FORTH: My name is Deacon Forth, from the First Baptist Church of
Cutchogue. I am also a Trustee. Our main concern that the Church is the right-of-way.
We were informed that Mr. McCarthy was going to make toMr. Chituk and
the pool company. Our main concern about the right-of-way is the size of the trucks that
are going to be driving up and down the road. Because this is the Church's right-of-way,
we are responsible for the upkeep of that right-of-way. So these trucks traveling up and
down the right-of-way will, of course, create damage problem, it's a right-of-way, you
were the one that said it was a right-of-way, its not a street, it's a right-of-way, which we
own. The other issue was if he is selling it to a pool company because it's still residential,
even though its light industrial, there are still people living in the area with a lot of young
kids. We're concerned about the chemicals also that this pool company is going to be
having. Of course, we said we have a lot of kids in the area. We don't want to make it to
the point where these kids have a hard time going out and playing in their yard because of
breathing the fumes of these chemicals. That's our main concern and the upkeep of this
right-of-way if the trucks are traveling up and down also.
MEMBER TORTORA: Have you talked to the owner about that?
Page I 7, Apr// 18, 20{)2
ZBA Public Hearing Fmnscript
DEACON FORTH: No we haven't.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, well we're going to have him address those issues; they may not be
tonight. I'm not trying to put you off, but we have a hugc agenda tonight. So we are
going to run this over to the May 2'~d meeting, special meeting, we'll set a time before we
close this and we'll have Mr. McCarthy address those issues along with Mr. Chituk.
MEMBER TORTORA: And you can come back then too. The main concern is the
maintenance of the right-of-way, and any effects of the noise, dust, odor, pollution it
might have on the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN: Who is speaking there? I just need you to use the microphone please?
Mrs. Brown, 1 apologize can you, do you have trouble walking over there?
HELEN BROWN: I'm quite concerned because when I moved there it was very nice for
children, young children. And I do have my six grandchildren there with me. The
youngest at seven years old. And the if heavy duty trucks are going to be coming in
there, that's not too good for those kids to be out there playing. Children don't realize
danger and the trucks are going to come in and they may not even see it. That's why I'm
very concerned about it. They have to go out of that driveway, to the Main Road to catch
the bus to school. And they are there all the time. So I mn quite concerned, as well as
being a member of thc First Baptist Church Cutchogue. I think that's why we are all here.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. The gentleman in the green shirt in the back, do you want to
speak?
ANGELO STEPNOSKI: Yes, in favor.
CHAIRMAN: You want to speak in favor.
ANGELO STEPNOSKI: I own an adjacent piece of property from Mr. Chituk's.
CHAIRMAN: What's your name sir?
ANGELO STEPNOSKI: Angelo Stepnoski.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. McCarthy, one quick question from Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: I don't see any landscaping on here. Have you been to the
Planning Board yet?
TOM MCCARTHY: No actually, we have to go through a site plan review process.
MEMBER TORTORA: We do not have a letter from the Planning Board noting that in
the file.
Page t8, Apdl 18, 2002
ZBA Public lleafing ['mnsc~ipl
TOM MCCARTHY: We went to the Planning Board of December of last year regarding
some of these issues. They asked us to go to the Budding Department and we met with
Bob Kassner and we also met with thc Board at a work session here and they asked us to
work out these issues and come back to them tbr site plan.
MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, we still need to get a letter of recommendation from the
Planning Board and we do not have that in the file right now.
TOM MCCARTHY: I don't know, perhaps that dropped through the cracks when Mr.
Kassner left.
MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know, but it's very difficult for us to look at a complete
picture here and review everything if they haven't at least looked at it. Because there are
concerns from the neighbors about noise and dust and traffic and as Par as the right-of'-
way is concerned, what is your response to the neighbors concerns?
TOM MCCARTHY: I spoke with Mr. Chituk and he has no problem with maintaining
that right-of-way. I don't think he feels he wants to put a burden on the members of the
Church for something that may happen based on his traffic on the road. He has
equipment that he would use to maintain that road to make sure it is safe to travel.
MEMBER OLIVA: Have you discussed it with the church?
TOM MCCARTHY: No, 1 haven't.
MEMBER TORTORA: Well, maybe between now and May 2nd you can meet with the
church and come up with some kind of written agreement that would be amicable to the
church as well as Mr. Chituk.
CHAIRMAN: Also, the ability of the trucks from Mr. Chituk's site, proposed site, when
they would be going out, when they would be coming back and so on and so forth. Just
so the church is aware and the neighbors are aware when the road would be heavily used.
MEMBER OLIVA: And I think they're very concerned about the storage of these
chemicals. If they have any leakage, or what have you or if kids start playing around.
It's a very dangerous situation.
CHAIRMAN: We're going to ask them to address that.
TOM MCCARTHY: It will be addressed together with the Building Department and the
Fire Marshall, who has now made his presence more known and all the buildings in
Southold Town and the Fire Marshall has been in my office and severaI other buildings
around making sure that everything complies and I think he's doing a fine job.
Page Iq, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town o1: Sotlthold
CHAIRMAN: Let me just say this to you Mr. McCarthy. It's assumed that whcn you run
a pool company, the major portion of the pool chemicals are usually purchased at this
time of the year, and then toward the fall there are lesser chemicals in the building l
would assume. Is that correct?
TOM MCCARTHY: To be honest with you
CHAIRMAN: 1 need you to kind of address that.
TOM MCCARTHY: I would be happy to have Gene come up and speak if you will
because 1 can't speak to exactly how he's running that.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chituk how are you tonight sir?
GENE CHITUK: Good, as far as the chemicals go, I never really have more than a
week's supply of chemicals at one time. I get a weekly supply of chemicals that last for
the week. 1 have a separate storage container for them, with the placards that it needs to
have on there. So it's legal for everybody.
CHAIRMAN: Is that container, will it be inside the building, or will it be outside the
building?
GENE CHITUK: Well, [ have the option of putting inside or outside the building.
CHAIRMAN: In your opinion, is it safer inside the building or safer outside the
building? I don't want you, if you can't answer the question now, I don't want you to.
GENE CHITUK: I can put it inside the building and that will be covered up twice. It's
not a problem. I comply with all the regulations that as far as the chemical companies are
concerned.
MEMBER OLIVA: Could I ask you, why do you need such a large building?
GENE CHITUK: I have a, just as far as the supplies and the pool kits, this time of year I
like to put inside so.
MEMBER OLIVA: These are for what, above ground pools?
GENE CHITUK: In-ground pools.
MEMBER OLIVA: Oh, in-ground pools.
GENE CHITUK: I have a truck and a trailer that I would like to just hide away. Several
pieces of equipment I would like to hide away. Everybody you talk to, they never have
enough space when you put up a building. So I figured I'd start with a big one.
Page 20, Ap~l 18, 2002
ZBA Public tlcmmg T~anscHpt
Town oi' Soutbold
CHAIRMAN: When you refer to the pool kits, you're referring to the walls to the pool,
the liner.
GENE CHITUK: The pool, the lioer, the skimmers, you know just various pieces of the
pool.
MEMBER ORLANDO: What's the containers that the chemicals come in? Are they 55-
gallon drums, 5 gallons?
GENE CHITUK: They're in a, as far as the liquid chlorine, its in a box. But its 16 inches
by 16 inches square; four gallons of this liquid chlorine is in this box and each box is
marked.
MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's manageable?
GENE CHITUK: Exactly.
MEMBER ORLANDO: So you don't do 55-gallon drums?
GENE CHITUK: No 55-gallon drums, not even 5-gallon drums. It just makes it easier
fbr us too.
CHAIRMAN: Any other questions of Mr. Chituk? Okay, thank you sir. We appreciate
it. Reverend you had a question back there'?
REVEREND: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: I think we saw you last time when we were granting you the new church.
REVEREND: My name is Reverend Cornelius. Our concern is that the people in the
Town of Southold, especially the First Baptist Church of Cutchogue. Now why I'm
concerned 1 know, the concern of what you have in there and who is in danger and what
surrounds the building. I've been in this church for thirteen years and we been working
here with the landfill (inaudible). We have talked to the highway department about
coming into the landfill and since I've been there, several accidents have happened.
Right there at the church, right at the door of the church. My concern now about the
landfill on one side and, but now you got a building coming up on the other side. So my
real concern are about the people around the church and the people that stand there, are
the children like sister Helen Brown was saying. And the chemicals. Now you are
going to have more traffic and you're also going to have chemical on one side. But we
worship there, we have congregation there, we have people coming from all over there.
We have Sunday school there, children, so my concern about that little area right there,
that little area is not a big area. So a whole lot of big trucks, or a whole lot of big
construction, because right now you are trying to get the landfill. It's just like all of a
sudden we just can't squeeze any people, the people that worship there, people that live
there. We are concerned. I'm concerned about the chemicals, the building (inaudible).
Page 2 I, Ap~i] 18. 2002
ZBA Public I lcating T~anscllpt
lown of Southold
And yet the highway department had not really made it safe on that road. We still have
accidents, bad accidents on that road. Nobody has really done anything about it.
CHAIRMAN: It's mainly because it's a County Road. It's not a Town Road.
REVEREND: I understand that. But what I understand is, the child first priority, along
with us as members of the church, is the safety and the whereabouts of the people of the
community. I don't care if they are black, blue or white. All of our people are the
welfare and safety of the people in this community. That's what I'm all about. That's
why I'm concerned about the members of the First Baptist Church. We have so many
other people that wc fellowship together, from all over, arc coming to worship, so you
endanger them, as well as us, if you don't do things properly. So that's my conccru.
CHAIRMAN: Reverend 1 have to ask you a question. Normally, we would swear
someone in, but you are a man of god so we are going to put you in the same position as
an attorney. It is my understanding, and you don't have to answer this question now,
certainly its in thc future hearing of this, it is my understanding that when you do move
further down County Road 48, that the elders of this church, as they exist today, do not
want to sell this church, is that correct?
REVEREND: I'm quite sure that the elders still want to keep the church.
CHAIRMAN: t have spoken to a couple of your parishioners and they told ~ne at this
time that, even when you do move down there this church may still be an annex to your
other church.
REVEREND: It's a possibility, that's right it might be.
CHAIRMAN: Is that correct?
REVEREND: The congregation and any Baptist have the right to vote, and once they
vote, the majority always rules. And the majority of the rule of the church is to keep it
there, they keep it active tbr restoration or whatever, then they will keep it. Its up to the
congregation of the church. When we go, wherever we go, it's always up to the
congregation. And that's how we live, the majority always rules, because it's a people
church, not one person, it's a people church. Whatever the people want that's what we
decide to do. So there is a possibility.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. All right we'll see you back on May 2nd. We want
to thank everybody for their courtesy and we'll see everybody back at 7:15 on May 2nd.
1'11 offer that as a resolution.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
6:36 p.m. Appl. No. 5085 -GARY AND CYNTHIA KISTNER.
Page 22, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Homing [~ansctipt
Town ol Somhold
CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is Appeal No. 5085, on behalf of Kistner.
GARY KISTNER: I think there's a misspelling there, it's Kistner, Gary and Cynthia.
CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us Mr. Kistner?
GARY KISTNER: What I would like to tell you that originally I did not think that this
shed could be put where I wanted it and I came January of last year and I applied for a,
went to the Building Department and we moved right through a Letter of Disapproval so
I could be betbre this Board last year. In April they called me up and they took my check
for the Letter of Disapproval and then called me up later in the day and said they think
they could xvork this out where I could get a permit, l brought my map down, worked it
out and they thought it could be done. I had a gentleman build, a gentleman come down
and build it for me and he said it couldn't go like that; we're going to have to move it.
And I told him if you have to move it, you're going to have to go down and see the
Building Department to make sure I'm going to do okay because I don't want this
building if I can't have a C.O. for it. He came back and told me everything was fine and
put up the building. And when Mr. Fish came down to do the inspection, he told me
everything was fine with the building but where it is, is not good. And that's why we're
here.
CHAIRMAN: It's certainly a nice little building.
GARY KISTNER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Certainly different than what we normally see, in storage buildings and
that's refreshing. What does it contain in reference to utility, electricity?
GARY KITSNER: Nothing, there's nothing there. There are no plans for anything
there. In the thture, I might run an electric line to put an electric in, but that's
about it.
CHAIRMAN: George do you have any questions of Mr. Kistner?
MEMBER HORN1NG: How would it be to move it?
GARY KITSNER: My lot is a very sizeable lot, but it's the top of a hill and it falls away
in all directions. There was no place else to go with this, there really wasn't, and that's
why I felt last year I went right for a Letter of Disapproval right away. Because I didn't
think it could be done.
CHAIRMAN: I apologize for not mentioning this, its very
topographically.
MEMBER ORLANDO: So you're very made at your contractor aren't you?
GARY KISTNER: Very. We parted on not the best of terms.
Page 23, April I g, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town ol Southold
MEMBER ORLANDO: I also stopped by and I think I spoke to your wif~ and she gave
me a quick tour. This a new piece of property where its quite hard to maneuver and there
weren't many options there.
GARY KITSNER: Not keeping it within sight anyway. We should've gone down, way
down in the comer but it would've been well over 100 feet left.
MEMBER ORLANDO: I concur with Jerry that it was nicely built. It matched the
house, even though they put it in the wrong spot.
CHAIRMAN: Lydia, question of this gentleman?
MEMBER TORTORA: No sir, it's a very clean application.
MEMBER OLIVA: No, I was done there and we spoke together and you told me about
your situation, which is unique. Thank you very much.
GARY KITSNER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN: Just don't leave until the hearing is closed. Is there anybody else that
would like to speak in favor or against this application'? 1'11 make a motion closing the
hearing. We'll try to get to this tonight or very shortly Mr. Kitsner.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
6:40 p.m. Appl. No. 5086 - JOHN AND KATHLEEN AHEARN.
CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is Appeal No. 5086, Ahearn. Good evening sir how are
you?
JOHN AHEARN: Good evening. My name is John Ahearn and I'm here on behalf of
my wife Kathleen and myself. We are requesting a Building Permit to withstand the
current outside deck of the property at 480 Dawn Drive in Greenport. As requested I've
mailed the application notice to the five property owners. I've received only two of the
green cards back.
CHAIRMAN: Do we have those?
JOHN AHEARN: I have them here.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll take them. Just let me stop you one second. Mr. and Mrs.
Kitsner, you're welcome to leave. Call us tomorrow, we'll try and get to this tonight, if
not it will be May 2nd all right. Pardon me Mr. Ahearn.
JOHN AHEARN: Those are the five people and those are the returns.
Page 24, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town o1' Southold
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
JOHN AHEARN: One of them happens to be in Minnesota.
CHAIRMAN: I'm ready sir.
JOHN AHEARN: We're requesting two variances actually in the work that we're trying
to do to expand this deck. One is the variance for the requirement of 20% lot coverage
limitation on the Code. The current coverage of the property right now is 20.7%. So
whatever we do in this addition or whatever happens here is an expansion to beyond the
limitations of the Code. Secondly, the variance from the requirement of the side yard
setback a total of 25 feet per line, 10 feet on each side. Currently one of the sides has 9.6
fcet that is not changing. The addition would be to the other side of the house and what
would remain would be over ten feet, or would be ten feet on that side. Now the other
piece of information I guess is that the house is skewed slightly on the property and the
measurement was taken both front and both back. In both measurements we would
exceed 25 feet with the addition. So, I realize that that's not the way its done, but I think
we're in the ballpark as far as the 25-foot is concerned.
CHAIRMAN: When I met with your wife on Holy Saturday, and 1 walked through the
house and went out onto the deck that exists, she clearly told me why you wanted that
deck on the one side to continue ahnost to the front of the house. What was the reason
for that'?
JOHN AHEARN: We have four grandchildren that spend a fair amount of time at our
house, and we have a swimming pool. What we're attempting to do is to allow them to
get to the rest room in the right hand corner of the house without dripping through the
remaining part of the house.
CHAIRMAN: So right now you're 20.7 or thereabouts. 20.7% lot coverage?
JOHN Al-fEARN: Yes, 20.7 correct. And we would go up % with this addition.
MEMBER TORTORA: But the Notice of Disapproval says 26%. I think we need to get
some paperwork clear here. Notice of Disapproval says 9; survey says 9 more feet, 6 on
the south side and the markings of the deck that's not a surveyor's mark, that's your mark?
JOHN AHEARN: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: Of the deck?
JOHN AHEARN: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: And the deck on the north side is 7 feet wide, 7.5 feet wide?
Page 25, Ap~sI 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
JOHN AHEARN: Right. That would be the addition right.
MEMBER TORTORA: So you just rough scaled that that there would be l0 feet left'?
JOHN AHEARN: Yes. We can have the surveyor draw that in because I just had the
property re-surveyed.
MEMBER TORTORA: In the seven years that I've been on this Board, this Board has
never granted 26% lot coverage.
CHAIRMAN: Well, we can shrink the size of the deck.
MEMBER TORTORA: We just have not done it, period. We're very sensitive to lot
coverage and as the Chairman says, we'd want you to shrink the side of the deck.
CHAIRMAN: That piece that goes to the doorway, to what you refer to, shrink that
down to the minimum that you may need to get to get there okay. And give us the exact
lot coverage on the survey that the surveyor does. If you can't get that to us by May 2nd,
because everybody is pretty busy right now, then we'll just hold off a decision until such
time that we get it. Okay. Do thc best you can.
JOHN AHEARN: And I'll get the other three cards.
MEMBER TORTORA: Just to give you some numbers, 23% would be about the
maximum the Board would consider. 23%. l'm being very candid with you.
CHAIRMAN: 23.20%.
JOHN AHEARN: There's no building beyond us fbr probably 300 feet and there's no
building to the right of us tbr at least 100 feet.
CHAIRMAN: Well it's important you maintain those side yards for emergency access,
whatever that reason may be.
MEMBER TORTORA: If you kept the other advantages, if you cut that deck back on
the north side then you're going to pick up a lot more on your side yards. So it would be a
dual advantage to you.
JOHN AHEARN: Right. Well the 7-½ feet would he something less than 7 ½ feet and
we could probably take some on the south side of the deck.
MEMBER TORTORA: It's a 50-foot by, what 50 x 50 foot deck. You've got a lot of
playroom.
rage 26, April I 8, 2002
ZBA Public Heming Tr,mscript
Town of Southold
JOHN Al-lEARN: Okay. What we're trying to do was, there's a pool behind the dcck and
now has sort ora grass entry way into the area of the pool. All we're trying to do is to not
let the kids run in through the grass and get all the kinds of problems that you have.
CHAIRMAN: Whatever you can do then to assist us, we would appreciate it.
MEMBER TORTORA: Let us know what you come up with and let us know what that
final number will look like as t;ar as the setback on the north side. Okay.
CHAIRMAN: So what we'll do is we'll close this hearing pending the receipt of that
from you. Again, we are going to get together and start deliberating on some things on
May 2nd. If we don't have it by May 2nd, we'll just go on to May 16th which is thc next
regularly scheduled meeting. But don't leave here until we close this hearing. Thank you
sir. Anybody else have any questions? No. Is there anybody else that would like to
speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the
hearing reserving decision until later, pending the receipt of that information.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
6:49 p.m. Appl. No. 5087 - JOAN WOOD.
CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is Joan Wood, which is Appeal No. 5087. Mr. Ahlers
how are you sir?
RICHARD AHLERS: Good evening, nice to see you all on this nice cool evening. 1 have
some cards here if I may? Richard Ahlers, 456 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York
for Joan Wood on an appeal to add a pre-existing garage which is a pre-existing structure
on a sub-standard on tax map 126-5-5 in the 1000 tax map. She is seeking a variance
over the 20% maximum to 23.5%. I was very interested to hear the earlier aliquot and I
thought that if23.8% was the case, we close to the base.
CHAIRMAN: But I was overruled.
RICHARD AHLERS: I didn't hear that sir. l'm afraid I have amnesia, or poor hearing.
These lots down Peconic Bay Boulevard, I'm sure you're familiar with. I don't think I
have to go over the history of the front house built in the 50% and the house she occupies
built in the late 40's. These structures were placed as families grew and the father built
both structures. They were then divided and that resulted in this 9,000-foot lot, which
makes the application of the 20% rule. Difficult for what people have come to expect in
the way of accessory garage structures. So she's seeking to add on to her garage. Did
you have a question?
MEMBER OLIVA: You mean the Woods own the house up by the water too?
RICHARD AHLERS: They don't currently.
Page 27~ April 114, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Tnmsciipt
Tiiwn of Southold
MEMBER OLIVA: They did at one ti~ne?
RICHARD AHLERS: 1 don't know.
MEMBER OLIVA: Otherwise it's just that small lot with the house and the garagc?
RICHARD AHLERS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN: And the shared driveway.
RICHARD AHLERS: The applicant is present to answer any questions.
MEMBER TORTORA: Did you do the calculations on the lot coverage, or did the
Building Department do it?
RICHARD AHLERS: We did it both ways. The Building Depamnent arrived at a
number and then the architect, Mr. Suehls, also did the calculations.
MEMBER TORTORA: And you only have 5% to go.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ahlers, what is the purpose of the garage'?
RICHARD AHLERS: It's a garage accessory to a house, stores cars, boats, the things
that, beach stuff; what people have in a garage. It's a residential garage.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Jerry still made a question. This is a quite large garage. 1 asked
if they were car collectors or. On the other side of the house maybe, I mean this is a very
big garage. Of course, it's not big enough for a boat, unless the boat was quite.
RICHARD AHLERS: A star boat, perhaps. If you're familiar with a star boat 1 think it
just might fit in there.
MEMBER ORLANDO: You measure the boat first befbre you build a big garage.
RICHARD AHLERS: Well I think the practicality of the garage and the size, runs into
the size of the boat.
MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's actually a re-build of the old continuation.
RICHARD AHLERS: Right, I think the plan is subject, of course, to the construction
techniques is not to demolish, its just to add on and integrate to the new roof so that its all
one material type and the siding will be the same and then it would be painted one color.
She told me to ask for brown because that's her favorite color; if you told me it had to be
painted a particular color.
Page 28, April l 8, 2002
ZBA Public Hca~ing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: No it's the Planning Board that dictates color. We don't dictate color.
MEMBER OLIVA: And the garage is going to have bulk area?
RICHARD AHLERS: Sorry.
MEMBER OLIVA: Is the new garage going to have a bulk area?
RICHARD AHLERS: We have a set of the plans. I don't believe its just a standard, it
looks like a one on three, excuse me, a twelve on seven roof; twelve on seven gable roof.
I don't think it's in anyway excessive.
MEMBER TORTORA: It's going to be almost 850 square feet?
RICHARD AHLERS: The addition is 500 square feet.
MEMBER TORTORA: And you combined the two?
RICHARD AHLERS: I would guess that's correct.
MEMBER TORTORA: It's actually the size of a dwelling. One more time, why do we a
need 850 square tbot garage?
RICHARD AHLERS: Boats.
MEMBER TORTORA: Boats?
RICHARD AHLERS: Boats. Sailboats.
MEMBER TORTORA: To put sailboats inside?
RICHARD AHLERS: You have a busy schedule. I don't want to bore you with a lot of
stutt: But, we're all sailing families and that's how I knew the family. My family, and
the Yacht Club, her family and the Yacht Club, its boats, we old boating families and
everybody have a boat. Nieces and nephews have boats, and they find they run the boats
on the bay and that's what they would like to put in the garage.
CHAIRMAN: I'll make it very easy for you. I grew up with Larry and there are a lot of
boats.
RICHARD AHLERS: There are a lot of boats. I assume you can understand this.
MEMBER HORN1NG: What utilities are currently in the garage?
RICHARD AHLERS: I understand from my client, it's a bare bulb electric service.
Page 29, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing I'mnsctipt
Town of Southold
MEMBER HORNING: Is there any proposed additions of utilities?
RICHARD AHLERS: There's no proposed toilets, or sanitary, water. There's no
proposal tbr water.
MEMBER HORNING: And if you didn't have the garage to fill with boats, they'd be in
the yard or some other place?
RICHARD AHLERS: They'd be stored in the yard outside I guess, it's always better to
store a boat indoors than outdoors.
MEMBER HORN1NG: (inaudible voice too low)
RICHARD AHLERS: To store a boat I wouldn't trust. It's probably not the best.
CHAIRMAN: Let me just play the devil's advocate. Assuming that we find that
successful in giving your 23.5% and we get it at 23%, you will have to re-draw the plans
and so I'm just mentioning that to you.
RICHARD AHLERS: Certainly whatever we need to do to make the application to the
Building Department, I'm assuming that if that were the case we would then take that to
the Building Department with plans that met that criteria.
MEMBER TORTORA: I will tell you in all honesty, it would be helpful to you because
you are 2.4 feet from the lot line now. And in looking at the date of the Notice of
Disapproval when it was written, it was written December 20th. However, since that time
1 think the Building Department will require you to be 3 feet off the lot line.
RICHARD AHLERS: My plan is, it was inslructed to me that if you want a minor
modification to what I was to infer, certainly if you wanted it to be 3 feet offthe lot line
that would be so.
MEMBER TORTORA: So it would be very safe to say 3 feet off the line at 23%.
RICHARD AHLERS: If you told me that that was your decision right now, I think I'd go
home and enjoy my dinner.
CHAIRMAN: We haven't finished the hearing yet, so let's finish the hearing. So just
don't leave until we close it. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor?
Anybody like to speak against? No response.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:00 p.m. Appl. No. 5089 - GARY AND JOANNA CAMPO.
Page 3{). April 18. 2002
ZBA Public I lcarmg Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: This gcntlcman looks very familiar from the last hearing.
LARRY LISO: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, how arc you'?
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Liso again.
LARRY LISO: Anyway, I'm representing Gary and Joanna Campo. They want to put
this deck and the balcony and it's going to encroach less than 35 feet. So it's going to be
24 feet fbr the proposed deck and 32 feet tbr the proposed balcony. (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: The house is primarily centered; it's not centered in the lot, but its
centered.
LARRY LISO: It's off center right, because the cesspools havc to be in the back. And it
took us a long time to get approvals on that house.
CHAIRMAN: 1 see its ahnost centered in reference to its position with front yard, rear
yard with the
LARRY LISO: Yes, it's a very tight lot.
CHAIRMAN: Let's start with Ruth. Ruth, any questions of Mr. Liso?
MEMBER OLIVA: You will be putting up screening along the back edge here and along
the side because it's pretty, your neighbors are just about on top of you there on the east
side I would say. Which is right by lands end, all those homes right there.
LARRY LISO: Yes, that's where they have their garage, right up ahnost to the property
line. (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: 1 don't have any questions.
CHAIRMAN: No? Vince.
MEMBER ORLANDO: The amount of the shed that's encroaching on the property is that
LARRY LISO: That's been moved. It was moved already. (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: No I don't have any.
CHAIRMAN: Alright it looks like we're being real light on you tonight again, Mr. Liso.
Page 3 I, Apdl 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hem'ing I'nmscnpt
Town of Southold
LARRY LISO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: Don't leave though until we close this hearing.
LARRY LISO: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application
or against this application? No response. Hearing no further comment I'll makc a motion
closing the hearing, reserving decision.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:03 p.m. Appl. No. 5090 - JOHN AND SUSAN BEDELL.
CHAIRMAN: Good evening, how are you? Did you deal with this in the last, with the
greenhouse application?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Right. I represented actually the sellers of the property. Mr.
Bedell was in contract. The sellers, I'd given counsel to the seller's attorney. I completed
the application for the greenhouse, yes. So I'm familiar with the greenhouse appeal and
the decision that you rendered.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right Miss Moore, and you want to put a small two-story
addition on it'?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Right, in fact the appeal is only, the only issue was that the
Building Department rejected this as the Notice of Disapproval is the smaller two-story
addition which is in the front yard and encroaches on the 7.4 eve into the front property
line. The rest of the addition was reviewed by the Building Department and they denied
considering the Notice of Disapproval with respect to anything else. I want to point out
that the property, you have noticed, I'm sure you have noticed, is actually a double lot
sub-division. The fact, and the reason I raised that fact is that most of the
properties, they're older homes in this area were developed as single lots and therefore the
setbacks, the front yard setbacks are generally at 35 feet. So what you see is the character
of the area is a very old subdivision with the older homes at 35 feet. The reason that this
property does not gain the benefit of the 35-foot setback is because the adjacent
properties develop similar setback as this one and therefore, the adjacent properties
within 300 feet, there aren't any, the creek is on one side and the other house is
approximately the same setback. What I do want to point out is that the front yard, the
encroachment is minor. In addition to the 42.8 feet there is an additional 15 feet of grass
area that is where the property line ends and where the road begins. So in total, from the
street, it would appear to be 57 feet the actual measurement of the addition to the street is
57 feet. So again, it's going to be in the character of the area and the intention of the 50-
foot setback will be maintained to that extent visually. It won't appear to be a significant
or any impact whatsoever. Again, I point out that because it's the two lots, it triggers
Pagc 32, April 18. 2002
ZBA Public Heating T~'anscript
(end of tape - voices muffled) So it throws you into the larger setback. That, I think is
important because even though we have the two lots, most of the other lot is and
wetlands. So we have the added restriction of the wetlands and the limitation on
development on the easterly side because of, obviously all the environmental regulations
that limit the construction in that direction. Secondly, as you recall from the hearing that
the scllcrs conducted fbr the grandfathering of thc pen-nits on the greenhouse, the
neighbor asserted that the greenhouse was not a problem for them; however, they would
not want to see that greenhouse enlarged or a second-story added to it. That had been the
original plan at the time but again, I was representing a seller at the time and the direction
that 1 had and Mr. Bedell understood was get the permit fbr what existed. So it was a bit
frustrating because the original plan was to rebuild and renovate the structures that were
there. But I think Nancy Steelman made a very nice written presentation that expressed
the honor, the concern that we would have on challenging the neighbor in the request for
a second story on that greenhouse, as well as the environmcntal regulations that were
Those are the significant points that I would like to raise with the Board. I
have Nancy Steelman and Mr. Bedell is here, and we would be happy to answer any
specific questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN: Could 1 speak to Miss Steelman?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Sure.
CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight?
NANCY STEELMAN: Fine and you?
CHAIRMAN: That addition is actually going to be a kitchen and a bedroom upstairs?
NANCY STEELMAN: Correct. This is considered an upside down house. All the
primary living area is on the second floor. The lower level,
MEMBER TORTORA: We can't hear you Nancy.
NANCY STEELMAN: This house is considered an upside down house, with the main
living areas on the second floor. The first floor now, currently is just being used as a
basement area, utilities and garage.
MEMBER TORTORA: So the kitchen is going to be upstairs?
NANCY STEELMAN: All on the second floor.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Second floor, adjacent to the main living area.
MEMBER TORTORA: And what's going to be downstairs?
Page 33, Ap~hl 18, 2002
ZBA Public Heming Transcript
NANCY STEELMAN: Downstairs, we're going to be developing that into some
bedroom spaces.
MEMBER TORTORA: And what's the size of thc addition, Nancy?
NANCY STEELMAN: This addition here is
MEMBER TORTORA: The one that is subject to the Area Variance.
NANCY STEELMAN: Approximately 15 x 18.
MEMBERTORTORA: 15x187
CHAIRMAN: Of which only 7.4 that's in the
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Correct.
CHAIRMAN: 7 feet 4 inches. Is that it?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Ruth?
MEMBER OLIVA: No.
CHAIRMAN: Vincent?
MEMBER ORLANDO: Lot 3 and 4 are single and separate deeds?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: No.
MEMBER ORLANDO: One lot'?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Right. It is one lot. The reason I raised that issue is that when
you're looking at front yard and side yard setbacks there's a section in the Code for a
nonconforming, for undersized lots. A lot of the subdivisions, this lot for example
MEMBER ORLANDO: They labeled them 3 and 4.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Pardon me?
MEMBER ORLANDO: They labeled them Block 3 and 4 even thou?~ they're a merged
lot.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: It's actually 3 and 4 of the subdivision map, its not Tax Map 3 or
4. The surveyors always identify the lots on the map.
Page 34, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
I own of Southold
CHAIRMAN: George?
MEMBER HORN1NG: No, I don't mean (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN: Okay, we thank you. Just don't leave until we close this hearing. Is there
anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this application'? No response.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:10 p.m. Appl. No. 5091 - ROBERT S. AND DOROTHY YOUNG.
CHAIRMAN: The next one is Robert and Dorothy Young, 5091. Mrs. Young did we
meet you during; yes you were in the audience during the Kace hearings, right?
DOROTHY YOUNG: Yes, that's fight. We are, in fact, neighbors of that property yes.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Young, how are you tonight?
ROBERT YOUNG: I guess. 1 got out of bed to attend the meeting.
DOROTHY YOUNG: He's still running a temperature.
CHAIRMAN: Sorry to hear that. What would you like to tell us?
DOROTHY YOUNG: Well basically we would like to go up on our garage. The garage
is pre-existing to our knowledge pre 1950's. We would just like to go up to give us filing
space actually. My husband's office in the city closed and we have files dating back to
the 1950's, which at the moment has taken over my kitchen, the whole basement, which
is a little damp, my patio. If anyone would come into my home at the moment, there are
files everywhere.
CHAIRMAN: Will this accessory storage building be heated?
DOROTHY YOUNG: Well we have electricity already in our garage and possibly, just
ifI was up there, at the moment like I'm doing down in the cellar, two hours of filing and
marking and putting it away in files then I imagine we would have some sort of heating.
I don't really, I haven't thought of that too much. I just want to get my home back. We
live in quite a small sort of cottage type.
CHAIRMAN: How would you compare this to like a library or something of that
nature? Would it be like a library?
DOROTHY YOUNG: Well, not exactly. Mrs. Feeley, in fact, who is the wife of the
builder who we have doing any of our jobs around the home and repairs, he is extremely
good doing files all around the ceilings and everything like that and that's what he came
Page 35. Apu118, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
up with. He would be able to do that old area in nothing but floor to ceiling sort of file
cabinet type things. Just all the cabinets, filing cabinets and everything else 1 have at the
lnoment down in by basement.
CHAIRMAN: Ruth, questions?
MEMBER OL1VA: Yes, you said you wouldn't mind if we decided that we would cut
that garage back on the comer a little bit so that you could still remain 3 foot from the
side yard instead of 1.5 just angle it over a bit and it was fine with you. You explained
where the stairs would go up.
DOROTHY YOUNG: The young lady who drew the plans made it esthetically very
beautiful. And even though she came out and measures our garage and everything, the
garage isn't large enough to put the stairs inside and going up it would take room offour
car. We do have a couple of canoes, not real boats, kayaks and things and all our
gardening equipment at the moment. So the stairs would go up, and we could build a
deck going into a slight hail, which would also be light coming in windows as well. We
could get boxes and boxes up there.
MEMBER TORTORA: But the same setback as the existing would be fine.
DOROTHY YOUNG: Absolutely. But the question is how it's drawn on the plans that
cotne square, sort of square. As I said to her yesterday it wouldn't matter, the main place
is to go up, as long as the structure structurally sound.
MEMBER TORTORA: We're just trying to, 1.8 is pretty close and we would not like to
see it go any closer 3.4 right now which is the existing closest point. Everybody, makes
sense'?
DOROTHY YOUNG: Yes. That I think had pointed out where it sort of comes square.
I said this was drawn by a lady who was balancing everything. It wouldn't matter if it
just sort of came out as long as, well structurally sound.
CHAIRMAN: Vinny, any questions?
MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions.
CHAIRMAN: George, any questions?
MEMBER HORN1NG: No I concur that its too close to the (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN: So please don't leave until the hearing is closed, and we'll get back to you
in the next week or so with a decision. Probably be about two weeks. We may not get to
it tonight. We will be entertaining it probably on May 2nd. YOU never know, things have
been rolling pretty good, but you never know what the evening is going to consist of.
Page 36, April 18, 2002
ZBA Poblic Hearing Transcript
](iwn o1' Southold
WOMAN FROM AUDIENCE: Askcd to speak.
CHAIRMAN: Sure. Just state your name for the record.
MICHELLE FEELEY: I'm Michelle Feeley, I live at Boisscau Avenue in Southold. My
husband Richard will be the carpenter on thc job. They mainly want a second floor to
store legal papers. It's not going to be living quarters; it's going to be storage. They're
still only consuming 7% of their square footage of their property. It's a very large lot. Its
very private, you don't realize you're living on the North Road when you're standing on
their property because of the setback from the road it is very private and I really would
hope that you would approve it because they're not encroaching on more than 7% of their
land. If you want them to modify the porch, the stair railing and things like, anything
could be worked on. That would be fine. The garage has been standing there for 50
years. They want to improve the esthetic appearance and they want to give themselves
some necessary and needed storage. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this
application? No response. Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing
reserving decision until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:20 p.m. Appl. No. 5092 - R. AND J. ARNOLD.
CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir.
RICHARD ARNOLD: Good evening, my name is Richard Arnold 2105 Bay Shore
Road, I'm here on behalf of my wife Joanna and myself. We are seeking a variance to
erect a deck in the rear of our house. My understanding is that, well we have a retaining
wall because it's a waterfront property. And although we fall within the necessary
setback on the , the deck cuts into the property on the right hand side of the
property and falls closer than the required 75 feet setback.
CHAIRMAN: So you're at 65 feet 3 inches?
RICHARD ARNOLD: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: What's the distance to the wood retaining wall on the west side,
because it's flat and then it comes in? In other words, about 50% of that looks to be about
75 feet.
RICHARD ARNOLD: I don't have that on my survey but, I was told by the architect its
MEMBER TORTORA: I can scale it off. It looks like about 50% of it is within the 75
feet setback.
Page 37. April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hca~ing Tmnsctipl
Fown o1' Southold
RICHARD ARNOLD: Thc proposed deck also would not exceed the cxisting side yard
setbacks.
CHAIRMAN: This is an open deck?
RICHARD ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN: We'll start with Ruth, any questions of this gentleman'.)
MEMBER OLIVA: No. Very nice view you have.
CHAIRMAN: Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: No, no questions.
RICHARD ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Vinny?
MEMBER ORLANDO: No real questions. If you saw footprints in your grass that was
1, I walked into the back and I said Oh I walked on the guy's grass. That was 1; I was one
of those, size 10 that was I.
RICHARD ARNOLD: That's quite all right.
CHAIRMAN: I slid down the hill one time on fresh sod and then proceeded for the next
20 years to put it back. That was a heck of a problem, I felt so bad. It looks like we're
on a roll here. We hope to have a decision tbr you shortly. If we don't get to it tonight,
our next meeting is on May 2nd.
RICHARD ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Please don't leave until I close the hearing. Is there anybody else that
would like to speak lbr or against this application? No response. Seeing no hands, I'll
make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. End of hearing.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
CHAIRMAN: Now there are some nice people in the audience, but we are out of water
so we will take a five-minute break and we will be right back.
Break ~ 7:25 p.m. Reconvene ~ 7:38 (Lydia returned at 7:39
7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 5093 - EDGEWATER III.
Page 38, Apdl l 8, 20(12
ZBA Public Hearing ~hansctipt
CHAIRMAN: Miss Moore we're ready to go, we're missing a Member but we're going to
start.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Are you ready fi)r mc'?
CHAIRMAN: Are you Edgewater?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Yes, I didn't realize we were ready.
CHAIRMAN: You're up.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Okay great.
CHAIRMAN: We just want you to be aware that we're restricting it to 15 minutes
tonight.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Oh, I'm going to be shorter than that. What can you say about a
tennis court?
CHAIRMAN: Lighting.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: No, yes lighting we'll talk about. The tennis court is a permitted
use unfortunately not Code. The fence, we need a variance for that. If anybody plays
tennis like 1 play tennis, l would probably need a 50-foot fence. But the 10-fbot fence is
what is the ordinary fence height that is needed for a good tennis court. And in
particular, when you are on Route 48, I think it's imperative that the higher fence be there
so to keep balls out of play of Route 48. So I think that there's really not much that you
need to hear about with respect to the fence prep I would imagine.
CHAIRMAN: My question on the entire project is, is the entire hedgerow going to
remain between the tennis court and the road?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Well, it's more than a hedgerow, it's woods. This is a very
wooded.
CHAIRMAN: I didn't mean it
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: No, this is a beautifully wooded parcel that if you can see how
they develop and as you know, Edgewater I, II and III are all commonly owned here by
family. Again, the development of these pieces has been very sensitive to preserving as
much livid land as possible with the house just inter-spersed it's not the typical push the
house as close to the edge of the bluff that you commonly see. In fact, the woods are
really the reason why lighting is somewhat of a necessity here because the parcel is so
wooded. It is very isolated. The property to the north is part of that Village, the Village
of Greenport that is owned by the Village and its left as a natural preserve. They own the
piece to the west of it as well. The lighting is something that the family would like to
Page 39, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Heming rranscript
have given the nature of the propcrty that it's quite dark on that property. And the plan is,
obviously you have to clear in the area of the tennis court and the surrounding black top
and gravel I guess. The architect, Ira Haspel, he's right here.
IRA HASPEL, ARCH.: Good evening, I'm Ira Haspel the architect.
CHAIRMAN: We remember you.
MEMBER TORTORA: Why is it you need lighting now?
IRA HASPEL: It's blacktop and then it's all natural ground and it's all woods primarily.
You've got about 90 feet between the first proposed lighting plan to Routc 48. And it's
all heavy trees that are 30 - 40 feet high.
MEMBER OLIVA: But the lighting will be shielded down?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Oh yes, box lighting has been specked out that's very; there's a
limited.
IRA HASPEL: And that won't be intrusive on anything other than what it's at.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: My thought was that ifynu have a concern about lighting running
into all kinds of hours. I think, if its unreasonable, to impose hours of operation to say
that no lighting beyond 11:00 in the evening. I think that that's a relatively normal,
reasonable condition to impose, and as I said, because it's a wooded, this is a family that
comes out on weekends, in the evenings. So to extend the tennis season, lighting is
somewhat, would be very helpful in this case.
MEMBER TORTORA: How tall are the
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: The poles are 21 feet in height, and I was asking what's an average
height of the tree. Again, this is, the trees are already mature, hardwoods, or whatever
the trees are that are there, they're about 35 - 40 feet. So, there's probably going to be
less lighting on this tennis court than what you're accustomed to seeing on the road. And
this is, there's not a lot of lighting here, four poles.
IRA HASPEL, ARCH.: This is four poles, 21 feet high and 8-foot lights.
MEMBER OLIVA: I don't want to be driving on the North Road and all ora sudden be
blasted like I am in some other parts of town.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: I don't see that happening here.
IRA HASPEL, ARCH.: The first pole is 90 feet off the road and it's behind the solid
woods.
Pagc 40, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public llcming T~anscripl
Town o1' Southold
MEMBER TORTORA: Its 90 feet from the North Road.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: 90 feet, well if you figure 60 feet is the actually on thc front yard
setback. Tbcy are, we measure to be approximately another 30 feet more or less to thc
first, to the location of the first pole because the poles are on opposite ends of the tennis
court not on the thr ends towards the road. So they are in the area of clay more than
opposite the clay area.
MEMBER OLIVA: Like the tennis court anyway is banned, from what 1 understand, on
the north/south direction?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: So that would also be a condition.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Sure that's not a problem.
MEMBER TORTORA: 90 feet, no closer.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: That's fine. If we have to shift it around to make it 90 feet, we can
do that.
CHAIRMAN: Do you understand that we don't ordinarily grant lighted tennis courts on
residential property? I can't tell you when I've done one.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: It's funny because I thought to myself; I've gone to tennis courts
where there are lights. And I'm thinking that only because we identify when we built it.
So let's assume that you build it and then you put up a couple of light poles that are
residential to light your property, l don't know that the Building Department would ever
identify it as an issue that was not a permitted use. So while, I don't know that you get
that many applications before you, I think when you look around town you actually see lit
tennis courts.
CHAIRMAN: But they may be pre-existing because every one that we've done, we have
always said is it going to be lighted and they said, yes I was thinking about it. Well we're
going to grant it if its not going to be lighted. But let me go a little bit farther with this
one okay. In the decision we are going to reserve the right to limit the lighting, the
impact of the lighting. The impact of the lighting is going to be during the winter season
when there are less leaves on the trees.
MEMBER TORTORA: (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: That doesn't make any difference, I could care less.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Well you'll have to turn on the lights.
Page 41, April 1g,2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Right, you'll have to turn on the lights. Now you have two options at that
point. You either put arborvitae around the tennis court for maximum height so when the
light gets shielded to the court, it doesn't disperse out, which we don't think its going to
do anyway. Or you limit the wattage of thc bulbs at that point. So I mean those are the
two issues that I think we have to deal with on that basis.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: That's fair. I think that if there, if it becomes a nuisance in any
way, I don't think it will be I'm pretty confident that, there's no neighborhood here.
don't have a problem with that and I don't think the owners will have a problem with that.
UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN: There's no neighbor to thc east, and they're their neighbors
to the west.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Well why don't you suggest, instead of saying arborvitac you
might want to say landscaping to shield lighting or something like that.
CHAIRMAN: I don't care, whatever you come up with, whatever type of bush you come
up with.
MEMBER TORTORA: Are we doing landscaping now?
CHAIRMAN: We're going to let it go and we're going to reserve the right to look at it.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Yes, because 60 feet of woods may not be quite, I mean you
should actually take a look at it from the road when you're looking at the property
because you'll know whether or not its offensive. If you're standing right under the tennis
court.
CHAIRMAN: Just remember one thing Mrs. Moore, that everything is a learning
experience, as you know.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Okay, we'll be the test case.
CHAIRMAN: You'll be the test case.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: That's all right, we can accept that.
CHAIRMAN: And people are going to have to be willing to go the whole nine yards if
that's what they want in the future.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Yes I can understand, lighting is just like the fencing. It is really
an accessory to the tennis court use, but given the right circumstances, if you are in the
middle of a densely populated neighborhood like my neighborhood, lighting might be
offensive to somebody. Just like lighting on the back porch lit all the time would be
offensive to me. So I don't see a problem with that.
Pagc 42, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Ttanscripl
CHAIRMAN: Ruth hit the nail on the head though with riding down County Road 48
and seeing it stand out.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Well it won't be Lucas Ford, put it that way.
MEMBER OLIVA: Well no, there's just another lady that has a very nice placc but she
has a light shining on some things and it hits me every time 1 come down.
MEMBER TORTORA: The only other thing is it's a vacant parcel. That, I'm not sure
would that be their front yard?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Which vacant parcel?
MEMBER TORTORA: The vacant parcel to the, what is that to the east'?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: No this is Village of Greenport. I think it always has been. The
neighboring piece is actually on the waterfront side about 500 feet down. You can see
the dimensions of the property. The only neighbor Mr. Peturcie which is at the end of
the, its on the sound and its almost 530 feet down.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions of anybody ladies and gentlemen?
MEMBER HORNING: Could I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN: You'd like to make a comment'? Yes, sure.
MEMBER HORN1NG: I remember two years ago on Route 48 there was a little tiny
sign and they wanted to have a Iight inside the sign and we denied it. I can see the
potential for someone saying 800 watts isn't enough. We have to have more, we want
1000-watt lamps. (inaudible) There is the possibility of setting a precedent (inaudible)
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Well, again, I think each case is a case-by-case application and as
you know, we don't really set a precedent with a case. Again, the zoning is very
individualistic to the particular property. So, as Par as the wattage, you can put a
condition not to exceed the wattage that has actually been proposed here. They'll have to
live with it.
MEMBER HORNING: (inaudible voice too low) I doubt that would be sufficient for
nighttime use.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Well maybe at dusk, you know early evening rather than.
MEMBER HORNING: There should be a limitation (inaudible)
PAT MOORE ESQ.: No, that's certainly acceptable 11:00 is certainly late enough.
Pagc 43, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Ftansc~ipt
T~wn or' Southold
CHAIRMAN: Okay, we don't know exactly what time it will bc, but it will be somewhat
in that area.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Whatever time you fecl is reasonablc.
CHAIRMAN: Done'?
MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing l'm thinking of that is a total that would be a total
of 3200 watts?
CHAIRMAN: 800 per, right?
MEMBER TORTORA: 3200 watts, 100 feet, that's a span of about trom where I'm
sitting to the road.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: From here to the road?
MEMBER TORTORA: It's about 90 feet and I'm going to guess you're going to see it.
CHAIRMAN: Well that's why we're going to
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: I don't think you can stop from seeing it. Any light in the night
you're going to see, whether or not it's going to be offensive.
CHAIRMAN: You don't want it to impose upon the driving public.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Exactly, right.
CHAIRMAN: So again, we're going to go back, not to reiterate this again other than to
do it quickly, we're going to again ask the Cohen's to come in with a landscaping plan
around those two sides and then we're going to look at it again. It appears, is that Mrs.
Cohen in the back?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: No, that Ira Haspel's wife.
CHAIRMAN: It appears that they've been pretty accommodating with things that they've
come before us with.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: And I suspect that you will probably see us on something. With
three properties there will be something and certainly, you will always be invited to the
property to inspect. To make sure that we meet the conditions that you propose,
CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against
this application? No response. Seeing no hands 1'11 make a motion closing the hearing
reserving decision until later.
Page 44, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Heating Transcript
[own of Soulhold
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:53 p.m. Appl. No. 5094 - DONALD BUSKARD.
CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN: Good evening to you.
CHAIRMAN: And who are you sir?
DONALD BUSKARD: Donald Buskard.
CHAIRMAN: We finally get to meet the real Donald Buskard.
DONALD BUSKARD: You know, I was here two years ago, but I didn't get a chance to
speak.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Buskard you have made us eternally happy by purchasing this other
lot in the back.
DONALD BUSKARD: My family is also quite happy.
CHAIRMAN: I guess there was some minor change? Do you want to allude to that, but
it doesn't change the pool or something?
DONALD BUSKARD: The fact that we were out last weekend and the original
orientation of the pool on the property was staked out by the pool company. And I
happened to be walking around the property around 4:00 and found a shadow of the
house on the pool. So I asked to rotate it about 90 degrees to keep the same setback from
east Gillette, but that by virtually the pool being longer than it is wide, rotating it pushes
it beyond the shadow of the house.
CHAIRMAN: And you have merged this piece of property to your house lot?
DONALD BUSKARD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: I don't have any questions. Ruth, any questions of Mr. Buskard?
MEMBER OLIVA: You will be screening it in from Gilette Drive, I presume?
DONALD BUSKARD: Absolutely, yes.
MEMBER OLIVA: Then you might get a shadow in the morning on your pool?
Page 45, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transc~ipl
Town of Soulhold
DONALD BUSKARD: Well no, we're 40 feet back from east Gillette so I don't think.
MEMBER OLIVA: It depends on how high the things grow, but anyway it's nice that
you bought that lot back there.
DONALD BUSKARD: Yes, I think the whole end of the street is better offfbr it now. It
works out fine.
CHAIRMAN: Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just saying, it's very difficult to hear up here, and it's very
clear as a bell out in the hall. I remember this application fi'om a couple of years ago, I
remember the property and I agree with thc Chairman. Am very happy that you did
purchase the other piece.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Just to repeat what the Chairman said, this is one deed now?
DOANLD BUSKARD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: No questions.
CHAIRMAN: We hope to have a decision for you shortly but please don't leave until I
finish this hearing in case anybody has any comments. Thank you.
DONALD BUSKARD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this
application? No response. Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing
reserving decision until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:00 p.m. Appl. No. GUS-MAR REALTY -
DONNA GEHRTY: My name is Donna Gehrty and I represent Gus-Mar Realty. I hope
this is a relatively simple. It was a brief oversight in locating a foundation and we have
39.63 on Marina Lane and 39.75 on Lane. It seems that, it's a Victorian house
and so the property (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: So it's 39.63 and 39.75 and its supposed to be 40 even.
DONNA GEHRTY: Correct.
Page 46, April l 8, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Tr,mscripl
Town ill Soulhold
CHAIRMAN: Ruth?
MEMBER OLIVA: No questions.
CHAIRMAN: Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: It's a total of 6 inches?
DONNA GEHRTY: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: l don't have any questions at all.
CHAIRMAN: Ruth?
MEMBER OLIVA: No.
MEMBER HORNING: (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: We don't want the lady to have a problem here.
DONNA GEHRTY: 1 tried shaving it back a little bit but.
MEMBER TORTORA: Concrete doesn't move that well.
DONNA GEHRTY: No it doesn't. Any other questions?
MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions.
CHAIRMAN: Please don't leave until we close the hearing. Is there anyone else that
would like to speak tbr or against this application? No response. Seeing no hands I'll
make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:04 p.m. Appl No. 5097 -J. AND C. SLECKMAN.
CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir.
UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN: Good evening.
CHAIRMAN: Would you state your name for the record?
JIM SLECKMAN: I'm Jim Sleckman; I'm the owner of the property.
CHAIRMAN: I had the distinct pleasure of being down to your property about 7:00
o'clock at night watching the sunset. It's a very beautiful spot.
Page 47, April I g, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Danscript
[own of Southokl
JIM SLECKMAN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN: You want to put a two-story addition on the entire house'?
JIM SLECKMAN: Yes, the second-story is only going to cover about 1/3 of the house.
CHAIRMAN: 1/3 ofthehouse.
JIM SLECKMAN: What we're trying to do with this variance is to square offthe front of
the house. There's an alcove that comes out, we're squaring oft; and doing that we're
going to be six feet from our neighbor's property line. In that part the shape of our plot is
very odd. It's like thc piece of a pie. It's very narrow in front and its wide in the back.
We were trying to use the existing foundation that we have. And by squaring it out we're
getting very close to Mr. Beloski's property line. But you're still going to be 16 feet f¥om
his property line in the back. So if you take an average of the front versus the back, its 11
feet.
CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea how close his house to his property line'?
JIM SLECKMAN: Its about 20 feet. We're not trying to encroach on; you know build a
monstrosity, which is going to overlook everyone over there. We're going to be 40 feet
from our other property line and we're going to be 20 feet, excuse me 40 feet on the other
side to the structure on the east side and we're going to be 25 feet l¥om Mr.
house itself. The area down there, Goose Creek
CHAIRMAN: Excuse me one second
JIM SLECKMAN: The area down there on Goose Creek is an old beach community and
there are many houses that do not conform to the setbacks that are today's setbacks. But 1
don't think this variance would be out of character to the neighborhood. What we're
asking fbr is a very little amount fbr this variance. I mean we're talking about 6 ½ feet by
2 ½ feet, which is going to be like 15 square feet. It's only about less than 1.5% of the
total square footage of the house.
CHAIRMAN: I'm still trying to understand. So the two-story aspect, looking at these
arrows on your survey,
JIM SLECKMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN: on the newer survey it encompasses most of the house, as it exists?
JIM SLECKMAN: No, the two-story is going to, the two-stories would cover about 1/3
of the house on the west side, and also about 2/3 in the front.
MEMBER TORTORA: So what you're filling in where there was a concrete patio. In
other words you're extending the house south.
Page 48, Ap~hl 18 2{)(12
ZBA Public I Icat mg Tumscript
Town of Southokl
JIM SLECKMAN: Right, towards the road.
MEMBER TORTORA: Towards the right, the eight feet next to where the arrows arc on
the west side, that is the existing footprint of the house.
JIM SLECKMAN: That's the existing footprint of the house.
MEMBER TORTORA: And that goes over to, where did we have 27 feet. Where did
the Building Department (end of tape muflled) Six is a little close there, there's no way
that you can take advantage of some of the space that you have on the east side of the
property?
JIM SLECKMAN: We want to really just kind of square this off in the front.
MEMBER TORTORA: How close is your neighbor on the west side of the property
line'? Do you have any idea?
JIM SLECKMAN: On the west side of the property line? He's 20 feet from the property
line. l designed a letter from my neighbor saying that he would not be, he is
not opposed to this variance.
MEMBER TORTORA: Okay.
JIM SLECKMAN: And we're also, I guess on the rear, where we have plenty of room,
we have 15 feet 16 feet.
CHAIRMAN: Is there some easier plan that you could give us in the next couple of days
that would get us to understand exactly how much of the second story you intend to
utilize? This is a one-story house now?
JIM SLECKMAN: Right.
CHAIRMAN: I can't, I have to be honest with you, I built six houses myself and I can't
understand this one. This has got me baffled, so I can't figure out what you're actually
putting on the second-story. I see the cut out of the plan and I see all second stories, so it
elides me to believe that the entire house is planning a second story.
J1M SLECKMAN: No, not at all. I have the master plan here if you want to take a look
at it.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, let me look at that.
JIM SLECKMAN: See that's the front so it's going to be along the fi-ont.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
Page 49, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public llearing Transcript
Town of Soulhold
JIM SLECKMAN: That's the side.
CHAIRMAN: That's two-story?
JIM SLECKMAN: Right, that's two-story from the side. Then in the back, this is just
going to be dormered out the back.
CHAIRMAN: So in other words this is going to be vaulted to the inside of the house.
When you say roof, you mean it's going to be an open-vaulted ceiling.
J1M SLECKMAN: That's all it's going to be, yes.
CHAIRMAN: So it is actually, the entire exterior is going to be two-story as it looks.
But from an interior point of view, and I see an open-vaulted ceiling, I'm saying that the
vault of that ceiling is the percentage of your coming up. Because only a portion of it is
actually used. 1 mean I saw the vault but I couldn't understand it.
JIM SLECKMAN: That's easy if you see a before and after you have an idea.
CHAIRMAN: George do you have any questions of Mr. Sleckman?
MEMBER HORNING: Our agenda is taken from the notice of hearings and it mentions
regarding the as-built location of the proposed new dwelling. Does that ring a bell with
you?
JIM SLECKMAN: No, not at all. I didn't build anything. Nothing was built.
MEMBER HORN1NG: It says that you are, the current location is as built.
CHAIRMAN: I think what we're saying is they're utilizing the existing footprint.
JIM SLECKMAN: I want to utilize the existing basement that we have there.
MEMBER HORNING: We get so many of these as-builts.
MEMBER TORTORA: That actually shouldn't be there.
CHAIRMAN: No, it shouldn't be there.
MEMBER TORTORA: Just cross that out. Its not as built.
CHAIRMAN: Vince, any questions?
MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions,
Page 50, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing I ranscript
CHAIRMAN: Ruth'?
MEMBER OLIVA: No.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, please don't leave until this hearing is over. Is there anybody else
that would like to speak for or against this application'? No response. Seeing no hands
I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. We thank you sir.
Thank you for showing us that. You are welcome to leave now.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 5121 - CUSTOM DESIGNER HOMES
CHAIRMAN: Good evening. How are you'?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Fine thank you and you?
CHAIRMAN: Would you state your name for the record Cathy?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano for the applicant.
CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Okay, well we're here this evening because my client
received a Building Permit from your Building Department in November for a house
which he commenced construction on. At the time when they were out to set the stakes
for the foundation and they spent some time on the site, they realized that the proposed
location was a little close to the North Road. This property is right across the street from
the Island's End Golf Course the comer of Maple and has a heavy traffic situation.
CHAIRMAN: And you have a stop work order on this right?
CATHERINE MESIANO: We have a stop work order.
CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
CATHERINE MESIANO: So when they were staking out the foundation they checked
in with the surveyor and the surveyor indicated to them that there should be no problem,
pull the house south a little bit. Basically they reversed this north setback and the south
setback. So at the time when the Building Permit was issued 86.6 foot setback, 86.6 or
86.8 from the southerly property line which we recognized a side lot line.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's the right-of-way?
Page 51, April 18, 2(}02
ZBA Public Hearing Transc~
Tiiwn of Southold
CATHERINE MESIANO: Yes. That's the side where the right-of-way is. In February,
the under construction survey was submitted and a month later the Building Inspector
issued the stop work order because he then deemed that the setback was to be measured
as a front setback because of the existence of the right-of-way. However, I've done some
investigation into this property, I checked the Planning Board's file and I did puli the
original sub-division map on that and the sub-division was not real specific but that area
was denoted simply as a right-of-way and was to provide access tbr the lot to the west of
our property. Now while the sub-division map didn't state that specifically I checked the
correspondence in the file and I can offer you a couple of things. I can otter you a copy
of that sub-division map and I can also offer you a copy of some correspondence from the
original sub-divider in xvhich he was protesting the Suffblk County Planning
Commissioner's recommendation to disapprove the sub-division on a number of matters.
And the applicant made several statements in here and the most important statement in
here was his reference to the proposed right-of-way, not being a public road but merely to
provide ingress and egress for lots 1 and 4 of the sub-division, which are the interior lots.
This original property was a comer property on the North Road. The four lots were
created and in order to eliminate any curb-cuts onto the North Road, the access to the
inside lots was provided by means of this right-of-way. Now the other thing that [ was
able to
CHAIRMAN: Just one second Mrs. Mesiano, this is the first lot that you constructed on
is that correct?
CATHERINE MESIANO: No, there is a house to the rear of this and the right-of-way
that's referenced, contains a gravel driveway that accesses the house to the rear.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, so someone is using this right-of-way.
CATHERNE MESIANO: Someone uses it as a driveway.
MEMBER TORTORA: It's only a 25-foot right-of-way?
CATHERNE MESIANO: It's a 25-foot right-of-way with about a 10-foot gravel
driveway.
MEMBER TORTORA: Who owns the fight-of-way?
CATHERINE MESIANO: The land on which the right-of-way is situated is owned by
my applicant. And the right-of-way is granted for the benefit of the owner to the rear. I
have a copy of the deed of the property as well, and the deed makes reference to several
things. It, of course, describes the property and then it goes on to say that together with
the right of ingress and egress of Maple Lane, which is a private road together with beach
rights of the sub-division. Then it goes on to say subject to right-of-way 25 feet over the
southerly portion of the premises is subject to waterlines and electric easements and
common with others, etc. be maintained with the 25 foot right-of-way. So tny point is
that the title to the property is together with certain items, which are to the benefit of this
Page 52. April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Heming Transcript
Town of Southold
owner and subject to other items, which are to the benefit of others. So this right-of-way
is not for the use of the owner of this property.
CHAIRMAN: Because he has frontage on Maple Lane.
CATHERINE MESIANO: He has frontage on Maple Lane ani:t his curb cut is on Maple
Lane and the Building Permit was issued with the driveway having access on Maple Lane
separate and distinct from the gravel drive. Now your Zoning Code in definitions
describes a front yard. There is a definition of a front yard and then the exception is
noted except that the owner of the lot does not have the right to use or travel over a
bordering street, right-of-way or street line, etc. The right-of-way or street line shall not
be considered to be a front yard. Now I had a similar situation on another property where
I went to the Building Department and asked for a determination on a similar situation
and the Building Department issued me a letter giving a determination that supports that
contention that the road does not have a right of access across that area that not to be
considered as a front yard. So my contention has been with the Building Department all
along that we feel that he issued the stop work order in error. That we did not have to
adhere to a front yard setback to this right-of-way because we don't have the right to use
that road, we use our side yard. We maintain adequate setbacks for all other peritneters
for the front on the two roads that we do recognize as roads. We have the property rear
seatback and if this is looked as a right-of-way, but we don't have access over it, my
interpretation is accurate that we maintain adequate side yard setbacks to that south
property line.
MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask you a question?
CATHERNE MESIANO: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: You have two front yards right now?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Correct.
MEMBER TORTORA: It does not show up on the survey. The 41.8 on the survey that
would be equivalent to 66.8 on the south part, is that correct?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Please tell me which date is on this map?
MEMBER ORLANDO: It's the 25 minus the 66.8 is 41.8. So we are presently 41.8
inches from the northerly side of the right-of-way.
MEMBER TORTORA: You own the right-of-way?
CATHERINE MESIANO: We own the right-of-way.
MEMBER TORTORA: How many houses does it serve, do you have any idea?
Page 53, Ap~l 18, 2002
ZBA Public Fleming T~anscfipl
['own of Slmthold
CATHERINE MESIANO: This driveway serves one house.
MEMBER TORTORA: The right-of-way?
CATHERINE MESIANO: The right-of-way is intended to serve interior lots, but
presently it only serves one existing residence.
MEMBER TORTORA: Could you submit a deed description?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I have it here fbr you, I did and I have another one. And also
if you check in the file, I took numerous photographs of the site and that driveway, and
they were submitted with my application so that is in there and I do have the deed
description for you.
MEMBER TORTORA: You've asked for two things. You've asking for a reversal of the
Building Department's determination that it's a front yard, and if that doesn't transpire
could you just briefly run down the standards /hr an area variance for us. We're only
talking about 9 feet.
CATHERINE MESIANO: We're only talking less than 9 feet.
CHAIRMAN: If you don't want to do that tonight, Cathy, you can do that in writing.
CATHERNE MESIANO: Well we'd like to get a determination, because the house is
under construction, it's been stopped for a month and a half now. So if you would like to
indulge me, actually I have it written out in my application and I can just reiterate it for
you, because that was part of my application to you.
MEMBER TORTORA: Quickly, so we have that in the record.
CATHERNE MESIANO: An undesirable change will not be produced in the character
of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because the utility of
the subject premises will remain the same of that of a single family home site the use
permitted under the code zoning. The effect, "front lot line" contains a right-of-way that
provides access to the rear or west of the subject property. No site obstruction other than
negative impact affects the beneficiary of the right-of-way. The benefits sought by the
applicant will not be treated by somebody that's feasible to the applicant to pursue other
than the area variance because the Building Permit was issued for the as-built
construction. Construction was commenced in the existence of a right-of-way which
resuscitates the additional front yard setback is not identified until the foundation location
survey was completed. The relocation of the structure, the only alternative is not feasible
due to the excessive cost. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because the
requested relief is 8.2 feet, the minimum setback on all other lot lines is maintained in
excess of the required minimum of 50 feet. All of the bulk requirements are met. The
area variance, the variance won't have an adverse effect, won't impact the physical
Page 54, Apt5118, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
environmental conditions of the neighborhood because the granting of the requested
relief will not pose a negative impact relating to density traffic, safety noise or light
pollution. I begrudgingly say that the alleged difficulty has been self-created and this is
the minimum that is necessary now to put and at the same time protect the character of
the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Would you like these?
CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you. While you are standing Cathy, I would like to ask if
there's anybody else that would like to speak for or against this application?
CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm also going to give you a copy of the determination that
was given by the Building Department in the other matter.
CHAIRMAN: George, do you have a question?
MEMBER HORN1NG: Ma'am, to the best of your knowledge the street named Maple
Lane, which is a private road, who maintains that'?
CATHERNE MESIANO: I believe that's maintained by the Cleeves Point Association
because in the title report that I reviewed there was extensive data regarding Cleeves
Point because this property has access to the beach of the Cleeves Cove sub-division of
the property owners association. So I believe that's the Cleeves Point.
MEMBER HORNING: You're verifying it is a private road?
CATHERINE MESIANO: Yes, that's what I understand from my reading of the
documents.
MEMBER HORN1NG: And the so-called street, is that a right-of-way offofthis private
road?
CATHERNE MESIANO: The gravel driveway that exists and is shown on the most
current survey dated February 5, 2002, that gravel driveway is about 10 feet exists in that
area of the 25-foot right-of-way. All of which is located within the bounds of the subject
property.
MEMBER HORNING: (voice too low - inaudible).
CHAIRMAN: We don't know which way we're going to go with this; we'll let you know.
CAHTERINE MESIANO: Okay.
Page 55, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Homing '[~ansctipt
I own o~' Southold
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no further comment l¥oln anyone, thank you for the
presentation.
CATHERINE MESIANO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: We'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:25 p.m. Appl. No. 5129 - ARLENE YOUNGMAN.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Youngman how are you? I see you brought your builder with you.
How are you sir? Just quickly, when I met with you and the builder on that one Saturday,
you indicated to us that the placement of the foundation, the concrete foundation for the
garage was misplaced because of the lack of the survey. Is that correct, more or less?
ARLENE YOUNGMAN: Not really, it was misplaced because of the angle. And
instead of it being 20 feet from the road, it slopes so that part of it says 19.4 and another
part of it says 20 feet, so it slanted. The same thing on the westerly side, on the
neighbors, at one end its nearly 10 feet, on the other end it rears offinto 8.6 feet.
MEMBER TORTORA: When we saw you the last time you had a very old survey.
ARLENE YOUNGMAN: (INAUDIBLE)
MEMBER TORTORA: So you its 19.4 instead of 20, and 8.6 instead of 10.
CHAIRMAN: At one point and ten at the other.
ARLENE YOUNGMAN: Part of its 20 and part of it slants, and the neighbors have no
objection to it being 8.6.
MEMBER TORTORA: It seems like we just saw you.
ARLENE YOUNGMAN: It was last October.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that's what I mean.
ARLENE YOUNGMAN: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any questions Mrs. Youngman. I don't suppose it
would make any sense to ask you to rip up the garage fbr six inches, would it?
ARLENE YOUNGMAN: $2,000 worth.
Page 56, Ap~SI 18. 2002
ZBA Public Heating Inmscdpt
I own of Southold
CHAIRMAN: Ruth, any questions?
MEMBER OLIVA: No.
CHAIRMAN: Vinny, any questions?
MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions.
CHAIRMAN: George any questions?
MEMBER HORN1NG: No questions?
CHAIRMAN: Anybody in the audience while these two nice people are standing their
have any objection to this application? No response. Okay I'm going to make a motion
closing the hearing at this point.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:29 p.m. App. No. 5075 - DIANE DANEK.
CHAIRMAN: Diane Danek. Good evening ma'am.
DlANE DANEK: Good evening.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Danek~ you are the only person tonight that has a B & B before us.
What would you like to tell us about this?
DIANE DANEK: I plan on having two rooms.
MEMBER TORTORA: Could you speak up, its very hard to hear you we have a thn
behind us.
DIANE DANEK: I plan on having two bedrooms in a three-bedroom home for a Bed
and Breakl'ast.
MEMBER TORTORA: Two of your three bedrooms.
CHAIRMAN: Are all the bedrooms upstairs?
DIANE DANEK: No, one is on the first floor and two on the second floor.
CHAIRMAN: So you'll be utilizing the two that are on the second floor?
DIANE DANEK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, and there's a bathroom up there?
Page 57, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Ttansclipt
Town oF $outhold
DIANE DANEK: Yes.
MEMBER OLIVA: But it's in one of the bathrooms
CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have now been in the house. I see you have a parking plan which
seems to be more than adequate.
MEMBER OLIVA: She might change that.
CHAIRMAN: She might change that?
MEMBER OLIVA: Because the way you'd park it now, she'd have to dig into a slope
that's there that's covered with rotadendrum, and it would be better to cut back on her
lawn.
CHAIRMAN: So you want to give us an idea in the next two weeks of how you're going
to change it on the plan?
DIANE DANEK: I think, basically I'll use the plan that you have in front of you.
CHAIRMAN: Okay.
DIANE DANEK: And I will have to cut into __ and I may have to cut into
· Basically where it is, is where it is?
CHAIRMAN: Have you discussed this with your neighbors at all?
DIANE DANEK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: George do you have any questions of this nice lady?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRMAN: Vince?
MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions.
CHAIRMAN: Lydia'?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN: Ruth?
MEMBER OLIVA: No.
Page 58, April 18, 2002
ZBA Pt~blic Hearing Tmnscript
CHAIRMAN: Do you have any green cards with you'?
DIANE DANEK: I do, along with the Affidavits and I have the receipts.
CHAIRMAN: That's what we need. Okay, is there anybody else in the audience who
would like to speak for or against this application? No response. Seeing no hands
make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
SEE MINIJTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:37 p.m. Appl. No. 5068 - CHRISTINE AND GLENN DAWSON. Regarding a
request for Certificate of Occupancy for two single-family residential structures located
at 150 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue; 1000-104-10-8. Applicants: (1) request an
Interpretation of Section 100-241G and 100-242A of the Zoning Code; and (2) Appeal
for a Variance or other relief, regarding the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval
dated December 14, 2001, which states that an Accessory, nonconforming cottage is non-
habitable based upon the Building Inspector's Housing Code Inspection Report of 4/l 3/00
and pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 100-241G, which states:
Whenever a nonconforming use of a building or premises has been discontinued
for a period of more than two (2) years or has been changed to a higher
classification or to a confimning use, anything in this Article to the contrary
notwithstanding, the nonconforming use of such building or premises shall no
longer be permitted unless a variance therefore shall have been granted by the
Board of Appeals.
CHAIRMAN: The second to the last hearing of the evening is 5068, Christine and Glenn
Dawson. (muffled) during this application, some of which may or may not ci'fect you in
your presentation, I doubt it will effect you in your presentation, I think it's an overall,
overview of the entire hearing; and that is that what is before us tonight is the use of this
cottage it is not the use of the remaining portion of this property. We are dealing
specifically about this cottage and only about this cottage. That is the cottage, which is
closest to the creek and the Building Inspectors Determination of that, is that correct?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Correct.
CHAIRMAN: So I am not taking any other testimony tonight on anything other than
what's germane to this cottage. And I'm just making that as a general statement.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: As you see that I'm trying to sort through what I'm going to
say tonight. But 1 think that 1 fall within your heading. I think everything that I have
prepared tonight relates solely to the cottage.
CHAIRMAN: We're ready sir.
['age 59, April I 8, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing 'h'anscupt
I own ill Southold
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Did you read the public hearing or mention it'? You opened
up the hearing already?
CHAIRMAN: Well I really didn't but I have to tell you that after, this is the 18th or the
19th; we're going to say that this hearing is open.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: May I hand up the original affidavits, which I believed we
faxed to you beforehand. As you correctly pointed out this concerned cottage at the
property currently owned by the Dawsons, the main reason we're here is an Interpretation
of the Building Inspector's determination that somehow the use of the cottage was
abandoned under Section 100-241G of your Code. 1 will explain to you how I don't think
that that's applicable, but, initially I would like to hand up a letter from the people who
sold the property to Mr. and Mrs. Dawson and that's Marion and Gerald Geldwax, who
no longer live in the area, attesting to the fact that the propcrty was used. This letter was
written back in November 2000 when the Building Inspector made that initial
detennination. This has been in the pipeline for a while if you recall the Building
Inspector didn't write a letter, and then he wrote a letter and didn't put the date on it, It
took a while to get to the point where we procedurally had the proper application. So this
is the first document, and because I was here just recently, I brought six copies of
everything five fbr each of you and Mr. Chairman you don't have to give away your
copies.
CHAIRMAN: That's wonderful, thank you sir.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Now 1 would point out that to ibllow the Building Inspector's
Interpretation here and, to in efl'ect convert the cottage into a storage building you're
really making it more unusual than it is right now. What we have here is really a cottage,
a single-family home and it's been treated as a single-family home by the Town and I
really don't understand the nature of is Determination. I don't believe the concept of
abandonment of use to a structure such as a house or a cottage which is in a residential
neighborhood is an appropriate concept. You can't abandon a non-conforming use in this
case, because the use of the cottage was not non-conforming, the use of the cottage for
residential purposes and residential purposes are permitted in this particular district. The
non-conformity in this case is not the use, the non-conformity is the structure and that's
not governed as you will see through my presentation not governed Section 241G of your
Code, but rather by 242 or if anything not at all. Now I wanted to establish what we have
here and so Mrs. Dawson took a series of photographs of the property, which are labeled,
and I believe I also have six sets of these and I'll explain them briefly and what they
show. What you have before you on the first sheet is a picture of the main house, which
is closer to the road on top, and a picture of the cottage on the bottom. What I'd like you
to look at on the main house is you'll see that there's a crawl space that's open on the
bottom of the main house and also, if you look at the cottage there's a shed door on the
left hand side of the cottage as you look at the photograph. The reason those particular
items are important will come out later on in these photographs, each one of these
structures, each one of these residential structures is a fully self-contained unit. They
have their own wells, their own pumps, their own electric service, and their own septic
Page 60, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town t)f Soulhold
systems. And we have photographs later on in this packet of the pump and well tank fbr
the house, that's in the cram space shown, and the pump and well tank and the hot water
heater for thc cottage, which is in that, shed area at the back of the garagc. On the next
page, Mrs. Dawson put a little American Flag, next to the separate septic systems for
each one of the resident structures. You will see one for the main house and one for thc
cottage, they have separate septic systems. The next page shows the well tank and pump
fbr the main house on top, and the pump well tank and hot water heater just on the left
side of the cottage. The next thing is the phone jack for the cottage, the phone jack's been
there a long time, and also the cottage's electric meter, which is a bit of an antique. We
tried to sell it, we were going to sell it after this hearing since it has value fbr us to show
it's been there, but you will notice that the electric meter is an old fhshioned electric meter
and there's a separate electric service to this particular cottage. The next page shows the
interior of the next three pages, shows photographs of the interior of the cottage showing
another plumbing system, the rooms inside, the old telephone that's still there and that's
hooked up to the outside line, the old appliances in the kitchen and the last one is one of
the interior rooms and of course the deck of the main house looking down to the cottage
in the back. It's our position that what you have here clearly are two separate residential
structures each one a self-contained house the usual construction as houses. In fact, from
what ! understand from Mrs. Dawson, the cottage may have been the first structure on the
property the house came second. I would also point out that I pulled from the Town of
Southold's Tax Records the property record card and l have copies of that also. And if
you look on the back page of the property record card, and I won't bore you with the
calculations but you'll see number one and nmnber two to certain improvcments as they
make the calculations. Let me hand them up.
CHAIRMAN: I thought I was missing something, 1 thought that was on the back of the
pictures and I didn't know what you were referring to.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I should have handed it up first, not talking about it. This is
the Assessor's Card I believe that's maintained by the Town, it's not the bill, it's the
information that goes to creating the bill it has the land value and the improvement value.
If you look at the back of the card, you'll see the calculations were made from both
structures to detennine the value of the different piece of properties.
CHAIRMAN: It has nothing on the back.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: One of them does.
MEMBER TORTORA: We have our own copies in our file.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Do you have one there, I just looked at one on the back.
CHAIRMAN: Lydia has one.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: But you'll see the calculations on the copies in the file that
they included this particular structure at a residential rate for determining the value of her
Page 6 I, April ] 8, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Tlansctipl
Town oF Southold
taxes. The next thing I have, and this is also included in the application are some records
from the Building Department showing that the cottage was issued a Certificate of
Occupancy at least in 1976, at the time the property was owned by an Anthony Pisacano.
Wasn't Anthony the Rocky Point Realtor?
CHAIRMAN: 1 think so.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: In 1976 Mr. Pisacano made an application to construct a
deck on this dwelling and it was indicated as a private dwelling and a Building Permit
was issued. We know that by looking at the copy of the survey attached to the Building
Permit application, which shows the cottage, located near the water and the proposed
deck on it. If you go to the next document you will see the Building Permit that was
issued on July 12, 1976 which says specifically construct addition deck to existing one-
family dwelling and if you look down it identifies it as dwelling #2 cottage and it's signed
by the Building Inspector. And the last document in this little exhibit is a Certificate of
Occupancy issued August 18, 1976 for private one Pamily dwelling with addition deck.
Now this one doesn't refer to it as the cottage but if you look at the Building Permit
number on the Certificate of Occupancy you will see that it matches the Building Permit
for the deck on the cottage. There's no doubt that under the tax records and under the
building records, the Town acknowledged the cottage as a separate single-family
residence. The Building Inspector wrote a report in a conclusion fashion that I've seen
taking the position that somehow the use was terminated and therefore the structure
should be altered, in /hct he asked Mrs. Dawson to remove certain, thc stove in the
kitchen, to sort of destroy it's habitability. I don't think that there's anything, I can't thing
of why he would have done that. There's no evidence, as you look at the structure look at
it and visualize it, there's no act on the part of either Mrs. Dawson or her husband or the
predecessors to voluntarily abandon this property. Nobody knocked down the doors,
nobody removed the electric service, nobody got rid of the stove, kitchen, plumbing
appliances, which in my opinion would be the only way that you could voluntarily get rid
of what is a legal structure and certainly a conforming use. Again, we're in a residential
district and it was used as a residence. I don't believe that there's any indication of any
physical alteration of the building that would indicate such a voluntary abandonment. I
would also point out, as I mentioned before at this time, that Lilco, now Lipa have always
treated the cottage as a separate structurc also and they have maintaincd that meter, the
meter works to today. It doesn't have too much usage but it nevertheless is a separate bill
and is treated as a separate residential structure. There are two bills that the Dawsons
receive one for the front house and one tbr the rear house. Now we come to, I saved the
best for last at least in my opinion because I'm a lawyer. I saved the opinion from the
court that's applicable to this particular controversy. My position is that when you have a
house that clearly was, it was constructed probably before zoning and was the subject of
the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Town in 1976. It clearly looks like a house, as
they say looks like a house, walks like a house, and talks like a house, just like a duck.
There's no doubt about it you're not talking about a garage that somebody slept in, it was
built for that purpose, it's, as I said, located in a residential area where houses are
permitted. What's nonconforming about the particular cottage is not its use but its
structure. And if you look at your Code, the particular provision that the Building
Page 62, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public HcmSng Tlansc:
Town (11' Soulhold
Inspector relied upon that is replicated in the Notice re/Ers to uses, nonconforufing uses.
Here its not a nonconforming use, so there's no automatic abandontnent. It's a
contbrming use in a residential neighborhood. What is nonconforming about the cottage
is not its use, it's its structure and also it's too close to the next-door neighbor. And if you
go down in the Code, the next section, Scction 100-242 talks about nonconforming
buildings with contbrming uses and that's what we have here. It doesn't have an
automatic abandonment provision. I don't believe it was abandon anyway as I iudicated
in that letter. But the whole concept doesn't apply. Now in doing the research tbr this
application I found the case directly in point. It's a Nassau County case, it's a zoning
case, its dates from 1961, but it's a recorded opinion and it has been sited by Zoning
Treatises and it's the Amzalak case. In the Amzalak case the precise issue that I
presented tonight was presented to the court in Nassau, in the Supreme Court in Nassau
County. What that was was a lot which had one main house and a three-car, a structure
that had a three-car garage on the bottom floor and then a residence type apartment above
it, but it was a fairly substantial residence above the three-car garage. They were both
located on the same lot. And I guess the owner died or something and the cottage, or
garage, or whatever you want to call it, structure with the residence in it was not used for
a long period of time and I think that you will read in the case that they assume it was not
used for whatever the period was in that Zoning Ordinance. Well the judge said that
doesn't apply. What we have here is a nonconforming structure not a nonconforming use.
And as a result, there was no abandonment and the attempt of thc municipality in that
case to declare that the particular garage residence was no longer habitable was not
victorious. The judge threw it out. It's on all fours with our case. What we have here is
not a nonconforming use but we have a nonconforming structure that was not abandoned,
that was maintained and I think that the Building Inspector used the wrong provision to
make his initial detennination. Now I did apply, excuse me if I seem a little punchy, I
had a meeting in Garden City at 4:30 and so I flew in and flew back.
CHAIRMAN: We just want to tell you, you went over your 15 minutes already.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Oh, is there a limitation on time'?
CHAIRMAN: There was tonight.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: We also made an area variance request. It's contained in our
application in order to save time, I won't reiterate it. I don't think that there are any
changes to the particular, if there are any changes to the community. Mrs. Dawson will
tell you that there are lots within the vicinity that have two residential structures on them
and, at this point then, I will conclude my presentation but I'd like to call Mrs. Dawson
and have her identity some of those documents that we submitted.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Dawson would you raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear the
information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge?
CHRISTiNE DAWSON: Yes.
Page 63. April 18, 2002
ZBA Public lleming Transcript
Tclwn of Southold
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: With the Board's indulgence can I ask her a couple of
questions?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: You're one of the owners of the property right?
CHRISTINE DAWSON: Yes.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: And you saw those photographs that I submitted Mr.
Goehringer and the other Members of the Board'?
CHRISTINE DAWSON: Yes.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Who took them?
CHRISTINE DAWSON: 1 did.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: And you examincd the property for, and at the time that you
bought it, right?
CHRISTINE DAWSON: Yes.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Could you describe the cottage tbr the Board?
CHRISTINE DAWSON: It's exactly as it is there, except I painted it, inside and out, and
I put a new roof over the old one. Everything else is the same. I left the same stove
there, because it works that little Acme stove. It has a little refrigerator/freezer on one
side, its got two burners on the top. It's the same toilet; it's the same sink in the
bathroom, all the same fixtures that have always been there. Even the same lamps, I just
plugged them back in.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: And when you bought it, was the plumbing working?
CHRISTINE DAWSON: It was leaking, so we had to have a plumber go under, there
was a little hole and he had to dig out and fix. (more talking inaudible)
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: (inaudible) Was the electric service hooked up when you
bought it.
CHRISTINE DAWSON: Yes. Actually Mr. Geldwax gave us his old Lilco number to
call Lilco to have it transferred to our name. And it was the cottage Lilco number and he
never had the Lilco number for the main house. He just gave us his old account number
for the main house.
Page 64. April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing rlansc~ipt
Town of Southc~ld
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: In the particular vicinity of your property, are there any other
properties where there are two residential units?
CHAIRMAN: You have to speak a littlc louder.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: The question was, in the immediate vicinity of her property,
are there any lots that have two residential units on them that she knows of?
CHRISTINE DAWSON: There's at least ibur that I know of, because I have a canoe and
I go up and down the cove. So on my same block, on my same side, I can see four. And
that's without going all around.
MEMBER TORTORA: Are these cottages, are these guesthouses, are these servants
quarters, are they libraries, are they accessory garages, what are they?
CHRISTINE DAWSON: I'm looking at them from the water, so they look just like mine.
They just look a cottage with windows.
MEMBER TORTORA: You don't know what they are?
CHRISTINE DAWSON: No, I'm not sure.
MEMBER TORTORA: You don't know whether it's a dwelling unit, a residence, a
library, a guesthouse, servant's quarters or what?
CHRISTINE DAWSON: No 1 don't.
MEMBER TOROTRA: Okay that's all.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Just to conclude, there's no application to make any
alterations to the building, it's to keep it the way it is. I believe the deck's been there
since it was approved by the Town in 1976. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Angel, just before you sit down. I'm looking at your December 2001
application to Mr. Boufis. What you, in effect, were doing or what precipitated this was
looking for a Pre-C.O. on the cottage? What caused this whole thing?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I think that was it. I think an application was made for a pre-
existing C.O. on the cottage. I don't think that Mrs. Dawson was aware; well she may
have been aware. But there is an existing C.O. that is not cmTently issued. It's the 1976
C.O.
CHAIRMAN: So that was the C.O. that was relied upon when the Dawson's closed on
the property?
Page 65, AptSI 18, 20(12
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Towll of' Stmthold
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Right, and she went and asked for a currently Certificate of
Occupancy for a Pre-existing Certificate.
CHAIRMAN: I was trying to figure out, basically, I probably read this a long time ago.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: In tact, what it was when I looked at it; they did that before 1
got involved. 1 believe that she made an application Ibr a Certificate of Occupancy, for
one Certificate of Occupancy to include the house and the cottage. Not for two separate
residences, like Mr. Pisacano had, but isn't that correct you are looking for a C.O. for.just
the house and the cottage, as an accessory cottage use. Which, I mean from looking at
the records now that I look at it with hindsight as a zoning lawyer willing to split hairs
and take positions, I mean it looks like the prior C.O. was a little broader than that.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do you have any questions of Mr. Angel?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Okay before you sit down Mr. Angel, we need to grill you. We're going
to start with Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: You said that you didn't think that the use was nonconforming.
How many principle uses can you have on a residential, single residential parcel in the
Township of Southold under our Code?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: In the current Code I would think one.
MEMBER TORTORA: How many uses are you suggesting that can be on this property?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I think the way I look at it for a nonconforming use and the
way Amzlak case looked at it is that what we have here is a nonconforming structure.
And what's nonconforming about it under current code is there are two residences on the
lot and this residence probably doesn't meet setback requirements. That's the
nonconformity. The use of the property is what's permitted in the Code. The Code
permits residential use.
MEMBER TORTORA: Residential use per lot. You are suggesting two residential uses
per lot. I know what you're saying.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I'm not suggesting that you approve it. I'm suggesting that
it's there and not abandoned. It was there when the Certificate of Occupancy was issued
in 1976 and it was there for the tax card. And it's difficult conceptually to deal with, but
when you deal with a nonconforming use, the nonconformity doesn't relate to use, that's
just relates to density. The use is, if it were a commercial use, I would agree with you.
But it's a residential use, which is particularly and specifically permitted in this district.
For example,
Page 66, Ap~sI 18, 2002
ZBA Public I Icatiug Trausc~ipt
MEMBER TORTORA: So in other words, I get what you're saying. In other words, if I
had ten dwelling units on one lot the use would be permitted.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Correct.
MEMBER TORTORA: It is the area that you're suggesting; it's the area that I've
exceeded.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Right.
MEMBER TORTORA: Okay | understand your theory.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: And I'll give you an example of that.
MEMBER TORTORA: 1 understand your theory.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Let me go one step further and you've probably dealt with it
many times. If I were to come before you, let's assume that this issue didn't come up and
everybody knew that it had been occupied everyday for 365 days a year with separate
families. IfI came into your Board I would ask fbr area variances to split it. That's what
happens all the time, you probably deal with those situations where you have two houses
on one lot and somebody wants to sell them separately. It's an area variance, not a use
variance.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but that's the area of the lot. The square fbotage of the lot.
That doesn't deal with the number of units per
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Yes it does.
MEMBER TORTORA: No, it deals with the square footage. If someone comes in fbr an
area variance and his minimum square footage is 40,000 square feet and they request a
variance fbr 20,000 square feet, the area variance is for 20,000 square feet. It is not for
the number of dwelling units on that lot.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: 1 understand that.
MEMBER TORTORA: Its okay.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: But in this particular situation ! could present this case to
you by saying, oh, give me a variance. Let me split it off and I'll have two separate lots.
It's an area variance situation. If I wanted to put a deli in one of the units, then it would
be a use variance situation. Then we would have a nonconforming use.
MEMBER TORTORA: So you're suggesting that ifI want to have ten dwelling units on
my lot, that all 1 would have to do is come into this Board and meet the common
ordinary, garden variety, run of the mill area variance criteria.
Page 67, April I 8, 2002
ZBA Public [Icadng Tnmscdpt
Town of Southold
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Well, the answer is yes, I mean if you want to put ten units
on one small lot, it would be tough to meet those criteria. But it's not a use variance. If
you want to put a residence m a residence district,
MEMBER TORTORA: More than one
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: More than one or on a smaller lot, it's an area variance. I'm
not saying you'd get it, but it's an area variance. Its not a nonconforming use.
MEMBER TORTORA: tf you have any other case law other than this, I'd like to see it.
This is 1961. As f:ar as the letter that you gave us, I'd like to see a sworn affidavit. This
says nothing other than the cousins used it during the summer time. I'd like to see a copy
of your deed when you purchased the property and submit that into the record. 1
personally don't accept your theory. I would like to see, you know, I don't. That's my
personal opinion. It does not reflect anyone else on the Board's opinion. As far as the
question of abandonment
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I wouldn't put that under the question of abandonment, 1
don't think that wc have the burden of proof to show that it hasn't been abandoned. 1
think that there has to be some affirmative proof of abandonment, and I think that the
only affirmative proof that would relevant would be some physical alteration to change
the use of the building. Not just an allegation that it hasn't been used. That's an
impossible burden to meet. In my opinion.
MEMBER OLIVA: Mr. Angel, did you say that Mrs. Dawson went into the Building
Department to get a C.O. for the cottage?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: She went to get a currently dated Certificate of Occupancy
for the entire property.
MEMBER OLIVA: But when she bought the property, isn't it required that you have
C.O.'s for both pieces, for both dwellings?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I believe that there are C.O.s, one is 1976. I didn't look at
the other one.
MEMBER OLIVA: Why did she have to go back in again?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Excuse me?
MEMBER OLIVA: Why did she go back in to get another one?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: People normally do that. People want currently dated
Certificate of Occupancy. We put that in some of our contracts.
Page 68, April 18, 2002
ZBA I>ublic Hearing Tmnscripl
'1 (~wn ol' Southold
MEMBER OLIVA: Because it was my understanding that as long as you had a C.O.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: The prudent thing to do, generally, is to get a currently dated
one because that would pick up if there were any alterations.
MEMBER OLIVA: But then when they did the title search when she bought the
property why didn't they have the previous owners have one brought up to date?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Well I didn't represent her on it, and besides, the title search
doesn't search fbr Certificates of Occupancy unless you ask for a municipals and I don't
know if she did or not. Generally the title is only concerned with whether the property
has good title, not the Certificate of Occupancy.
MEMBER OLIVA: 1 just had an experience with ]ny in-laws that they were going to sell
the house and they didn't have a C.O. and they had to go back to the drawing board to get
one.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: That's all from the case, I mean, that is not
MEMBER OLIVA: That doesn't mean it ,,','as up to date or they haven't done it
previously.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: The truth of the matter is, is that there are lots of contracts
and I have not examined her contract, l'm speaking academically. There are many
situations and I will attest to that if you want to swear me in, where people buy improved
properties without Certificate of Occupancy. Whether it's legal or not, there's no doubt
about that. Two, sometimes people require Certificates of Occupancy that are updated in
their contracts, sometimes they don't. There's a whole universe of different things that can
be done when you buy property. I don't know what was done here. The thct is, is that
there was a Certificate of Occupancy back in 1976. I don't know what was done after
that. I just, that's the only one that I found when I looked through the file. And I didn't
look through her file; I looked through the Town file.
MEMBER OLIVA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Anybody else?
MEMBER ORLLANDO: Yes, one quick question. Did Mrs. Dawson state that they had
separate phone numbers, is that correct? The cottage and the main house have separate
numbers?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Well, it did yes. I don't think in the cottage is currently
hooked up, is it?
CHRISTiNE DAWSON: No I didn't hook it up. It would be two phone bills.
Page 69, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Tnmscdpl
MEMBER ORLANDO: So you have one phone bill.
CHRISTINE DAWSON: I have one phone bill right.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mrs. Dawson. ls there anybody else that would like to speak
in thvor of this application? Speaking against thc application, I am reflecting the cottage
gentlemen and ladies only. Gentleman in the suit? Are you an attorney sir?
ROBERT CIPITELLI, ESQ.: Yes, I'm an attorney. My name is Robert Cipitelli and 1
also happen to the son of Bruno Cipitelli who is a property owner to the west of the lot
that we are speaking of:
MEMBER TORTORA: You have to talk into the microphone please.
ROBERT CIPITELLI: I have also prepared a written argument on the subject tonight
and I made enough copies for the full Board with an original. If l am permitted I will
approach now and pass them out.
CHAIRMAN: Surely.
ROBERT CIPITELLI, ESQ.: I was under the impression tonight that we also had two
issues that were in front of us. One was an Interpretation of the Building Department's
denial of the C.O. for the cottage and then, on top of that as Mr. Angel had gone into, that
alternatively he had wanted another section of the Code applied to the cottage and then if
that wasn't the case, they were seeking a variance in tonight's proceedings. I would like
to try to stay in order of the way Mr. Angel had prepared his arguments. But what I'm
going to begin is I don't think that there is a question that the cottage was there. I don't
think there's a question of how old the cottage is and 1 don't think there's a question of
what went on inside that cottage. The question is, is the use ceased. And the use did
indeed cease. I can stand here in front of you and this can be my sworn testimony also,
my father bought the property next door in 1996 and from 1996 to the year 2000, there
was no activity in that cottage or that house on those premises at all; except we were
fortunate enough to get a landscaper to come once in a while and clean things up so it
wouldn't grow out of hand. And I believe that there are surrounding neighbors that are
here tonight that will each stand up, and that have been there long enough, and give you
testimony on that same fact. That's the question in front of us, is whether the use ceased.
The use didn't cease whether it stopped being a cottage; of course it stayed a cottage.
That wasn't going to change when we discuss use. The use of the cottage ceased, it
stopped altogether not just for overnights, not just for summer days, but altogether. I
believe the letter that was handed to you by the, I want to say the name correctly, the
Geldwax, the property owners prior to the Dawsons only speaks that the nephew had use
of the house during the summer months, the cottage I'm sorry, during the summer
months. It doesn't testify that they actually used it. I understand the aunt saying nobody
used it so the letter that was handed to you I just wanted to make that point. Mr. Angel
argued that the only problem with this cottage is its setback off the property line. That's
not indeed the case and I hope this Board will make that as a final determination. The
Page 70, Ap~51 I 8, 2002
ZBA Public Heming TIansc~ipl
I own o~' Soutbold
problem here is the use of the cottage ceased for over two years, the statutory time period.
And if we want to discuss what use is the Town's own code, Section 100-31Al governs
permitted uscs. The one-family, detached dwellings not to exceed one dwelling on each
lot. I think that issue is pretty simple and it's straightforward and the photographs will
prove that these are detached dwellings, they're both on the same lot and therefore the use
of the cottage can't be proved. Mr. Angel brought up case law on use. I don't know if I
just didn't hear it, I didn't hear what the facts specific facts were on that case. I heard
something about a garage and an apartment on top of it. I don't believe from what I've
heard of that case that we can say that that's directly on point, we can't even say that that's
on point, because here we're dealing clearly with two separate dwellings that are
detached. That casc might have had attached dwellings and there~:bre would not apply
whatsoever to this circumstance. What I'd like to point out now is we're going to, I would
like to talk about the granting of the variance or the non-granting of the variance from my
point of view. This variance would have a tremendous impact on the neighbors, the
health and safety of the neighbors. This is an old structure. There is no proof anywhere
in the Building Department's records, anywhere in your Zoning Board file that we've
looked at the septic system in this cottage. The septic system designed tbr whatever kind
of use it would have had back in the 70% or 60's when this cottage was constructed
clearly is not going to be able to meet the burden that is being placed on it. And when I
say being placed on it is because I'm not clear what use they're looking for when they say
they want residential one-family use. This property is being used for rental purposes, and
I'm not talking about just one family for the season. They're running ads in papers,
advertising this
CHAIRMAN: If it reflects the cottage, that's all 1 want.
ROBERT CIPITELLI, ESQ.: It does reflect the cottage, the ad states there's two houses
on two acres of land sleeps fourteen people. And I can tell you that on many occasions
through summer months there are more than fourteen people there. There's seven or
eight cars parked on the property throughout the week, and the load on that septic system
has got to be incredible. Now this property is located directly on Broadwaters Cove, and
this cottage has to be one of the closest structures to Broadwaters Cove. We've seen
nothing about wetlands, we've seen nothing from the Trustees and as a matter of fact on
the application N/A is indicated on all the answers with questions opposed about
wetlands. This will change the character of that community drastically. More and more
people are living there full time directly around this house. It's no longer just a temporary
vacation community. This community goes to sleep there at night, to wake up to go to
work the next day. There have been, under my belief; a couple of occasions when the
police have been called to the property for late night parties, for disturbances. If you
want to talk about a reflection on the community, this is just absolutely drastic. This, in
no way, is going to have a little, slight or no impact on our character. And we're here,
because we're asking this Board to protect the character of Nassau Point, protect
Broadwaters Cove, and our safety, our health, these are all issues that are at risk. It is the
rental situation that has occurred there that forced the residents around to lock doors that
we normally kept open. Every Sunday afternoon, a new gI'oup comes in, every Saturday
night the old group leaves. We never know who's coming in next. They have unleashed
Page 7 I, Apnl 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Tmnbcript
Town of Southold
dogs that are constantly running across the properties and some of thc renters had two or
three dogs. We've had problems with trespassing, we've had problems with personal
property that has been used and left turned upside down without permission. I want to
talk about whether this difficulty is self-created or not. Thc Dawsons purchased the
property only two years ago. They purchased the property, and it's in the Town records,
in March l believe it was when the record reflects. Right away the tbllowing Monday, it
was only two weeks later it was the first report was issued. I find it hard to believe that
this property was purchased with no C.O.'s and the last C.O. that was showing record was
from the owner that was prior to the owner that the Dawson's were buying the property
from. They knew there was a problem they took a gamble anyway. Now the community
is standing up and saying hold on a second you can't do this over here. And they're trying
to show that is a hardship on themselves and plunked this on the Board and asked for
relief. That's not relief I'm sorry. That's punishment on the neighbors and all the
residents on Nassau Point. I don't want to use all up the time, I know it's late and I want
to hopefully catch the end of the Islander game, but there are a lot of neighbors that
would like to say a word or two if this Board would let them.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cipitelli just before you sit down, are you telling me that at the time
that these people were renting these premises they were utilizing the cottage?
ROBERT CIPITELLI, ESQ.: Yes, the cottage has been in continuous use.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. We'll take it one at a time. We will swear each person
in. The gentleman in the blue shirt was next. Raise your right hand sir; do you solemnly
swear the information you are about to tell us is the truth to the best of your knowledge?
KEN SEIFERT: 1 do.
CHAIRMAN: Please state your name.
KEN SEIFERT: Ken Seifert.
CHAIRMAN: How do you do.
KEN SEIFERT: Good thank you. I live at 2000 Nassau Point. I'm adjacent to the east
of the Dawsons.
MEMBER TORTORA: Can you speak up a little please?
KEN SEIFERT: Is that better?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
KEN SEIFERT: i hope part of the Board's been out there to look at the property. I hope
that they stop over to see the house, what we're talking about here. I bought that property
in 1997. I can attest to the fact that that cottage was not used at all until the Dawsons
Page 72, April 18. 2002
ZBA Public [[ealing I-nmscript
Town of Southold
movcd in there. I was going to buy the property that the Dawsons bought, I had an
opportunity to buy it, did some research and found the cottage according to Mr. Geldwax,
said that it was only used as overflow for the main house. I think that thc Building
Inspector when I was thinking about buying, told me that there was no C.O., couldn't get
a C.O. for having two houses on the property. The intent was if there was a major party
in the main house people could sleep to go down to the cottage and have a place to sleep
rather than tents, and crash there tbr the night and go back and go to the main house to
resmne their entertaimnent and activities with their t?iends. I think they're really trying to
push this issue right now, what we think would harnl the environment, the neighbors,
Nassau Point, the whole community. I'm definitely opposed to it, and I hope the Board
thinks about it and makes the right decision. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes. Ma'am would you kindly raise your right hand, do you
solemnly swear the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your
knowledge?
BARBARA RINGWALD: I do.
CHAIRMAN: Would you state your name?
BARBARA RINGWALD: Barbara Ringwald.
CHAIRMAN: How do you do?
BARBARA R1NGWALD: I'm not a lawyer and I hope I can get through this and give
you my points l wish to make, because my husband and I live next door and we are not
weekenders, we are there all the time. We have become very emotionally upset by what's
been going on.
CHAIRMAN: This is to the east of the property now?
BARBARA RINGWALD: We are to the east. This is a letter signed by ten of the
neighbors, some of them are here tonight, and some of them are weekenders and were not
able to come. We believe that the variance for a C.O. should not be granted under
Section 241G because, as it's been said, it was abandoned unless you perhaps count
family raccoons, which took up residence there for a while. It was unused for at least
five years prior to the Dawsons purchase. It was in such disrepair that the real estate
agents had difficulty showing the property and Mr. Geldwax finally had to put a new
deck on the main house. As to the information given in the application, here are three
quotes: Questionnaire for filing with your ZBA application; question #5: Please list
present uses of both, or operations conducted at this parcel, Answer: Single-family
residential use. Post use, same. This is clearly not true. There has been a large for rent
sign on Broadwaters for two years, 2 x 2 feet, I thought you had to have a permit fbr that.
There have been continuous ads running in at least two community newspapers, I have a
copy here. By the way, this is this morning's paper Suflblk Times. The Suffolk Times
and the Garden City paper. The ad advertises two cottages sleeping fourteen, etc.
Page 73, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public llcaling Transmipt
Town of Southo[d
Clearly this is business enterprise. The next point, is this property within 300 feet of a
tidal wetlands? Answer, no. The cottage is 58 feet from high tide mark and we've been
there at some of the very high tides in the fhll, and the water has been up to the deck.
Area variance, Variance Reasons, #3: There will be no change in the neighborhood.
That's been addressed. There's already been an extremely negative change affecting the
quality of life and the ability to enjoy our homes on lovcly Broadwaters Cove. Each
weekend, as many as five vans puli in and disturbs several families. We are subjected to
boom boxes, blaring loud music, barking dogs, roaring dirt bikes (mini-motorcycles) and
screaming children who use the two nearby docks as their own, despite the fhct that we
have put up a gate and a padlock on it. They just climb over. This is an insurance
problem fbr us. The lot is less than 80 feet wide. It may be two acres, but it's a very long
narrow lot. The police have been called many times fur abusive noise level. Recently
there was some trouble with the septic system, maybe just not in the bathrooms; pcople
just used the outdoors, resulting in festoons of toilet paper on neighboring docks. The ad
has been pulled for a couple of weeks, this was last weekend, but here it is again.
According to the Suffolk Times it's set to run continuously. Obviously, the Dawsons
intend to run their property as a motel, with or without the C. O. Despite the injunction on
the application, which clearly states, no building shall be occupied for use in whole or in
part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by
the Building Inspector. We further believe that granting the C.O. would establish a legal
two-family residence in a one-family residential area. We beg you not to grant this C. O.
And here are the signatures, copies of the ads and picture of the sign. I'm sorry I'm not
i'amiliar with, so I didn't make six copies. I'm trying to cut down on paperwork.
CHAIRMAN: Is your signature on this?
BARBARA RINGWALD: Yes. Mine is, my husband's and several of the neighbors.
CHAIRMAN: You're at 21507
BARBARA RINGWALD: Right, 2150. Our sideline goes down on the side; it's kind of
an unusual layout.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next? Anbody? Raise your right hand; do you solemnly swear
the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge sir?
DOUGLAS KLEIN: I do.
CHAIRMAN: What's your name sir?
DOUGLAS KLEIN: Douglas Klein, 324 Broadwaters. I'm west of them. I just want to
testify to accuracy of what you heard here, and possibly to the inaccuracy of the attorney,
Angel. The deck has been replaced on the cottage. Thank you.
Page 74, Apl51 I g, 2002
ZBA Public Homing T~m]sc]ipt
Town o[' Southold
CHAIRMAN: Gentleman in the black shirt do you want to say something? Raise your
right hand sir; do you solemnly swear thc infommtion you are about to give us is the truth
to the best of your knowledge?
BRUNO CIPITELL[: I do.
CHAIRMAN: What's yuur name sir?
BRUNO CIPITELLI: Bruno Cipitelli.
CHAIRMAN: Nice to meet you.
BRUNO CIPITELLI: 220 Broadwaters Road.
CHAIRMAN: Didn't we have a variance with you?
BRUNO CIP1TELLI: Yes we did. That's why I'm here, because I get one.
CHAIRMAN: Two structures and we attached them.
BRUNO CIPITELLI: Right, I made one structure. Whatever my son said and whatever
the neighbors are saying, it's what I have to say. So it's no use to go over and over.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN: We appreciate that. You just want to affirm?
BRUNO CIPITELLI: That's it.
CHAIRMAN: Okay.
BRUNO CIPITELLI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Anybody else before we leave this? Sir? Could you raise your right
hand, do you solemnly swear the information you are about to give us is the truth to the
best of your knowledge?
ROB GALLAGHER: I do. My name is Rob Gallagher; I'd just like to back up what
everybody's saying. If you could just really be sensitive to my quality of life, that's why
I'm out here; it's a great place to live and l just don't want to see it change. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? I want to thank everybody's courtesy, it's very nice. Raise
your right hand sir? Do you solemnly swear the information you are about to give us is
the truth to the best of your knowledge?
NEIL MCSHANE: I do.
Page 75, April 18, 2(g)2
ZBA Public Hcari~g Transcript
]own of Sauthold
CHAIRMAN: And your name sir'?
NElL MCSHANE: My name is Neil McShane; I'm the President of the Nassau Point
Property Owners Association.
CHAIRMAN: It's a pleasure to meet you.
NEIL MCSHANE: I've spent many, many years in the real estate business, zoning
boards, planning boards all being in the State of New Jersey but the principles are the
same. My role really is to represent my members and retain their property values. I don't
want to deprive anybody of their rights but, if in fact a decision would lead to a two-
family zone, I would be violently opposed. I want to make a correction to a statement
that Mr. Angel made. The Geldwax's do reside on Nassau Point on Fisherman's Beach so
they have a presence. My experience in not only buying but re-financing properties in
my thirty-six years, including my own home here, a Certificate of Occupancy is
demanded by most and anybody who has an attorney with half a brain
· My senses is that the buyers of this property can ~tbrward understanding
what they had and they bought it as-is and the property is, we just got pumped water on
Nassau Point, thank God. We only have one bubble un~terneath the point that services
still half of the population. We're really absolutely concerned about septic systems, and
how they impact not only the Broadwaters Cove, but the grounds. It may be a
continuation of the process down the road, but look to the Suffolk County Water
Authority clearly to give an approval as to whether this property could even be useable its
so dose to Broadwaters Cove. It is very low. As of right now, (inaudible) noticeable
that's impacted one of the abutting property known as through the
Suffblk County Water Authority. So it's very, very sensitive land.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else before we wrap this up? Okay seeing no
hands, Mr. Angel anything? Quickly.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: The record should just be clear that there is a C.O. I gave
you a copy of that C.O. l guess at this point, I assume that you are going to put this over
lbr some period of time. I would request that I could provide you with some additional
inlbnnation and deal with some of the comments that we had tonight.
CHAIRMAN: All I would like you to do is send your Affidavits to counsel or give them
to us and we'll distribute them to counsel.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: If you would have counsel for the opposing party also gives
me whatever he submitted. I would be pleased to send a copy of whatever I submitted to
Mr. Sickatelli?
CHAIRMAN: I think its Cipitelli.
Page 76, April 18. 2002
ZBA Public Ilearmg Tmnscfipl
Town of Southold
ROBERT CIPITELLI, ESQ.: I would like to ask how we're going to proceed then, is this
going to be. Is he going to make a reply to my papers, and then will I have time to then
answer that back? How are we going to proceed?
CHAIRMAN: This leads to
MEMBER TORTORA: I would ask for an afl]davit from the prior owners, not just a
little hand written letter. You don't feel that you have to address the issue of
abandonment because you don't feel that the use is nonconforming, and I told you, very
candidly, that I don't agree with you.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Well, I understand your position. I appreciate your candor,
but needless to say I believe in my position, my legal position. I will go out and try to; I
have learned something that the Gedlwax are possibly local, so I'1l go ask them if they
would give that affidavit. Though ! don't think that it is absolutely necessary to my
position, it's certainly relevant to the position that you understand the law. I would be
pleased to give Mr. Cipitelli my card and he can send me what he sent you and I will send
him if he does the stone, what I gave you tonight. The important thing would be the
deed. I have a copy of the unrecorded deed in my file; I'll make a copy of the deed. I
think I actually have one somewhere back in the office.
MEMBER TORTORA: Is it possible, I don't know the gentleman's name here who said
it, but it really did strike me as having just went through a purchase of a home that ! think
one of the questions that you actually say is what is a C.O. What is a C.O. on the house,
on the dwelling, on the premises? That's one of the most common.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Well I mean you can all sit here and try to convince me of
what's necessary in the legal business but I'm telling you and if you'd like to swear me in
with what I said beforehand.
CHAIRMAN: I don't have to swear you in because you're an officer of the court.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: But when people buy businesses, people buy land they go all
different ways and I do not know how it was done in this case. I have not examined the
contract. I know that there was a C.O. for the cottage in 1976 that's all I know. 1 have
not examined whether there is a C.O. for the house. I haven't looked tbr the Building
Permit on the house and I don't know the nature of the contract at all.
MEMBER TORTORA: I don't remember anything, and ! am going to be as direct as I
can, in the seven years I've sat on this Board I don't remember ever issuing approval for
two dwelling units on one lot in the seven years I've sat on this Board.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: That is not the issue that is before your Board. What's before
your Board is whether the cottage has been abandoned as a matter of zoning law. That's
the issue. We're not asking you to issue an approval for a new cottage. The issue here is
whether it's been abandoned.
Page 77, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Heating Tt'nnsc~
ROBERT CIPITELLI, ESQ.: If you locate the previous owners if they still live in
Nassau point, maybe they could fill out that affidavit for you for the Keyspan/Lipa
records.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Yes, l'11 ask them for everything, absolutely, no problem.
CHAIRMAN: Let me try and get some dates down here. Our next Special Meeting is on
May 2''d. I would like to have everything from you by May 2nd if I could. If I can't get
that from you by May 2ha, I definitely need it by May 16"(
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Let's do May 16th.
CHAIRMAN: May 16th okay. At which point, you'll send a copy to Mr. Cipitelli?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Mr. Cipitelli you'll get a copy or thereabouts on May 16t~,
17th or 18th, If you don't get a copy, call our office and we'll furnish it. Then you are
going to reflect whatever you want to reflect to us prior to the last hearing and we don't
have a Special Meeting date lbr the month of May and when we get that we'll have it on
the 16th and it is at that hearing that we will close this record.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: That's a date that you have not set yet. You'll set it on the
16th?
CHAIRMAN: We'll set it on the 16th.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: You want my submissions by the 16th and then
CHAIRMAN: And we'll make a demand, in writing, with Mr. Cipitelli. Preferably we'd
like to have it in three or four days prior to that Special Meeting date in May. Now the
only thing I want to say to you all is that I'm not, based upon the Memorial Day situation,
I don't know if we're going to work one out in May. It may be early June, okay. So I'm
just telling you that now. So in all true fairness to Mr. Cipitelli, I mean you have thirty
days to produce this he may have to have thirty days also or thereabouts. Maybe not
thirty days, three weeks or something like that. So this may go into early June. Just so
you are aware of that. Is that okay with you? And I do want to thank everybody again
for their courtesy. Sir?
UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN: May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN: lfyou use the microphone sir. l need to take it on the record.
UNKNOWN GENTLEMAN: My question is, is this a rent able property until this matter
is decided?
CHAIRMAN: 1 can't answer that because I'm not the Code Enforcement Officer.
Page 78, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Transcript
Town of Southold
MEMBER TORTORA: You need to talk to the Building Department about that.
CHAIRMAN: Could you just state your name Ibr the record, please?
LOUIS SULICH: My name is Louis Sulich, I'm a property owner at 580 Broadwaters
Road about four houses down from the property.
CHAIRMAN: Do you have a spelling in that'?
LOUISSULICH: S U L I C H.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. Hearing no further comment
MEMBER HORNING: (inaudible) sited in the Notice of Disapproval (inaudible)
CHAIRMAN: That's probably a Building Department record.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Angel one quick question. Is it safe to say that of Mrs.
Dawson, this is not her primary residence?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: I believe that's correct. This is not her primary residence.
CHAIRMAN: All right, we're hearing no further comment 1'11 make a motion closing,
I'm sorry recessing the hearing.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: In the legal business, they'd say May 16th is the control date.
So on May 16th you're going to get one set of documents and you'll be able to set another
date. So that's probably what you want to do. Right?
CHAIRMAN: I think what we'll say is we are actually going to reconvene this hearing
on June 6th. Okay. And I think that's what we'll do. Because that appears to be the
Special Meeting date.
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Is that when we meet on the other matter?
CHAIRMAN: No that's June 20th. Don't confuse me Mr. Angel.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
9:50 p.m. Appl. No. 5077 and 5078 - THEODORE LAOUDIS - (Await revised maps
for Board review by Friday, April 12th). Continuation from the March 21, 2001 Hearings
Calendar.
Page 79, April 18, 2002
ZBA Public Hearing Tlanscl
fown of Southold
CHAIRMAN: In light of the fact that we have not received thc paperwork, however, we
are accepting Mrs. Moore's only single copy. We're ready Mrs. Moore.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Somewhere in this building are seven prints that were sent by the
architect that, they're obviously not in your office, and you'll find them within a couple of
days and you'll have seven prints added. My understanding f?om the last meeting that
you actually wanted to have a measurement of the canopy on the parcel with the house,
the new house on it that would be Tax Map No. 70-13-20.32. We provide the survey that
shows the actual property line and then shows the setback of the principal structure being
the house with garage below at the required, at the proposed setbacks. And it was agreed
or we had offered last time at the hearing that in the event that this parcel would be sold
independently of the adjacent parcel, that the canopy would then have to be cut back to a
conforming setback which would be whatever the Code says at the time or what it says
today and 1 don't know what it says today, 20 feet maybe, 20 feet 1 think it should be. We
confor~n presently.
MEMBER TORTORA: How did you get to 34, is that because'?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Its just angled. 34?
MEMBER TORTORA: On the lot coverage, is that because
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Now what happened is, we were very conservative. There is
already there, patios all over the place, and a lot of these patios are going to be replaced
and it was too difficult for us to get a clear understanding from the Building Department
which patio's going to be lot coverage and which isn't because their interpretation ol; if
you can run a lawn mower over it, its okay, but if you can't then it's a structure.
MEMBER TORTORA: Are they still holding on to the lawn mower theory?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: Oh, they are?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: I thought they' changed the lawn mower theory?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: I just spoke to somebody this week that gave me that. I wasn't a
Building Inspector; it was somebody who had come from the Building Department. Its
actually, ! think its 18 inches or something. Well you're allowed on grade. On grade
patio is fine. If its above grade patio, it is not fine and that's where we have because of
the way this house was designed many years ago, you've got a combination of on grade
and above grade.
MEMBER TORTORA: But it doesn't look it. In other words, when you look at it,
Page 80, April 18. 2002
ZBA Public [[eating Tmnsc~ipl
]own of $oulimld
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: No when you look at it, it looks on grade.
MEMBER TORTORA: The only reason it looks like a very high
to me.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: It is, but if you can figure out
MEMBER TORTORA: Well, I can't.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Well that was our problem, and I would rather be on the
conservative because if we present it to the Building Department and they say oh sorry
we think this should've been and it isn't, then we're back to the drawing board. So we just
took all square Ibotage of areas that were calculated here. I mean the tennis court; thc
way it's interpreted is that the entire surface of the tennis court is lot coverage. And that
really kind of throws all the numbers even originally; the numbers were thrown off
because of the amount of tennis court.
CHAIRMAN: l think probably you're going to say a figure placed in this decision with a
setback clear cutting it back on both sides that is at least a minimum and it will read
conforming okay, but a minimum of.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: In the event it sold indepeudently.
CHAIRMAN: In the event it's sold.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Right, okay that's important.
MEMBER TORTORA: We agree that if its sold that all of that has to be cut back,
removed to conform to the.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Right, well I think that anybody who bought this piece
independently wouldn't want a walkway that went to the neighbor.
CHAIRMAN: You're giving me both of this Mrs, Moore?
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: There are two maps? I think there's one. Well you can have two.
Actually this is the one, I asked them for a fi'ont yard showing, but they gave me the
wrong one. They measured the wrong.
CHAIRMAN: No, there's 46 and 20.
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Yes, but they're to gravel. They should've given me a
measurement to the structure.
CHAIRMAN: Well, you can figure it out.
P~lgc gl, April I g, 2002
ZBA Public H¢~tt'ing TnLnscripl
Town o[' Southold
PAT MOORE, ESQ.: Yes, you can figure it out to thc extent it's useful. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN: Any other questions of Pat, at this time'?
MEMBER ORLANDO: No.
CHAIRMAN: Anybody in the audience? No response. Let's close the hearing.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
End of Public Hearings @ 10:50 p.m.
Prepared by Paula Quintieri