HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/16/2002 HEAR Zoning Board of Appeals
Thursday, May 16, 2002
Transcript of Public Hearings
Prepared by Jill Doherty (from tape recordings)
Gerard Goehringer, Chairman
l.ydia Tortora, Member ~
George Homing, Member
Vincent Orlando, Member
Paula Quintieri, Secretary
Absent was:
Ruth Oliva.
6:25 p.m. Application No. 5122 - Scott and Constance Ellis. This is a request for Special Exception under
section 100-3lB to establish a Bed and Breakfast as an Accessory use incidental to applicants residence for
up to four guest rooms (maximum of 8 guests). Location: 47100 Main Road, Southold, South Harbor Lane,
Southold 69- 6-11.
Mrs. Connie Ellis spoke in support of their application for a Bed and Breakfast accessory use in their
residence. Mrs. Ellis confirmed their parking plan, submitted for the Board's consideration, and said the
parking is in order, and the fire detector system is also installed and existing.
Chairman Goehringer: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Oh
pardon me. Mrs. Grant, how are you'?
Mrs. Grant: I am fine, thank you. I would just like to say that I thi~k that the, Connie happens to be my
neighbor, I think what it would bring to the Town and the Bed and Breakfast Industry can pretty
outstanding. They have been working hard on it and have been trying to stay in compliance every step of the
way. I would just like to say I support them in their endeavor.
Chairman: Thank you. Would anyone like to speak in favor'? (No response). Anyone like to speak
against? (No response.) Hearing none, I would like to make a motion to close and reserve the decision until
later.
See minutes t'or resolution.
6:30 P.M. Application No. 5099 - Mattituck Historical Society. This is a request for a lot waiver under
section 100-26 to unmerge Mattituck Estates subdivision (vacant) lot 57, from combined lots 58 and 59.
Based on the Building Departments Feb. 12, 2002 amended notice of disapproval, lot 57 is merged with lots
58 and 59. Location: West side of Cardinale Drive and 18200 Main Road Mattituck; 115 -4-18.1. Zone
District R40.
Chairman Goettringer: Good evening sir would state your name for the record please'?
Mr. Wamback: My name is Norman Wamback. I am the president of the Mattituck Historical Society since
last November. 1 represent vice president Gertrude Coup of the society who has been a member since 1965.
Chairman: We would like to discuss with you. The nature of this property was acquired all the same time is
that correct'?
Page 2
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Mccting
Mr. Wamback: No, it was not. lot No. 59 to where the houses located on the Main Road and a lot adjacent
to the South, No. 58 was donated to Mattituck Historical Society by ... H. Ripple who understood the
importance of the old Tuthill house. Every Iuthill in Southold Town are descendants were bom in that
house. That house was built in 1799. It is a very important cntity of Mattituck and Southold. Lot #57 was
purchased about five years later by the historical society itself.
Member Tortora: Can you give us the year of the lots?
Mr. Wamback: 59 & 58 was 1965 and I don't have the exact date of lot No. 57. It was early '70s that i
know. The Board of Trustees purchased lot #57 for an investment at the thne.
Member Tortora: Thank you.
Chairn~an: Now of course we have to as the qucstion Mr. Wamback, why at this thne in 2002 the historical
society
is interested in selling off this lot'?
Mr. Wamback: It is all financial. I have been President since November, as I told you. I set up several
committees, hoping to get this society back to where it should be. The treasury is down. There is hardly any
money and in order to implement some of the programs that we want to implement, we need money. The
onIy way to get money at this point in time is to sell a lot.
Chairman: 'Phis lot has been virtually undeveloped up to this point. You really haven't even manicured any
of the trees...
Mr. Wamback: No. It was purchased as I said for an investment, but unfortunately the offices of the
historical society at the time, the lots were combined and they didn't do anything about separating it.
Member Tortora: In fact that was one of the things that I was looking at, in 1979 you actually combine the
three parcels'? They were merged prior to that. But they have definitely not been in single and seperate
ownership since perhaps the 50's, a long time ago.
Mr. Wamback: Right, exactly. 1 wasn't around at the time, othe~wvise I would persude seperating it.
Member Tortora: Are you aware that there is a letter of opposition in the file from one of your neighbors
who has concerns about this.
Mr. Wamback: Yes, directly to the South. I ,,vent to see him today to thank him for this letter because he has
some very good constructive criticism regarding parking on Cardinal Drive. Already before we received his
letter we've taken the survey and put parking areas within the grounds, so there will be no more parking out
there. He told me what his concern was this afternoon. It is the lhct that he will have a house next store.
Member Tortora: One of the criteria that we have to look at, that it seems to be the criteria that you would
be most eligible lbr, is to avoid an economic hardship. However, we would need some proof of that.
Chairman: We do not need that tonight.
Member Tortora: And it is not something that needs to be circulated everywhere. The bottom line is that we
do need proof other than someone coming and saying we need the money. I do recognize that a lot you
would be creating this 27,000 square feet. It is not a tiny substandard.., it is substandard by code, but it is
not substandard in nature when compared to a number of other lots in the town. We really need proof that
there is a financial hardship here involved.
Page 3
Transcript of Hearings
May 16. 2002 7BA Meeting
Mr. Wamback: We will supply that. I just want to say that the importance of the property or the house is if
that every Tuthill in Southold Town is descended from the east wing of that housc. It was built in 1779.
Thc house in the barn has a lot of furniture in it l¥om the North Fork, from Mattituck from 1800s. It is an
important entity as far as our history.
Member Tortora: I am sure that all of the board members would wish that the Hysterical Society could
continue and flourish and prosper. We have a lot to be thankful lbr them. Mattituck Historical Society has
been very much a part of preserving our culture and our heritage.
Mr. Wamback: Yes. We are educating our youth of Mattituck as far as our history is concerned and we
hope to continue doing that and at a greater extent. Should I just bring this down to the office'?
Chair~nan: Sure.
Mr. Wamback: Would Monday be fine?
Chairman: That is fine. We have a couple of more questions to ask. In this a lot of waiver application, we
don't have the power to re-strict certain things on the lot. We really grant a lot waiver or we don't grant a lot
waiver. However, it is incumbent upon you as a society to put necessary restrictions on that property before
you sell it. Those restrictions are ones as being a good neighbor the you might take those into
consideration. Such as creating an environmental buffer between the south portion of the slot and your
neighbor and the onsite site parking like you had...
Mr. Wamback: I was thinking the same thing. His house he told me is 20 feet from their property line.
What is the zoning restrictions a house presently from the sideline'?
Member Tortora: 27,000 square feet you would be at total side yards of 35. So would be 20 and 15.
Chairman: I think it is 20 to 25. It is over 20,000. We can look it out up.
Mr. Wamback: With their 20 feet in width, this 20 feet it would be 40 feet distance between houses. As Par
as the parking which we are putting on the rest of the lot, I believe we have a buffer of trees or reserve
10,15,20 feet of the parking area and that lot.
Member Orlando: You had said you needed the money for projects could you specil~?
Mr. Wamback: Yes by all means. The schoolhouse on the property to is the new Egypt's schoolhouse from
West Mattituck that was built in 1846, needs a new roof desperately. The main house in the dining room
the beams or all rotted out. The cat walk in the dining room at this point without being afraid the whole
floor is going to cave in. That has to be done professionally. We have gotten several carpenters to do little
jobs but nothing as massive as that. We have to hire someone to do that. The floor would have to come up
in all those beams be replaced underneath and that is where the costs comes in.
Member Orlando: Do you feel that the money you will acquire from this lot will fufill your needs?
Mr. Wamback: Yes, definitely. It will. We won't fall short.
Member Tortora: If you could just give us that in your outline and the proof that this money is needed and
they are indeed is a hardship, that would be wonderful.
Member Homing: Has your group explored other funding possibilities such as fund drives or grants?
Page 4
Transcript of Hearings
May 16~ 2002 ZBA Meeting
Mr. Wamback: Yes, we have. I have fbrmed ten committees since last November, which are all in
operation. We have gotten approximately 20 volunteers to help out in all facets of the society. A
prolbssional fund raiser has contributed her time to help us. This will all eventually bring money to the
society but right now we need these repairs done. I have enough volunteers for the first ten years to have
the house open wcckends from one to lbur during the season which is very important, llowever of the
dining room floor isn't fixed we can't have anybody in their.
Membcr lk)ming: I am just wondering if it ~nay in the long-term seem shortsighted to give up this parcel.
Mr. Wamback: Absolutely,I happen to agree with the 100 percent. Unfortunately our situation nowthe way
it is at this point ,it is desperately needed to preserve the society.
Chairman: Thank you Sir. Just don't leave until this particulm' hearings closed. Thank you. Is there anyone
else who like speaking favor of this application'? Anyone like to speak against the application'? being no
fi~rther comment I will make a motion closing the hearing pending the receipt of the information we
requested for Mr. Wamback.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
6:44 p.m. Application No. 5113 - Kim and Beverly Norkelun. This is a request for Variance under section
100-242A and 100-244toB, based on the Building Departments Febmtoary 27th 2002 Notice of
Disapproval for a proposed addition with a front yards set back at less than 40 feet. Location 2200 grand
Avenue Mattituck; 107-2-10.2.
Mr. Norkelun: Hi my name is Klm Norkelun 2200 Grand Ave., Mattituck.
Chairman: Mr. Norkelun, you want to put an addition on between the back of the house so to speak and the
garage'?
Mr. Norkelun: Yes. From the existing deck.
Chairman: That is approximately 12 X 23-1/2 ft'?
Mr. Norkelun: That is right.
Chaimlan: You have given us a new plan in reference to the stairway'?
Mr. Norkelun: Yes.
Chaim~an: So it is a double tiered stairway with a landing up on top coming, l assume, out of a doorway of
the new edition.
Mr. Norkelun: That is correct.
Chairman: That encrouches into that front yard area'?
Mr. Norkelun: Right, four feet as opposed to that eight feet 1 originally requested.
Chairman: O.K. OK will star with Mr. Homing. Any questions of Mr. Norkelun?
Member Homing: How feasible is it to scale it back some to gain more front yard.
Page 5
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Mr. Norkelun: Scale back the stairs you mean or the entire addition'?
Member Homing: Well the stairs are the one that sticks out the most. You are coming awful close to road.
Mr. Norkelun: It is really the only place that I can figure to enter the house t¥om my drivc way where I pull
the cars in. Otherwise I would have to walk around to the back of the house if i try the other side.
Member Homing: The approximate date the house was built'?
Mr. Norkelun: 1938.
Member Homing: Thank you.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando.
Member Orlando: As I can see from the drawings your house runs parallel to that road. The only thing that
is actually protruding outside the front of a house is strictly the stairs. The stairs or the only thing that are
projecting out.
Mr. Norkelun: Right, from the existing footprint of the house.
Member Orlando: The new edition is the same as the old lbotprint? following the same contour?
Mr. Norkelun: Right. over the deck.
Member Orlando: No other questions.
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora?
Member Tortora: The proposed setback now, your at 17.9 at the closes point, correct'?
Mr. Norkelun: I think that is right.
Member Tortora: And you had proposed the landing and steps at 8' which would bring you to 9'9"'?
Mr. Norkelun: Originally, right. We decided we didn't want the steps to come out that way anyway. Later
after we submitted it we realized the 4' with the steps running eas~Jwest was, we didn't like it anyway.
Member Tortora: There is no way you can put it in the concrete area, mn it parallel along there and still be
able to park in there next to the garage'? the houses 22.2, the addition is 23.5 that is where the other foot
came from. In the notice of disapproval it said you're proposing a front yard setback 8'.9". That is where the
extra toot came from. the width of the proposed addition is afoot wider than the existing house, that is a
difference.
Mr. Norkelun: It is supposed to be the same exact width of the house.
Member Orlando: That is what it looks like on the drawing anyway.
Member Tortora: It does. If you do some quick math, look at the notice of disapproval, it says the proposed
front yard setback is 8.9 feet. subtract 8.9 from 17 and come up with 8.1.
Mr. Norkelun: I just didn't understand what you meant existing concrete.
Page 6
Transcript of Hearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Meeting
Member Tortora: There is no way that you could put them parallel to the addition'?
Mr. Norkelun: parallel to the east side in the addition you mean?
Member Tortora: Yes.
Mr. Norkelun: No. because that would block...I would be right up against my garage. That would be a
narrow way of about one foot there. It would create a one fbot allyway between my garage and the house.
Member Tortora: You are real close to the road, you kmow that'?
Mr. Norkelun: when you look at lndy your doesn't seem that close.
Member Tortora: I now it doesn't seem like it, but being 8 feet from the road, is 8 feet from road.to
Mr. Norkelun: Eight fl. would be with the eight footsteps which we don't want. We one before footsteps
which would leave 13.9 from the road.
Member Tortora: I'm going to subtract the fbur feet. now you're at 12.9. Is that correct'?
Mr. Norkelun: 13.9.1 am going by the survey.
Member Tortora: On the notice of disapproval the Building Department said that you were proposing 8 ft.
9.you are saying no.
Member Orlando: On the survey if you look someone wrote 23 5 for your addition ,the width if it. Hand
written in there. I think the Building Department read that. That is contrary the other drawing that the
contractor drew. It looks like everything is the same.
Mr. Norkelun: It should be the same. It should be 22.2.
Member Orlando: I think that is where the Building Department got the number from. I think that is where
the confusion is. I am speculating on what I see.
Mr. Norkelun: It is supposed to be the same exact with as the house. 22.2.
Member Tortora: O.K. If you want to set it at 13.9 +/-. That is it.to
Mr. Norkelun: That is the only way I can figure to fit the stairs in, would be to come out four feet.
Member Orlando: Is there doorway out to that back wooden deck?
Mr. Norkelun: Right now, yes. We go up onto the deck and you can see that there is a little entry way ther at
the east side of the building.
Member Orlando: With the new addition, will still have a type of deck in the back?
Mr. Norkelun: The existing deck on the north side of the house will remain.
Member Orlando: You will have a door onto the deck and stairs down from that deck'?
Mr. Norkelun: In the back, on in the north side.
Page 7
I ranscript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Member Orlando: You could theoretically use that as an entrance way instead of this set of stairs.
Mr. Norkelun: Yes, that is an entry way.
Chairman: This be wants to use as his main entrance. So we go with the 13.9.
Member Homing: There is no way to tuck it in on the addition and in between the garage and the addition.
Chairman: No.
Mr. Norkelun: It only has a six*foot wide coridor right now. It would only leave a 1 or 2' ally way there.
Member Tortora: So it is 13.9 for the walkway only? Nothing else.
Chaim~an: The house is still at the existing 17.9.
Member Tortora: It is merely i-hr the walkway.
Mr. Norkelun: That is all. The stairs and the landing.
Member Tortora: The existing setback will be what the house is existing at, 17.9olP?
Mr. Norkelun: Right.
Chairman: O.K.
Member Tortora: Understood.
Chairman:we Hope to get to this tonight, we're not sure.
Mr. Nortelun: I would appreciate it if you could.
Chairman: A while you're standing narrow ask it is anyone else who'd like to speak for against this
application'? seeing no hand to make a motion to close the hearing.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
***
6:55 '0.m. a'o¢lication No. 5088- Louis and Sarah Gicale. Ihis is a request for Variance under Section 100-
33C based on the Building Departments Jan. 9, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning applicants proposal
to demolish existing garage and rebuild same within the existing to nonconforming footprint the building
will be less than 50 feet from the front property line. Location: 160 East Road, Cutchogue; 110-7-17.
Mark Schwartz: The owners would like to demolish their existing garage and rebuild within the same
footprint with a new foundation. A one-story garage with a higher pitched roof; so they have so,ne storage
up above.
Chairman: or the giving you any leeway, we would like to push it back offthe road a little farther.
Member Tortora: About 50'. I am not kidding.
Member Orlando: The slab inside there is done. You have to rip up the slab, so you're starting from scratch.
Page 8
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Member Itoming: It seems odd that it is not next to the driveway.
Mr. Schwartz: fhey havc a grass driveway that circles around. It has been that way fbr years.
Member Orlando: Do they still use that circle part.
Mr. Schwartz: The house itself probably doesn't use much at all. '[hey live in Maryland. The property has
just been handed down to them.
Chairman: Do you want to call her sometime and tell her we want to move it landward'?
Mr. Schwartz: Do you want it back 50'? We could do a renovation to this to give the same effect, except for
the lbundation.
Member Homing: If you are going to turn it around, we would want it to be as confbrming as possible.
Member Tortora: If is going to be torn down, it has to meet the...it is in the front yard to begin with...it has
to meet the requirements ora principal structure in a front yard. Whatever the setback is.
Member Orlando: I did some measuring out there, without really removing any large caliber trees, I think it
is close. It is close to getting back all the way. The neighbor next to him has a garage almost 60 or 70' back
on the same side. Which would be in character with that. There is nothing huge in the way. There is not like
a 4000 year old tree that is right middle. There is nothing large at all.
Member Tortora: it is a very large piece of property and you simply have sufficient room to meet the code.
Mr. Schwartz: As far as an alteration to what is there, is turning problem with that? Can we rip off the roof
raise the roof to what's there and leave the garage as is. The owners want to leave it there it's been that way
ever said she was young girl. She doesn't want to change the property. She want agree to the 50', I know
that. 10 or 20.
Member Tortora: Think of it this way, you have a 43000 sq. fi. huge beautiful waterfront lot and you've got
a home that is a lovely located right on the waterfront and here you've got a garage 17 feet in the road.
Mr. Schwartz: It is in character with the neighborhood, there are quite a few garages that are within the front
yard setback along that East Street.
Member Tortora: Not that close.
Chairnnan: Yes, there is. There is one right next to it.
Mr. Schwartz: I think there are three or four on a street.
Chairman: But the point is, the question is, from Mr. Schwartz to the Board is, correct me if 1 am wrong,
can we renovated in its existing location? is that the question.
Mr. Schwartz: Yes.
Member Tortora: You have to ask the Building Department.
Chairman: Not the Building Department. The Building Department has brought this application to us
because they tell us it is a non-conforming set back.
Page 9
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Member Torlora: Ycs~ because submitted an application to demolish it.
Chaim~an: He is telling us he might not demolish it.
Member Tortora: Then it has to go back to the Building Department.
Mr. Schwartz: That would be the next question from owner she isn't going to one or moved back 50 feet. If
it were 10 or 20, I think she would do that. I just know lbr a fact she is not going to want to do that. The
next question they will ask is can we renovate. Rip the roof: higher pitch on it and leave everything the same
footprint. All they really want is storage, that's all they want.
Chairman: Then let's go back to the other question. Are any of us happy with 10 or 15 or 20 feet'?
Member Homing: 1 don't see why it can't be 40 feet away, it they are going to destroy the building, demolish
it and move it even 10 feet why not 20,30,40'?
Chairman: George, 20 and 17 is 37. Mr. Schwartz has told us that his client, I am not playing if devils
advocate here, I'm just trying to get going on this, Mr. Schwartz is indicated to us that his client does not
want move a 40 or 50 feet. The question is, is there anybody on the board that is willing to let it go 37 feet'?
Which is 17 and 20. is that correct Mr. Swartz?
Mr. Schwartz: Yes.
Chairman: So 37' is the question. 1 have no problem with 37'. Particularly with the doors lacing south.
Mr. Schwartz: I don't see the difference between 37 & 40 feet.
Member Orlando: I did some quick math wanted to close to 50 there are some very large trees. I think it is
right around 40 that you can do it without actually demolishing some very nice big trees.
Member Homing: Minimum 37', I would probably go for that. Minimum of 37 feet.
Chairman: Lydia'?
Member Tortora: I would go with a minimum of 37' providing you maintain that side yard setback. If yon
go 25' on the side yard and minimum of 37. I would accept that.
Chaimian: O.K. Itoxv does that sound Mr. Schwartz'?
Mr. Schwartz: Sounds good to me.
Chairman: O.K. So that is where we are. We hope to have a decision tonight. Thank you.
Mr. Schwartz: Thank you.
Chairman: Befbre I close this hearing, is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this
application?
Seeing no hands, I make a motion to close the hearing.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
Page 10
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
7:04 p.m. application No. 5098 - Geert Martens and Raymond Murray. This is a request for Variance under
Section 100-231, based on the Building Departments Nov. 29, 2001 Notice of Disapproval, to extend the
Height of thc rear fence greater then 6 1/2 feet, and thc front yard fence greater than tour feet. Location:
5028 New Suffolk Avenue. Mattituck; 115 -10-2.
Mr. Bialosky: My name is Bill Bialosky. 1 am the Architect lbr this residence, the Martens/Murray
residence on New Suffolk Ave. We are seeking reconsideration of the height of the fence that is in the rear
side yard. I dm~'t know if you have been to the site. I have photo's of the house for anyone.
Chairman Goehringer: We have one member that may have not made it, so we appreciate that. I noticed that
you have put the fence to the maximum height at this point. Of course it was a rather windy. It was blowing
about 35 miles an hour was I was there. 1 can understand to a certain degree, not only for a privacy point of
view put possibly from a wind point of view.
Mr. Bialosi: Yes, that is one of the many aspects. Our site is really very constrained. Being a waterfront site
respecting the DEC permanent and a 75'set back by the wetlands, we were pretty much forced into this very
long skinny house, but we were please to be able to build because it is in keeping with what we thought
would be an agricultural nature to the adjoining barn yard. What has happened is with our site left narrow,
that there is very little room for us to develop much of a buffer that we think given the wind will really
amount to a whole lot without a lot of contest. In addition, rebuilt and above ground swimming pool, we
couldn't afford by code to dig into the earth there. The deck is up pretty high by comparison to the six-foot
fence. So that anyone standing on the pool deck is not only visible to the neighbors when the rye isn't as
high as it is now. They themselves find themselves are exposed the farming activities that is happening
there. We believe that by extending the fence, we would be maintaining both the agricultural nature of the
site by hiding to the people. At the same time providing a better degree of protection for there property l¥om
the farming activities that go on.
Member Tortora: So it is the South and East side right'?
Mr. Bialosky: It is the West side.
Member Tortora: Excuse me. The South and West side. It is going to be 10' 7 and would be 90' on the north
side and 23, so it would be over 100' on the West side'?
Mr. Bialosky: That number sounds correct. It is not to its maximum. We need the fence to secure the pool.
Member Tortora: O.K. on the east side.
Mr. Bialosky: Nothing on the east side.
Member Tortora: On the plans in front of me, it says the proposed extension of the fence.
Mr. Bialosky: If you look at the elevations, this is the west side of the house here. We are extending the
fence from existing cabana all the way to the front door of the house and we have a small section offence
that we haven't built yet. We have a permit to build a garage, which we haven't done yet. We where hoping
to do all of it at once. We would like to extend that section, so that it all forms one nice straight line and
makes the farm like house look like it is behind a wall.
Member Tortora: It is going to be between the house and the fence, you are looking at 120, it is going to be
over 140' of 10' high wall.
Mr. Bialosky: That is correct. You can include the garage in the number too. It is one big long line.
Page I 1
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Member Tortora: O.K. So about 175'.
Mr. Bialosky: I got 187 from the front of the garage to the rear of the cabana.
Member Orlando: So the garage is on the South side?
Mr. Bialosky: No the garage is on the North side. It is not built yet. The survey that is in front of you is of
existing conditions.
Member Tortora: The reason I ask on the east elevation it says proposed extentions of l~nce. You do not
plan...
Mr. Bialosky: You are looking at the plan...
Member Tortora: O.K. It is a little deceiving.
Chairman Goehringer: There is no attempt and anyway to break this up with arbrovitae or anything like.
Mr. Bialosky: I think landscaping is all part of the picture, but given the windy nature of the site, it will be
along time before any big hedge would ever be able to grow to a height that it extended to this height with
any thickness to cover the people who where standing out on that deck.
Chairman: Can you possibly give us any landscaping plan of wbat you are anticipating? If you come up and
use the mic please.
Mr. Martens: My name is Geert Martens. The field is there and then there is the grass and maybe at some
point we ould put some landscaping in there. Not at immediately. We put in some trees closer to the park.
We could but as Bill said it would take quite a long time for it to grow to 10' tall.
Chairman: We are not anticipating avert to grow 10 feet tall. You're trying to create from an architectural
pointed view a straight line. What we are saying to you on a design point is that we are trying to tell you to
break up that straight line to a certain degree. From a visual point of view. Some day that farm not going to
be fhrmed. We hope it is.
Mr. Bialosky: If you look closely at the plan you will see what to appears to be a straight line in elevation, is
not. it really comes in an out. It's there is back and engages the house at lines with the entry piece to the
house. There is a small little one-story element right here that pokes through the fence.
Chairman: Yes, I did see that. i ,,vas on the steps.
Member Tortora: 1 think this is going to be very visible from a road and I personally think that 175' long
wall, 10 ft.,not including the house and a garage 10 ft. 6. You can see from the road on here.
Mr. Bialosky: New Suffolk Ave. is cut down from the farm. The farm is probably up 4 or 5' elevation of the
field from the comer of New Suffolk and Marratooka.
Chairman: Let me just say this to you. We very rarely grant a 10 fi. lance on a tennis court.
Member Tortora: This is 10'7. It is almost 11'.
Mr. Bialosky: Yes.
Page 12
l'ranscript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Chairman: It would behoove you to come up with a landscape plan. not that necessarily have to be done
today or tomorrow, but something in attempt to break this up in some way. I don't typically have a problem
with the fence as it exists right now. You are showing us the entire plan which is great, because we like to
see the entire plan. it would help us understand on thc landscaping plan, how this is going to be broken up.
Because the neccssity of a fence tennis court is of course to keep the balls in. in this particular case, this is
an architectural design, i haven't aptly no problems with as it exists. I don't kmow what my feeling would be
as it will continue between house and the garage. Certainly in an attempt to break this up in some way.
Mr. Bialosky: I totally appreciate the need for thrther developed landscape plan that would say developed
the overall or protection will plan. There is one area of the fence that is clearly more critical to us than the
other, which is a sectional long side of the house. It covers the pool deck. if it is necessary to separate the
issue about the fence l¥om the garage to the house, I think that...we don't have the same justification for
raising that fence, other than purely for the architectural statement. The other area defense was generated
the original need lbr the architectural statement is this year need of oft~ring this protection to the raised
deck of the pool.
Chairman: Again harp in that, landscaping phm, his or some landscaping plan that you could furnish us
with.
Mr. Martens: I understand that you would prefer to do have more trees in front of the fence.
Member Tortora: 1 would prefer to have less.., as I said I don't know any place in Southold that has a 175' of
11' (changed tape) beautiful countryside, pristine location, to take this location and coming here and we
want a variance to put up an 11 fi. fence along 175' wall,/'rom were on coming from, 1 am not going to vote
for it.
Mr. Bialosky: I feel that we enforce that beauty by making an agricultural building. I think that when you
look at the pictures and the site we have gone too great efforts to really tried a blend with that farm. It is not
uncommon if we were to study New York State Farms, that there would be such fences around farm
property or farm yards. We are really trying to take people out of the picture and really make it look ,as far
as communities concerned, much more like enamel cultural building. As if the farmer whose farm it is that
we are next to had put this building there.
Chairman: O.K. Just let me understand this. You are willing to take the fence out between the house and the
garage'?
Mr. Bialosky: Yes.
Chain'nan: O.K. Is there anything that you can supply us that will brake up that existing fence which is, how
long right now?
Mr. Bialosky: That section, l think is 90'
Chairman: 90'. Can you give us staggered arborvitae.
Mr. Bialosky: I don't see why not. We can even plant something that will grow on the fence. A vine plant.
Chairman: I have no objection in between that. What I am trying to do is lessen the impact of the fence. If
you want to turn the fence green that even makes me more elated. This is completely a situation where we
are trying to reduce the impact of this whole thing. 1 don't have a problem with the 90' as long as you supply
us with a landscape plan that will indicate that.
Page 13
Transcript of Hearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Meeting
Member lloming: Hedge row of plant material will be more in keeping with the perceived guidelines of
open vistas that this town has designed which is why they have the ordinance offence heights to begin with.
Chaim~an: Right. Let me just say this to George, the day I was up their it was 46 degrees out of the win was
blowing it ahnost blew ~ne off the steps I can see a need tbr fence. I was extremely embarrassed because
they didn't know these gentlemen were home, and I walked on the deck area, which is now 6' fence, the
wind was just bellowing over the top of it. There is definitely a need. I don't know if there is a need for 10'.
If we can reduce the impact of that, 1 don't see where it is really going to hurt anybody, as long as...
Member Homing: 1 am just saying that most people would start by building a hedge row. A planting of 5,6'
trees to begin with and within 2 or 3 years it would be up to the 8 or 10~ height.
Mr. Bialosky: It won't happen in that spot. It is too windy, it won't happen that fasts. To get a tree to take
hold in such a windy site. It is a riskier affair. I think it would take an investment in time in particular. I
think that we should be softening this, because obviously there is concern about how hard this will look
when the field is cut down.
Member Homing: I live in one of the windiest locals in the Township. I have seen cedar trees and grow very
rapidly even on my own property.
Chairman: One of the situations here George, and 1 am going to be honest into observing the site with these
two gentlemen, there is definitely a privacy factor also. This lot is extremely narrow. It appears to me that
there is a privacy factor. Again, 1 don't have a problem with the 10 feet at the 90 foot length as long as they
break up with a landscape plan.
Mr. Martens: I would like to add on Sunday, the day after you came, we put in sixteen trees from the
parking area to the front doors. There is already a grove of trees there that will break up this whole length
of fence and house.
Chairman: O.K. Where do you want these gentlemen to go'?
Member Homing: Landscape plan as he suggested.
Chairman: Give us a landscape plan. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor
against this application'? Seeing no hands, I make a motion closing the hearing pending the receipt of a
landscape.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:25 p.m. application No. 5103 - G,,wneth Ketterer & Ano. This is a request for a Variance under section
100-33C, based on the Building Departments February 4th 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning
applicants request to locate an accessory pool in an area other than the required rear yard. Location: 1995
Rider Farm Lane, Orient; 15-3 - 1.1.
Mrs. Mesiano: The owners of the subject property would like to construct a swimming pool in other than
the required rear yard. The subject property is located on the Sound. It is a bluff front property. It is 1.69
acres with 300' of frontage on the sound. The proposed swimming pool is located in what one might
consider to be the front yard. The legal access to the property is a right-of-way off of North Sea Drive that
attaches to southerly boundary of this property. There is an existing cottage on the property, which is
located at 33.7' from the southerly property line. We propose to install the pool in line with that structure.
Of course there will be the appropriate fencing and so on. The pool is to be built in that location. The
primary reason for this request for a variance is that to put the pool in "rear yard" would be rather difficult
Page 14
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
because we have 14.8' from the corner of the house to the nearest point of the bluff. Even though tile owners
of the property have done some substantial revetment to the bluff, they want to preserve the possibility in
the event there where damage to the bluff: They would have room to move the house back. The only other
place to put a pool would be in the location where one would ~nove the house back to. In order to preclude
f?om that problem, we would propose the pool to be place by the south maintaining the existing set back
of... I think the nearest point to the pool itself would be 36'. The nearest point to the stone terrace around the
pool would be held at the line with the existing cottage at 33.7'. We are inaintaining appropriate side yard
setbacks. We have not come close to our lot coverage. Would you like the numbers on that? We are of
course not posing any risk to any neighbors property values or environmental considerations because we are
not coming near. We are posing no risk to the bluff with our excavations. We are doing this in an effort to
protect the bluff. As far as the property ova~ers are concerned, we are our one neighbor and the other
property is a large piece of vacant acreage that abuts the south/west property lines. We are not causing a
situation that would infringe on any other property owners rights or enjoyment of their property. I believe
that this is a mini~num necessary to achieve the desired goal.
Chairman: I spent some time on this site. For two reasons, one because it is a magnificent property and
number two, I was trying to get the feel of the placement of the pool. As one of my colleagues m~d I were
talking on the phone today, sometimes names have little significance until you actually see the survey again
back in front of you. Based on your presentation, I in particular don't have a particular problem with this.
Only because the cottage is existing and there's nothing you can do about that. It probably is a great idea to
place the pool in that location fbr the purposes of the setback if the house has to be setback. There isn't it
any anticipation of enclosing this is that correct'?
Mrs. Mesiano: Only the required.
Chairn~an: No roof or anything'?
Mrs. Mesiano:No.
Chairman: We will go to Mr. Homing.
Member Homing: The dirt driveway shown on the survey, is that the legal right-of-way for it'?
Mrs. Mesiano: The legal right-of-way, do you have a survey there, O.K. The legal right-of-way is a 12'
wide strip that starts at the properties south/east comer and connects to North Sea Drive, which is not an
open road. That is the legal access to the property. The owners utilities the dirt driveway that shown on the
property, because it does go across their other property. These properties, 1 believe, where owned by people
who were related. The property has been accessed threw this dirt drive way for many years. Although the
legal access is in another location. That is wbat creates this front yard scenario. They actually access the
property from the other dirt road.
Member Homing: Is the Fitzsin~nons property also used as a legal right-of-way...
Mrs. Mesiano: No, I think the Fitzsimmons property goes down to the Main Road. It is a very large piece of
property. 1 think I may have the tax map.
Member Homing: Do you have infommtion that tells us who has legal right to use that right-of-way.
Mrs. Mesiano: I believe that right-of-way is for the use of the Ketterer property. That is what I was told is
their legal access. They choose not to use it. I can show you the tax map. The legal address of the large
parcel is 38255 Main Road. It is 33 acres. You can see it does come down to the Main Road. The applicants
attorney, who just happens to be here, tells me that the Fitzsinmaons property gave up any rights to that
right-of-way.
Pagc 1 $
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 XBA Meeting
Member Homing: That is what 1 was asking. Thank you.
Member Orlando: No questions.
Member Tortora: You talk about having to move the house possibly in the lhture...
Mrs. Mesiano: In the event that it would become necessary. Keeping in mind that the house at his nearest
point is less than 15 feet from the blufl~ The house is quite old. I am sure the bluff was much farther out to
the north when the house was built. Right now that is what is there. It appears to be stable. They have put in
an extensive rock revetment. That is greater than what is now shown on the survey because it was just
completed. Who knows what could happen. If there was a substantial swimming pool right off the back of
the house, it would preclude the house being moved because you really couldn't move it to the East. Ihat
location appears to me to be the only what way could save the house in the event that there is damage to the
bluff frmn a storm.
Member Tortora: 1 see predicament. The patio, is background level'?
Mrs. Mesiano: The stone terrace, yes that is proposed be. This is not going to be built up to in other words.
Member Tortora: It is going to be ground level, so it would be O.K. The only thing, the Fitzsimmons
property to my knowledge has not been subdivided, is that correct?
Mrs. Mesiano: Correct.
Member Tortora: These are beautiful large to acre lots and of course the zoning that those lots also be large
lots zoning. A 36' setback does not give us a heck of a lot of leeway.
Mrs. Mesiano: We are already there would be existing structure.
Member Tortora: I know but we have a chance to make better now. what I am saying is can you get that up
to 40? That will eventually be subdivided.
Mrs. Mesiano: Should we move the pool to the North by 4'.
Member Tortora: At least you will be at 40. It is not going to make a dam bit of difference on your plan.
But you would at least give sufficient space between the potential neighbor and your neighbor in the future.
Yes there is no one there now but there will be someday in the future. You're going to have a very large
pool. the most interesting comment I have heard, from a neighbor ofof someone who wanted to have a pool
and a cabanna near the lot line, she said you are limiting my possibilities for building in the future. It is not
going to make a heck of a lot of difference to you, but it will make a difference to the landowners in the
future.
Mrs. Mesiano: let's put it this way, if it is the only way I can get the variance, ! suppose proper answer is
yes. I'd rather not,but if it's the only way I can have granted tban 1 would accept it. If it were a substantial
structure I would agree with you completely,but being a pool at grade with a fence with a conlbrming
nature, l don't see that four feet makes a whole lot of difference in the neighbors perspective. I would agree
if it were building. A pool at grade that would be landscaped and so on, I understand what you're getting at
but in this instance I don't think that it is necessarily an issue.
Chairman: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this application'? Seeing
no hands, I make a motion to close the hearing and reserving a decision for later.
Page 16
Transcript of Hearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Meeting
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:38 p.m. application No. 5101 - Sotirios Kassal>idis. Thisis a request fbr variance under Section 100-242A
and Section100-244, based on the building departments Feb. 7, 2002 notice of disapproval recording a
proposed swimming pool and dwelling expansion. The new edition will be less than 35 feet from the from
property line and all construction will exceed the 20 percent lot covers the limitation. Location: 4075
Breakwater Road, Mattituck; 106-3-7.
Chairman: Appeal number 510 I. Mr. Butler, How are you'?
Mr. Butler: Very good thank you. My name is Jeff Butler, professional engineer. I am here to represent Mr.
Kassapidis at 4075 Breakwater Road, Mattituck.
Chairman: We originally had one plan and then we had the most recent plan that shows a three toot setback.
That is the correct plan'?
Mr. Butler: Mine showed up all tbrward of the existing dwelling originally.25 fl. versus 25.1. I've updated
that and pushed the pool back beyond the existing house as requested. We are also here for the proposed
front porch.
Chairman: Is that fully enclosed?
Mr. Butler: No. It is an open air. I have some renderings here. This is the existing dwelling and this is the
dwelling with the proposed open air front porch.
Chairman: Thanks.
Mr. Butler: The required setback is 35' under current zoning. The existing dwelling is at 23'4" and the
proposed front porch would be at 20'6" from the front property line, which we have two of because we are
at the corner lot.
Chairman: That was fmmy, only one of those had a front porch on it. Can I have that one. Thank you.
Mr. Butler: The addition along with the proposed pool exceeds the 20% maximum. We are proposing a
total lot coverage of 22.9. That is the pool, the house and the front porch. We feel that these improvements
are in character with the neighborhood. I know the pool was moved to conforui with the front yard.
Chairman: O.K. This is a liner pool?
Mr. Butler: Yes.
Chairman: So the pool actually can be shrunk to 36'? Is there any particular reason why you or the applicant
established in this to be three feet from the property line as opposed to moving a close to the existing
concrete wall?
Mr. Butler: 1 don't know why they wanted at 3', no.
Chairman: We don't normally grant pools at 3'. We had a landmark decision that we mean out in a very nice
community called, off of Gull Pond, called Cleaves Point, Section I & II. A gentleman ended up with a pool
Page 17
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
at seven fcct. I think by the time we finished it, it was that six feet. We asked for a m~jor landscaping plan
for that six lhet, because there was a grave concern by the neighbor. It was at that point that we detemfined
that we were not in favor of granting anything unless it was about five feet from a property line.
Member 'l ortora: You still have to have a fence around that.
Mr. Butler: Can I just take a quick look at the site plan.
Chairman: The existing concrete wall, I assume they want to keep that.
Mr. Butler: Because of the grade differential, there is going to have to be something in place.
Chainnan: A tide wall could be put in or something of that nature.
Mr. Butler: Correct.
Member Orlando: What if they made the grade at the same grade as this grade, Jerry'? Moved it all the way
over and then put their wall in on this side. Then you would be able to move the pool over. Brought the
upper grade down to the lower grade and put the retaining wall on this side with another 6 or 8'.
Mr. Butler: l can come up with a solution to get the 5'.
Chairman: O.K.
Member Tortora: And the setback from East Road would be'?
Mr. Butler: Greater than the 25. I.
Chairman: I am anticipating a 16' X 36' pool. So drop the 4' off of the road frontage.
Member Tortora: This comer is 30.9'.
Chairman: We are going to cut the pool down by 4' so we are going to take it off the front.
Member Tortora: This would have to be at least 30.9' over here, not 25. Your total is 35'.
Chairman: Take the 4' off the front. Whatever it is, it is.
Member Homing: Why would we have to do that.
Chaim~an: First of all George, we are at 22.9 on the side line, it doesn't make sense to build a 40' long pool.
It makes sense to build a 36'. So the pool is 16' X 36' with 5' off, the question basically is, that I am
proposing to all of you, is do you take it off the rear or do you take it off the front'? Mrs. Tortora feels that it
should be, she is saying push it back. I am saying take the 4' off the front. Which would than make it 29.2,
there abouts.
Member Iortora: I would take it back as far as you can.
Chairman: So make it 30.
Mr. Butler: IfI am at 36' and I am taking 4' off; I can still go back the other 1.7' to reach the 30.9. Which is
what 1 think you are referencing as far as where the required distance.
Page 18
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Member Tortora: I would say 30.9 minimum. It is a very liny lot. 9000sq.ft. lot. Basically you are going to
be swimming in the front yard on the road, right next to your neighbor.
Chairman: You are telling us that you can do 5 and 30.9'?
Mr. Butler: 5 from the West, 30.9 off the East and that is obviously off East Road, from the North. The
drops would bring my lot coverage down as well.
Chairman: We need to incorporate that as well.
Member Tortora: What is the depth of the porch'?
Mr. Butler: 5'6". This is the porch they would like to sit on and enjoy. It is not just an ornmnental Porch.
That is the minmmm by the time you put a rail on it and a piece of furniture that you can sit on and enjoy.
Member Tortora: 5'6 X?
Mr. Butler: X 25'.
Chairman: Is there any way in making man a straight five feet'? Therefbre it would be 21 at its closets point
and 24 at its closest point on the West side.
Mr. Butler: l am sure we can do that.
Chairman: O.K. Any other questions. O.K. that is where we are, please don't leave until the hearing is over.
Once we receive it, we will get to a decision the next week or so. Is or anyone else who would like to speak
in favor of this application'? Is there anyone who elects beat against his application'? Seeing no hands, l
make a motion to closin hearing pending the receipt of the estimated lot coverage from the architect.
SEE RESOLUTION IN MINUTES
7:49 p.m. application No. 5112 - Robert DiBlasi. This is a request for Variance under Section 100-30A.3
and 100-244, based on the Building Departments February 22nd, 2002 Notice of Disapproval regarding
applicants proposal to construct editions and alterations to the existing dwelling. The new construction is
less than 35 feet from the front property line on this comer lot and less than 35 feet from the rear property
line. Location: 560 Bayview Drive, East Marion; 37-5-1.
Mr. Sambach: After the last hearing they took the SUV and another car and went up to a parking lot and
took measurements by opening the doors and making sure they had clearance and a wouldn't be hitting the
side of the garage. They're requesting an additional four feet making the extension of seven feet which will
increase the accuracy of the lot of 2022 sq. ft. or 26.9% of occupancy. The trouble with these SUV's is they
are big and have big doors.
Chaimian: So what in effect you're doing is pushing it out 7'?
Mr. Sambach: Right.
Chairman: We will start with Mrs. Tortora.
Member Tortora: I am very, very confused. We granted you a variance in October (for 3.2) and at the time
iii recall the survey was very old and property correct. There has not been updated survey on the property.
At the time we were under the impression the lot was 11,326 sq.ft. I see on your plot plan that you say the
Page 19
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
property is 7500 sq.fi. So you know that lot coverage is based on the percent of the total and what is the
total? That is number one. We have two different figures here now within six months.
Mr. Sambach: The Assessor had given me the 11.000'. You people had asked me to go back and
recalculate. I gave you the sq. footage of 7500sq.fl.
Member Tortora: This time.
Mr. Sambach: And last time.
Member Tortora: Tbe real problem is this, eve in this notice of disapproval they have 11,413. sq.fi. Where
is that figure coming from?
Mr. Sambach: It is coming fi'om the Assessor's office.
Member Tortora: The old survey.
Mr. Sambach: Right. The Assessor's office is giving them the area and the acreage.
Member Iortora: O.K.
Mr. Sambach: Back in October you asked me to recalculate and make sure of what the sq. footage was and I
submitted calculations and came up with 7500.
Member Tortora: O.K. Right off the bat, the Building Departments calculations are...
Mr. Sambach: I told them that, but they wouldfft change it.
Member Tortora: That is why a survey is very important.
Mr. Sambach: Right. The survey is up to date.
Chairman: You got something better than a survey. What you have here is an engineer.
Member Tortora: O.K. Lets start off at the begi~ming. Back in October we granted you a variance for the
extension on the garage, ~vhich is 154 sq.fl, exactly what you're here for tonight.
Mr. Sambach: No, we were 66'. 3X 22.
Member Tortora: So we have added another?
Mr. Sambach: 4~. They have a bigger SUV. Instead of 66 sq.fi, we are asking for 154sq.fl.
Member Tortora: O.K. I think I have gotten that part right. The garage is 7' X 22'?
Mr. Sambach: The extension.
Member Tortora: Is that right. Because we will ignore this last variance, which is going to make that thing
null and void. 16 fi. is the closest point on Bayview and what they're calling the rear yard, that 17 feet
would be the east side right'? Just to make sure we have things straight.
Mr. Sambach: 16 ft. on Bayview Drive. Seventeen feet on the easterly property line.
Page 20
Transcripl of Hearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Meeting
Member Tortora: Good Lord we got them both right. Now, I don't mean to go on, but the Building
Department plans no an existing front yard setback of 24 feet. What plans are those. I don't have any plans
that show that. You don't either'?
Mr. Sambach: No.
Member Tortora: h says an existing rear yard setback of 24 feet you have any idea where those plans came
from'?
Mr. Sambach: No.
Member Toriora: O.K.
Chairman: That is why we don't sometimes rely on those.
Member Tortora: Here is the deal, we have a problem here, because the disapproval also says that the lot
coverage is 18%. It couldn't possibly 18%, because we just kimcked off 4000sq.fl. of the an 11000sq.ft. lot.
I haven't got a clue what the lot coverage really is.
Chairman: He did tell us. 26.9.
Member Torlora: You say 26.9.
Mr. Sambach: 26.9 is what I come up with. 2022sq.fl. from the garage and the house.
Member Tortora: So what you're telling me is essentially everything in this notice of disapproval is wrong.
Mr. Sambach: Right.
Member Toriora: O.K. No questions.
Member Orlando: No questions.
Member Homing: No questions.
Chairman: Thank you sir. Please do not leave until this hearing is closed. Is their anybody else who'd like to
speak in favor or against this application'}' Sir.
Mr. DiBlasi: Richard DiBlasi. I am the thther of the applicant. 1 am the next-door neigbbor there is a right-
of-way separating our property to his. I know this has no bearing on your ultimate decision from a township
point of view, there is one thing that helped change this young couples decision that was made a year ago. It
was there first armiversary 37 years old and he had no plans for family. However things change, they are
going to have a baby instead of a little car. It is just not going to work with 3 people.
Chairman: 1 know you discuss is with us last October. You are here last October were you not'?
Mr. DiBlasi: Yes I was. We had no family pending at that time.
Chairman: You live on lot #2 just to the east'?
Mr. DiBlasi: Just to the west. The house to the east of the it, there garage it closer to ours.
Chairman: O.K. Thank you.
Page 21
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Mr. DiBlasi: Ihank you.
Chairman: Is there anyone who would like to speak for against'? Hearing no further comment by will make
a motion closing the hcaring.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
***
7:59 p.m. application No. 5108 - Paul Fried. This is a request fur a Variance under Section 100-242A and
Section 100 32, based on the Feb. 20, 2002 Amended Notice of Disapproval for a new deck at less than 20
feet from the side property line. Location: 15155 Main Road, East Marion; 23-b4.
Mrs. Mesiano: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. We are proposing to enlarge the deck that
exists across the back of the property. Having been at the property you can see the existing deck is less than
20' from the slop, so there is really not backyard on this property that you can enjoy without coming close to
the edge of the slope down to the water. What we are proposing is to extend the existing back to 9 on the
west side of the house. We are presently maintaining...
Chairman: Although we have a copy of the map it doesn't show us the setbacks.
Member Tortora: We have a note in the file Linda just saying that there will be another map submitted.
Chairman: We have one that is dated April 26th, assume that is the map that you are referring to.
Mrs. Mesiano: Does it have the side setback'?
Member Tortora: No. In fact the ~nap we have says you are going to furnished corrected maps by 5/3.
Mrs. Mesiano: O.K. I apologize apparently I fudged.
Chairman: The setback is 14' or something like that.
Mrs. Mesiano: The setback is 14'.
Member Tortora: We have nothing in front of us that shows where it is proposed.
Chaim:tan: This is not a rear yard situation with minimum distances to the pond, is that correct'? This is very
simply just a side yard.
Mrs. Mesiano: '[his is just a side yard. We are not proposing to increase the deck seaward, we are proposing
to extend the deck in line with the existing deck that is there. Thereby squaring off the northwest comer,
then stepping the deck in. (Changed tape).
Chairman: Mr. Homing any questions'?
Member Homing: We don't have the measurement to the property line from the Northerly comer, the
Northwest comer of the house. We do from the South, it is 15'. Is it going to be 15' from the North.
Mrs. Mesiano: Let me just make sure that is correct.
Chairman: I spoke to Mrs. Fried. l believe she said 14'.
Page 22
Transcript of ltearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Mrs. Mesiano: I believe it is slightly out of Square on the lot and it is my recollection that from scaling this
and discussing with the Building Department, that they are 14' from the property line at the closest point of
the deck.
Member Homing: Would that be the proposed deck.
Mrs. Mesiano: Yes that would be the new extension to the deck.
Member Homing: And the stairs would project out how many feet further did you say'?
Mrs. Mesiano: The with stairs will come...the total projection offof the west side of the house will be three
feet. That encompasses the area of the stairs.
Member Homing: The stairs would be 14 fl. minus 3, so they would be...
Mrs. Mesiano: The closest point would be 14 feet from the sideline of the entire proposed new structure that
includes the stairs. The stairs would not be at a setback less than 14 feet.
Chairman: In other words, the house is cocked a little bit this way'?
Member Homing: I thought you said the stairs were going to project out a little further than the deck'?
Mrs. Mesiano: The stairs do project, how can I explain this.
Chairman: Why don't you just give us a map with the numbers on it.
Mrs. Mesiano: Yes, I will do that. We do have construction plans and I do apologize. I should have been
better prepared.
Chairman: Just do me a favor and don't leave until the hearing is closed. We are going to close the hearing
when we finish this pending the receipt of that map showing that sideyard.
Mrs. Mesiano: Yes.
Chairman: ls there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against his application. Seeing no
hand to make a motion closing the hearing pending the receipt of that information from the agent.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
***
8:11 p.m. application No. 5105 - Mary Roman and Ellen Birenbaum. This is a request for Variance under
Section 100-33, based on the Building Departments Jan. 10, 2002 notice of Disapproval regarding
applicants proposal to locate an accessory garage in an area other than the required rear yard. Location:
740 Poquatuck lane, Orient; 27-3-4.5.
Deborah Doty, Esq.: Deborah Dory for the applicants Mary Roman and Ellen Birenbaum. Susan ... who is
the architect. This house itself is under construction at this point on 5 acres out in Orient, but we are
constrained by Government constriction. A non-disturbance area, a 50' right-of-way and a 16' setback. We
have a relatively small building envelope. The houses located to the North West side of the property and
shifted so that it has maximum views of the water, Hallocks Bay. To the South and east of the house is a
lap pool 16 by 50 ft. lap pool. It is located over there because the owners didn't want out their back door,
which I consider their front door because that's the side of the view, out their back door and just be in the
pool. They wanted the pool set off because they are quite good gardeners and they want to do their
Page 23
Transcript of Hearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Meeting
gardening in the back. We propose a garage be located in the eastern side yard of the premises. Ihat
garage will actually smwe three purposes. One, to shelter the car and a truck. As a storage area fbr
gardening equipment, pipes, ladders, etc. and the pool house. We are eliminating the need for two accessory
structures by locating up there. We also are affording additional privacy to the pool area as a result of the
location of the garage. In addition the location of the garage actually preserves and protects the wide
expansive view that there is there have that property and gives the neighbor to the north the continuing view
of Hallocks Bay in the distance. There is no other feasible way or location for this garage~ with the
exception of locating it attached to the house. We do want to that. We would prefer to have a small 13 ft.
high detached garage. It would eliminate any view to the neighbor to the north.
Chairman: This is a one-story garage'?
Ms. Doty: The architect gave me this tonight. If 1 may. She gave me this tonight. This is a schematic of
the house and there's the garage.
Chairman: A got a letter that says that the garage was not staked. Therefore,
Ms. Dory: That was from me and I said I hadn't staked it, but I put two stakes in. I didn't dare go across the
mound of dirt. As you know I just had an operation and didn't want to go climbing across the mound of dirt.
Chairman: 1 wouldn't want you to, either. That was from you than.
Ms. Dory: I did provide you with some photographs various angles on it. there is a big mound of dirt there.
That is where essentially the garage would go. It is not quite as tall as the garage would be if it goes in the
detached location. The roof line of the garage, as that schematic shows, is the same as the car port. It is
lower than the height of the roof line of the center part of the house. When you look at everything out there,
and sort of putting in the pot and stir it up, this actually achieves the aims of maintaining open-space in that
particular area. The neighbor to the West semi detached garage that is attached by decking, that is also in
the side yard actually it is almost enough right yard. That neighbor totally supports this application. We
feel that we're doing wanted to do, we're proposing what we want to do, which is a small detached garage
that provides us with privacy at the pool and gives us the added storage space. We are maintaining the
scenic views for ourselves and for our neighbors. We are requesting that the board grant our application.
Chairman: Any questions of Ms. Doty from Mr. Homing'?
Member Homing: Nothing.
Member Orlando: No questions.
Member Tortora: What is the side yard setback and the distance to the property line'?
Ms. Doty: We are in the building envelope. I don't have the actual...
Member Tortora: It looks sizable,I just don't know what it is. as a matter factor would like to know what it
is from the right-of-way.
Ms. Doty: It is over 60' ti'om the right-of-way.
Chairman: We need to put it in the decision.
Member Tortora: Exactly. The distance at the closest point of the garage to the edge of the right-of-way.
The distance at its closest point to the side yard.
Page 24
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Chairman: Just indicate to us, maybe you know tonight, what utilities the garage would have other then
electricity.
Ms. Doty: It will have water. There'll be a shower and a restroom changing room fbr the pool area.
Chairman: A semi cabana'?
Ms. Dory: There is actually going to be an outdoor shower. It is shown on schematics l gave you.
Chairman: ls there anybody else who would like to speak fbr or against this application'?
Mr. Bredemeyer: Mr. Chairman and the zoning board of appeals, my name is John Bredemeyer. I am the
resident to the north. I would like to speak on behalf of the application. I am in favor of it, but with
reservations and a request that you review some of the relevant f:acts in the manner for possibly some
restrictions on the property to protect my interest and those interested, the public interest. With respect to
this application, i would just like to review a short history of the Planning Board review of this parcel.
Initially the subdivider prior to the owners had approached the Town Planning Board and the Planning
Board issued restriction including, the access road fhirly close to my rear property line. Their predominate
interests at the time were to protect the surface water quality of Hallocks Bay, which is one of our most
pristine bays within the county if not the state. Those of us that live immediately north are participating in
the sense in helping protect the bay them we have a road fairly close to our rear property lines. We don't
have a traditional rear yard, where to rear yards would abut each other. That being said I also enjoy fantastic
views for the last 15 years. I do understand that it may be a thing to pass, at least with a one-story garage. I
did talk with Ms. Roman, she indicated that her initial plans if she in fact could under town code, was to
build an accessory apartment, which would provide living space. This is what she told me I am not trying to
suggest that she would do it anything other than just put a garage. There is plumbing in the building, so I'm
concerned what might happen in the future. As far as the instant application you have before you have seen
the plans they have shown them to me. We really have no problem with them and it seems like pretty
reasonable usage. The applicant already has a car port. The two car garage, already having a lhr amount of
lot coverage on this already contiguous to already close to my rear of property line access road. We have
issues of noise and possibly dust generation which are maybe a little unusual. The road, I haven't taped it
of~;
I'm guessing is may be, at least on the surface it is 14 to 15' from my plot line.
Chairman Goehriger: Where do you live Mr. Bredemeyer?
Mr. Bredemeyer: I live inmaediately due north of the subject property, if you driving on the driveway Mr.
Goetn-inger, you turn to the property my houses on the left or to the north.
Chairman: O.K.
Member Tortora: Is that a 50'.
Mr. Bredemeyer: i don't know. It is probably only improved to...
Member Tortora: It is probably improved less, but it is a 50' right-of-way.
Mr. Bredemeyer: It is very close to my property line.
Member Tortora: Well to address the accessory apartment issue, that would be a condition of this Board
that it is not for habitable purposes, unless at such time that the Town Code provides for that. It certainly
would not be part of this approval.
Page 25
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Mr. Bredemeyer: The other thing I was very concerned about is going to two stories as opposed to the
single story has applied lbr. We wouldn't get to that very strenuously in a future application. We
understand that you only have one floor before you now' to approve. We would be concerned about our
views in that case. Basically has been in favor of the application, I would like to see that thc current
application, that its length width and height be locked in very strict terms so that we have it becomc
something. There is already plumbing in there. It over looks a pool. We understand that there is very
desirable views. I have to digress back to the history of the property. Ihe original subdivider went to all the
homeowners and said they were going to try to maintain all our views. In so doing they were going to try
and put like five lots in. The ran into problems with the town planning code. Ultimately they never got back
to the home owners and all the view got obstructive. The building envelopes, in order to provide those
protections for Hallocks Bay ended up being fairly confining. Which is has been described here by the
applicant. So we all lost her views in the process of protecting the bay and creating a minor subdivision
with fhirly relaxcd road rules. My concern is that I am going to see a lot accessory apartments spring up.
We go fi'om 4 dwelling units, all the sudden if everybody who is on the road puts in an accessory apartment,
we will have eight dwelling units with a lot of dust, a lot of noise. It would seem to defeat my purposes.
Member Tortora: That would be an act of the legislative body.
Mr. Bredemeyer: O.K.
Chairman: We have never granted these.
Mr. Br~demeyer: I am just appealing to you because I don't know exactly what you do in these matters,
noise and the best thing. They have indicated they would like to replant some audamalice, which has split
and have died in the vicinity of my vegetable garden. 1 have got dust going to their way and they have road
dust going my way. I think that would be something we would request. Possibly a Iow-profile berm
somewhere between the two properties. If that is something that is doable.
Member Tortora: Have you talked to them about some of your concerns.
Mr. Bredemeyer: Yes, I did. I had hoped to come to a more suitable agreement and we could've spoken
mutually tonight. I hope to protect some of my views and then they might have volunteered or worked out
something as far as not put a second story on the garage. I was looking more prospectively on it.
Chairman: They are at 13 now. A second story would place them over the maximum height, if they chose to
build one. They would have to come back here for a variance.
Mr. Bredemeyer: Fine. That is basically all I am asking for. In other words, that they have a building
envelope. I'm concerned that having a grant from your board that if they simply went to the town building
department to go to stories without going back to your board. That is my primary concern.
Member Tortora: It is an accessory structure in the town quote limits. It stretches the accessory structure to
a maximum height at 18 feet. On top of which when we write decisions, particularly in a case like this, we
always say for a garage the dimensions of which are...
Chairman: Etched in stone.
Mr. Bredemeyer: Etched in stone, that is exactly what I was the asking not knowing what you do. I am in
favor of the application. Maybe you could prevail upon the applicants to help of some of the screening
which they said they would do and possibly a low-profile berm. I think that being said I have no problem
with this application.
Page 26
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Chairman: I don't know how we can deal with the berm. That may be an issue that you might have to deal
personally with the applicants.
Mr. Brederneyer: I hear you. Thank you. i appreciate that.
Ms. Dory: ifl may. With regard to an accessory apartment, my clients did mention that to me,infact today. I
said oh no you don't. What they said to me was they have this vision of growing old and retiring out there
and when they get to that age they may need a care taker. At that point and time they where thinking that
maybe they could put an accessary apartment in that garage. I said if the Southold Town Code permits it
you can do it. But right now it doesn't permit it and you got a long way to go. I am not going to venture a
guess on their ages because I will get in trouble. I could say they are over 25 but under 55.
Member Tortora: That is sale. What about landscaping'?
Ms. Dory: Landscaping, I don't think we have a problem with. As I said my client are advid gardeners. The
only problem I have with the berm is that I don't think we can locate it within the right-of-way. I think we
would get into trouble for obstructing a right-of-way. In terms of landscaping they have already removed
some plants lrom the prior home to this area. They do plant landscape.
Member Tortora: How can we work that out with your neighbor in'?
Ms. Doty: I think they will work it out. These two women or doctors. One is a renowned surgeon in
Manhattan in the other is an internist. They have been out here since the early '80s. I have no doubt that
they will do a beautiful job landscaping. I'm sure that they can talk with Mr. Bredemeyer and his family and
discuss it. I have a problem a berm in a right-of-way. I don't think you can.
Member Tortora: The berm I am not as concerned with. Rather then just say we request screening and
landscaping where?
Ms. Doty: l thirxk you don't have to.
Chairman: O.K. Mr. Bredemeyer.
Mr. Bredemeyer: I just don't really know how close this right-of-way goes to my property. That would be a
question I would ask. In other words I can understand the right-of-way's can have an imposition of such as
the berm, but I would like to know in considering it if nothing other than the board to consider requesting, if
infact the right away so close, I'm not aware.
Ms. Doty: '[he right-of-way I believe runs along the southerly line of your property and the burdens the
northerly part of our property.
Mr. Bredemeyer: O. does really, in other words right on the common lot line.
Ms. Doty: 50' south of the common lot line. But the road is well inside that.
Mr. Bredemeyer: O.K. I have no problem with that. I am just not aware of where the right-of-way actually
went.
Member Tortora: There is a copy in the file. You can pick that up tomorrow if you want.
Mr. Bredemeyer: I think we can work it out.
Chairman: O.K. your going to do the side yard measurements.
Page 27
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Ms. Doty: I will have that lbr you hopefully tomorrow.
Member Iortora: The side and the front and the dimensions of the garage and the height. We have that.
Chairman: ltearing no l~mher comment, I make a motion to close the hearing and reserving the decision for
later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:37 p.m. application No. 5095 -Warren Corrazzini. This is a request for Variance under Section I00-142,
based on the Building Departments Dec. 17, 2001 notice of Disapproval recording a building permit
application to construct a new building. The reasons stated in the disapproval or that the building setbacks
or (1) less than 70 feet in the rear yard and (2) less than 100 feet in the front yard. Location: 67575 Main
Road, Greenport; 52-5-58.3
Mr. Fishcetti: 1 am Joe Fishcetti, I represent the applicant Warren Corrazzini. The applicant is asking for
front yard and rear yard variance. The basic lot in this subdivision is 166' in depth.
Chairman: We have an application on this...
Mr. Fishcetti: No we had the brother, P.J. next door. We finished that one. The two brothers had two lots.
They purchased the two lots. This was done by Wickham, years ago.
Chairman: O.K. I didn't mean to cut you off:
Mr. Fischetti: I should have said we have completed that and we have building permits on that and that
property next door. This is similar. They are both in the same business. Both buildings will be used for their
storage and repair for their trucks and vehicles during the wintertime when the business is not putting
asphalt down. Again the lots here or commercial and the width from the street is 166 so we really just
cannot in essence build a building there with 800 fi. front yard and a 70 fl. rear yard. We just can't do it.
What we are asking for is that those variances. The area will not produce an undesirable change in the
neighborhood. We have again it is a conm~ercial area, we have petmy lumber across the street, Melrose
behind. And their plant is across the street. It is going to be still building what ever the architectural
committee will require. And it will be for storage, there is no other way to satisfy this request because of
the continuation ora lot. We request the boards consideration in this.
Chairman: Mr. Fischetti do you no how tall the building is?
Mr. Fischetti: It is 12' to the peak. The problem I have with the architectural committee is that they won a
steep pitch and the steel buildings are always a shallow pitch.
Chairman: Clear span. So it is steel trusts'?
Mr. Fischetti: It is going to be those pre-fab with the steel girders backers inside and columns. Those are
usually flat pitched. I may have it here.
Mr. Orlando: so it is not a Morton Building?
Page 28
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Mr. Fischetti: No, it is not a Mot'on Building. Morton Buildings are made out of wood. These or steel
buildings steel exterior and steel roof.
Chainrtan: We're going to have a similar situation to the peace next door where it will be primarily hidden'?
You are going to leave the buffer up there now'?
Mr. Fischetti: What is there now, is going to stay there. We are not going to ask for access off of Main Road
at this time. We are going to take it off of his brothers property. This way we won't have the curb
requirements and the expense of getting access. We're going to have closed off and plant that. He will come
off of Albertson income through the adjacent parcel and use that. The whole project would be pretty much
screened. ]'here won't be axis off the road.
Chairman: Ms. Tortora questions?
Member Tortora: No
Chairman: Mr. Orlando'?
Member Orlando: I had one question, but you just answered it. It it looks like the adjoining lots were going
to be utilized together with the road. Now you're taking the curb cut away so that sums that up.
Mr. Fishcetti: What we tried to do...Valerie Scopaz said to me, try to get the Highway Department to
approve the curb cut, but don't build it can use the other one. So this way I won't have to back to the
Planning Board in the future. The DOT does not know what the requirements would be ten years from now.
We can't do it that way. We put it in that way, but we are not going to requests the curb cut we are not going
to put it in. We are going to plant it. We have already gotten a letter l¥om DOT saying the access that they
are using now has to be closed off and planted. Let's say I 0, 15 years from now if Warren and them want to
go to Florida and they want to split. And the two lots are sold to other people, then that person is going to
have to go to DOT and get a highway access permit. The layout just kind of show where it would be in the
future.
Member Tortora: You have been to the Planning Board, because usually we have some kind of comments
from the Planning Board.
Mr. Fishcetti: No, we haven't gone to the Plamfing Board yet. We have subnfitted it. They know it is there.
Member Tortora: This plan.
Mr. Fishcetti: Yes.
Chairman: You are not going to get any comments on an industrial building anyway.
Member Orlando: Is their office space in this or is it strictly storage'?
Mr. Fishcetti: No, it is not even heated. It is just going to be for storage and repair vehicles in the
wintertime. One part might be.
Chairman: So there will be heat in there.
Mr. Fishcetti: One part will be.
Member Orlando: There will be mechanics in there.
Page 29
lYanscript of Hearings
May 16~ 2002 ZBA Meeting
Mr. Fishcetti: We would heat the toilet. They haven't decided yet. it is just a storage building and for
repairs.
Member Orlando: No other questions.
Chairman: Mr. Homing'?
Member Horning: No questions.
Chaim~an: O.K. so we will just make it subject to Plam~ing Board approval.
Mr. Fischetti: That is fine. Thank you.
Chairman: is their annual body else who would like to speak in favor or against'? Yes.
Ms. Salzburg: My name is Dorathea Salzburg. I live on Kerwin Blvd. I would like to know, I am in new in
the area, what kind of commercial does that area have'?
Chain'nan: 1 think it is light industrial.
Ms. Salzburg: I guess my concern is where is the equipment being stored now for the asphalt plant'? Do
they need more equipment'? ls this and expansion of the asphalt plant'?
Chairman: 'Phis is a very unique situation, just correct me Mr. Fishcetti if I'm wrong. It is basically two
separate families that operate an asphalt business. Out of the same plant. P.J.'s father's name is Paul and
Richie's father's name is Richie also and they are brothers. The son's have basically taken over a portion of
the operation in both situations. 1 think a little more in P.J's case then the other case. What basically hasis to
separate businesses. I suspect that the majority of the trucks or kept in Cutchogue at this time. They do
have an operation on Cox's Lane in back of the landfill. There is no building there. I don't even know if
there is an office there, there may be a trailer. I suspect what they're going to do is what the engineer has
told to us he's going to do. Yhey are physically going to bring those tracks that they're going to work on in
the wintertime and they're going to put them in these buildings. That is what we know at this point.
Ms. Salzburg: l guess my question is, is what is light industry'?
Chairman: Let me just say this to you, prior 1989 we had extremely heavy industrial development
throughout the town in certain areas. With the update of the master planned in 1989 we went from 7 zone's
to 17 zones. The plus factor of that development was that most of the heavy industrial zoning was dropped
and most of the light industrial was brought in. Ihere is a, the uses phrase laundry list, of things that you
can do in light industry. I don't have them in front of me. You are welcome to do one of two things, either
go to the Building Department(this is not a sarcastic statement)or our office across some supervises office
and show you the code and tell you what is allowed in those zones. Based upon the size and the depth of
this property, the engineer has indicated to us that the code does not allow them to construct a building and
that is the reason why they are here for this variance application. We would be very happy to show you the
ibotprint of the building which is primarily away from the Main Road. One of the constructive statements I
thought was is the hedged row is going to be the left up. We are not necessarily going to see the building
and the engineer has indicated that is pretty much going to stay. Meaning that we are not going to see it
probably from the road. We are not even going to see any ingress and egress from the road because they're
going to access and over Mr. Richard Corrazzinis' property, which is the brother of Mr. Paul Corrazzini.
Ms. Salzburg: I guess my concern this would lead to expansion of the asphalt business which is not a quite
pretty sight when you try to get onto 25 as it is now. You're going to have more increased production with
trucks.
Page 30
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Chairman: You will have those trucks more ill the wintertime then you will have in the summer.
Ms. Salzburg: Our concern is that, it is there it shouldn't expand.
Chairman: 1 don't think you will see any expansion other than the tact that these buildings are going up and
that they are going to utilize the buildings for the purpose of working on vehicles.
Ms. Salzburg: I would really like to know more about this light industry, since I live in a residential area
that...
Chaim~an: I guess the best thing to do is to discuss it with the planners. We now have for planners. We have
the senior plmmer, Valerie Scopaz. We have three other planners in the office. Your best bet is to go into
the Planning Board.
Ms. Salzburg: O.K. Thank you very much.
Chairman: O.K. We are not going to take approximately a five-minute break. We have been working for
about 2 1/4 the hours. We will be back in 5 minutes or so. ls there anyone else who would like to speak
regarding this application? See no hand to make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision to
later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
9 p.m. application No. 5100 - Robert Mills Olsson. This is a request tbr a Lot Waiver to urmlerge an
untoimproved a lot No. 27 shown on the map of terry waters from an adjacent improved lot No. 28 based on
the building departments Feb. 5, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Location: Comer of Rambler and Main
Bayview Roads, Southold; 88-5-27 and 28.
Patricia Moore, Esq.: This is a waiver to unmerge an application. I will start with the standard, which is the
waiver will not result in a significant increased in the density of the neighborhood. Just to give you a little
bit of history here, I ka~ow is a mere record, just to bring you up to speed. The subject a lot is part oPthe
TelTy Waters subdivision. The parcel is acquired by Edward Mills in to1946 which lot 28. And the house
in 1958 which is lot 27. They were separate deeds on different dates. The lots were ultimately after his wife
Edith in February of 1996. The estate was probate and the property was conveyed to Robert Mills Olsen.
Mr. Olsen got the properties, actually financed in 1999 with a mortgage on the house. He intended at all
times to ultimately put a lot on the market and sell it. When Mr. Olson went to contract, he is in contract
presently with Zoumas homes, they did a single of separate search. At that time they discovered that the
parcel had merged. The Olson family did not realize the merger. They have been receiving separate tax
bills. The parcels were acquired at separate times by separate deeds. In fact that Terry Waters subdivision
was one of the exempt subdivisions in the ordinance. So up through 97,98 when they ordinance was
changed 100-12 which reverts back and says these are they exempt subdivisions, this was one of the lots of
the exempt subdivision.
Chairman: Your lot was described.
Mrs. Moore: Yes, it wasn't a described parcel. I can't tell if he came from the TelTy Waters subdivision...
Member Tortora: The improved will lot was described, the vacant lot...
Mrs. Moore: The vacm~t lot is definitely from the Terry Waters subdivision. What I did to determine
whether or not there will be a significant increase in density of the neighborhood, I took the tax map and l
Page 3 I
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
check the assessors records. I discovered that there are approximately 125 properties in the vicinity of this
parcel. Which is on both the Terry Waters and the Bay Haven subdivisions. A very densely populated area.
What I found is that out of 125 parcels there are only 13 vacant parcels in this cntire subdivision. What 1
also discovered is that most of the parcels are owned by different individuals. You cannot identify merger.
Certainly don't know, when they go in the search and they go to build, whether or not a merger would be
discovered. From the Assessor's records there weren't two parcels that were in the same name except liar
one. That ,,vas the poor Mark Meralec Family which on my tax map I have highlighting yellow. The family
has two parcels here that appeared to be vacant and that appeared to be in the san~e name. Ihere might be
down the line out of 125 parcels, one other poor soul who didn't realize that they should have the parcels
into separale names. That in contrast to three parcels that are vacant and that are owned by the Boyd
thmily. We all know the Boyd family, they are local. They new how to do it. They checkerboard and poor
souls are either owned by Edward or Hazel and Edward and then Edward. lhe merger and the retroactive
application with the elimination of the exemption list, causes hardship for not only the Olssons but any
unknowing property owner that didn't make arrangements that may have asked at one point in time, hay can
build on his property'? The Building Department routinely saying up to the time that the merger law was
redrawn or was legislated in, that parcels on an exempt subdivision could certainly be built. I want the
Board to keep that in mind when they are considering this property, but in general, the waiver of merger
application and how it affects many times by death. The waiver could recognize a lot which is consistent
with the size of lots in the neighborhood. Certainly you could see, again from the tax map, that the vacant
lot is a little bit larger then most of lots that have been created in this subdivision. It looks like because this
was a comer piece, they actually needed a little bit larger than the rest. When you drive down the road it
certainly looks like a typical buildable lot. The waiver will not avoid economic hardships. It will create
economic hardship to deny this variance~ One the Olsson family paid estate taxes on this property. Mr.
Olsson ~nortgaged the house parcel for $130,000. There is a Zoumas contract, which for the record, is
$120,000. You are looking at the possible elimination ora lot, the fact that it is buildable and that it has
been established by contract at $120,000. In light of all of those facts, I would ask that the Board grant the
waiver of merger. If you have any other questions, 1 will certainly try to answer them for you. Let me submit
for the record, this tax map that has hand written and highlighted in yellow the only other lot situation that
might be comparable to this. Again I don't know the people I don't know their application. And there may
be some time of circumstances that it has not merged. It is the only one that apparently has merged. In
Orange highlights are the vacant lots that remain in the subdivision. You can see how few there are.
Chairman: Mrs. Moore could you just go over this February 2, 1997 issue again? On February 2, 1997 you
said what? February of 97.
Mrs. Moore: February of 97. February l lth of 96 is when Edith died. It was the estate of Edith OIsson.
Apparently Edward must of died a long time ago with Edith being the surviving spouse. She died 96.
Chairman: Which lot did she own'?
Mrs. Moore: By ix~heritance she may have owned...I have to look at the deeds I don't know it off the top of
my head. I have the deeds and they are attached to your file. There was a deed from the estate that was from
Edith. She certainly owned this piece but I don't know the adjacent piece right off the top of my head. I can
find that out.
Chairman: If you can give us a chronology on that.
Mrs. Moore: I'll get the actual dates.
Member Tortora: The merger occurred in 1996 when the subdivision it was removed from the exempt list.
Mrs. Moore: Yes, thank you. l knew there was a simple answer to it and I appreciate you clarifying.
Page 32
l'ranscript of Hearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Meeting
Chairman: There was no attempt to checkerboarding up to that point'?
Mrs. Moore: They having bought in separate times by separate deeds, but they may have through their own
inheritance...
Chairman: i need you to clearly state that.
Mrs. Moore: it is all in there.
Member Tortora: It is in here. I think it was in probate at that point.
Mrs. Moore: From 96 through 98, I think when the deed was actually contained out from the estate, it was
in probate.
Member Tortora: According to the title search.
Mrs. Moore: ls that clear enough for members of the Board?
Chairman: I reviewed it several weeks ago and have lost it from that point on.
Mrs. Moore: That is alright.
Chairman: Questions Mr. Homing'?
Member Homing: No.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando.
Member Orlando: Do you know what I was looking for and I couldn't see. is the lot size on 27.
Mrs. Moore: There is a survey, the vacant lot is 26,410. The house parcel is 27,729. There should be a
survey that shows both parcels on the same survey.
Chairman: I don't think we have that.
Mrs. Moore: I apologize. I thought it was in your packet. I will get that to you. If you want 1 can make
copies, it may be attached to the notice of disapproval. It is usually submitted.
Member Tortora: It is right on the lot waiver questionnaire.
Mrs. Moore: 1 will get it for you before the end of the meeting.
Chaim~an: O.K. Mrs. Tortora, questions'?
Member Tortora: No.
Chairman: We will see what develops. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this
application'? Anybody like to speak against this application'? Seeing no hands, omega motion on closing
hearing mid reserving decision.
SEE RESOLUTION IN MINUTES
Page 33
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
9:10 p.m. application No. 5128 - Joseph and Cristina Como. 'fhis is a request for a Special Exception under
section 100-31B(15) for a Bed and Breakfast as an Accessory Usc in the applicants owners existing
residence. Location: 40300 Main Road, Peconic; 86-4-1.1.
Chairman: Good evening. What would you like to tell us'?
Mrs. Como: 1 have prepared some documents and a letter. It is difficult lbr me to talk and to follow my train
of tbught so 1 decided to write it down and give you all a copy.
Chairman: Thank you.
Mrs. Como: We have applied for special permit, complied with all the necessary requirements and we feel
that are can build a beautiful home that adds value to the whole area and hopefully will become a lhvorite
place of four visitors to the North Fork. Ihe members of the board are familiar with our requests we have
appeared in January 2001 to request a variance back yard setback in order to save a 50 foot spruce which
was denied. At that time it became evident that the issues of the Parma's, the neighbors to the south, was not
the tree or the setback variance, but the lhct that we were building a home intended to be a B&B. The
Parma's have again expressed their objection with a letter presented to your office yesterday afternoon
around 3:30 p.m. In order to respond to the Parma's, we have to go back to January 2001. I have attached
to that package that I gave you, a letter submitted by the Parn~a's dated January 17, 2001, strongly objecting
to the variance and the idea of the B&B. The setback variance was denied. I also enclosed a copy of the
original survey for that we had for the property at that time. After the denial my husband Joseph Como met
with Mrs. Parma who proposed all of the objections and their specific requirements. No. 1 they wanted us
to place else parallel to the south boundary line and not diagonally as in the original survey. Ihis is
indicated that it would avoid a direct view of their home from our windows. The back of our home is now to
67' from the property line. That is from the deck. From the back of the house is about 80' from the property
line. They wanted the house moves as for West as the sideline setback would allow. It is now 30 feet from
the western boundary. They wanted the row of arborvitae on the south boundary line to be replenished as
needed with the same size trees. That was done as requested with other trees added. They were concerned
with guests looking out the back windows. That was also taking care of an eye will explain that. They
assured us that they would look favorable toward a proposed used if we complied with their request We
agreed to all their demands and proceeded with the construction. In the letter I just submitted, Mrs. Parma
states my family quote my family is not entirely against the use of this property. We felt we could trust her.
We had our architect reach fbr the plans in order to place the garage and driveway on the western side of
the property. We had to request new surveys placing house in the requested location. Of course caused
delays with the construction. My husband was the general contractor and all the different subcontractors
had to alter their plans. This represented an expensive proposition for us, but we had no alternative. After
the construction was completed, we higher landscaper to prepare the yard for the winter and plant the many
trees that we purchased, we installed sixth arborvitae. The average size was 12 feet high. Two 30 to 40'
Oak trees and moved two 20' Douglas furs. Additional arborvitae were placed on the eastern boundary. We
were informed by landscaper that with care in irrigation improper feeding, the back boundary line of
arborvitae should grow at least two feet per year. We have installed to full irrigation system. The ixming of
trees was also a request of Mr. Goehringer at our January 2001 meeting. Photos of before and after have
been prepared that would like to cement them now. I only have one copy I am sorry. This is the original
photo that Mrs. Palmer had submitted. This is halfway tttrough construction in September. This is also one
of the original photos showing all the vacant spaces without covering. Ihis is pretty much the way our yard
looks now. l also have additional photos of our backyard.
Chairman: How recent or these pictures'?
Mrs. Como: They were taking yesterday. We have also installed a privacy fence along the eastern boundary
line to satisfy the request of our neighbor on that side. That is Mr.... We have designed our B&B not only
to privacy to our family but also to our neighbors. The house plans restrict the use of the back yard to our
Page 34
Transcript of 1tearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
family. We have a separate entrance and a separate back stairs. The kitchen, dining area, family room and
deck are all located in the back of the house. The back yard that adjoins the Parmas' property is only for our
family use. Our quests have only the use of the front porch, dinning room and living room located in the
front of the house. There are two quest bedrooms in the t?ont and two on the back. On the eastern side of
the house. Three quest window are overlooking thc backyard. I am enclosing photos of these two rooms.
This is the back of the house, these are the two bedrooms that we are talking about. Bedroom #1 has one
window to the back and these are the other two windows. This and was taken from this window yesterday.
This is the other bedroom.
Chairman: O.K. How and many bedrooms are we anticipating in this bed and breakfast?
Mr. Como: Four.
Chairman: And the other two are on the eastern side'?
Mr. Como: Correct.
Mrs. Como: They are on the front of the house. They are two comer bedrooms.
Mr. Como: Mr. Orlando was at the house yesterday.
Chairman: O.K.
Mrs. Como: The Parmas are concerned with guests looking through his three windows to our back property.
With all the beauty and lovely attractions that the North Fork has to offer, I sincerely do not thit~k that guess
would waste their time looking out the windows. But to satisfy their concerns, we had already installed cut
wall panels in all the bedrooms lacing the back yard. These panels are fixed and they block the view, while
at the same time allowing light into the rooms. Before we entered into this project, we did a thorough
research. We have three children, that the Parmas' know well from school and church. They were the most
important consideration in thinking about this business. After talking too many of the members of the North
Fork B&B Association, we felt very sure it was a safe and exciting business tbr all of us as a thmily. With
all of us contributing to its success. My 8 year old already plans on being a waitress and taking breakfast
orders. That is another important that I want to make here. The decision to enter into this new venture was
made with our children very much in mind. After living and working in Manhattan until 1994, 1 decided to
move full-time to our weekend home in Southold. 1 felt that there was no better place in the world to bring
up my daughter, Forest, then just an infant. As time goes by and home prices continue to rise with no end in
sight, we want to provide the same opportunity to our children. We have built a place that would allow them
to enjoy living on the North Fork when a graduate from college is so they wish. They won't have to leave
the area in search of a job or a home. That is what it really is all about. The home business for all ages. We
feel that we have complied more than fully with all the conditions that the Parmas' and the Zoning Board
requested from us. We have talked to our other neighbors and they're very supportive of our efforts.
Chairman: I have not been over because l was unannounced and I couldn't fit into my schedule. I do want
to come over either this weekend or next weekend just for a short visit and look at those two bedrooms.
2Xald just walk around the exterior of the house property for a little while. Not to burden you, I will call you.
Mr. Como: You are welcome to anytime.
Chairman: Mr. Homing any questions of the Comos?
Member Homing: No.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando?
Page 35
I ranscript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Member Orlando: Quick question. Have you ever run a bed abd breakfast prior to this.
Mr. & Mrs. Como: No.
Member Orlando: It is one of those lifelong dreams that you decided to...
Mrs. Como: That is right. [ thought about years ago when I first moved here.
Member Orlando: And there is no problem with strangers walking in the house.
Mrs. Como: I have been in the people business all my life. First of the airlines then with a bank in the city
as vice president. I was in the sales area. I met with people. Now I am in real estate, which is more a people
business than anything else. You can sense and you can build a rapport with someone right away. More
important than that, talking to owners of B&B's reassured us that we where doing the right thing.
Member Orlando: No other questions.
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora?
Member Tortora: I just want to get, it is going to be four bedrooms'?
Mrs. Como: Yes.
Member Tortora: [ did go over and see the property and I want to put on the record that 1 have seen a if
substantial change in the property since last time. I have seen the work that you put into, the landscaping,
the buffering. I just wanted it that into the record.
Chairman: We will see what develops throughout the hearing and if you feel you have to come back and
bring up other issues or counter other issues, we will call a back. I may army not close the hearing. 1 may
close it at our special meeting pending my investigation. It is my full phenomena can appoint with you. We
will see how goes. Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak in favor of this application'?
Ms. Newer: My name is Monica Newer. I mn the property adjoining to the Comos and the Parmas on the
west side. The house is a owned structure. They have done so much to comply with requests made by your
board. Seven years ago when I retired, I had thoughts of making my house into a bed and breakfast. I got
the rooms expanded upstairs in the attic and all, but never applied for it because 1 decided I would have a
life. I abandoned that idea. I know what would entail. I have been to Bed & Breakfasts. If you are th that
house after 10 O'clock in the morning, it is very unusual. You come in, you sleep there, you have your
breakfast the next morning. You might sit around and talk at the breakfast table with other people. All of it
is centered around that. 1 don't think that's the Patinas will find it as objectionable as they feel that it nfight
be. At this point in time, I don't want make bad feelings with any neighbor, but I think it would work at very
well tbr everyone. The fact that last year when they went through these town hearings, I thought it was all
set for them at that point. They have been allowed to go and build this house. They definitely don't need
those tbur bedrooms so they have gone to quite an expense mid put a lot of time and eflbrt into something
that is quite beautiful. I would like to say that everything would go through as they would like it to. Thank
you.
Chairman: Thank you. Would you state your name.
Ms. Benanatti: My nan~e is Marie Benanatti, I am the president of the North Fork Bed and breakfast
Association. I have a Bed and Breald'ast, the Belvedere, at Peconic. I thought it ~vould be a good idea for
the Como's. There in conceptions about Bed & Breakfasts' and use of the word transient and things like that.
Page 36
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
I want to give a little bit of my own back round and my personal experience. And maybe help the neighbors
concerns. At present seventeen B&B's in the North Fork Bed and Breakfhst Association and there at least 5
other B&B's not in the association. As a B&B Association, we have standards, we have a statement of
purpose, which I can share with you. We go examine the homes. We actually review the standards to see of
the homes comply with the standards. Even though the Comos' B&B is not been approved, every'hing that
they have done far exceeds our minimal standards in terms of B&B. The 17 B&B's and the five others
provide approximately 85 room nights or to170 for a particular weekend. This is really mostly the B&B
business here on the North Fork. It is pretty much just the weekends. Ihe average room cost is some where
around 150. It is moving to 200 and maybe even higher. I think that is an important point. Quest paying
these rates generally have higher income. They generally are professionals. I have had doctors, dentists,
Wall Street people, high-level professional people, not anyone that you wouldn't invite into your own home.
Just in response to that question. They are the nicest people. Generally people that mn B&B's or social and
they enjoy that social interaction. I have had a B&B fbr three years now. I have never had anything taken,
anything even broken or lost. We pretty much have at our polar and guest rooms open to the people who
come and stay with us. About 25% of the people who come are from New York City. Around 15% are from
Com~ecticut. This may vary at a B&B, I and just giving you some kind of averages. 25% from Nassau
County and about 20 from Western Sultblk. Then we have people from Europe from Australia, from
Greece, from Brazil ,from California. Europeans are very much use to B&B's and very comfortable. This
Country is not as used to the way a B&B operates. Ihey Love it and we enjoy having them. Infact, many
Europeans would prefer going to a B&B then going to a hotel or motel. They really aren't any hotels and
some of the motels on the North Fork are really not as beautiful at or as clean or is welcoming as a B&B.
couples typically eat out for at least two dimmers and two lunches. That adds to the revenues in the tow~.
Probably cost about $150 a couple. Generally what happens with a B&B and a neighbor, generally on
Friday evenings they arrive if the work around 6 maybe eight o'clock. They go out to dinner and then a
comeback and perhaps will sit in an our polar and chat a little bit and then they go to bed. The next morning
breakfast to serve at nine o'clock and this is pretty typical of all the B&Bs. They have their breakfast and
then they leave, we really don't have facilities. The Comos' home doesn't have facilities to stay. They are
here to go to the wineries, they are here to do the antiques. '[hey are here to bike or hike, to do all those
kind of things, go to the beach that the North Fork provides with them. They are out virtually most of the
day. It is kind of nice for us, because we can go do other things as well. They come back perhaps to change
have dinner and go off again to dimmer and come back and then the next morning after breakfast at 11, that
is check out time and they are gone. That is usually Friday, Saturday and Sunday morning they are gone at
11. That is typical. You figure they spend around 150 on these activities, that would be about 12,750 dollars
in the community in any given week. The motels tend to be filled but they can't handle the number of people
interested in visiting the North Fork. As I mentioned it really is a different type of lodging. From the middle
of June until about Labor Day, most B&B's are partially or full for at least two week day nights and
weekend nights. Put together weekends fbr the Summer, income for the area really is really significant. It is
about 100,000 a week overall. Weekend business tend to be whole or partly full to about May 15th to
October. Then really there is very little business in December, January and February. We are really not full
and in most cases most of the B&Bs' are pretty much in the same boat. Each B&B is a private home, they
cause minimal amount of waste. They tend to be good neighbors. They all belong to the Chamber of
Conmnerce. Most do there shopping on the North Fork. All pay property, sales and income taxes. Many
B&B owners are actively involved in community organizations. Nearly all the owners are interested in the
health and well being of the community as they are creating an income for their small business'. I would
really like to stress, that it is a small business. It is not a business where you can retire and basically run a
B&B and expect to have an income. Most of us have other jobs or we have retired and have retirement
income, it is something that we enjoy doing. It is something that helps us cover the cost of operating these
homes that we love and many of them are older homes that have been restored or are being restored by the
owners. They also add to the character of the community. Personally I ki~ow the Como's and i think the
Parmas' couldn't ask for better neighbors and I would hope that part of this will help explain and ease some
of their concerns. Thank you very much.
Chairman: Thank you. Someone else here in favor'?
Page 37
Transcript of ttearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Mccting
Mrs. Favel: Good evening. My name is Maryann Favel and 1 work with both Joseph and Christina Como. I
have watched over the past year, year and a half the emotional roller coaster of trying to buy this piece of
property, trying to make the house look as beautiful as it does, placed in the right spot on the lot. Just
because they do sell real estate~ does not mean they are wealthy people. People have misconception of real
estate brokers or agents. Yes, we make a living, but if we where that rich, we wouldn't still be working.
They both work extremely hard. They are absolutely wonderful people. It cost them a tremendous amount
of additional monies to make the changes to not just keep the Board happy, but the neighbors happy. 1 have
been inside the home, it is absolutely magnificent. It is one of most beautiful homes in Southold Town. It is
their home. Yes they are hoping to have a Bed & Breakfast. They look at it number I as their home, number
2 as a Bed and Breaklhst. [hey are here and they are here to stay. I certainly hope you consider granting
them the Bed and Breakfast. Thank you.
Chairman: Thamk you. The other person in the back.
Ms. Sctmfitt: My name is Cindy Sctunitt. 1 have known Christina and Joe for quite a few years now. As a
matter of fact Christina sold me my home here in Southold in 1998. Most recently I have had the privilege
of doing the interior design work in the B&B. I would just like to say that throughout the process Christine
and Joe have been very much interested in not only making the place beautiful from the interior but also
presetwing the surrounding properties that are in the neighborhood and the adjoining lots. We worked very
hard and very late into the night to make sure all the details were intended to. I think Christina was modest
in how she described what we did on the windows to protect privacy of the lblks behind her. Remember we
had some sheer panels and valances but we also have blacked out shades that offer complete privacy
particularly at night. We did consider both interior and the exterior of the area. I just wanted to let you kmow
that and 1 too hope that you will grant the approval for the B&B. Thank You.
Chairman: Thm-.k you.
Mrs. Parma: (Beginning of next tape and was asked to speak up) ...They are asking for a special exception
and it might be a beautiful home but it is also a business. It is a money making business. This has also
caused me a great deal of distress.
Chairman: I just want to say this to Mrs. Parma, although we have never pulled a B&B license or a B&B
Special Permit, we have in the past pulled other permits. Which were about special exception. We are
willing to listen to what you are saying.
Mrs. Parma: I am asking them to grant it. I am not saying that I am opposing it. I am just saying to please in
so far as granting it, ask them to maintain what they have possibly add more if they could. What it' they want
to put in a pool, that is fine that they say that they can't use the back, but is that in writing'? What if they sell
it, does it transfer over'?
Chairman: No I don't think it does.
Mrs. Parma: O.K. They said there is three quest rooms in the back, is that including also a bathroom? There
is two and there is a bathroom in the back as well?
Chairman: i haven't inspected it. Did you see a bathroom'?
Member Orlando: It was a big house. I saw a lot of bathrooms.
Chairman: We will get that question answered.
Page 38
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Mrs. Parma: I also have a that they are both in real estate. Bed and Breakfast supposedly take a lot of
encrgy and time to maintain. Are they going to be actually framing it or are they going to somebody there
that is going to be overseeing the day-to-day responsibilities of running the bed & breakfhst? Is one of them
giving up their career? That was a concern of who else they are going to have in to do whatever they have to
have done. The majority of the time [ am sure that they are away at their business, especially on the
weekend when real estate is being shown and they will also have a house full of quests. The trees are very
old that they have there, they currently do block the privacy of my yard on the one side. Particularly the one
that I care about is the pool area. What if that dies, are they required to replace that'? Or is that just done
under good faith.
Member Tortora: They have done alot of work. I am sure you have seen that work. Your pool is much
closer to the property line and your house then their house is. Isn't that so?
Mrs. Parma: Yes, it is close.
Member Tortora: It is, in reality they have moved their house to extraordinary setback to accommodate not
only this board but primarily your concerns. They have done a major undertaking as fbr his landscaping.
As far is what they are asking for, it is not special in the sense that they have to jump through a series of
hoops. I'll be quite candid with you, this applicant has done more to obtain a bed and breakfast approval
than any application I have seen come before this board in the seven years I have been here. That is my
opinion. We are into lockout shades and sheer blinds at this point. }Iow thr we going to go'?
Mrs. Parma: I would deftly like to see that stipulated that that privacy barrier is maintained, they are saying
there is not going to be guessed in the backyard that that would be put in writing.
Member Tortora: Are you saying that if they want to put a pool in the back yard in the future like you have,
that they couldn't. You want that as a condition'?
Mrs. Parma: I would like them not to be able to take down the trees in order to do it. I feel as if this is a
business and it is going to supersede my right as a residential home owner to have privacy. I have little kids
at a running around in batbing suits and a daughter that is 15 years old. It is very uncomfortable know that
somebody that I don't know" is always going to be different could possibly have any access to something
that is my haven. I want to be insured that
that is not going to happen.
Member Tortora: We are trying to protect your property rights as well as theirs. There has to be a balance
somewhere inbetween there. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to accommodate your concerns.
There has to be a balance. Nothing is in perpetuity. We could sit here and we can write out conditions from
now until doomsday. When does it stop. There has to be a balance. They want privacy for their clients too.
I'm sure.
Chairman: What we will do Mrs. Parma if you will reduce yours to writing, everything you are telling us
tonight.
Member Tortora: She gave us a letter.
Chairn~an: The letter that we received from you is that in most of it.
Mrs. Parma: No.
Chairman: You have to excuse me because I read the letter and it was some time ago. Needless to say it's
been very trying thing and I apologize. We will pick and choose what we feel we can put into the decision.
in reference to what we put in prior decisions and what we put future decision regarding special permits.
Page 39
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Most of which are used to protect both persons. We will do the best we can. As I have spoken to on the
phone a year and a year in half ago, we're trying to feel your feelings of the same time. We understand your
feelings. My feeling goes a little bit farther then some people. I feel this permit is granted as a matter of
right as along as it fulls within the criteria that we use for granting the special permits, some people don't
agree with that. I'm not getting into that issue tonight. But I will play this that after my physical inspection
of their house in their backyard, we will carve that in the decision. We will put in what we can put in and
what we feel is reasonable. And that is what the state tells us to do. And we will do that.
Mrs. Parma: l just want to go on record saying that I am not viewing in anyway that the Comos are...they
have people representing their character, I am not saying that they have a poor character. I am happy as
neighbors that they are they are. However I am not happy the B&B of course. 1 just really feel that they
should be granted the B&B but to ensure that my privacy is going to be protected as well. Thank you.
Chairman: Anybody else speaking against'? Mr. Como can you just clear up that issue of bathrooms'? Are
there any bathrooms looking over the rear'?
Mr. Como: There is one, but that is our private bathroom.
Chairman: So there are no bathrooms for the B&B overlooking the rear of the house'?
Mr. Como: No there aren't. There are two bedrooms in the back with one bathroom that has no window and
the other bathroom doesn't over look the back. I just want to reassure her that 1 am going to run the B&B. 1
am going to be there most of the time when there is guests in the house. Nobody else is going to be running
the B&B. Also 1 wanted to say that we moved trees in the back to insure privacy for her. We moved two
trees that are 30' high so that she would have the privacy from the deck or the bedroom window that there
are going to be guest staying at. You cmmot see the house or the pool. You can only see the open field in
the back. Another thing is when I met her last year before we started construction, I wanted to be assured
from her that we would be o.k. with the B&B permit. She promised to me that if 1 moved the house the
furthest west as possible so that she would have the privacy from the pool, that she would not be against it.
Now this is something new, that she wants more privacy. We have done everything and more that we could.
Chairman: We will determine if the privacy is adequate are not. I will make that determination and we will
deliver upon that situation after I have seen my portion I'm going to evaluate. I will share that with my
fellow colleagues.
Mr. Como: You are all welcome to come whenever you want to.
Chairman: l will call one Saturday morning and see what your schedule is.
Mr. Como: Thank you.
Mrs. Parma: Can I make one additional comment?
Chairman: Yes.
Mrs. Parma: When we spoke about the issues and what I felt what I would like them to do, I had asked them
to move the house as far West and north as possible away for my boundary lines. Yes they did move it
West, but it is still in pretty close proximity I feel to the boundary lines.
Chairman: Thmtk you. Hearing no further comment, I will close the hearing pending the receipt of my
inspection.
Page 40
l ranscript of Hearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Meeting
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
Application No. 5106 - Howard Wiggins. Application withdrawn by applicants prior to this meeting.
Location: 1750 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue; 103-3-5.1.
SEE RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW
***
9:50 pm. application No. 5107- James and Kathleen Blacklev. This is a request for Variance under Section
100-244B, based on the Building Departments February 4th 2002 notice of Disapproval for deck addition at
less than 35 feet from the from property line. Location: 1455 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. 117-4-5.
Mr. Blackley: James Blackley. 1 went and measured it today. By my the cement from the comer of the
closest to the road is 50 something feet. I think my original application ,,vas actually narrower, but I actually
have a chance to take a look. What I didn't know is how far the road actually moves into the property line.
Chairman: We are now actually concerned about the road we are concerned about to the property line. So
the question is, is the 30 feet to the property on? Is that correct'?
Mr. Blackley: That is correct.
Chairman: The road is a side issue. Because you know the road probably is...it shows as 50.16, and we
know that that road is not 50.16. It is probably 33 or 32. of course we don't know if the road is in the
middle of that 50. We don't kriow if it meanders to your side or the other side. It probably has a tendency
to meander towards the water front more towards your side. Which gives you more area. If you say you are
50 feet to the road, which means there's 30 and 20, which means you have more grassy front then you own.
Mr. Blackley: That is what I was not sure of. I had this discussion with the Town Board of Trustees and
they have issued an authorization. That is pretty much it.
Chaim~an: Your within 20 % lot coverage and this is an open deck'?
Mr. Blackley: Yes.
Chaim~an: This is not a raised deck'? The only raise is just above the ground a little bit'?
Mr. Blackley: Right. It is raised to the door. Here is the landscape rendering.
Chairman: O.K. George, while you're looking at that, any questions of Mr. Blackley?
Member Horton: The deck is the minimum size'? You feel comfortably sound?
Mr. Blackley: Yes l do. 1 think anything smaller than that you couldn't put any ihrniture on.
Chairman: This is 16 feet out, right?
Mr. Blackley: Yes.
Chairman: What is the actual with the back when I wrapped around?
Mr. Blackley: It would be 41 feet. It goes across a front house with the exception of the kitchen side.
Page 41
Transcript of Hearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Meeting
Chairman: What is the width of the kitchen side'? 8,9.
Mr. Blackley: it is to be I 1.5.
Member Horton: Is this your landscape plan'?
Mr. Blackley: Yes. With the shrubs and that stuff you won't see it.
Member Honon: This is what it will look like, God willing.
Mr. Blackley: Yes.
Chairman: It certainly appears to be a very nice thing you want to build there. Any questions Mr. Orlando'?
Member Orlando: No questions.
Chairman: Any questions Mrs. Tortora?
Member Tortora: Nice rendition. No.
Chairman: Anybody in the audience while this gentleman is standing, would like to speak for or against this
application'? Hearing no further questions I will make a motion in closing the hearing.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
9:55 p.m. application No. 5114 - Riverhead Buildin~ SuI~,lv Co. Variance under Section 100-131 C(9) and
100-133C, based on the Building Departments Feb. 20, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, to (a) locate building
#1 with a width of more than 60 feet facing the street, (b)locate building #2 with a width of more than 60
feet facing the street, and (c) off-street customer parking nearer than 50 feet to the street and lot lines.
Location: 74500 Main Road, Greenport; 46-1-1 and 2.1.
Chairman: Ms. Moore we go back to that night at the Plmming Board when those changes were made on us
and it was at that point that we realized that the disapproval did not cover changes that the Riverhead
Building Supply made'? Is that correct?
Mrs. Moore: Let give you a little bit of background. Almost. We have actually met with Ed (Forester) and
we thought that everybody was on-board. Because variances mn the land, the notice of disapproval that
was originally issued was on the 60 fl. width of the building. The building in the front did not change
architecturally or in design. In fact we actually edit landscaping since the original inception of the project.
There would be no need for the variances. Mike took over at the Building Department. The Planning Board
through their course of site plan, forwarded their site plan to Mike for certification. And at that point he
kind of concentrated on the project and felt that the following variances would be necessary. We obviousIy
disagreed, but here we are. It all came up through the Planning Board process. Mike finely to the look at a
right before the site plan ready to be approved. The public hearing took place the Planning Board like the
site plan. Quite fi'ankly they had a resolution ready to approve. That is when the issue came up and we were
told that we needed to come to you again.
Chairman: I just want to review to quick things. The February 15th of 2002 notice of disapproval says that
under section 131 c9 off street parking and loading shall have a suitably screened buffer strip of at least 10'.
Do we not have 10 feet here'?
Page 42
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Mrs. Moore: We do too.
Chairman: We do. O.K. 1 don't know why that issue is there.
Mrs. Moore: A little bit of history on an issue,wc're going to skip around a little. My application itself sets
forth or the standards for the variance. I incorporate the record here and I also incorporate the previous
application and all the record that was before this board in granting the original variance on the width of the
li'ont building.
Very briefly, we got a change is owned to turu this into LIO. This is 5.7 acre parcel for the benefit of Mr.
Horton and Mr. Orlando who weren't on the Board at the Time.
Member Horton: 1 was.
Mrs. Moore: You were. O.K. Anyway the frontage on this property is 325 feet. That 60 foot rule on the
width of the building makes absolutely no sence because it takes and arbitrary ntm~ber without any record
lbr the width of the property financial frontage that you have on the property. It works finding of one acre
piece. It works terribly if you have anything larger than that. Like many things in our code, require major
revision. The issue of the wall Street parking which came up in the notice of disapproval, I believe this is
the first time we have ever seen it applied by the Building Department. it comes under 131 as accessory
uses. It says all street parking loading not nearer than 50 feet to a lot line or straight and generally adjacent
to any street or any residential district, shall be suitably screened by a lm~dscaped strip of at least 10 feet.
We have landscaping. The parking was actually do location of the parking was for the most part with the
work of the Planning Board and placing it appropriately on the property. Obviously you have the retail
building in the front, that is where most of the parking is. The warehouse is a drive-through and very little
parking is necessary since it is again to drive-through concept.
Chairman: You do not even have to ponder upon that. i remember in the application with North Fork
Country Club. Through the total reconstruction of the country club, that their major parking is in front of the
building also. That was an issue that was part of that situation to. O.K. Lets talk about the changes between
the two.
Mrs. Moore: The change from the original is actually a reduction of the square footage. Overall reduction of
the square footage by 7415 sq. ft. We are down to 16.7 lot coverage l¥om the original 19.5 lot coverage, we
have reduced the scale of the whole development. The major difference obviously is that the front building
has the retail and the warehouse use. The back building is the drive-through. The major difference between
the way this says been designed is that the backed drive-through warehouse has no water and has no heat. It
is a pure drive-through warehouse t~acility for mostly to drive-through with your truck and load up. The
building community that goes through and gets service there. I would probably end up in the retail section
where there is floor displays for the different kitchens, bathrootns, the standard displays. If you look in East
Hampton or Riverhead store, you see this certainly on a smaller scale but a to similar concept where there is
an area for offices for the staff; for his well as people to come in and sit down and meet with the staff
people. As well as having the retail portion behind that has the smaller items that aren't stored in the
warehouse. That is the major difference and the operational difference of this application versus the
previous application. Again the look of the building remains the same. From the street there won't be any
difference this versus the previous building. Amhitectural review has looked at it. They like the building
first time in the continue to like the building. Don Dennis and Fred Weber who is here, is the architect and a
beautiful job in design. Their project is really very good. Building No. 3 is a small or storage building that
is separated. Building No. 2 is the woods rap system. Building No. 3 bulk storage, plywood in sheet rock.
I think that one of the issues that I really hope you will address... In this instance we were already here, so
that Mike's reading of the 60 foot wall and its application to building No. 2, we were here and 1 wasn't going
to fight that being thrown in on that issue. I think that for the purposes and clarification to the Building
Department, I think that for the purposes of clarification to the Building Department, don't let any other
poor slot have to go through this. What he is looking at it is the 60 foot rule application to the back building
Page 43
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
which is, one it is not linear feet frontage. Frontage is road frontage. It is the front. That is what the 64 role
applies to. The back building is in the rear. it is the warehouse building. 1 don't know how in his right mind
how hc could ever interpret the 60' role to apply to the rear building. I hope that you will send, obviously
when you grant a variance you are acceptiug his interpretation. Please send back a decision that explaitls to
them no that it is linear feet that describes frontage. You and I both know. In the code it says what frontage
is. For future applications to help you will clarify the code for them.
Chairman: What is the width of#2?
Mrs. Moore: #2 is 91'. As you can see where it is placed in the property it is, bags are the property is on a
little bit of an angle. It runs with the property liue. The property line is skewed over. It is not directly
behind the road frontage. It cannot be clearer to me that it is a back building and it is uot road frontage. It is
not linear feet as is described in the code.
Member Tortora: What is the width of the landscaping in the front.
Mrs. Moore: 25' front in the very front in front of the parking. We have a larger landscape area which was
actually had been parking along the side and the Planning Board took it out Ii'om there so that we would
have no vehicles backing out.
Member Tortora: Originally there two accesses to this.
Mrs. Moore: You mean to separate entrances'?
Mr. Weber: Yes.
Mrs. Moore: We actually combined and made it one entrance. Again DOI has approved this concept and
again the Planning Board was involved in the whole process.
Chaim~an: Are you done Lydia?
Member Tortora: Yes.
Chairman: Mr. Homing?
Member Homing: No questions.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando'?
Member Orlando: No questions.
Mrs. Moore: The Planning Board met of Monday and had carried over the hearing just waiting for the
Zoning Board to make a decision. Anything that you can do to expedite this decision would be appreciated.
Chairman: Very good. Let's see what develops. Ariybody else want to speak in favor or against this
application?
Member Tortora: Just one question. We already approved 1 I5 feet so on the sure why you're here.
Mrs. Moore: I agree with you, but then again. I wish you're sitting at the Building Department.
Member Tortora: O.K.
Page 44
Transcript of Hearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Meeting
Chairman: Seeing no hands I make a motion in closing the hearing and reserving decision.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
10:09 p.m. application No. 5109 - Lewis Family Partnership Ltd. Applicant requests Variances under
Sections100-242A, 100-143A, 100-142, tbr additions to au existing building with nonconlbrming setbacks.
The proposed additions are less than 20 feet on the side yard, less than 70 feet on the rear yard, have a total
of less than 40 leer on both sides, and have a linear building frontage greater than 60 feet on the street. Zone
District: Light Industrial. l.ocation: 230 Corwin St. and 9th St., Greenport. 48-1-44.1.
Chairman: O.K. Lewis Family Partnership. Best I can see when I went down to the site is, you are removing
one portion of this building and you are re-building.
Mr. Strang: Pretty much. What we are planning on doing is the easterly most building that is on the site
now is inadequate. The entire facility has reached the point that it is inadequate to meet the needs of the
business. They need additional storage warehouse space.
Chaim~an: How high as is going to be?
Mr. Strang: What is there now, is about 20 feet tall. What we are proposing is 30 l'eet tall so we can get
additional storage in there. As well as some additional square footage by Iix.king the footprint of the original
structure to the primary building on the site.
Chairman: Do have a view of if what this is going to look like when it's done'?
Mr. Strang: No, we had gone them for yet as to do some sort of rendering. It is going to be basically a
industrial tight building similar to what's there. You'll probably a gate roof on to shed water. That high he is
the maximum to the ridge. It would be no higher than thirty feet to the ridge.
Member Tortora: Has the Plmming Board seen this'?
Mr. Straug: We have had employment area conference with the Planning Board. we reviewed the concepts,
we reviewed with them at length the parking configuration. Which is one of the reasons why this proposal is
to shift that building to Long Island Railroad right-of-way. So we can add additional parking on the road
side. Originally it was 16 feet off the Long Island Railroad right-of-way property line. It will now be feet on
that size.
Chairman: I remember the original application to Mr. Price represented to them when the entire
transformation occurred on the site.
Mr. Strang: I was before this board some years ago when the building on the Westside of the property was
built.
Chairman: O.K. 1 just don't know what to look like.
Mr. Strang: I have no objection to providing tbis board with a drawing of with respect to what is going to
look like so you have a handle on. It is a need that have to be met. obviously it's an established this is that if
they are but we are proposing is in my opinion anyway a minimal expansion as far as footprint and lot
coverage. A 2%, 3% in lot coverage.
Member Tortora: Have we done anything back from the Planning Board'?
Page 45
Transcript of ttearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Meeting
Mr. Strang: I have no idea.
Member Tortora: Have we sent them a letter'?
Chairman: We don't send a letter. We usually of the agents ask them lbr it. Somethnes we send them a
letter most recently they are as busy as we are, sometimes.., we could email them.
Mr. Strang: They didn't have any serious objection when we met with them. They look at the concept they
like the idea that we were doing something better with the parking configuration hasn't presently exist.
They felt that we were meeting parking criteria. To believe their closing comment is well you have to get a
variance, so will speak you further about attempting to variance. The didn't want to go too far the variance
wasn't granted.
Chairman: What we will do is, we will closest to verbatim and close it on June 6th. In the interim we all
asked for a Planning Board comment and you can give us at least the f?ont and side view on the proposed
addition. Hopefully we'll give something by then. How is that?
Mr. Strang: ]'hat should be fine. Is there any other questions any other members have'?
Chairman: O.K. ls there anyone in the audience relay to speak for or against this application'? Last verbal
chance. We will hold it open been in pending Planning Board connnents and what Mr. Garret is going to
give us in the next couple weeks prior to the June 6 meeting.
Mr. Strang: Thank you.
Chairman: Your welcome.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
10:16 p.m. Application No. 5081 - Andrew and William Lutkowski. This is a request for a Lot Waiver
under Section 100-26, based on the Building Departments Jan. 24, 2002 Notice of Disapproval to unmerge
the vacant lot 77-2-18 from the house lot 77-2- 25. Location: 480 Birch Lane, Goose Bay Estates lot No.
86 through 94 incl., Southold; 77-2-18.and
Chairman: We are here with 5081 to unmnerge a vacant lot.
Mr. Lutkowski: For the record my name is Andy Lutkowski. i am representing my brother and myselfi We
are in the position of actually receiving from my mother both parcels of property that my brother and l
intend to retire on. I put together a small booklet. I gave to everyone. Hopefully it was self explanitory. If
you want me to I could read through it.
Chairman: Just hit the highlights. Don't read it.
Mr. Lutkowski: My mother wants to give us both parcels of property one to my brother and one to myself
that we are both going to use as our retirement.
Chairman: The other one has the house, which I would be receiving upon the completion of building a
house for my brother on this piece of property. My brother has to retire in approximately a year and half to
two years. It is a 9,214 sq. fi. lot. The house they we could build on it is actually 1,184 sq. ft. The 1st floor
only consuming 656 sq.fl. We are only asking for a lot coverage of 7.5%. As I put together in this form
over here, I showed you that the lots were developed around 1929. They consist of a small 20' wide lots.
That lead the whole area of Goose Bay Estates to be haphazardly built. With small houses. A good part of
Page 46
Transcript of Hearings
May 16. 2002 ZBA Meeting
thegn actually built prior to 1957, as was my fathers house, which was the conception of the Building
Department. Also what I added was an areial view to give you an idea of what the properties look like, the
size of them. Also pictures of houses that are still considered original bungalows that have been expanded.
To show you that by granted the lot waiver, we will not burden the area whatsoever. The property has been
in the family for 50 years. My mother in her letter says 1949. It was actually purchased in 1948.1 have one
of the original deeds, i know my father paid $350.00 for the property. There is an attached survey showing
that the house can be built on the property. It is also showing that it does meet all the setbacks required by
the Building Department and the Health Department. Since this merger of 1983, I am a little confused
about, sknply because if the lot name change was done prior to 1983 we would not even be in fi'ont of this
Board asking lbr a waiver. It is a buildable lot. Since it has been merged, now I am here to try to get it
mm~arried, divorced. Are there any questions'? I tried to put as much as 1 can.
Member Tortora: You did a wonderful job. Very good.
Mr. Lutkowski: 1 am hoping you received a letter from my brother stating why he could not be here'?
Member Tortora: We did.
Mr. Lutkowski: And naturally my mother can't be here. She is taking care of here sister who is home ridden.
Chairman: O.K. Lydia we will start with you.
Member Tortora: I don't have any questions. It is a very complete packet.
Chairman: O.K. Vin?
Member Orlando: You have to excuse me, I am a little confused. Lots 121 thru 125 is one lot now?
Mr. Lutkowski: On #2 I gave you a copy of the map, this was actually a subdivision that dates back to 1926
or 29. Back then they actually divided lots up to only 20' wide. They consisted of numerous amounts of lots.
That is what I was trying to explain in this package, that that lead to so many different size properties in the
area. Not just like you have now, 1/2 acre zoning or 3/4 or I acre lots. These were actually 20' lots by 120
to 125' deep. As you would look at this you have some that, like the particular one that the house is on now
there are 9 lots, the last lot being over 25' wide. Some pieces of property for example around the comer
there is only 5 lots.
Member Orlando: The one that says proposed house that is the one...
Mr. Lutkowski: The proposed house would be on//18. That is the lot that it would be built on. My mother's
house is existing on lot #25, which is the corner of Pine and Birch. Can I come up and show you? On #2,
this is lot #18, this is the one we want to be unmerged.
Mr. Orlando: That is what I was saying 121 thru 125 is now one lot.
Mr. Lutkowski: 18 is one building lot.
Chairman: it is merged with your mothers house?
Mr. lutkowski: With #25.
Member Tortora://197
Mr. Lutkowski: No//25. #19 is Mr. Haeg's property.
Pagc 47
Transcript of Hearings
May 16~ 2002 ZBA Mccting
Member Tortora: O.K. So it is 18.
Member Orlando: 125 is now called 18.
Mr. Lutkowski: It is lot parcel 1000~77-2-18. We have had two separate tax bills since 1948.
Member Orlando: 85 tlu'u 9l is no~v called 25'?
Mr. Lutkowskl: yes.
Member I'ortora: You can see the subdivision lines and you can see thc old the subdivision lines and you
can see the original lot lines. The lot lines are the hard lines. The original subdivision line are the dotted
lines.
Mr. Lutkowski: That is what they did back in 1926.
Chairman: Let me ask you a question Andy. Regarding this construction on this lot for your brother. This
building envelope is in a conforming location or are you going to require a variance'?
Mr. Lutkowski: No variance what so ever. Matter of l~act if you look at on the booklet I gave you, the last
page #4 is actually the house design that it would be on the first floor and the second floor would naturally a
little smaller. This is what only could fit on this property without a variance. We are not asking for a
variance.
Chairman: O.K.
Mr. Lutkowski: This is a small house. This is all he is going to be able to tnanage. This is the actual foot
print of the first floor and the second floor.
Chairman: Are you going to live in your mothers house or are you going to sell it'?
Mr. Lutkowski: I am going to renevate that and live in that. That is our intensions right now. I was going to
do this actually early, but at that time my mother wasn't in the position that she is in now. She is 83 and
looking to releave herself of ever,fihing that she has now. This is one of the ways we area going to do it.
Member Orlando: This lot here is less then 10,000sq.fi.?
Mr. Lutkowski: It is 9614 and the total house will be 656 and that would be approximate lot coverage of
7.5%. It is well within...
Member Homing: The size of the other lot.
Mr. Lutkoxvski: I think it is about 21 or 22,000 sq.ft.
Chairman: It is a big lot. This has nothing to do with this hearing but I am just going to throw this out to
you. One of the major problems that we had across the street was the topography and the neighbors lower.
Those are issues that you are going to have address during the construction. I am just telling you that you
are going to have to install hay bales and a lot of topographical stuff to hold all that earth on that site. I want
you to be a~vare of that.
Page 48
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Mr. Lutkowski: Can I interrupt you fbr a minute'? There are some people here that will discuss with you one
of their concerns is runoff. Exactly what you are saying. They showed me the decision on the land across
thc strcct which was Dempsey's property.
Chaim~an: Very, very involved.
Mr. Lutkowski: Right. I would agree to whatever that was in there about drywells and so forth. I already
spoke to Mr. Falen over here at the Town Hall in question to the driveway and the runofl:
Chaim~an: We can't embody that in the decision because this is very simply a lot waiver. These are issues
that you are going to be dealing with.
Mr. Lutkowski: Thank you.
Chairman: Any questions for the audience?
Mrs. Haig: We are lan and Rosemary Haig. I am sure you don't remember us, but we where the neighbors at
the Dempsey hearing this Sununer and certainly didn't expect to see you so soon again. However, our
neighbors the Falens' who are down the road from this present property have asked us to speak on their
behalf and we are speaking also on our behalfi Mr. Falen had to be taken to the hospital 2 days ago, so he is
unavailable. I would like to read to you the following letter.
SEI~; LETTER, made a part of the permanent file, that ~vas read at this time l~y Mrs. Haig.
Chairman: We are very welcome to take this. I just have to tell you that it is cut and dry in the issue of lot
waivers. That is where the problem is. It bars us as opposed to a subdivision. Particularly since Andy and
his brother intend to build on a conforming location. The plus xCactor is that you kx~ow them. You now their
history. I am happy l am not opposing the lot waiver, but the do'tm side is that there is not provision in the
lot waiver for us to put restrictions on that lot.
Member Tortora: I think we can because one of the things is that we are to consider that, in the lot waive
part here, flooding and contours. Remember Gerry?
Chairman: O.K. yes we can put it in there.
Mrs. Haig: We would like to indicate that Andy is not opposed to.. If you look at lot 125, it is the comer lot
and it is really not suitable for very purchases anyway. Similar to the triangle on the other side of the street.
Member Tortora: So it would not be a covenant and restriction, it would be a condition of the waiver. That
is the way the waiver law is different from a variance. Yes we can put it on because of specific language in
waiver provisions.
Mrs. Haig: Would that effect also then people who might purchase the land after...
Member Tortora: It would mn with the land.
Mrs. Haig: O.K. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you. We are going to review those and ~.hen we will institute that and insert it into a
decision.
Mr. Lutkowski: I just want to make sure you are aware that part of the property that they are talking about,
that I would keep it natural in its original state.
Page 49
Transcript of Hearings
May 16, 2002 ZBA Meeting
Chairman: We ran into a problem up there. You don't have '[own water up there yet do you'?
Mr. Lutkowski: No.
Chairman: I just had to role on that aspect of it. Because the well is going across the street on the
construction of the other parcel and that is exclusive of a well. At 125 you may be required to put a well on.
When you do the Health I)epartment.
Mr. Lutkowski: l have set up in here already.
Member Tortora: In other words...
Mr. Lutkowski: You mean I may have to put the well on that one piece'?
Chairman: Right.
Mr. Lutkowski: Which is no problem.
Chairman: Which is no problem as long as you don't disturb it other then putting the well on it. We just
want you to be aware of that.
Mr. Lutkowski: Any lot that has been subdivided prior to the zoning is 100'
Member Homing: You want to have it as far away as you can.
Mr. Lutkowski: Yes. At this point it is put on here already. I have to be 100' from their cesspools and so
forth. Matter of fact the original building envelope could have been different. It can not be because of the
cesspool and Health Department. It is on there already. I understand. That would be in case I would ever
have to put a well there, 1 can. I accept that.
Chairman: Hearing no further co~rmient, I make a motion in closing the hearing and reserving decision.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
End of Public Hearings
Respectfully submitted by Jill Doherty 7/8/02