Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/06/2002 HEARZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING TRANSCRIPTS SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2002 PRESENT WERE: Gerard P. Goehringer, (hairmau Member, Lydia A. Tortora Member, Ruth D. Oliva Member, Vincent Orlando Secretary, Linda Kowalski ABSENT: Member George Homing PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:12 p.m. Appl. No 5068 - Olenn and Christine Dawson, 150 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue: 104-10-8. Chairman Goehringer reopened the hearing and asked the attorney for the applicants to speak. Stephen Angel, Esq: For the record I am Stephen Angel, representing the applicant. The firm I am with Esseks, Hefler and Angel, 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY. I would like to start out by rccapping, but even before I recap, I would like to hand up one of the things that was asked for last time, was a copy of our clients deed. In the interim I sent the board letter with additional legal authority for the proposition I advanced. In reading the minutes I had advanced on numerous occasions before you. And that proposition was that the cottage was not utilized in a noncontbm~ing maturer. It is really a nonconforming structure with a conforming use. Ihe legal principles to determine whether it would continue or are not the ones that you apply to a nonconlbnning use. 1 do not want to belabor that position. I am sure you are well aware I articulated that at the last hearing. What I did prepare was copies of the three additional cases that I sighted in that letter. I would like to hand them up to the Board. For the record one case is a case involving, a case by the New York State Court of Appeals decided in 1966. The Court of Appeals is the highest court. That is the matter of the Haufman case. That is against the Zoning Board of the Incorporated Village of Brookville. The second case is the matter of Jones vs. Plamfing Board in the Town of Marlboro. That is a much more recent case, 1994. Then there is another pretty old case Grueling vs. Simpson, which was a 1956 Supreme Court Nassau County Case. When we were here last time I should mention that our client attempted to send notes to the Gellbacks, but was unsuccessful. Her mail was returned unopened. We have not been able to contact them. As you know from my forceful position it is my opinion that that type of use is not necessax3' to issue this case in our favor. Last time we wcre here there was alot of community opposition which came as quite a surprise to us. l would like to just refer to the Board that really this case has to be decided on the merit. I don't believe that that conmmnity opposition was probative on any of the issues before you. As you are well aware and having a lot of experience in these matters, generalized community opposition can't be the basis fbr any kind of decision. The decision has to be made on the merits, on the law, th accordance with your rezoning code. I actually went and visited the property in between the meetings. I did have a quick observation and that I would like to turn over to my clients. Down by the water at least on the westerly side, the other lot of joining it on the west has a bunch of improvements of that area. There seems to be a deck, a dock. The deck has some sort of utilities attached to it. There is a whole bunch of boats that are stored down there. Probably 4 or 5 boat trailers. It is a pretty disturbed area right near where the cottage has been located. I thought that was an observation that I should make to the Board. Again, it doesn't really affect my legal theory. I would like to introduce Mrs. Dawson Page 2 - [;caring Transcripts Special Meeting of June 6, 2(102 and I would also like to submit some photos of the lots that appear have two residential strnctures on them within the area together with a copy of a list of the tax map numbers that Mrs. Dawson prepared. Chairman Goehringcr: Mr. Augel, I just want to say, that a few of us have questions of Mrs. [)awson which we will do after her presentation. Mr. Angel: O.K. Before 1 relinquish the stage. 1 should point out that Mrs. Dawson came with a little bit of emotional support tonight. Mrs. Dawson: [ want to just start off by saying obviously less time that I was here, I was totally taken back by what had happened here. All the neighbors coming back. no one had come to me and said what is up, this C.O. or what is going on. Any questions about the cottage or about the house too. Not one person had come to me, so l was very surprised to see the 3 neighbors that are recognized plus seven that I never saw in my life, including Vito. The welcoming conunittee from the president of the Nassau Point Board. That was the first time I ever saw him, when he came here. With that said I am going to tell you about something that had happened when we first moved in 2 years ago. Which is what I thi~ started this whole thing. When I bought the house, so you can get an idea of what is going on, about two weeks after my babysitter of 5 years Valedictorian and just got hockey scholarship to Princeton University asked me if she could us the home fi~r a night after the prom. My husband thought it was a terrible idea. The parents said wbat are you crazy, l said she has always been there for us, she's responsible girl. She showed us nothing but responsibility. Wc should be able to trust around this. She says she was being six friends, she brought 14 friends and that is what has started this. When we had come back, they had taken advantage of both neighbors property. They had taken out Mr. Syperellis paddle boat and returned it. They didn't damage anything that we know of on either side. They were 100% disrespectful and we made a mistake. We had actually apologized to the neighbors on many occasions if there was anything we can do, if it was anything broken, it would never happen again. Since then in the last two years it has never happen again. My own niece asked us to use it for the prom, we said no. Kids that call to rent the house, if there are kids or no one over 30, we say no. That happened two years ago, two weeks after we bought it. I think that is still sitting sore with some people. Some of the things that wanted correct. I felt 1 was on trial. I felt I wasn't able to defend myself. being the new person in Nassau Point. I would like to the Board to kimw that 1 have been here for 30 years. The house that I now own on 150 Broadwaters Road, I had slept in when I was 7 years old. We had rentcd that house. We have been out here every summer since then. My parents are full time rcsidence here for 15 years. My sister is full time resident here with her kids that go to Mattituck/Cutchogue high school. My brother-in-law and sister have their own business in Town. My reason for buying this house is not to run a business. It is to be with my family. My sister live I/8 of a mile away~ My mother lives 1/2 nfile away. We all live in Nassau Point. Unfortunately, 1 have to rent to off set some of the cost at this point. Last year I rented for 5 weeks of the year. This year I have six weeks rented. 1 lmow Mr....who isn't here rents for 14 weeks. He was not able to be here tonight. He was the one that was say that I was minting a business. My intention is not to run a business, it is to try to help myself get by. When they are saying that there is different family's, that is so. This year 1 have some one coming in for two weeks in July then I go in for a week. Then someone for two weeks. That is it. Tttree families. It is the families that were back from last year. For all [ know, the are great renters. The house was in good shape, my neighbors didn't complain. I just wanted to get that straight. The screaming kids a dog. I am not going to deIbnd that. 1 have tba'ee girls. They are 7,9 and 11. There is also something about roaring dirt bikes. My seven year old and other little girls do not own dirt bikes. That was Mr. Seifert on the other side. We are not this biker group that comes in with my daughters. We don't own any. I just want to reiterate that Mrs. Greenwald said that the house was in horrible irreparable damage for something done to the cottage. I have never fixed up the cottage at all except for paint. Same walls, same floors, same stove, same lamps, same bathroom, same toilets, same sink, same windows. It is not some giant damaged cottage. It is just as it always stood. Again just want to reiterate here that I've been coming out the here for over 30 years. Nassau Point is just as much my home as Page 3 I lcaring Transcripts Special Meeting of Jm~e 6, 2002 Sotlt}lold Town Boald of Appeals it is lbr the people that have moved m m the last 4 or 5 years. I don't plan on moving and don't plan on leaving. 1 look forward to making it my retirement home when it is my time. Chairman: Mrs. Dawson. how many people, when you do rent are you going to be renting to this summer? Mrs. Dawson: It is only rented to one family at a thnc. ( hainnan: Is it a large family or is it... Mrs. Dawson: One lhmily I have is a couple and yes his sister and her husband, two sons and the inother. The other thing, with it sleeps 14, the main house sleeps 14. I am not including the cottage on that. When people call me up and I tell the set up, I say the cottage is nice to hang out at. The other thing with the cottage, I have owned it lbr two years, I had one couple of my friends stay there one night. We are not using it for sleeping and party's there. The second family is a husband and a wife and they have 3 or 4 teenagers. They have their teenage friends out. The last guy is from New Jersey, it is just him and his brother and their family. Two brothers with their kids and their wives. Chairman: Thank you. Is there anybody else like to ask Mrs. Dawson a question. Member Orlando: Long ter~n, you are looking to reside at this property someday? Mrs. Dawson: Absolutely. Long term. Next year I hope l don't have to rent it at all. I am down to five or six weeks. Again that is evew other week. Member Tortora: We kind of went down this road the last time you were. here. 1 appreciate letting all these neighbors that you believe have seconded residence, but since you'have set up the last hearing you have no way of knowing whether they are accessory structures or what the status is on them. Mrs. Dawson: I hope C.O.'s on all of them. One of them says with the accessory building, reason for says one family habitable structure. To me that is what they where applying fbr the C.O. for, is for a one family habitable structure. 1 chose the ones that were not garages fbr converted. There are a lot of people who have apartments on top of the garage. I chose had fireplaces and front doors. Just like my cottage. My cottage was never a garage. I chose other homes that were never a garage. Member Tortora: We will have to take some time to ttn-ough this. It is difficult to digest this. Mr. Angel: Can I say something about the C.O.'s that she pulled. There arc some C.O.'s and some copies of mm~icipal tax cards. What they don't include is the back sides of the ones that Mrs. Dawson obtained. The back side is the side that has the count of the residences and structures on the property. The front only says X. Y. and it is assessed at a certain amount of money. You would have to go back and look at it. It is the back side that is relevant information are whether they are two structures on the property. Member Tortora: I am looking at the deed, I haveu't had a chance to look it over but, it says on here said premises being conveyed to the grantor, deed from Anthony Pisacano of 9/26/78. Now in 1969 Mr. Pisacano owned the main house. Mr. Angel: Member Tortora: Correct. At that time he applied for a Building Perufit for the road side house. Page 4 Hearing Transcripts Special Meetit~g ill June 6, 20[)2 South~ld '['own Board of' Appeals Mr. Angel: The one in 78 was Ii'om Pisacano to Gclbwaks. i believe. Pisacano acquired the property earlier. I actually happened infoianation if you want to pull it. Member Tortora: 3a'e there two lots here? Mr. Angel: No, one lot. It has always been one lot as iht as I know. It is all done by one deed. Mcmber Tortora: This is describcd in hind that Pisacano owned it iii 69. Mrs. Dawson: That is when we rented it from him Mr. Angle: We believed he owned it until he sold it to the Gelbwaks in 1978. I believe 1 got a copy of an old title report that maybe will be able to detemfine when he purchased it. If that is of interest to you. Member Tortora: I was just curious and l wondered why, getting to the issue and I did reads through the case, some have some relevance as to the issue of whether it is a lawful nonconfom~ing use or not. I do know whether it is or not frankly. As to whether it's an area variance or use variance or whether it's nonconforming. One of the things 1 did want to ask you was, you have a C.O. for the cottage on the water. 1 noticed that on the C.O. and on the map that was submitted it appears that the map was sliced in half. Mr. Piscano name is missing on the map and the survey. Not only his name, it clearly looks like it has been altered. Out of curiosity a pulled up the other building permit today in the building department files. To iny surprise there is another map in the Building Department file that shows the other building. It appears that what happened was in 1969 Mr. Pisacano went to the Building Department with half a map showing one building on this lot when in fact there were two. He applied tbr a building pemfit. Was granted a building pemfit based on that map and then was later iii 1969 issued a C.O. for the main house as a single family dwelling based on halt~ of a inapt Which was tampered, which did not show the cottage. In 1976 there is a repeat story of the same thing, in 1976 he went to the Building Department with the same survey only he chopped off the other end this time so that only half. Only the water front cottage showed and not the house showed. Even on the map indicates where the purposed new deck is. He gets a building permit for the new deck and tums around and gets a C.O. for single thmily dwelling. In both instances, the Building Department was not apparently aware. There were two dwellings on the lot. Tbere is nothing in the Building Department file that indicates as complete map was ever submitted to them. So as to wbether there is a legitimate C.O~ on the water front cottage, you can look at the map ~xmrself. Mr. Angel: I looked at the file and didn't lbrln the same conclusions that you did as far as I can tell from thc file, there are from very few pieces of paper. They are all Xerox copies where the...the 1976 C.O. for the cottage, really was not a C.O. tbr the cottage itself. It was lbr in addition. They put a deck on the cottage. That was the application and it was granted. The only reference that I found in the file to the cottage, and one would assume from that, that it existed in 1976. One would assume it existed many years before that. If you look at it, it looks like it has been built a long time ago. From the tax card, it appears that it has been there a long time. The town treated it as a legal use back in 1976 by allowing a particular deck and grantiug that Building Department application aud that n:todified C.O. When it comes to house, I don't really know when it was built. I would have to look a that application. Is that the application lbr the house as a new structure? Was that application... Member Tortora: It is identical to the application that was made fbr the cottage. Mr. Angel: 1 don't believe that one is for the house as a new structure. It doesn't say might that. It was for an addition. So both were existing structures. I think both were well known to the Town. Both had been there for many years. These are not new structures. [~agc 5 Hcari~lg Transcripts Special Meeting of Juim 6. 2002 Member Tortora: I am not questioning whether these structures arc the old structures. Ilistorically in tile Iown of Sonthold, we can go into Building Department and virtually pull hundreds of files. Whenever there arc two structures on a lot. the Building Departtnent will issue a building permit for one as a single family house and the other as an accessory stmcturc. In all the years have been on thc board, I have never seen itl the Building Department issue to separate C.O.s l'or two separatc dwellings, hi this case you have to maps. The two maps have been sliced in half~ Based npon which the C.O.'s were granted. Mr. Angeh I here what you are saying and you are making a conclusion from a limited file in the Building Department. I can't make any conclosion. All 1 know is that I looked at the documents. All the building department had, may have access to files i don't have, but the files that I look that were just Xerox copies, for Xerox copies of portions that were put together surveys. Not even a put together the survey, just a bad Xerox. Notwithstanding what you conclude from the file, all I submitted it for was to show along with the tax assessors card, is that these where structures that where recognized by the town and were the subject of permits. Duly issued back decades ago by the Building Department. 1o go back to and try to reconstruct whether Mr. Piscano made a proper application or didn't make a proper application, I think is virtually impossible. I just don't even know how you would do that, unless there were some better set of records or somebody with a longer institutional memory. Member Tortora: If you would look at this, very clearly you would see. And you compare this to your own survey, you will see that his name missing on this even if it is a poor copy. You will see that the date is missing. You will see that the lot lines don't even line up. Yes it is a poor copy, but it is fairly clear to see that it has been cut. Mr. ga:tgel: But you can conclude from that of the Building Department I didn't know that there was two houses on that. Nor can you conclude that he wonld impact this application anyway because everybody acknowledges that the houses were there. Probably since prior to Zoning. These applications didn't have to do this construction of the residents themselves. They had to do only with minor additions. I believe decks in both cases. Member Tortora: There is no dispute in the both were there. As to whether it is prior to Zoning, I don't know. What is in contest here is whether there are two Iegal single family dwellings on one lot. It is your contention that there is. I am saying that this draws that in to question. I am saying it is very obvious that it draws it into question to me. Mr. Angel: O.K. As you know very well, I can respectfully disagree with you. And 1 do. The ultimate issue here is not the C.O.%, it is the existing buildings and the building inspectors conclusion that the use of the cottage as a single family residence or ...I think to be honest with you the use in this case is as a single family residence accessol2,, cottage to the main one. I am not taking the position that it was a separate use on a separate lot. That would be inconsistent with the way that the Dawson's use it. The precise issue before you is whether he can make the conclusion that he made about the abandomnent on the facts and law as presented. I say he did. Member Tortora: That is correct. We can look at that. We can also reverse, modify or make off what the Building Department made. That very well may be the case. That is why I am asking about this. As to the non-conformity. I don't know. You are saying now that you don't necessarily view it as a separate dwelling'? Mr. Angeh Well it is a separate dwelling, but it was not a separate dwelling built to sold separately. It was a separate dwelling that was over flow for the main house. I think that it was used as a separate dwelling by the same people who used the property. Page 6 [[caring Transcripts Special Meeting of June 6. 2002 Southold Town Board o1' Appeals Member Tortora: I hah why not exccpt it. This is the ~ssue we have gone to right l¥om tim gct go. Why not except the Building Departments initial ruling when he said to you, "1 will issue a C.O. for one of the dwellings any other will bc accessory." Why not except that? Mr. Angel: It was per xvhat he wanted. It was an accessory as a storage building. That is not what it is. Wc would except a C.O. as an accessory cottage, thc way it is. Wc would accept such a C.O. We would not except a C.O. to make it something that it was never. It was never a storage building. It was never a garage. It was a cottage. Member '[ortora: O.K. Lets come back. Mr. Angel: We would except this. We are not seeking the maximum that we could seek under the law, which is full C.O. for both units so we would come to Plamfing Board the next day and try to do a subdivision. What we are seeking is a C.O. that covers both structures as they are currently potentially usable. Which is as an accessory cottage and as a single-family residence. The Building inspcctor did not offer it. What the Building inspector wanted was that the client remove the stove and make it into a storage building. It isn't a storage building, it is a cottage. So if that is an admission on my part that we would take less then what you understand our position to be, so be it. 1 take that risk. Chairman: Mrs. Dawson you wanted to say something'? Mrs. Dawson: I just want to mention with this survey, for some reason I thought that I had a larger one and thought it was cut in half, because it was one of those original survey's this big. Did you put them together and copy them like this or is this the way you had it. Member Tortora: This came right out of the file as well... Mrs. Dawson: 1 got one ll-o~n Mr. Gelbwaks, it might be the giant one. The reason it might be cut in half is because they didn't sttri~k them down 30 years ago or whenever that was done. I ended up getting myself my own survey because that was such a bad copy. It might have been cut in half and just copied because it didfft fit into the copy machine. Mrs. Kowalski: Can you get us a copy of it. Mrs. Dawson: If I have it I certainly can. I told my closing attorney to send me a package. Member Tortora: Believe it or not the 1969 survey is much clearer than the survey for the cottage. Mrs, Dawson: l never got just what you have. Me~nber Tortora: It is in the Building Department file and it is now in our file. O.K. 1 don't have any other questions at this time. Chairman: Ma'am 1 need you to use the mic, please. Mrs. Hawthorne-Cincotta: My name is Nancy Hawthome-Cincotta. Chairman: Would you raise your right hand? Do solemnly swear the information that your about to give us the is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Mrs. Hawthorne-Cincotta: Absolutely. Page 7 }teari~lg Transcripts Special Meeting of June 6, 2002 S~mthold Toxvn Board et Appeals Chairman: Thank you. Mrs. Hawthome-Cincotta: I do have a question and please lbrgive my ignorance, I am learuing about this process. I come more as a resident of Southold then a resident of Nassau Point. I believe my question to be an objective one. Since it is well publicized that the philosophy of Southold Town is towards preservation and towards the prevention of building unnecessarily when other structures exist. Would not make sense to take advantage of the rantals. Rather then take some open space and mar it with a building that is not currantly m existence now, wouldn't make sense to utilize existing structures'? And applying and permitting (-?.0.% in order to do so':' In the name of preservation. Chairman: The Code clearing states that, the precedent is to do away of nonconforufing use. I have to tell you that some of them are pretty neat little places. We have this weighing aspect that we deal with all the time when people are looking to deal with these noncontbrming things. Before tonight I was unaware that the Dawsons had 14 beds in their main house. I thought was total with cottage. That is all I can really say to you is we are dealing with older buildings at this point. ]'he application before us is a very interesting one and we're still taking testimony on it. I don't htow if I can actually comment not exactly what you're stating that this time. Mrs. Hawthorne Cincotta: I just would like to state that as a resident of Cutchogue and one who is in Paver of preservation, i think it is a fine idea to use whatever creative, within confines of the law, mechanisms we have to make use of existing structures in lieu of building new ones. Thank you. Chairman: Sir? Mr. Chester: My name is Bob Chester. l am Cbt'st' ~e Dawsons father. I live on 2745 Vaston Road where I have for 15 years. To re-iterate some of what Clmstine said. We have been here for over thirty years on and off: We are not new comers. I just mainly come here, we didn't expect last week. Cha'istine didn't expect to get blind sided by a bunch of neighbors that didn't have courtesy to crone in and complain what they thought was a difficulty with her property. They didn't address issues at all with her. They thought it was better to come here without any preparation then some could talk to bet and vent. She is not here to try and make a slumlord, as you can obviously see. She is her to be near her family. She is her to use this as a pemtanent residence as soon as she can. In the mean time as you knoxv it is a rather expensive situation buying a new home, fixing it up and doing what has to be done to make it attractive to them. It is better then the garbage that was there when she moved there. By painting it and cleaning it tip and taking care of it. There were some comments made last week that I had the chance today to read the minutes of last months meeting, for instance, Mr. Cippiletti, is talking about drastically down zoning the area. Every Saturday night people move out and every Sunday morning people move in and there are 7 cars in the driveway. That is nonsense because she only had it for 5 weeks last year. One of the neighbors of Mrs. Ringwald was complaining about ~ny daughter making this a financial up, something that she can make some money on, turning it into a motel. As Christine has mentioned she rents her place for 14 weeks, my daughter rents it for 5. So obviously she is not doing it for an investment purpose. She is trying to get so~ne income back so she can fix up the place and live here and us it herself permanently. These things have to be taken into consideration. Ken Seafert, last week when I read the minutes, said he wanted to buy the bouse itsel£ but didn't because he thought there would be difficulty with the C.O. Why would he want to buy the house if he has a house next door if he wasn't going to rent it out and use it as a financial gain in a rental basis. I just really feel that it is unfair and I find that I resented that she is not her to improve the property. She cares for it and she has been here a lot longer than the people that are complaining about it. Thank You. Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Cipetelli how are you tonight. Page 8 ltt2aring lransct'ipts Special Meeting of June 6, 2002 Southold Town Board ot' Appeals Mr. Cipetelli: Last time my appearancc didn't go on the record properly. For the record Robert £ ipetclli. My mailing address is 175-16 Liberty Ave. Jamaica. NY. 11433. My office telephone number is 718-725- 1133. First I am a little surprised at the length of tonight's proccedings. I guess I was nfisconceived, fbis Board said on May 16th, date last month. I was under the impression that the Board had a t~w questions of Mr. Angel to provide so,ne documents. One of those being verification from the prior owner and something :ikc a deed and maybe a couple of other pieces of paper. Thc l 6th came and went and I didn't get anything. ~ got something a few days later. In that submission they admitted not being able to get the verification from the prior owner. [ think right it?om there that should close this hearing tonight because what we're talking about is the interruption in use, that this property was not continue to be used. We didn't think they would find that there was C. O. the cottage which wasn't duly execnted at that thne. The usc had ceased. That shouldn't even be in issue. They can prove conthmous use. Last time we had a meeting, in good faith there was an outpouring of the local neighbors tbat will testify. If this board written verifications from them, can obtain them. I have everybody's address and telephone number. 1 can get in touch with everybody. There was live testimony on all of those facts of thought that would be enough. Now I just won a stop and I just to say I want it on the record in from the whole Southold con:ununity that the connnunicafion with the Dawsons will be welcome and wonderful. That is what that conm~unity is about, getting to kd~ow each other and enjoying each other's company. That is a sideline. One other thing I want to say is i don't think Mrs. Dawson Father was sworn in. Because a few comments l don't believe are very... Chairman: That is a good point; I didn't swear him in and I apologize. Mr. Cipitelli: If the newly introduced material tonight are going to be reviewed by the board, I respectfully object in using them to make a dctemfination. Because of that may 16th deadline. I wasn't supplicd with auy paper is. I thought that is what may 16th was tbr, so 1 can get it and come here tonight and respond back. Chairman: The hearing is still open tonight. So you obliged at any time to come in and review the record. And to draw any conclusions that you want and submit any papers you want or any documents that you want up until the period and time that we actually physically closed the hearing. We remain close this hearing to verbatim testimony tonight, and then close as a matter of right on the June 20th caleudar; or we may not. Mr. Cipitelli: Witb that I did prepare written response to tonight with some other things I've been saying, if I may elect to approach and hand out. I believe all of the case law that has been presented by Mr. Angel is on ...odd points as far as area variances are concerned. (the previous sentence was in audible). I still have to believe that this is a use problem. These variance situations that we are dealing with and none of the case law that he presented addresses used variances. A couple of them distinguish a very briefly fi-om what the case is beside themselves, in all those situations where they do discuss use variances, the result is going to turn out in the denial in this case because the standards are much higher. When a 10 on such as the town of Southold specifically has a zoning ordinance that says one single-family dwelling on each parcel. It is really one single-family dwelling on each parcel. Not an accessory use cottage. I don't lomw how tbat is going to fit into the zoning code are not. 1 did a little research on my own and I found a case. Again I would like to approach the board in hand us out to you. That does deal specifically with use. Not only does it deal specifically with use, it goes on further to say when a situation is self created by the petitioner, they have no right for remedy to correct that situation. Inside the case when they discuss what a self situation is, it says specifically when a purchaser of land purchases and the situation is there, even when the real-estate out right lied to the purchaser, it is still their obligation, the situation itself created. It ends with the case at that juncture, the case goes on to further explain and gets more into detail about not only when a situation itself created, but the power that and appeals Bd. such as yourself has in dealing with that situation. The remedy for a landowner in that case is not in front of an appeals Bd. The remedy would be getting involved with the Legislatnre in changing the zoning code. This is not a problem that is only specific to the Dawsons, this is a settled zoning code that applies to every resident. This is a general research and on everybody uniformly. Page 9- }leari~g 'I'~anscripts Special Meeting of Jtmc 6, 2002 Soud/old Town Board of Appeals There is no relief here tbr the Dawsons specifically. Their situation is not unique to themselves. Ihe only means that they have available to them would be to change the zoning laws themselves. I respectfillly submit that case to you. You can look at it and reviewer yourself. You have explained to hie that thc case is still open. Based on some of the new testimony that I have heard touight I would have to venture to invite everybody to come out and take a look and come over to my fhthers house and look o¥cr a fcw, if you so choose. I don't where 14 beds fit in that cottage. I believe pictures were presented last time. Not the cottage the main house. It was very clear last time to us that this hearing was over thc cottage and not over the house itseli} 14 beds in that house. '[here is something wrong with that t>icture, it is ve~rW' disturbing for me to hear that right off' the record. The other thing that I would like to address tonight is the ongoing situation that has been the subject of all of this. If your decision is reserved tonight, was the ramifications fur any of their neighbors as threes situation being ongoing. I don't spend a board's time specifically responding to what was said from Mrs. Dawson's father. As clearly not the case. It is fitrther than that. Families that come here, might be rented to just one but they are bringing a beck of a lot more people with them than there inm~ediate families. I would like some guidance from this board, what would be the next step as far as enforcement or at least a hold on what the property usc is at this point. It doesn't seem like every, time a neighbor or myself comes appear to town everybody, shrugs their shoulders and says well there's nothing we can do about it. Chairman: 1 have discussed this with the Building Inspector. I have discussed it with thc Code Enfbrcement Officer. I have also discussed it with the Code Committee, the Chaim~an. As the only thing I can tell you at this point. It is on going generic investigation, l use the word generic to mean that it is not only on the Dawsons residence, it's other residents. I will let you now. It is not that I don't believe you. I believe everybody. That is one of the reasons why a lot of us are very interested in this job. Ihat is what we are supposed to do. I can't give you a remedy at this time. I don't know how this Board is going vote. I will tell you this that we received significant testimony on this. Both writtun and omi. You might want a review the file. You may want to respond to something that is in the file. Mr. Angel might want to respond to something that has just been given. It is my suggestion is that we close the hearing tonight to verbatim testimony. We ask yon to submit your opinions, by the next meeting. So on June 20th we can close the hearing to everything. Then we have 62 days after that to make a decision. Mr. Cipitelli: IfI may l agree with Mr. Angel that this decision should be based on the law and what is best tbr the Town and this shouldn't be made into a character of facts. I apologize if Mrs. Dawson feels in her character was attacked at any point. It is clear that that happen again tonight, but in the other direction. That is okay. 1 just put it out there that every neighbor that I am standing here tonight speaking for, still want to be neighborly interaction and behavior amongst each other. That is all 1 have to say. Chaim~an: Thank you. l don't have any particular problems in not closing it. I think the point is that we have to review all this and then come back and set a date. Member Tortora: After we have reviewed everything that has been submitted, if we have any questions and it is closed then it is closed. Mr. Angel: Can I make a suggestion? why don't you carry over to the 20th, not for testimony. Review what you got than. ]'hen either make a decision that night or the one keeping open or close it. Chairtnan: Leave it open untiI the 20th. Mr. Angel: Leave it open until the 20th but don't ask people to come back. Just make their submissions. Page l0 tlcaring l'ranscripts Special Meeting of.lunc 6, 2002 Soutllold T/iwn Bilard o1' Appeals Member Tortora: in all likelihood we would hope to close it. On the other band if after reviewing all the submissions tonight we do have qucstions, it would be a shame to have the verbatim portion of the hearing closed. Chainnan: Lets do it this way, li.~r everybody purpose as Mr. Angel has suggested, at that particular thnc il' we so choose to continue the hearing, wc will contimle to thc special mceting in July. }laving said David July special meeting? Member Tortora: Why don't we see what happens. Chairman: Are you aware Mr. Angel, if we where to put this on for further testimony on the June 20th, that we will be into the wee hours. Member Tortora: It will be the 2lst. when the hearing starts. Chairman: O.K. We will come to that in a minute this nice lady in the back would like to speak. Would you raise your right hand. Do you solenmly swear the reformation that we are about to receive is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Ms. Arpara: Diane Arpara. I am Christine's sister. I live at 1900 ...Road in Cutchoguc, where I have lived fnr over 10 years, since 1989. Full time with my family, my husband and 3 children. They go to school here. We have a local business. We are active in the community. I know what it is like to be both a Summer person and a flail time person here, I live in Nassau Point myself because it is a very nice quiet area most of the year. In the Suranaer all the area changes in Southold Town. Full timers and Summer people start doing some entertaining and everything. I think it may ruffie some people's feathers when they are living next to a house that had been relatively quiet for awhile. Then in the sununertime they have younger people. It even happen to me when I moved into my own house that were owned by retired people and came in with three little kids. The man next-door had to get used to baseball's coming over the fence. You can no more get rid of summer people enjoying this beautiful area than you can clear the main road of traffic on a weekend iii July. I don't have any legal back round or anything. Some of the things that people said about my family was pretty offensive. You can see both houses very clearly from the cause way. 1 have monitored the house in my sisters absents to make sure that everything is o.k. over there. It always has been. I think most of the renters are pretty much on the quiet side. Mainly using it to sleep. We live so close to the beach. There are many other things to enjoy. People question the number of beds in the house. It is set up for a family. So that someone can come spend the day at the beach and then get a bunch of children in a room and have them sleep over with their cousins and their friends. I just thfuk that the use of the house and the cottage as how it was designed. I dofft think any big changes are being requested here. I don't think that what they have asked for is unreasonable in any way. I don't think that anyone in the area has auything to worry about. They have done nothing but improve the house. Both properties inside and out to make it look more attractive and come out here to enjoy Cutchogue and the Southold area for what it is~ Thank you. Chairman: Thank you. O.K. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion continuing the hearing until June 20th at which point we will make a decision on when we will close it, SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION PUBLIC HEARING: 8:10 P.M. Al~l~l. No. 5084 - 640 Church St. LLC. Chairman: It appears through conversation with Mr. McCarthy yesterday, by telephone, that we have ibund that there are further things that need to be denied in this application by the Building Inspector. Page I I [leafing Transcripts Special Meeting ol June 6, 2002 Board Secretary: No a new disapproval, but he did amend his application. It has to be advertised (lbr the amandment on 280-a}. Chairman Goehringer: There are other things that are being denied (by thc Building Department). Theretbre I thimk he assumed he didn't have to come touight because this application along xvitb those new things will be readvertised and a new date will be set for then. It will probably be Jn[y 25th. Member Tortora: tie is going to have to advertise in the newspapers. Board Secretary: There will be a new sign up on the property, too. Chairman Goetmnger: [.et me just say that one of the issues is approved access. A couple of your ladies who live on the dirt road have quite a concern regarding this road and the dust and such that they had testified to it at the last the hearing. That is one of the areas that which is called in the code a 280A,which is an approved access. It is the base of the road that is the new portion of his application. Now what we were doing tonight was we were hedging that he was going come hear. That is why we took the Dawson application first. We thought he was going to come. Since he modified the application yesterday, he probably assumcd that there is going to be a brand new hearing and therefure there was no need for him to come. Member Tortora: He has to deal with the aspect of access to his property in addition to the variance that he needs. It is hard for us the set thc hearing now because we thought he was going to be here tonight. Chairman: We could have done everything up to that point and then just dealt ,x:ith the access. We certainly have further continuing questions. The nature of this access came in when we reviewed the deed. It was not a situation that the Building Dept. was aware of or made us aware. This all happened in the last day or so. We apologize to everybody for coming out on this crummy evening. Member Tortora: We don't want to set a date without a looking at the calendar. Frankly right now we are almost booked till September. Board Secretary: We are starting October now. Reverend Fulfurd: At the thne that you pick out such a date, would you let us kmow. We let other people know. Board Secretary: We will. Chairman: We are sorry to make you sit tN-ough that hearing. We know that is one of the concerns that the ladies have that live on that road. The problem with that is that if you take the paving to a higher standard of course the more speed you can do on the road. Those are other issues we want you to think about. I will just leave it at that particular point. Mrs. Cross: If you look behind the First Baptist Church, when I moved there in the early 80's, it was residential. 1 don't understand how it could have been changed without someone knowing about it. I understand it was done 1989. We were not notified of the change or anything about it. Were we supposed to be notified'? Member Oliva: No. Page 12 Ilearing Trm~scripts Special Meeting ol'Junc 6, 2002 Sm~thold Town Board i~f Appeals Member ~lortora: What they did, I will give you a little history, in the 80's they decided to update our zoning code. All over the town. So, Mrs. Cross, what happen ,.','as there was a lot of public hearings and finally in 1989, they created all these different zones all over the town. That is whcn it was done. At the time all they did was put it m the paper. That is all they have to do really. They don't have to give individual people notice. I don't say that it is right, that is just thc way it is. It wasn't just the property where you live. It was all over the town. There was lots of propcrty's that wcre re-zoned. Nobody got individual notices. I know that the community has been there fhr 60 years at least. What we have now is a situation where we have a residential community that is in what amounts to industrial zone. That is not a good situation. Not you and not the Town, not tbr anybody. It is a very tough situation. Definitely my sympathy is with you. Chairman: As 1 said at the last hearings, il' something is granted through this board, I assure you it would be a model building. If that happens. As model as you can make it based ou the situation with the community that exist. Church is residential also. Mrs. Cross: As a properly owner in the neighborhood, it makes us feel pretty bad that our location seems like it is targeted. We get rid of one thing that the land fill has been taken care of and then we have a ware house coming up on the other side. Chairman: We just want you to bc aware, and we are not saying that the prior Town Boards but the zoning it. They are the only ones that can takc it away. We don't have that ability. They could change it now if they wanted to. I am not setting up the Town Board for that situation. We are very simply telling you that they created it, they are the only ones that can take it away. We have no other choice but to say that because that is the troth. We are an appeals board. That is a legislative action. Member Tortora: Because in essence, Ms. Cross as far as he wants to build his building and pool cmnpany etc. He needs some variance because he doesn't meet the li'ont yard set back and the rear yard set back and on and on. But if he didn't need any variances from us, he could do it by just walking into the Building Department and you wouldn't even get notice. That is what the zoning allows. If he built it according to everything in the code. The only reason that he is hear is because he wants to be closer to the road then he is suppose to be. He wants to have a bigger building with less sct back than he wants to be. A whole bunch other things. But if he didn't, it wouldn't matter. Ms. Cross: Thank you. Chairman: Your welcome. Mrs. Dean: I am Norma Dean. I live in East Marion. 460 Private Road 8 in East Marion. I am here to speak as the vice chairperson of the Ami-Bias Task Force. From the Anti-Bias Task Force perspective, what we are looking at is instead of it being a conununity looking towards not being bias, what we are seeing is the perpetuation of that bias. That the community established 60 years, is established because people of color were not ready to buy or live elsewhere. They were a community that where there was a Town Dump. Then there was that change in the zoning because I think it was the opinion that people probably didn't want to live there anyway so it might as well be zoned industrial. After all these years it becomes a reasonable place to live and the community has lived there and enjoys the real sense of community. Now its again being changed so that the actual cormnunity is in jeopardy as a conmnunity. So xvhat I would like from you if in fact the Town Board has the authority to change that zoning, is there some avenue that you can tell us that we might take? We would really like to see people being able to be given the same kind of eqnity and justice as the rest of Southold Town. Page 13 Hearing I'ranscripts Special Meeting of June 6, 2002 South{lid Iown [~oard l~f Appeals Metnber Oliva: I would suggest that you go to the Supervisors Of'lice and petition him to speak to the Town Board 1o change thc zone. Mrs. Dean: I would assume we would need more clout than just me speaking to the. Member Oliva: If the community itself with the reverend. Member ]'ortora: If you simply go the the [own Board. Anyone eau go the any Town Board meeting and talk on any subject at a lown Board meeting. If you get up at the Town Board meeting and you say to the Town Board what you have said to us, somebody is going to listen. Member Orlando: If you address the Towu Board they will help you address your question. Member Oliva: I think you will find a sympathetic ear. Mrs. Dean: Thank you. Chairman: Your welcome, ls there anybody else like to speak belbre we...yes. Ms. McDuffy: Elaine McDuffy. I live in Cntchogue. I didn't come to listen to this particular issue, but I concur. I thought for a long time that Cutchogue has been the receipent of so many problems concerning the dump and landfill and all of the assurances that the water is fine. I thi~k that Cutchogue has more of its fair share of industrial type of situations. I would like to ki~ow your opinions about this and should it be spread throughout this tovm more even handedly? Chairman Goehringer: I am not speaking for the Board. I am going to say this, that it was brought out in these hearings regarding this application that as you Mmw the Town is very busy. There are a lot of applications. Everybody is looking to build on every single solitary lot that exists. That is reportedly legal. Regardless if that lot is residential cmmnercial or industrial. It just so happens that this particular lot is industrial. That is where we are at this particular point. This man wants to build a place to store his pool goods. That is the only opinion that we have at this time. We really can't voice another opinion. I am not stopping these fine ladies and gentlemen up here from speaking it. But we have to kind of remain in the middle of this whole thing. We are not legislators. This lady raises a very interesting issue about this conununity and how it came to be. How the zoning got changed to what it is today. I am sure that the Town Board will listen based upon you speaking to the proper authorities. Ms. McDuffy: Can I just say one more thing. It has nothing to do with you, but maybe you people should be aware. I have heard that it has been suggested that with any adult type entertaiim~ent comes to Southold Town that it should be in an industrial area. Chairman: That is the nature of zoning fbr western towns. I have certain concerns regarding many facits of things that I see moving out here. Those are one of them and the other is helicopter landings on private property. Other issues that come betbre us. All issues that the South Shore had dealt with over the last 20- 25 years. These are great concerns. Issues of more consequence are issues that we are probably going to be faced with in years to come. We have certain feelings regarding those. This Board took it upon itself to close down a Night Club in Mattituck. Which we granted a special permit on. That was the closest thing we had to that situation at that time. That activity that occurred there was something that we considered to be of not in the realm of the area that we deal with under the special permit aspects, That is the reason why that board did what it did at the time. I am just telling you what the four western towns do regarding those moral issues. You are correct, that they do belong in industrial zones. Page 14 Hearing Transcripts Special Mceting of June 6, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Ms McDuff'y: Phank you. Ms. Norklun: Johanna Norkhm of Southold. I was just thinking in 1989 there was a change of zone across the board. Member Oliva: The whole Town. Ms. Norklun: What was the reason lbr the change of zone'? Member Oliva: The started revamping the Master Plan. The Master Plan was never adopted, fhe zoning map came into the Town Board who dilly dallied and mushed around with it and came up with a real mish- mash. It was passed by the Town Board in 1989. Ms. Norklun: Even though the Master Plan... Member Oliva: Was never adopted. It was merely the zoning map that was adopted and really what it was, was a legalization of lot of things that where already there, plus a few goodies thrown in. Ms. Norklun: I was wondering if somebody specifically... Member Oliva: No, the just feh because the landfill was there, they couldfft sec why anybody would want to live there, so they just zoned the whole block industrial. Mrs. Cross: We were there. Member Oliva: i know. Mrs. Cross: How could they just block it off and say nobody wants to live there. We were already there. Member Oliva: i know. Chairman: What they assumed probably at that time, this is only an assumption Mrs. Cross, was that most of you would sell and this property would all become industrial. What they failed to realize is the exactly the issue that I brought up at the first hearing on this, that ,,vas that the elders of your clmrch have no intentions of doing away with that church. I found that to be very, very interesting when I approached some of the elders, because I know them. I lived in this town for 35 years and I know people. So I started questioning. Just on my own personal point. Whatever I question I usually bring back to the Board and put it on the record just for that point. You can't make assumptions like that. Member Tortora: It is not really going to be resolved unless you can cut out a square area in that industrial zoned land and get the Town Board to rezone it residential. It could be any company. It could be worse. The fundametual problem here is the zoning. We could take every variance that he is requesting and we could say no and two days later a cement hctory guy or god knows what could come along and if he complies with the set backs, he is in. The zoning is the problem. Mrs. Dunn: My family and I would like to speak in support of the residence and against this application. 1 wish the applicants good fortune in their endeavors and hope that they can see clear to build a smaller structure as allowed by the existing code. The applicants have failed to meet in at least 4 areas, the minimum criteria required in this process. First of all they have failed to demonstrate why this business needs such a large building at this specific location, when numerous large buildings are available within 4 miles of this site. In addition, by their own testimony they need to store only a few vehicles some chemicals Pagc 15 Hearing Transcripts Special Meeting oF June 6. 2002 Smlthold Town Bolrd of Appeals and three pool kits. This certainly doesn't require a building of 4000 sq.li. Secondly, they have failed to demonstrate that they will provide a service tbat will benefit the entire community. For cxample an auxiliary fire stalion off an ambulance depot, instead the black conm~unity who tolerated thc dump before it was upgraded to a landfill, have once again asks to bare the burden so others may bc~.cfit. Third the applicants cmmot show a economic hardship that this variance isn't granted. Other properties are available to Mr. Chituk. Mr. McCarthy testing his property increase in value after the important public watcr originally proposcd as a benefit to the residence at this community. Tbe applicants can of coarse ~i~*llow the code in place and build a smaller building with appropriate set backs. Approval will make hardship for the residence of this conmmnity. Of course there is the issue of traffic. The Transportation Conunittee, Town Board and the County are investigating the I~.eed for a traffic light at (-ox Lane and will change the egress at the dumping an attempt to address the danger at this hot spot. How can we support additional traffic entering Rt 48 from a large conunercial venturc. In conclusion allow me to remind you that the community hasn't opposed construction, just undue changes to the community they call home. I ask you to be fair to apply this concern. Thank you. Chairman: Thauk you. We do appreciate everybody's testimony. We will see you probably in August. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Prepared from tape recordings of hearing sessions. Respectfully submitted by Jill Doherty 7/22/02. End of bearings.