HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/20/2002 HEARPublic Hearings
Thursday, June 20, 2002
Regular Meeting
Present Were:
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Lydia A. Tortora, Member
George Homing, Member
Ruth D. Oliva, Member
Vincent Orlando, Member
Linda Kowalski, Secretary
Absent was: Jill Thorp, transcriber
6:25 P.M. Appl. 5132 Jose and Ivonne Hernandez.
Chairman: I was out to see your property and 1 do concur that it appears to be a perfect location based upon
the size and conformity of your lot. The question I have is what do you intend to us the garage for'?
Mr. Hernandez: As you notice I have a business, tools and I like to maintain my cars and all my stuff.
Chairman: But you are not using the garage for a business purpose'?
Mr. Hernandez: To put my dollies and blankets.
Chairmau: You are not storing anybody else's products in there or any other stuff?
Mr. Hernandez: No.
Chairman: This is a one story building'?
Mr. Hernandez: No. One and a half.
Chairman: How hi is the roof line?
Mrs. Hernandez: There is a plan in the file.
Mr. Hernandez: It has a small loft that I will probably use to put stuffin.
Chairman: Ruth would you say this is similar to the garage that we looked at down by Breezy Shores'?
Member Oliva: Yes.
Chairman: What we refer to then is a stand up attic like?
Member Orlando: Pisillico.
Chairman: Yes, Pisillico. We just looked at one most recently down by Pem~y Lumber in Greenport, by
Ker~vin Blvd.
Member Oliva: What are you going to do with the old garage at the house know'?
Page 2 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Mr. Hemandez: I have a couple of houses and right know l still have one of my garages still filled up at the
other house and don't have a way to bring anything over because I have so much stuff. I tried to get rid of a
lot of it at a yard sale.
Member Oliva: What business are you in?
Mr. Hernandez: A moving company.
Member Tortora: I am failing to see the front yard location.
Chairman: Here is the survey. Here is Main State Road. The lot is only 125' deep. He can't put it in the rear
of the house.
Member Tortora: I still don't see why that is the front yard.
Chairman: It is not a front yard. It is a side yard.
Mr. Hemandez: The side is the front.
Member Tortora: It looks to me that it is a rear yard location.
Mr. Hemandez: They consider it a right-of-way. That is why...
Mrs. Hernandez: It is a road. They told we would need a variance because if it becomes then a front road.
Chairman: See the driveway here.
Member Tortora: Yes, I see the driveway. In other words they are considering this a farm road.
Mrs. Hemandez: It is a access road to the house behind us.
Member Tortora: Is it paved'?
Mrs. Hemandez: No.
Member Tortora: Is it dirt?
Mr. Hemandez: It is gravel and dirt. It is really nothing there. They just go through there. There was that
one time that we wanted to put the garage where the green house was that we knocked down. There is still a
shed there that we are going to take down. Right now we have some tools and stuff like that in there.
Member Tortora: it is a moving business and you are going to use it for'?
Mr. Hemandez: I am going to be using for my business but not to store stuf£ I am going to be using it to
store stuff'. I do a lot of clean outs and stufflike that. I need the room.
Member 'fortora: Just give me an idea some of the things that you are going to be storing.
Mr. Hernandez: I have hand trucks. All kinds of little lifts and stuff like that.
Member Tortora: Store lifts and hand tracks?
Mr. Hemandez: Yes. Blankets. Maybe occasionally a track in there, ifI can fit it in.
Page 3 - June 20, 2002 Heaffmg Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Tortora: And the upper loft area'?
Mr. Hemandez: The same thing. Just for storage.
Chairman: Would this then mean that you wouldn't be storing anything out side'?
Mr. Hemandez: Yes.
Member Orlando: Seeing the drawing, what is the setback from the back yard?
Mr. Hernandez: I don't know off the top of my head.
Chairman: Can you call us with that tomolrow?
Mr. Hernandez: Yes.
Member Orlando: It is hand drawn in there 26' X 24'. That is the size of your garage, but it doesn't show the
set back offthe back of the property.
Mr. Hernandez: I think it is like 30'.
Member Oliva: I don't think so. The end of the garage to your rear property line.
Chairman: It says I0'.
Mr. Hernandez: It is more than 10'.
Chairman: Do us a favor, when you go home tonight if it is still light out do some measurements for us and
give us a call tomorrow. If for some reason we are not here, you can leave it on the voice mail. Just tell us
what the appeal number is and just mention Hemandez and tell us what the measurement is.
Mr. Hernandez: O.K.
Member Homing: What kind ofutility services are you going to put into the building'?
Mr. Hemandez: Just light. Nothing else. Electric.
Member Oliva: No water or anything like that'?
Mr. Hemandez: No.
Chaim~an: Anybody else have any questions from the board? Is there anybody in the audience who would
like to speak in favor or against this application'? We are going to close the hearing pending the receipt of
the setback f¥om you. We hope to have a decision for you in the near future. We need that before we make a
decision.
Mrs. Hernandez: What is the setback'? What is it supposed to be'?
Chaim~an: It appears that the lot is 125 X 171. So that is around 20,000 sq. fi.
Mrs. Hemandez: Is that what it is supposed to be, 10'?
Page 4 - June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Secretary: If it were the rear yard. That is not in a rear yard. There is no provision when it is not in a rear
yard, it is up to the Board (under the variance).
Mrs. Hemandez: I see, there is no set role. 1 will tell you what it is and you decide if that is o.k?
Chairman: Right. I don't have a particular problem with 10'. I think 10' is a relatively good norm. 10 or 12'.
Member Tortora: If we could simply put in the decision that it will be set back 10' from the stockade fence.
That is fine with me and you have to do...
Mr. Hemandez: That is what I wanted anyway.
Chairman: Alright, good. So we will close the hearing pending that information.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
***
6:35 PM Appl. 5130.
Chairman: O.K. so we are putting a pool in that is 22 X 44? That is on the South side.
Ms. Batuello: The house no~v the way it is, the front because we got the variance is flowing this way and if
it were the front, it is in the back yard.
Member Tortora: On the survey it still says existing barn instead. It is still confusing.
Chaimmn: This is not going to be enclosed in any way'?
Ms. Batuello: No.
Chairman: The deck is going to be ground level?
Ms. Batuello: Yes.
Chaim~an: O.K. We will start with Mr. Homing, any questions?
Member Homing: No. It is a nicely chosen location and very well set back from Alvah's Lane.
Chairman: Let me just make a statement. Mr. Homing is from Fishers Island and we see a lot of these
applications on Fishers Island in an area called FIDCO which has a varity of roads throughout. Your
property is very unique because of the way the house was placed and which causes you to be out of alot of
areas in zoning, if anybody can identify with a situation, I think you can, can't you Mr. Homing'?
Member Homing: I can. The Building Department shut down one pool just the other day.
Chairman: It has nothing to do with this one. Mr. Orlando'?
Member Orlando: I did find this one then. I saw the pictures up there. 1 went up the rough driveway. The
one l almost got stuck and went off the cliff and never came back again. It was tough turning around. I have
cut off' survey. How ~nuch acreage to you have here'?
Ms. Batuello: We have 27 acres. 4 acres are on one side of the road. It is actually 3.8, which has the house,
the barns etc. Then we have 23 acres across the road which is agricultural.
Page 5 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Orlando: My survey is cut off, but it looks like you are 100' south of the pool from the side yard'?
Ms. Batuello: I don't know what you are calling the side yard. (both looking at survey) this is the woods that
you almost got stuck in. We own those woods.
Member Orlando: You are 100' away from the side yard to the pool.
Ms. Batuello: Well this is a 100' probably to the end of our property. It goes on a diaganal that way.
Member Orlando: No other questions.
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora?
Member Tortora: I am very familiar with the property and just to get on the record, l don't think there is any
possibility that you could put a 24 X 44 foot pool in the so-called required rear yard, because you only have
25 feet and that is all one accessable structure there, is that correct?
Ms. Batuello: That is correct.
Chairman: Mrs. Oliva?
Member Oliva: 1 went up there. I was very interested to see the results of all this construction. I don't have a
problem with where the pool will be.
Chairman: Is there anybody else like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands 1 will make a
motion in closing the hearing and reserving decision until later.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
6:40 p.m. Appl. No. 5131 was recessed for about 20 minutes. Waiting for someone to show up.
Chairman: Let me just ask the Board, does anyone have any questions regarding Biggane. Here is Mr.
Fitzgerald is here.
Mr. Fitzgerald: We have another case of the surveyor and/or contractor making an error which resulted in
the mis-location of the tennis court. The Surveyor thought that the set back could be 20'. Then the
supervisor on the job located it on the ground erroniously. So it got to be 16~. All of which of course is
probably correct. What we would like to do is to see if it would be O.K. to leave it where it is so he doesn't
have to pick it up and try to find another place for it.
Chairman: So what you are saying to me is that you actually could have moved it closer to the house which
would have given us the 60' that the code required.
Mr. Fitzgerald: Actually the topography of the lot is such that it couldn't fit. Not without moving hundreds
of cubic yards of dirt. Because the property slopes upward from where the tennis court is now. There has
already been a piece taken out of the bottom of that slope.
Chairman: There is no anticipation at this is ever going to be moved in any way, right'?
Mr. Fitzgera}d: I hope not.
Chairman: It is not lighted'?
Page 6 - June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Mr. Fitzgerald: No.
Chairman: There is no anticipation of lighting'?
Mr. Fitzgerald: No.
Chairman: Mrs. Oliva, questions'?
Member Oliva: Where you are putting the tennis court, that is the only out of level place that you could put
it'?
Mr. Fitzgerald: It is level now. It was not level before. To answer your question, yes. Because of the grade
of the property.
Chairman: There is a retaining wall on the east side. It holds up a substancial amount of earth. If you
certainally went a little bit farther, it would be half of a multi-story building in reference to the foundation,
right'?
Mr. Fitzgerald: That is it. I am sure you notice they own the property to the south.
Chairman: The entire lawn was soded. They have pretty substancial lawn there. I actually was up there
when it was pretty wet. I am mentioning to Ruth. Anything else Ruth?
Member Oliva: No.
Chairman: Lydia'?
Member Tortora: It was located in error?
Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes.
Member Tortora: What was the original location'?
Mr. Fitzgerald: This was the original location. First the surveyor erroneously put it 20 feet from the property
line. Then the supervisor of the contractor with that in hand, located it erroneously from there. But he only
missed by 4'.
Member Tortora: What do you suppose would it cost for you to tear up the whole thing and put it in the
conforming location'?
Mr. Fitzgerald: I could only quess, about $25,000.00.
Member Tortora: You have been a consultant for how many years, Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. Fitzgerald: 15 years.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando'?
Member Orlando: I get the impression from your conversation that this was built there because of the
topography and I am getting in impression that it is not an error. You put it there because logistical you had
to.
Page 7 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Mr. Fitzgerald: No, my impression from talking to all the people that were involved, and I really tried to get
the straight story, my impression is that it was not done intentionally.
Member Orlando: You were saying 60' up, you would be in the middle of that wall up there and logistically
it wouldn't pay to put it there.
Mr. Fitzgerald: That is right. But what 1 think had happened is that whether the surveyor had this in the back
of his mind or not, I don't think he did it intentionally.
Member Orlando: You don't think this is a case of build it now and ask for forgiveness later'?
Mr. Fitzgerald: No, 1 do not.
Chairman: In reality, if they owned property, they could go for a lot line change and add another 40' on to
the property or ~vhatever it is required to have. As you ride up there you don't even notice where the lot line
is because the pond is there and there is additional grass that flows from this spot into the other property and
so on and so forth.
Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes.
Member Orlando: But surrounded by sod farm.
Chairman: No, but their whole entrance into this property and the house next door, is all ...
Mr. Fitzgerald: They have landscaped into the property to the south, that they own. It has intruded into their
other property. There is a pond which I am sure is on the lot to the south and that has all been sodded in
there so that in affect that might have bought a sod farm. They didn't intend to. It is all being used.
Member Orlando: What brings you here tonight is because they were denied a C.O?
Chaimmn: No. Setback.
Mr. Fitzgerald: No. They got a notice of violation.
Member Orlando: So someone noticed that then?
Mr. Fitzgerald: yes. And it may have been ~vhen the Building Department was there to inspect for a C.O. I
don't know what triggered that activity.
Member Orlando: No questions.
Chaim~an: We could in effect put a condition on that if they intended to sell the south part, that they could
make this tennis court conforming. I dofft see any particular problem with that condition.
Mr. Fitzgerald: We certainly don't.
Member Homing: To continue along with that type of dialog, the existing driveway then, would that be
within that 40' additional area? If in lhct they would need a lot line change, that would be one of my
questions. Or would they be relocating their drive~vay to this proposed right-of-way? Which I notice they do
leave 25' clearance.
Chairman: That is a shared driveway George.
Page 8 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Mr. Fitzgerald: Actually in troth the drive comes through here.
Member Homing: This proposed right-of-way probably will not ever happen'?
Mr. Fitzgerald: It exist on paper but it doesn't mean that it will happen. I am sure if they sold the property to
the south, they would arange it so that all of that landscaping is on there property.
Member Homing: They would have a driveway issue too.
Chairman: what happens is about maybe 500' before these property lines at these two houses, which are the
exact same size in property, the driveway splits. The one goes straight to the east house which is not shown
on your survey. The other one goes to the west meanders up into this property. As I said there is a pond
there. It is all green. It is a way they have attempted to stabelize their entire driveway area. If they didn't do
that, the mud would flow down and cover the driveway and they would never get out. It was wet the day I
was up there. I want to tell you the tennis court ,,vas dry. It was about 11 o'clock in the morning. The sun
was out and it had rained quite heavily the night before. I almost got stuck. I ,,vas in my $200.00 track. I
would have just left it there and walked back and towed it back some other day.
Member Homing: Again Mr. Fitzgerald there would be enough room ifa lot line change was required with
out distroying.
Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes. That property is 20 acres.
Chairman: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this application? Hearing no
conm~ent I make a motion in closing the hearing...
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
6:50 p.m. Appl. No. 5133 Peter and Mary Jacques.
Mr. Jacques: We have 2 buildings on the property. You are familiar with the property.
Chairman: Very familiar.
Mr. Jacques: The building is over 50 years old. We renovated it in 1992 with heat, new electrict,
insulation,walls,roof, etc. This was all approved by the Planning Board. We had it set up as an office and
two car garage. We had it rented to Terrance O'Shea as an art studio from 1993 to 1999. We had it rented to
Christal Clear Window Cleaning for office, storage and parking of cars and vans from June 2000 to
September 2001. At present the building is vacant. We have a prespective tenant. Long Island fiberclass
swimming pools. This letter was dated March. He is long gone as a perspective tenant. We seek to rent as
any legal use in the hamlit-business zone.
Chaimmn: How many cars do you think Mr. Jacques, I realize this is a Planning Board issue, a parking
issue. It seems that the Planning Board is concerned about the parking issues. If you are asking this Board
and you are asking me in particular on the issue of intensity of use. I don't have a problem with this
application as long as your intensity of use is a low intensity of use. Low, meaning not alot of cars.
Certainly, we wouldn't want tracks and cars and everything else in that area. That is a concern.
Mr. Jacques: Maybe we can get 18 cars.
Page 9 - June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Tortora: Mr. Chairman, as a point of jurisdiction, the pool contractor Mr. Jacques is no longer
interested in leasing the space'?
Mr. Jacques: l don't think so. I haven't heard from hixn in months.
Member Tortora: As a legal point. Our jurisdication is aponent only in this instance. The notice of
disapproval is specifically for the pool contractor in use in this building. If that use is no longer a part of
your proposed use of that building, we have not jurisdiction at this point.
Mr. Jacques: It also envelopes the bulk schedule two business on one lot under 40,000.sq.ft.
Member Tortora: 1 am aware of all those issues, but right now you could theoretically fined a perspective
tenant that you alight not have to be here. Which would be nice for you.
Mr. Jacques: 1 have received a disapproval from the Building Department.
Member Tortora: Correct, but that was based on the contract in use, which was not a permitted use in HB
district. Now that is out of the window. That is not on the table for consideration any more, so you are not...
Mr. Jacques: What about the bulk schedule, is that enforced or not?
Chairman: I don't know ill agree with you on that. What the Building Department is saying is that you need
40,000 sq.ft. They are saying that bulk schedule requires minimum per use of 20,000. sq.ft.
Member Tortora: We dofft know what the other use is.
Chairman: He is telling you that the use is going to be conforming. Whatever use he intends to put in there,
is going to be conforming.
Mr. Jacques: I have my disapproval right here. This is only legally allowed lbr storage according to
Southold Code.
Chairman: You could rent it out for storage?
Mr. Jacques: I can only have one use according to bulk schedule. I am being held to the bulk schedule on
this.
Chairman: He is going to have a tenant that is going to conform to the hemlet business use.
Member Tortora: That is speculation. That really is. Until there is something solid and concrete before us,
what are we voting on.
Chairman: Why don't we do this Mr. Jacques, why don't we withdraw this application at this point until you
end up ~vith a tenant. Then we will put you back on.
Member Tortora: Go to the Building Department and explain.
Mr. Jacques: I have been to the Building Department.
Member Tortora: 1 know you have.
Mr. Jacques: I have a disapproval and I have applied to Zoning Board waited my turn, paid my f~e.
Page 10 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Tortora: Listen nobody is more simpathetic than I am. I am not going to see you go around in
cimles. Right now their disapproval says a pool contractor use. That is the problem ~vith it. In other words
we cannot grant you anykind of variance from the Chapter, unless we know the use. If the use is
conforming, then you don't have to come here.
Chairman: That is not true. Because he is saying that the Building Department is saying that it is 20,000.
sq.ft, per use.
Member Homing: Why don't ~ve get an updated notice of disapproval.
Member Tortora: It still could be an accessory to a principal use.
Mr. Jacques: I have a letter from the pool company which I submitted to the Building Department. I could
read it to you. It will take me a minute. (Letter was read for the record, see attached).
Chairman: We understand that Peter, that was a use that was not permitted within the zone. We are
addressing that issue. The issue in question is, that Mrs. Tortora has raised, is she is not willing to deal with
the second use without knowing what the second use is.
Member Tortora: I could be a conforming use. It could be something that is perfectly permitted. It could be
an accessary to your other building that you might not even need to come here for. We get our authority our
appility to listen to you and to hear these hearings from this notice of disapproval. It is talking about a pool
contracting use not being permitted. If the pool contracting use is out the window and you are going to rent
to somebody else, the people you may be renting to, it may be an accessary use, permitted. You may never
have to see us.
Member Orlando: Gerry, what about the other lette of disapproval? They are all dated the same, but the
other one says a service business as oppose to a pool business.
Chairman: Why don't we do this. Why don't we recess it without a date. When you find the other use, you
come back. We will keep it right on the thing.
Mr. Jacques: The amount of time that has past here.
Chairman: I understand that, but...
Member Tortora: We need to know how you are renting it too.
Mr. Jacques: You are saying that it cannot be a pool use'?
Chairman: We never said that.
Mr. Jacques: The Building Department said you can't have pool business in town. Accross the street is a
pool co~npany. Accross the street is a contractor rental equipment.
Chairman: We never said that we would not allow that. All we are saying is that you don't have anybody.
Mrs. Tortora is saying that she wants to knwo who the person is.
Mr. Jacques: Lets just say it is the pool company. Can you make a determination whether you would allow
it or not.
Chairman: You want us to go with the pool company at this point even though you don't have a lease for a
pool company.
Page 11 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Tholp, Transcriber
Mr. Jacques: I can't get a lease. First I have to get permission from the Town to do anything. I don't want to
make a violation.
Chairman: We don't want you to. What we are saying to you we will recess it until such time that you find
somebody, you just go to the Building Department and we will put it back on.
Member Tortora: We really can't help you if...
Mr. Jacques: Ill find somebody, I go back to the Building Department...
Chairman: Get the notice of disapproval from them and we will put you right back on.
Mr. Jacques: Tell me about #2 insufficient lot size. Why am I being picked on here.
Chairman: Why is the Building Department raising that issue? Is that the point?
Mr. Jacques: Yes.
Chairman: I can't answer that question. The Building Department has to answer that question. You certainly
can ask them that quesitons, but I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Jacques: I am going to go back to the Building Department.
Chairman: You tell us if you get this rectified.
Mr. Jacques: What can I do with this disapproval'? Say the Zoning Board said the disapproval on the second
part forget about that and the first part get a more suitable tenant.
Chairman: Just hold it in obayence. You reserve the neighbors and we have the hearing again. We will
recess it without a date. We will keep it running. I can tell you that we don't want to keep it running for any
more than a year.
Mr. Jacques: But it still goes through the Zoning Board of Appeals? Any kind of a...
Chairman: As long as it is non-conforming. That is the issue. We don't know if it is going to conform to a
hamlet business zone or not. I have to tell you Mr. Jacques we vet rarely ever do this. We are doing this as
an accomidation to you. We don't normally let these things float. In other words recessing without a date.
We are trying to make it as easy as possible.
Mr. Jacques: It is not as easy as possible. It is very deficult.
Chairman: 1 couldn't concur with you more. That is the best I can do. Alright.
Mr. Jacques: Thank you.
Chairman: Any other comments. Seeing no hands, I make a motion in recessing it without a date.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
***
7:07 p.m. Appl. No. 5188 Donna M Cook
Page 12 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Ms. Cook: Donna Cook. I would like to build a second addition and adding approximately 10' on to the
down stairs.
Chairman: I know this but l have to ask it for the record. Does that change the side yard or the front yard of
the house in any way'?
Ms. Cook: I am being told that it does. But I didn't think that it did. When you look at the set backs, it is
going on top of exactly what is already there. I was told that that didn't matter.
Chairman: Where is the 10'.
Changed tape
Ms. Cook: ...and the kitchen will be expanded to that area and then there will be a small deck behind that.
Chairman: Mr. Homing, any questions of Mrs. Cook.
Member Homing: With those additions again you will still be maintaining the 10' set back that exist?
Mrs. Cook: Yes. There is a 1 I'. That is all there will be. The only place on the foot print on the down stairs
that would be changed, would be toward the garage area. Which is my property behind the garage. It doesn't
change anything. There won't be anything added/extended on the front or either one of the sides. Apparently
one of th sides is the front yard. I didn't know that either.
Member Homing: Would you agree with the notice of disapproval that states that your lot coverage with the
addition would still be 7% lot coverage.
Mrs. Cook: I don't understand.
Member Homing: That is part of the notice of disapproval. The notice of disapproval says quote lot
coverage following the proposed addition will be +/- 7%. You are allowed 20% lot coverage. Would you
agree with that statement that it will still be plus or minus 7%'?
Mrs. Cook: I never actually...
Chairman: The Building Department did those calculation.
Mrs. Cook: If that is what they say, then I would have to agree with them. I don't have no idea myselfi I
cannot state that that is fact or not. I would have to figure it out.
Member Homing: It is certainly in your favor.
Mrs. Cook: In that case i would love to say yes. But I can't say that for sure.
Member Homing: Understand. Thank you.
Mrs. Cook: l can find out and come back if you want me too.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando'?
Member Orlando: To reiterate once again, you just replacing the same footprint even though your deck will
be enclosed and you will be digging a new foundation under the deck.
Page 13 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Mrs. Cook: Yes. That would be the only actual foot print part that is being changed.
Member Orlando: But it matches those exact?
Mrs. Cook: Right. The room ~vill be where the existing deck is. The deck that I am going to put on the back
will actually add another 5 or 6' or so.
Member Orlando: The reason ~vhy I am asking these questions is that we usually get a before and after or
old and new. We are trying to...
Mrs. Cook: You don't have. I have something here. I am giving this to you. This is the top page.
Member Orlando: I didn't see that.
Mrs. Cook: 1 think that was your first page.
Member Orlando: That is the old.
Mrs. Cook: I am sorry.
Member Orlando: I would be asking those questions if i saw that.
Chairman: We were a little confused when we went over there. We new it was second story but we didn't
know exactly what you where adding onto.
Mrs. Cook: That is what we sent out to the neighbors. I thought you did have that. I mn sorry ladies and
gentlemen.
Chairman: Show it to George and then we will copy it.
Mrs. Cook: Where the room is, is where my actual deck is and then the other little part...
Member Orlando: So you are adding a new deck on now'?
Mrs. Cook: Yes. 1 am going to move the deck that is there back a little bit.
Member Tortora: If we could see copies of that before the hearing is closed, so if we have any questions it
would be helpful.
Member Orlando: You are expanding the foot print'?
Mrs. Cook: Just where the old deck ~vas. Where the step will be. As far as the house is concerned, no. lfI
put that little deck on the back, it would expand it by whatever that little deck is on the back. Which actually
isn't even neccessary. My main concern is the house.
Member Homing: Where would you pin point your deck on this drawing'?
Mrs. Cook: On this drawing the existing deck is right here. In this area. It is not neccessary that that deck be
put on there. Over the room that I am putting on there will be a deck above that, that doesn't stick out
anywhere. I don't really need the down stairs deck. My concern is to get the kitchen done and the
bathrooms.
Chairman: Noxv you can move down here and discuss it with the ladies.
Page 14 - June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Tortora: You are only following the foot print on the part of the house and then you are putting on
an addition in the back.
Mrs. Cook: Just the deck. See where the deck is existing on this plan? That is where my deck is now. That is
where the house is going to end. This right here is actually from this set of plans, an upstairs deck.
Member Tortora: So the survey that you gave us does not include the deck?
Mrs. Cook: No because I don't want the deck down there. The deck that is going to be existing is going to
be is going to be on top of the second story. This was done. I had a gentlemen start these plans for me and it
became a mess. I had to higher Larry Tuthill to redue the plans. So that deck that you are seeing there if I
can have it, that would be great, ifI can't have it, I don't want it to be a problem.
Member Orlando: On the second story'?
Mrs. Cook: There is one on the second story on the plans that I submitted. It doesn't go beyond the foot
print. It is right over the kitchen that is going to be done. This that I just showed you, is showing a down
stairs deck that sticks out a little bit. IfI can have it,great. IfI can't, I don't want it to be a problem.
Chairman: We need to see it all one plan.
Mrs. Cook: I can white it out right now. It will take 2 seconds.
Chairman: Why don't you white this out and give it back to us.
Mrs. Cook: O.K.
Chairman: ls there anybody else who would like to speak infavor or against this hearing'? Do you have any
other questions from this lady. Should we recess this hearing or shall we close the hearing pending a receipt
of this fi.om her.
Member Oliva: Recess it.
Chairman: We will receess it for about 20 minutes.
7:30 p.m. Hearing resumed. Mrs. Cook handed in infurmation and there were no further questions from the
Board at this time. Hearing was closed.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
***
7:18 p.m. Appl. No. 5126 John and Sarah Miller.
Mr. Miller: We are renovating the home. We are actually in the process of it. We haven't touched the area in
question. The reason for the variance is, there is a wrap around porch of which the area in question is
trellace covered and there is approximately 15 sq.ft, of the decking that is within the line ol'encrochment of
a creek on the south side of the property. Inbetween the creek and this deck is a driveway, which is ours.
There is a quit a heavy foliage and then a lawn.
Mrs. Miller: Actually the area that is proposed to be decked currently has an old retaining wall. It wouldn't
really be bothering anything.
Page 15 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Mr. Miller: We are not distracting anything over there. The area above, which is the bathroom, the
requirements for the variance are about 6 sq.ft, of which are being dormered. The encrochment period is
about 6 sq.ft, and that is a master bathroom. It does not pretrude over the foot print. It actually proceeds
about 2 1/2' from the roof line on the first floor.
Chairman: O.K. Sometimes these are a little difficult to understand. This is a tmely magnificiant area.
Mr. Miller: We were very lucky to find it. Thank you.
Chairman: How old is the house?
Mr. Miller: The oldest portion is 100 years old. There has been a lot of add ons.
Board review survey & pictures.
Chairman: Any questions Vince? George?
Members Orlando & Homing: No.
Chairman: Is there anybody in the audiance that would like to speak for or against this hearing? Any other
questions from any board members? We thank you for coming in. We hope to have a decision for you
shortly. I will close the heating at this point.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
***
7:25 p.m. Appl. No. 5125 J. and E. Brittman
Mrs. Brittman: Elizabeth Brittman. I would like to add on a family room to the existing house.
Chaim~an: And you are on the comer of Main Bayview Road and Glenn Road'?
Mrs. Brittman: Yes.
Chairman: No that house is a I 1/2 story house. Just for the record, is this going to be a one story addition'?
What is it going to be.
Mrs. Brittman: I think it is considered 1 I/2. It is going to be an open room with a loft. Not a full second
story.
Chairman: Like a haltered ceiling?
Mrs. Brittman: Yes, 1 quess that is what you would consider it.
Chairman: O.K. Mr. ttoming, any questions.
Member Homing: Have you considered placing it at a greater setback. Like from 40' or something. Why do
you have it sort of an "L" shape'?
Mrs. Brittman: Because of the proximatey to the creek. We went through the process first through the DEC
and the Imstees. It was felt that it needed to be as fhr forward as we could. At that time when we took the
measurement from our home and the proposed...we took the stakes and measured back and we were actually
further back than our neighbors. It didn't even occur to us that we werefft far enough back from the street.
But really can't go further in the other way because of the creek.
Page 16 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Homing: O.K. Do you have the notification from the DEC then?
Mrs. Brittman: We went through and it should be a permit. You should have it.
Member Homing: Thanks.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando'?
Member Orlando: To continue on with that. The Trustees or the DEC never said a minimum or a maximum
away from the creek or did they reconmlended a distance. Or you just did what you felt was...
Mrs. Brittman: What it was,was when we have been renovating the house for the last four years we have
been coming periodically for different permits and things. When we were renovating the deck area, they
didn't want us to extend past this 50'. I think now they say 100' requirement. This family room will be at 53'.
Member Orlando: I didn't see any stakes when I was there, but the front of the addition, is that close the
where the big maple tree is'?
Mrs. Brittman: It is back. We won't take that maple down. It is 32' from the telephone pole.
Member Orlando: No questions.
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora?
Member Tortora: I don't have any questions.
Chairman: Mrs. Oliva?
Member Oliva: I don't think so.
Chairman: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this application'? Hearing none, I
make a motion in closing the hearing...
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:29 p.m. Appl. No.5124 Helen Sakatos a/k/a Eleni.
Mr. Olsen: Good Evening. My name is David Worthington Olsen and I am the Attorney representing the
applicant Helen Sakatos. The applicant is seeking a waiver of merger under section 100-26 of the Southold
Town Code for tax lots 1000-15-7- lot 8 and lot 12. Currently Mrs. Sakatos lives in a house built on tax lot
12. She is under contract to sell tax lot 8. Both of these lots are lots on a filed subdivision map. Known as
Orient by the Sea, sections 2 and 1 respectlhlly. The applicants late husband John Sakatos took ...for a
single deed on May 25th 1979. At this time the merger law was not in effect. Both lots were transferred
from Mr. Sakatos to his wife, the applicant on July 6, 2001 for medicade plamfing purposes. The applicant
and her husband have always received seperate tax bills for these two lots. The board has copies of the
deed and the tax bills as part of this application. Following the criterier set forth in the Town Code for a
waiver of merger, we respectfully request that the Board grant the waiver for the following reasons: 1. The
waiver will not result in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood. This is a residential
community with homes on the majority of the tax lots. Granting the waiver will not create any significant
increase in density. 2. The waiver would reconize a lot that is consistant with the size of lots in the
neighborhood. As is evident by looking at the tax map of the surrounding properties, this lot is consistant
Page 17 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
with and actually larger then many of the neighboring properties. As you can see I have submitted a
schedule showing the size of the lots in the area. I have highlighted in yellow tax lots 8 and 12. In pink, the
surrounding lots. 3. The waiver would avoid economic hardship. The applicant is currently under contract
to sell lot 8 which this contract is contingent upon the granting of the waiver of merger. Accordingly not
gratuing the waiver of merger will create a significant economic hardship for the applicant. The purchaser
has obtain Health Department approval for tax lot 8 and I have submitted the Health Dept. approved survey.
Each tax lot faces a different road. Tax lot 8 faces Plum Island Lane. Tax lot 12 faces Three Waters Lane.
To deny the waiver, would result in the applicant having a total parcel about twice the size of others in the
neighbor. 4. The natural details and charactor of the contours and slops of the lot will not be significantly
changed or altered in any manor. There will not be a substancial filling of land effecting nearby
environmental employed areas. The lot in question is a flat piece of land. According, 1 feel we have met all
the criteriar mentioned in section 100-26 of the Town Code. We respectfully request that the Board grant
the waiver of merger as what is consistantly done on similiar applications. Please advise if you have any
questions that I can answer. Thank you.
Chairman: Mr. Olsen what is the contract sale for, how much?
Mr. Olsen: How much is it worth'?
Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Olsen: 110,000.00
Chairman: Mrs. Oliva?
Member Oliva: What is the size of each of the lots?
Mr. Olsen: Lot 8 is .44 acres and lot 12 is .28 acres. Lot 12 is the lot that currently has the lot on it.
Chairman: So the vacant lot is .44'?
Mr. Olsen: Right. The vacant lot is larger.
Chairman: Any other questions'?
Member Oliva: No.
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora?
Member Tortora: Is this part of the filed map of Orient by the Sea subdivision part II?
Mr. Olsen: Each lot is part ofa seperate subdivision map.
Member Tortora: It is 19,000. sq.fi., the one that is .44 acres?
Mr. Olsen: 1 don't have the exact demensions in front of me. The vacant lot is .44, approximately.
Member Tortora: On here you have that it is part of the map of Orient by the Sea section II?
Mr. Olsen: Either section I or II. 8 is part of one and 12 is part of the other. 1 don't which one is which. I can
get that.
Chaimlmr I think the east side was I and I think the west side is 1I.
Page 18 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Tortora: The reason l am asking is that the subdivision was on the excepted list until 95,96.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando?
Member Orlando: Who is living in the approved lot now as we speak'?
Mr. Olsen: Mrs. Sakatos.
Member Orlando: And she is going hold on to that one'?
Mr. Olsen: Yes.
Member Orlando: No other questions.
Member Homing: No questions.
Chaimmn: Is there anybody in the audiance who would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing
none, we will make a motion to closing the hearing...
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:38 p.m. Appl. No. 5123 Michael and Cathy Lehroff.
Ms. Martin: Amy Martin representing Cathy and Michael Lehroff. As you see before you, the disapproval.
This is a very small house on a good size lot but with the road frontage on the long side rather than the short
side. On a private road. The Lehrhoffs' live there year round and they would like to put an addition on the
northeast end of the house. The setback for the front yard should be 40' and we are just a little bit short of
that. There is an incline in the back yard. You can see that there is a retaining wall. That is why the
positioning of the addition is where it is. We obvisously cannot make the 50' rear yard setback. The
proposed extension on the kitchen end of the house will be 4' entrance into the kitchen from the back garden
and the small pantry area available to the kitchen which is small. The proposed extension will be a master
bedroom and a quest bedroom with the garage below it. The existing garage will be turned into a
mechanical room. Placement for stairs and storage. Basically this is a one story house with a garage below.
We are not increasing the level of non-conformaty other than the fact that the front of the proposed addition
is 35'10" to trellace. The trellace is just an omemental structure to make it look nice infront of the house. It
will now be longer.
Chairman: Any guess on what the actual depth of the existing house is? If the addition is shown at 30.
Ms. Martin: Including the deck it is 54'
Chairman: O.K. Without the deck?
Ms. Martin: Without the deck, front to back is 30'.
Chaim~an: O.K. We will start with Mrs. Oliva.
Member Oliva: Not really. I was there. It is a dificult lot to work with, with the retaining wall in the back.
You are close to the road to begin with.
Page 19 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Mr. Lehrhoff: The reason for going to expand the house is, if you have been there, we think we live in a
very unique place. Now that we have become full time residence, the house is small. For a weekend house
for us, it was fine. Now that we are there full time it is small. We have children and grandchildren and we
would like to have it available for them to come and stay with us. What is interesting, is we have a shed, if
you saw it, behind the house. It is going to be relocated. It is under 88sq.ft., so it doesn't get involved in
setbacks. That shed is actually closer to any neighbor that would possibly see it, then what the new addition
would do. My neighbors, we are very close with our neighbors, although none of them are here. One of
them actually wrote us a note, saying that they would be happy to come, but they wouldn't be in town. They
wished us very good luck and hoped that we would be granted the approvals to be able to build this. We
want to keep the integrity of what is there. We are not intending to make something other then what you see.
We think will be a lot nicer.
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora?
Member Tortora: What is the size of the porch, 5' X 8'?
Ms. Martin: It is 5' out l¥om the house before the steps and it is approximately 11'.
Member Tortora: 1 don't have any problem with it. It is pretty cut and dry. You don't have a lot of options.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando'?
Member Orlando: I am a little confused. Enless the garage entrance is on the side of the house, is that
correct.
Mr. Lehrhoff: Yes.
Member Orlando: I don't see a drive for that.
Mr. Lehrhoffi The new entance to the garage with be from the side.
Member Orlando: O.K. So you will be doing some land clearing then'?
Mr. Lehrhof~ Yes, What 1 did, when you come in you pass the Reeve house on the left side. I showed them
approximately where would be coming in to come around so we can enter into the garage.
Member Orlando: Is it a half "U" drive'? You don't show driveway, that is why I am asking that question.
Mr. Lehrhoff: We haven't weighed it out exactly. What happen there is the brash area if you will going out
probably 20' of the end of the house will be some what cleared and landscaped.
Member Orlando: The front driveway now, you are just going to back fill and...
Mr. Lehrhoff: It will be closed in. The existing garage will be gone. That now will become part of the
house. One of the reasons we are doing it this way is because in order to get into the house today we have to
walk all the way across the front of the house and come up the deck and come in on the deck or go ttu'ough
the garage and come up the stairs. We would like an easier entrance to get into the house.
Member Orlando: O.K. Thank you. No other questions.
Chairman: George'?
Member Homing: No questions.
Page 20 - June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Chairman: We thank you. Is there anybody else who ~vould like to speak in favor of this application'?
Anybody against the application? Seeing no hands, I will make a motion in closing the hearing ....
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 5119 G. and M. Kokkinos.
Chairman: Good Evening Sir.
Mr. DeSimone: My name is Scott DeSimone. I am the attorney for the applicant. I am here this evening to
actually request an adhjoumment of this hearing. I request that it be held open until August. Some of the
reasons being, one we had a problem with the posting. Someone decided to convert my application from a
Special exception for additional appartment to one from a B&B. Actually the sign was vandilized. So we
did not have the posting for the minimum number of days. The second reason is that my clients wish to be
year this evening and couldn't unexpectedly. And the third reason is it is my understanding that there is
some proposed changes to the ordinance that the Town Board is considering, that may nagate the need for
relief from this Board. That is why I am asking that we put this over until we see how those ordinances are
received from the Town Board, whether they are approved. Then we may possible just withdraw this
application.
Chairman: O.K. Mr. DeSimone, you are an attorney right?
Mr. DeSimone: I am.
Chairman: Would you have any objection to us recessing this to the September meeting.
Mr. DeSimone: 1 would not at all.
Chairman: O.K. We have a relatively crouded calendar for the Summer and it would give us all the time to
look at the changes that the Code Committee need to do. It will be September 19th. ls there anybody else
who would like to speak on that'?
Board: No.
Chairman: I make a motion in recessing until September 19th.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:52 p.m. Apph No. 5127 Nextel (A. Junge).
Ms. Caputi: My name is Jacqueline Caputi from the law firm of ...Nelson and Ray (inaudible) on behalf of
Nextel Communications. I imagine that you are all firmiliar with the Cutchogue Auto Precision site. On
County Route 48. It is an existing telecomunication facility in the industrial park. Nextel is simply seeking
an area variance from this board to allow the placement of its equipment shelter in an area that doesn't meet
the required rear yard setback of 70'. Currently your telecomunications law requires that from accessary
structures such an equipment shelter meet the principle building setback requirements. There is already
another carrier equipment shelter at the site. That is even closer to the rear yard line than I am proposing
that was approved by this Board in 1991. The time that the tower itself was approved creating the mar yard
setback. Since that time the code change and makes us comply with...inaudiable. Which is the only reason
why we are here. We started at the Planning Board just for site plan approval because co-locating on a site
Page 21 - June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
with a diferent structure. The was raised about the rear yard setback and we where directed to come to the
Zoning Board. We where issued a denial letter on that basis. This is a public utility. It is trying to meet the
goals of the Town Code to locate these facilities in industrial districts and on existing structures. I would
just like to touch on the area variance requirement. Most utilities are given such a status...there will be no
undesirable change produced in the charactor of the neighborhood. This is an existing site. We are really
just adding a 12 X 20 equipment shelter. The benifits sawi can't be achieved by any other method than a
variance because, it makes no sense to have it in the existing compound where the other shelter is. It needs
to be close to the tower. The remainder of the property is used for Cutchogue Auto Precision purposes. 1
don't believe that this is a substancial variance because of the circumstances. There will no effective
environmental issues because facilities do not generate any waste or use water. They are unmaned facilities.
I do have a realestate expert here, if you want to have testimony on those standards from him. He has also
prepared an afidavit which 1 would like to submit. I do have a representative of Nextel here that can speak
of the use of the tower, if you are interested in that as well.
Chairman: The approximate size of the building is what?
Ms. Caputi: It is 12' X 20'. I think that is the same size as the one that is there.
Chairman: And the setback'?
Ms. Caputi: It would be 30'. The existing shelter is only 21'.
Member Tortora: Yes, the existing one is only 21' and the existing one is 12' X 26'.
Chaimlan: Vince any questions'?
Member Orlando: The tower is 20' from the back line'?
Ms. Caputi: Yes. It was granted by this Board in 1991. I have a copy of that decision, if you want one.
Chairman: Mr. Homing'?
Member Homing: Yes, If you would please briefly discribe what the practical implications would be to
conform to the 70' requirements'?
Ms. Caputi: From my perspective, 1 went to the site. The parking lot of Cutchogue Auto Precision is used
by the owner. We did ask him if is uses that and he does. It does make more sense to have all the shelters
near the tower and in a sense in a compound. It makes more sense from the carriers perspective to all be in a
central location.
Member Homing: Underground cableing from the equipment shed to the tower'?
Ms. Caputi: Yes
Member Horning: So therefbre if you where 70' away you would have more practical difficulty with
cableing also, correct?
Mr. Toury: My name is Soufiane Toury. I am an RF Engineer for Nextel. The longer the cable line the more
losses you have. So it is quite difiult to achieve ~vhat we are trying to achieve in terms of the signaling.
Member Homing: Yes, thank you.
Member Orlando: With this my nextel wont give out in Laurel and Mattituck anymore.
Page 22 - June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Mr. Toury: No.
Member Orlando: 1 am going to hold you to that.
Chairman: We thank you sir. We will develops throughout the hearing.
Ms. Caputi: Thank you for your attention.
Chairman: ls there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against this application?
Ms. Taylor: My name is Laveme Taylor. I live in Cutchogue on Rt. 48. Where they are going to build this is
70' away from my house. I am just against it for right now. I don't intbrmation. I have a lot of questions that
endangers the wilderness there. I just need some questions answered before I can...
Chairman: Why don't we do this, we will recess this hearing for about 20 min. Why don't you speak to the
councelor outside. Counselor would you please show this nice lady where this building is going to be in
proximatey to the other buildings and try and answer any questions that she has.
Ms. Caputi: Of course.
Chairman: I will make a motion in recessing the hearing lbr about 20 min.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
***
7:58 p.m. Appl. No. 5115 K. and P. Johnson.
Mr. Jacobs: I am Bill Jacobs builder for K and P Johnson. They would like to build a garage. They bought
this property adjacent to their house and partly they need the variance because of the rear deck on the back
of their house. 1 would say there is around 9' required the variance. The lot is a wooded lot and we are going
to be cleaning up the lot. We moved the garage away from some of the large trees. So we won't have to take
any big trees down. I think it would be an asset to the neighborhood because the lot is a dumping lot.
Everybody is glad to see it cleaned up.
Chairman: O.K. Lets start with Mr. Homing.
Member Homing: l will pass for a minute.
Chairman: O.K. Mr. Orlando?
Member Orlando: Yes you had said you are you also here lbr a variance for that rear deck ?
Mr. Jacobs: The rear deck doesn't need a variance. It is on the other end of the house so that partial of the
garage needs a variance, 9' of it.
Member Orlando: I went to the site. It is basically cleared and you staked where the garage is going to go. It
is a hand drawn line parellel to the back lot.
Mr. Jacobs: The back section of that lot belongs to Scott Russell. 20' is his lot. We have 105 o1' a 125'.
Member Orlando: So you are 3' off the back property'?
Mr. Jacobs: 3', yes.
Page 23 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Orlando: So it is an irregular shaped lot they have there. It kind of jogs in?
Mr. Jacobs: Yes. He has a garage there too. He has the 20' and then another 10' from his garage~
Member Orlando: He is not offended by this'?
Mr. Jacobs: No, Scott would come in, if you wanted him too.
Member Orlando: You could move it up a little?
Mr. Jacobs: Why should I move it up? I am allowed 3', aren't 17
Chairman: How big is the lot'?
Mr. Jacobs: The lot is 17,750. It is under 20,000sq.ft. I would rather be 3' away. Because he has a big piece
of property there and we have...there is no need for us in the back of that. I would like to have this depth so
we could have a little walk from there deck across into the garage. I like the situation the way it is. Ill move
it up, that is another 2~ into the variance.
Member Orlando: Going to the front yard because of the deck.
Chairman: Any other questions.
Member Homing: Not from me, no.
Chairman: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands I
make a motion to closing the hearing...
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
***
Chairman: 1 need a motion to reopen Nextel.
Member Tortora: So moved.
Ms. Taylor: I would like to request a recess so l can go back and talk to my President of my cornmunittee to
fi~rther understand what is being built there. To hold a decision until I can throughly undestand what is
going to be there. I did talk with her, but I am still not quit sure or fi~lly understand what is going on.
Chairman: We can recess it to the special meeting, July 1 lth.
Member Tortora: ls that O.K.
Ms. Taylor: O.K.
Chairman: I just want to say that on July I lth this is a deliberation meeting. We are holding a special
meeting specifically for you. We just want to limit the testimony and we want to close the hearing. That is
the philosiphy at that time.
Ms. Caputi: Do you want me to appear again'?
Page 24 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Chairman: My suggestion is that you do appear again or a representative, because in anticipating that they
have further comments regarding this.
Ms. Caputi: O.K. Unless she calls and says no comment.
Chairman: Then send us a letter saying no further comment.
Ms. Taylor: O.K.
Chairman: 7p.m. approximately.
Ms. Taylor: Thank you.
Chairman: You are welcome. Thank you.
Motion to recess for approximately 3 minutes.
8:18 p.m. Appl. No.5111 Esther J. Rotella
Mr. Anderson: My name is Bruce Anderson from Suffolk Environmental Consulting representing the
Rotellas'. The Rotellas' wish to build a beach house garage in what is deemed the side yard by the building
inspector. It is a 5 acre lot which is part ora subdivision which is known as...(in audible). This is a 5 acre lot
with a restrictive triangular building envelope. One interesting thing about it is you will notice that it came
back as behind a 50' right-of-way. Which ordinarily changes where the front and side and rear lot lines are
designated. The building inspector has determined that the designation to the front and rear yards are as per
the filed map. It is a decision that I think that reasonable. The problem finds itself in the proposed garage is
located between the dwelling and the side yard boundary. It is connected by an open terrace structure. I
brought in here a copy of the elevation. This would be the garage, this would be the house and this the open
trellace ficture. The variance is only because of the openess. In other words if you where to inclose that
terrace, I would need a variance. I argue whether it is open or closed. It has no effect to the neighborhood,
the environment, or any practical consideration in this neighborhood. I also want to point out that the
eastern side yard barrier is heavily vegetated by tall blue spruce that line that property line up to the areas
that touches the southern boundary up to lot 1 past. We argue that it will not produce undesireable change
of charactor of the neighborhood...to do with open vs. closed. Having to do with the size of the lot and the
placement of the structures. Your buildings here are very classically style house one that I am sure that the
neighborhood would be proud of.
Member Oliva: Do you have a buiding permit for the house':'
Mr. Anderson: Presently we do have a building permit for the house. We do not mentions structures
because we are unable for some reason not to obtain this variance, are choices will be either to enclose the
breezeway, which we think would be a shame. Or perhaps to redesign and perhaps spread out the
development rather than go with the compact development that it is now as purposed. It is a very simple
case. I believe we have stated the various aspects of the variance in our application. I think they very
selfavident. I could tell you that I know of no objection from the neighborhood. I was contacted by an old
friend of mine, named Mr. Bredemeyer who I am sure most of you know, he contacted me with great
enthusiazum as for the look and the design and the placement of the house relative to his house. He lives on
the other side of the right-of-way. I believe it is lot 14 as it is shown on that survey there. He was quit
supportive of it.
Chairman: He was in about 2 months ago about on the application of the parcel next door. Mrs. Oliva why
don't you continue, if you have questions.
Page 25 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Oliva: Not really as long as he has the building permit to start the house. I was not going to walk
back in there frankly because there are to many deer there and I don't want deer ticks all over me. I don't
have a real problem. It is a large lot.
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora?
Member Tortora: No 1 don't have any questions.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando?
Member Orlando: No questions.
Member Homing: Nothing.
Chairman: This is a one or a two story garage'?
Mr. Anderson: it is sort ora 1 1/2.
Chairman: That is what it looks like to me.
Member Oliva: Just electric in there.
Mr. Anderson: Yes.
Member Oliva: No water?
Mr. Anderson: No.
Chairman: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands a
make a motion in closing the hearing...
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
***
8:24 p.m. Appl. No. 5116 Cliffor Polacek.
Mr. Polacek: My nan~e is Clifford D. Polacek. An application to add a master bathroom off of the rear of
the house at 2905 Westphalia Road. It is not extending any closer to the side street of Deer Drive. It is
extending towards my rear yard. The extension is only have 7 1/2' X 15'. I think it is a reasonable
application. The property is surrounded by about 75 arbivities and excess of 70'. There is no tree removal
necessary.
Chairman: O.K. We will start with Mr. Homing. Any questions'?
Member Homing: I don't have any.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando'?
Member Orlando: The new extension will come out to the old extension'? The same or is it indented'?
Mr. Polacek: Indented. The old extension went out 15' I believe. This is only half of that, 71/2'.
Page 26 - June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Orlando: The side, that is all...
Mr. Polacek: It is not going towards Deer Drive. It is going towards the rear yard.
Member Orlando: It stays flush with Deer Drive. It doesn't go in or out, it stays exactly the same'?
Mr. Polacek: It stays exactly the same plan of the side of the house.
Member Orlando: That is my question. O.K. No other questions.
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora?
Member Tortora: No, 1 don't have any questions.
Chairman: Mrs. Oliva?
Member Oliva: No.
Chairman: Is there anybody else who would speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands, I make
a motion in closing the hearing...
SEE MiNUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:28 p.m. Appl. No. 5117. Lucas Ford.
Macchio: Good Evening members of the Board my name is Lanz Matchio of North Fork Sign Company. I
am representing Howard Lucas tonight with Lucas Ford, Lincoln, Mercury. There is concern on the
application with the wall signs and the pile up signs. Since then what has happened is Lincoln, Mercury and
Ford who use to have their imaging on the same signs, has gone off and created their own identification
packages. Lincoln/Mercury now has their own typ of sign and Ford now has their own type of signage.
Which is more of retro look for Ford, which is consistant with signage back in the 60's and 70's. What Lucas
has on its building now if you can look at the board I put together, the south elevation he currently has his
Lucas letters as well as a wall sign. On the west elevation he has got Ford letters. What he is looking to do
there is to update his signage by removing the Lincoln/Mercury cabinet fromt he south elevation
completely. On the west elevation remove the Ford letters and in its place put up the new Ford logo wall
sign and the new LincolWMercury wall sign.
Chairman: Those two are going to be lighted'?
Mr. Macchio: That is correct. To both are internally illuminated with fluorescent bolbs.
Member Tortora: Are these what are commonly known as neon signs?
Mr. Macchio: No. There is no neon involved in these signs. The are internally elumintated with fluorescent
fixtures like that. No exposed neon or anything like that.
Member Tortora: It is hard to see from there but the large board sign and the Lincoln-Mercury Sign will be
located were the arrows are'?
Mr. Macchio: Are you refering to the wall signs or the...
Chairman: Lets go to the wall signs first on the back of the building, you're removing the South sign on the
building itself and you are fixing two signs on the rear of the building.
Page 27 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Mr. Macchio: To replace the existing the Ford letters. In essence we are not aiding any new signage. We are
just replacing what is on building now. Actually the square footage is less than what he has on the building
now.
Chairman: Except those signs are not lighted?
Mr. Macchio: Well the Ford -Lincoln-Mercury sign that currently exist on the south elevation is illuminated
now. That is the only one. The [ucas letters are no eluminated, which aren't being touched. The Ford letters
on the west elevation are also not illuminated letters as they exist now.
Chairman: Before we end this hearing we are going to discuss the, for the board's purposes, period of time
that the signs would be illuminated. So we are going to hold those questions in obeyance right now.
Mr. Macchio: O.K. That is fair.
Chairman: Now we are going to the ground signs?
Mr. Macchio: O.K. If everybody is comfortable with the wall signs, 1 can move on to the ground signs.
Chairman: We will grill you later on those.
Mr. Macchio: Currently, he right now has one illuminated pile on, which again combines both Lincoln-
Mercury and Ford. The pile on sign as it exists is 5'7" tall, that is the face by 13'I" wide. With an overall
height of 14' from ground to the top of th sign. That sign is illuminated. What we are looking to do there is
take off the headand and leave the pole in the ground so we don't have to put a new foundation in there and
put on the new Ford oval sign. Which is similar in size at 5'8" X 13'5", and put the new pole cover over the
existing pole. In addition to that again, because Lincoln-Mercary has their own the signage, Lincoln-
Mercury would like their own form of main idea sign. We picked the smallest one they had which is infact a
monument type sign. Which there is no pole. That sign is 5' tall by 8'6" wide with a 2' shroud. So it's
overall height is 7' above ground.
Member Tortora: This is the new Ford sign you are going to replace with the new Ford logo and this is
going to be illuminated'?
Mr. Macchio: Correct. Both ground signs are proposed as illuminated as well.
Member Tortora: This will be illuminated. The smaller.., your right there is alot of sign poles. This new
Lincoln-Mercury will also be illuminated?
Mr. Macchio: Correct.
Chairman: Not to exceed the height of 7'. Which includes the base.
Mr. Macchio: That is correct. This way it will be low enough that it won't interfer with Ford sign next to it.
Chairman: Any other presentation on signs'?
Mr. Macchio: No that is everything. If there are any questions from anybody.
Chairman: Lets talk about lighting of signs on the building. What is the sign actually Lit or do you know
what the sign that you are removing on the southside of the building actually lit to it. Meaning hours of
operation of light.
Page 28 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Mr. Macchio: That I don't know. I an~ sure they are on a timer of some sort. But they will be on a photo cell.
A photo cell will of course turn it offat dusk and back on at dawn.
Chairman: That is certainly what we don't want.
Mr. Macchio: Whatever the board dictates, we will just set the timer to. That is not a problem at all. 1 know
Howard didn't have a problem with that either.
Member Tortora: Where are the two illuminated Ford and Lincoln-Mercury signs going to be located?
Mr. Macchio: Those are on the west elevation.
Member Tortora: This ground sign and this ground sign, are on the corner of Horton and...
Chairman: No that is not the corner. That is the start of Mr. Lucas' property.
Mr. Macchio: Exactly. He is not on the corner of Middle Road. He is set in like two lots if l am not
mistaken.
Member Tortora: So they are on the corner of that property.
Mr. Macchio: In others words this existing Lincoln-Mercury sign is actually set back about 30' from the side
property line. This one would go roughly 10~ from that. So 20' from the side property line.
Member Tortora: And the new Ford sign?
Mr. Macchio: Is going to replace it.
Chairman: And the proximaty to each other is'?
Mr. Macchio: About 10'. We want to keep it as far away from the side properly line as possible.
Chairman: So Lincoln-Mercury will be first and the Ford would be later'?
Mr. Macchio: That is correct
Member Tortora: What is the actually illuminated?
Mr. Macchio: As it stands right now, it only has 2 illuminated signage. He has got the pile on in the front
and then this Ford-Lincoln-Mercury wall sign.
Member Orlando: Which will be removed'?
Mr. Macchio: Correct. Lucas is going to stay not illuminated.
Member Oliva: Only two illuminated signs will be the ones in the front there.
Chairman: And the 2 on the back.
Mr. Macchio: And 2 on the back.
Member Tortora: When you say two on the back you mean...
Page 29 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Chairman: That is west.
Mr. Macchio: Right now all he has is these non-illuminated Ford letters and what is being proposed are
these 2 internally illuminating wall signs.
Member Oliva: How much of the wall will that take up?
Mr. Macchio: Roughly 15~.
Member Oliva: How much does that one take up know?
Mr. Macchio: This one takes up 12'.
Member Tortora: But that is not illuminated. And that would be... I am a little concerned that that one will
be very visible from the North Road.
Mr. Macchio: These 2 here? To be seen from Middle Road'?
Member Tortora: Yes. Is that the idea.
Mr. Macchio: Of course.
Chairman: That is the area that I just said that if you are interested in granting it, the period of illumination.
Member Tortora: If the purpose is to have them illuminated at night, how can you...
Chairman: How can I dictate it? I can dictate it because if they don't follow that illumination, we very
simply pull the plug, we pull the variance. That is all. It is very easy.
Mr. Macchio: I am not sure of what his hours of operation are. I can't see them being open that late. He
would want them on during business hours.
Member Tortora: We don't have any, as you probably know, that there are no business' on the North Road
right now that have illuminated signs.
Mr. Macchio: We have been granted a variance prior for Lucas Ford Tracks on Main, just down the road
from here I believe for an illuminated pile on. Other then that, I am not sure that there really are any other
car dealerships in the Town of Southold on the Main Road.
Chairman: I~et me just say this to you. I sat on the original hearing for the record and the late Howard Lucas
Sr. and Howard Lucas Jr. have always been very cooperative. I have to say that in all true cander. It is up to
us to deal with this illumination on the rear of the building. During the original hearing I told Mr. Lucas that
I had absolutely no intentions of seeing a large, high, very blaten looking sign. This was the ground sign.
They then cooperated and put the sign that presently exist there. Knowing the present Howard Lucas 1 don't
think that there is going to be an unreasonable issue there also. Let us kick around the hours if we can so
deal with that aspect. However. if we can't live with illumination of the sign on the rear of the building
which is facing west, you can reconfigure that sign as being an illuminating sign, right?
Mr. Macchio: It is simple. Right know to be honest with you there is no electric to the wall anyway. If it was
approved as non-illuminating sign, we would just put them up without the fluorescent fixtures inside and we
would have to worry about rurming electric to that wall.
Page 30 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Chairman: O.K. Any questions at this point regarding this from the Board'? Any from the Audiance'?
Ms. Bower: My name is Kathleen Bower and I am presently building a house just down Hortons Lane. I
very interested in what is going to happen at the end of the road. I am not clear on how many illuminating
signs will ultimitly be.
Mr. Macchio: If you want to come around, 1 will show you. Basically right now what he has on the front of
the building is this illuminated ground sign. What we are proposing to do is basically on this existing pole...
Ms. Bower: That I understood.
Mr. Macchio: O.K. In addition we are going to add what is called a monument sign which will look just like
that. Same location. That will be illuminated as well. On the side of the building this currently is
illuminated. That is coming down all together. This will remain. The rear of the building which we refer to
as the west elevation currently has non-illuminated Ford letters. In its place one Ford sign will be put up and
one Lincoln-Mercury sign will be put up. Which in essence will take up just a little bit more space than this.
Ms. Bower: Those would be illuminated'?
Mr. Macchio: If the Board grants it.
Ms. Bower: This would be illuminated and this will be illuminated'?
Mr. Macchio: That is correct.
Ms. Bower: So there are 4 illuminated signs?
Mr. Macchio: That is correct.
Ms. Bower: O.K. I am clear now. I am not happy about that. 1 don't think it is necessary. I think it is a bit
much.
Chairman: Thaxxk you. There is some place that we can see these wall signs that you are anticipating
someplace in Suffolk County?
Mr. Macchio: Offthe top of my head, no. I know there is plently of them that up west.
Chairman: I was by North Shore Lincoln-Mercury this morning.
Mr. Macchio: I don't believe there are any this way. Ford signs, 1 am sure on the South Fork. I can provide
that inlbnnation to the Board.
Chairman: Would you please.
Mr. Macchio: Absolutely.
Chaimmn: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this application'? Dave'?
Mr. MarkeI: I am the neighbor to the north of Lucas Ford. At one time both pieces of property where one
piece of property and then it was split. After it was split, Mr. Lucas was allowed to put in a car agency. A
week after that my property became residential. Which I just recently found out about, because the only way
I would have been notified is if I had looked at a map. It was through the Master Plan. They thought that
was a good idea to put a residential piece of property next to a car dealership. It had been the same piece of
Page 31 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
property. What I am getting at here is the fact that it is now a residential piece of property and any lightage
that comes off of Lucas Ford lessons the appeal of living there. I kind of got sand bagged with that one.
Because it became residential after the town had allowed it. I would like to see as little lighting as possible
coming from Lucas Ford. I don't want to see that monument sign. We are trying to keep the area as rual as
possible and that would certainly not add to the rual charactor of Hortons Lane.
Chairman: You realize that this is on the opposite end of your property?
Mr. Markel: No matter where it is. It is another sign and I don't want to see it. Thank you.
Chairman: You may want to consider some appropriate screening on the north side of that sign that Mr.
Markel is talking about. You can propose it. It will give us an idea. Give us a couple of weeks to take a look
at some of these signs when you give us that information.
Mr. Macchio: That is fair.
Chairman: Hearing no further comment, I make a motion in closing the hearing. Pending the receipt of the
information ...
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
8:45 P.M. Appl. No. 5058 Peter and Valerie Leoniak, et al.
Mr. Goggins: Good Evening. Since our last meeting I had gone to the Planning Board. We set up a meeting
at the Planning Board Worksession. They granted us an opportunity to appear at that worksession, and we
did. It was about three weeks after the last hearing. We purposed to the Planning Board what was purposed
here. They all agreed. No one had a problem with it and they directed to submit the application to the
Planning Board. Also I made it clear to them that I didn't want the two boards to proceed without talking to
each other. I asked the Chairman, Mr. Orlowski, to communicate with the ZBA, so the ZBA knows what is
going on and hopefully he did that. The reason why ldid ask him to proceed in that fashion is because,
enitialy they said well, we will agree to do this put first you have to get the variance. And while I was here
this board said if you want to do this first you have to get the Planning Board approval. Once the Planning
Board told us the ZBA had to approve first, l asked that the Board's talk to each other so that there wouldn't
be any problems, there wouldn't be any duplications. That is kind of where we are. We submitted the next
after the worksession with the Planning Board, we submitted the application and we haven't heard anything
since. Again, I was hoping that somebody from the Planning Board had spoken to this Board.
Chairman: I spoke to one of the Planners this morning. The only difference we have at this point is that we
have new fee tidal owners. Is that correct?
Mr. Goggins: Correct.
Chairman: The square lbotage remains the same on both lots as you had done, we will refer to it as a
division'?
Mr. Goggias: Yes.
Chairman: We will ask, Mrs. Oliva, any questions'?
Member Oliva: No.
Chairman: Mrs. Tortora?
Page 32 - June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Tortora: The only comment, I am a little redicent to spell out the exact division lines of these two
parcels. It probably be better to leave that within the parivial of the Planning Board. The overall size and
demension of the lots. Is it going to change? The exact demensions, whether that line is going to end up
exactly where it is or moved 2' here or 2' there. I personal I would perfer to leave that option with the
Planning Board when they go through the subdivision process with you. That is my only thoughts.
Chairman: So we will spell out square footage, plus or minus'?
Member Tortora: We would create some leeway.
Mr. Goggins: I understand.
Chairman: Mr. Orlando?
Member Orlando: To recap this from the beginning, we went from 3 lots now we will have only 2 lots,
correct?
Mr. Goggins: Correct.
Member Orlando: No other questions.
Member Homing: No questions.
Chairman: O.K. The only issue that I have is, that we have experienced on this board some problems with
accessory buildings. I really think the only tree way to deal with that issue, is to destroy the garage. Or spell
that out within the confines of this decision. That is going to be my suggestion to the Board at this piont.
That within 6 months of the decision, that you demolish the garage. Or the change of any title from the fee
title owners now, it has already changed title once, (which I have not objection to in any way). l also want to
thank you Mr. Goggins, I realize this has been a rather ardjuous task. It has been a long haul. You have very
cooperative and we do appreciate that. Sincerely, I am saying that. There has been a lot of meetings, there
has been soxne changes in maps, there has been a whole bunch of stuffthat we have requested. That is all I
kind say.
Mr. Goggins: Thank you. We appreciate your patients that the board has had with us. This is something that
is very importm~t to the applicant. We are glad that the board has taken the time to look at this application
and proceed as it has done. We like to thank you for that.
Chaimlan: O.K. Thank You. Ms. Wicldiam?
Ms. Wickham: I would like to reiterate on behalf of the Contrells. They are the property to the north. There
opposition to the proposal. If I might with all due respect to Mr. Orlando, correct the statement. This is
currently one lot which was asked to be 3 and now it is asked to be 2. We are not going f¥om 3 lots to 2 lots.
We are going from 1 lot to 2. Our concern that in the back drop today of the towns consideration to limit
density town wide. To reduce farmland density for one segment of the populaiton to 60% of current density
at a minimum. The consideration being given now to the moritorium of proceedings which would effect
developement. While these 3 items have not yet been approved they are under heavy decusion because ora
concern about density It is against this back drop that you are being asked to approve a lot which is 22,000.
sq.ft, in area and another which is under 40,000sq.fl. Also the Suttblk County Water Authority has
am~ounced that it has in effect has a moritomm for additional public water hookups. Again, because of
concern of density. It seems somewhat enconguraous to be considering approving 2 such small lots in this
vacinity. It is not, as I pointed out previously, the only lot in the neighborhood of this size. In fact most of
the lots on the north side of Pine Tree Road are of comprable size and a number of the lots on Bittersweet
are 1.4 acres each. This is not a unique situation. I don't believe the applicant has been able to show a loss
Page 33 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
of value. The critera you have to consider is the benefit to the applicant verses the detrament to the
neighborhood. The benefit is not necessarily whether he can have 2 houses or one. It is what his value is.
We should by Mr. Stypes appraisel at the last hearing that there was not a significant differencial in value. I
still don't think he has shown that. Between 3 lots or 2 lots and 1 lot. The critera for the lot line changes
have been given lip service but again, the benefit verses the depth. I dofft think it has been compelling
shown. There is not a substancial difference between this lot and other lots in the neighborhood, in terms of
the impact on density, two big houses does have a bigger impact then one big house. Certainly, I don't
believe the applicant has shown that this is not selfcreated. I would ask that you would either defer your
decision on this application or deny it in consideration of those factors. That is our primary position. I
would like to address in the event that the board does decide that they will grant the application, that first of
all now formal decision or comment has been made from the Planning Board. It was merely a worksession
without the benefit of an application. There are 4 concerns which I have advised Mr. Goggins of this
afternoon in the event that the variance is granted. The first is we would like to request that the Board to
consider that the sideyard on the north side of the properiy be a minimum of 15' rather then the 10' that
would be allowed. The reason for that is that they do have the width between the 2 lots. The question of
whether the house that is existing there now is going to remain has never been, in nfind, firefly established.
Most specifically the house to the north of the Catrells, Peters, which is a comer lot, is only about 6 or 7'
from the side line from the Catrells because the rear of that house backs up to them. We would also like to
request that a driveway entrance, if the variance is granted, at this particular lot next to Catrell, be on the
southside of the lot. So it is in the area between the 2 . You have heard our concern about the garage and
protecting the neihbors from an accessary building without an a principal use. Storage issues, boats, that
type of thing. I won't reiterate that any further. And ~ve also ask that you consider conditions that there be no
further variances granted for this property. The owner is a builder. He can figure out what he wants to build
and how he wants to build it.
Chaim~an: In reference to #1, isn't that really an issue that the Planning Board would deal with in a building
envelope issue?
Ms. Wickham: l don't think they have the authority to condition that.
Chairman: Sure they do.
Ms. Wickham: I would feel much more comfortable if you both conditioned it.
Member Tortora: Last time I had asked you to reduce it to writing, the minimum of 15' on the north side
yard etc.
Ms. Wickham: I have that letter. I can/'ax that to you.
Chairman: Good.
Member Tortora: Have you discussed this with Mr. Goggins?
Ms. Wicldlmn: I have co~mnunicated it to him.
Member Tortora: Mr. Goggins, where are we at with all this.
Mr. Goggins: I oppose all the conditions that she is requesting. What Ms. Wickham and I totally disagree
on is that the Town Code states that lots merged to the point at which they are confurming. Here we had
three lots and any of the 2 lots set next to each other, if they merge, they become a confurming lot. That is
what we have here. We have 2 lots that merged together to make 1 lot and then you have the 3rd lot. That is
my reading of the code it states it in black and white. What Ms. Wickham is saying is there that there are 3
seperate lots and all 3 of these ~vhere merged. That is not what happened here. We have gone to...
Page 34 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Chairman: I think it is counterproductiv. I don't mean to stop you.
Mr. Goggins: I agree with you. That is where we don't agree. As far as those condition are concerned the
Town Code handles those kind of things. For them to ask now for no further variances he permitted, is like
the Planning Board saying you can't further subdivide this property. It is unlawful. It not held up by the
courts. 1 just had this conversation with attorney name Eric Bressler about that sort of thing in court 2 weeks
ago. It is unlawful to prevent somebody from further subdividing their property it is also unlawful to prevent
somebody/'rom further going to an appellate court like this is and ask for a further variance.
Member Tortora: What can we agree on. Frankly, l don't want to recess this. I would like to see this done.
Mr. Goggins: One of the things that she had asked for was that the garage be maintained and if it wasn't
maintained that it be removed. This board has already said that they are going to put a condition to remove
the garage in 6 months or upon transfer of title. So one of her 4 conditions are already being met. We are
going to loose this garage. That is more than she was requesting in the letter that she sent to be today. She is
getting a big consession right there in having us have to remove this garage. Anything else I think is
something that would be in a convenent and restriction in a subdivision and certainly not a condition you
would put on a variance.
Member Tortora: ...between an area variance in my mind and a request for a 15' side yard. I don't think that
is unreasonable. 5'. Why would we argue over 5"?
Mr. Goggins: My clients are telling me 15' would be fine.
Chairman: O.K. We have two agreements.
Mr. Goggins: 2 out of the 4.
Member Tortora: As tar as the entrance on the south side of the lot. This is an area variance. Your getting a
perk. I don't thi~k it is an unreasonable request, again.
Mr. Goggins: Well, with that request, basically this property is being bought for the future for their childred.
They are not going to sell this property. They want to keep it in their family. They dofft know where they
are going to locate the houses. It just seems unreasonable to state that you have to put the driveway here,
when they don't even know what kind of structure they are going to build. I can understand how the Catrells'
who own the property to the north who Ms. Wickham represents would be concerned about having a
driveway right on their property line, but we have already made a consession now that they are going to get
a 15' buffer along there property line. So now they want a 15' buffer and they want us to put the driveway on
the other side of the property. 1 think the 15' buffer would address any concern that they might have that the
driveway would be towards the north end of the property. So I would ask respectfully that...
Member Tortora: O.K. We have 2 yeses and one no. O.K. The Board will make a decision, l'hank you.
Ms. Wickham: We want 4 things, but he wants a 22,000 sq.fi, lot. 1 think of the driveway is on the other
side, then when they build a house it is not hard to design it to accomidate that. I think that is a reasonable
request. ! didn't say that I was happy if the garage is kept and maintained, i said that we would want
protection against a structure not being maintained. It certainly removal is the only way you can make sure
of that. I am going to leave that up to the Board.
Chairman: That is correct.
Member Orlando: What is the 4th thing.
Page 35 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Tortora: No further variances.
Ms. Wickham: Which again I think is very reasonable. There is a big difference whether you prohibited a
further subdivision which may or may not be as of right than a variance.
Mr. Goggins: I think an application to make a variance is a right that you have, if you get turned down by
the Building Department. That is your only grievence. So what you are doing is cutting off someones right
to appeal. That is unlawful.
Member Homing: I would agree.
Chairman: Let me clear that issue up right now. I have sat throught 7 specific councils that I have
communicated with during my tenure on this Board which is 22 1/2 years. The consences of them at that
time, and I haven't ask for consences from this council was that you can't use the word never. I don't know if
it is going to stand up. I will confer with council on this one Ms. Wikcham. I think that is pretty much all
you can ask of us at this point.
Ms. Wickham: Thank you.
Mr. Goggins: Thank you.
Chairnlan: No further comment I will make a motion in closing the hearing.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
9:06 p.m. - Appl. No.5068 - Glenn and Christine Dawson.
Chairman: I want to wrap this up tonight Sir as quickly as possible.
Mr. Angel: Steve Angel. Essex, Hefier and Angel for the applicants. We have had two substance of hearings
on this matter. The only thing that I have prepared for tonight was a very short letter responding to the letter
that was submitted last time by Mr. Cippetelli. Also setting forth clearly what, I think there was some
confusion as to whether we were seeking a C.O. for two single family residences or simply seeking the right
to have the cottage as an accessary. I but that in writing. Stating that we are seeking a Certificate of
Occupancy for a single family home with an accessory cottage. There is no intention to use it as a seperate
dividable seperately usable single family residence. I have prepared copies of this letter and I really have
nothing more to say than submit.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Cippitelli of course you where not given the previlage of dealing with this, so
we are going to ask you to respond in writing. Do you have anything verbal you would like to say tonight.
Mr. Cippitelli: Only that Mr. Kline, one of the neighbors that has been at the previous 2 meetings and was
unable to attend tonight, he had his daughter meet me up here and hand me a letter that he had prepared and
asked me to hand it in to the Board.
Chairman: Surely, We will take that. We would ask you for your reply within the next week or two. If there
is a reply back from Mr. Angel we get everything done. We are closing this out fur verbatim testimony as of
tonight. We will close it totally on July 11. O.K. We thank for coming down and we apologize for draging
everybody back in here. Have a lovely evening.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
Page 36 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
9:15 p.m. Appl. No. 5135. Michael and Kathy Perivolaris.
Ms. Mesiano: Thank you for accomidating me. I am here on behave of Mr. & Mrs. Perivolaris seeking
relief from the Zoning Code. They are proposing to improve an existing front porch. Which is located 24'
from the current front lot line. That distance is greater then the set back of the remainder of the structure,
which is at 22.1'. The Zoning code requires a front set back of 35'. I have photo's of the house which really
says it all. There are two photo's for you. They simply intend to enclose the present porch that is enclosed. It
does have a concrete slap.
Chairman: This is the old Gladys Nine house'? I think the lady's name was Gladys Nine, the prior owner.
Ms. Mesiano: O.K. I don't know. All I know is Mr. & Mrs. Perivolaris presently own this. They intend to
make this their primary residence. They are referbishing the house now, but they have not touched that front
comer. They have put on new siding and windows, etc. An undesirable change will not be produced in the
character of the neighborhood. No increase in density will result in the proposed action, no change to the
foot print of the house. The expansion to the or west would result in new location of the septic system
and/or the oil tank. What would be in extreme measure in light of the situation. This is the most cost-
effective and conservative means and increasing the living space without increasing a lot coverage. The
anlount of relief requested is not substantial because the proposed activity will maintain existing for your
setback of 24 feet. The proposed activity is the greatest front setback than the North West section of the
house at 21.1'. No proposed increase of lot coverage, presently at 10.32 feet. No change in the footprint or
the bulk area of the house. There will not be an adverse effect or impact on the physical or mental
conditions in the neighborhood. No increase in density or traffic. No increase in sewage proposed. No
additional mnoffwould be generated. Dry wells will be utilized as necessary. This is the minimum that is
necessary inadequate to at the same time preserves pretects the character of the neighborhood.
Chairman: This front porch is going to be made living area of the house'?
Ms. Mesiano: Yes.
Chaim~an: I just have to tell you that I failed to mention to everybody that I am a Park District
Conmfissioner in the Mattituck Park District that was established in 1941 by State Statute. This piece of
property is contiguous to the Mattituck Park District property. If anybody has any objection to my either
officiating at this hearing or to my voting on this application, I would appreciate your input at this time.
Ms. Mesiano: I have no objection.
Chairman: The Board?
The Board: No Objection.
Chaim~an: Any questions of Ms. Mesiano?
Member Tortora: What is the size of the porch now'?
Ms. Mesiano: I believe the porch now is 8 and a fraction X 13 and a fraction. Yes, 13.1 X 8.1.
Chairman: Ruth any questions?
Member Oliva: No.
Chaim~an: Vincent'?
Page 37 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Member Orlando: The concrete slab, you will be building directing on that'? You don't have to replace it, fix
it up'? It will support'?
Ms. Mesiano: He dosen't intend to pull up the concrete slab. He will probably put a false floor so as not to
be walking on the slab. I dofft believe he intends to pull up the concrete slab. That has not been expressed
to me.
Member Orlando: It was stmcturely sound enough to support the extension'?
Ms. Mesiano: He tells me it was. I am not a structural engineer. I couldn't a test to it. He tells me that he
didn't intend to pull the concrete out. Does that have a bearing on the application? If you need more
information, I can gather that.
Chairman: No, we don't go into concstruction design. What it is going to do is to disrupt the entire front
yard of the house, if you do that. I think that is one of the issues that we are trying not to do.
Ms. Mesiano: He is trying to do the least amount of impact to the exterior as well.
Member Tortora: Just as a point of reference, the building ispector had said that the existing set back 22.1
which we see on the survey. They say the new front yard setback is going to be 24. That kind of threw me
when you said that the width of that is 13...
Ms. Mesiano: The nearest point from the front of the house to the front lot line is 22.1. That would be the
northeast comer of the house. The existing porch is at 23.8 according to the survey.
Member Tortora: In other words is going to be flush with'?
Ms. Mesiano: No, he is enclosing what is there.
Member Tortora: He is not going to make it flush'?
Ms. Mesiano: No, he is enclosing what is presently under the rool}
Member Tortora: So actually it is going to be a little less 13'.
Ms. Mesiano: That was my point. The existing setback of this porch that is going to be concerted has a
greater setback then the rest of the house. I fail to see why we are here, but someone decided it was
neccessary.
Member Tortora: It would probably about 8' by maybe 12.6 or something like that rather then 13.
Ms. Mesiano: Yes you are right. I have a scale right here. Yes it is 12~.
Member Tortora: O.K.
Chairman: Does anybody else in the audience would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no
hands 1 make a motion in closing the hearing...
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
Page 38 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
9:22 p.m. Appl. No. 5072. J. CALLIS & Others (Ref. Miller Property Heron Sculpture).
Mr. Angel: For the record Steven Angel. Esseks, Hefter and Angel for the applicants, Dr. Jerry Callis and
others. This particular hearing involving the Heron sculpture was in my opinion eared fairly extensively
when we appeared here in March. 1 sent you a fairly detailed letter of our positions which was requested by
the board on June 6th. Mr. Amoff responded to that letter just recently. I thi~k in a letter dated June 14th. 1
don't want to repeat any of my arguments. I have a couple of comments of Mr. Amoff said in his letter. I
think the most important one is that he states I think in the second paragraph of his letter, that some sort of
presumption of regularity legally attaches to a determination of the building inspector. ! do believe it as a
matter of law that that is correct. 1 think that under 267 a & b of the Town Law you have complete appellate
jurisdiction to make the deternfination. The case law which I did not prepare for tonight, though I would be
pleased to submit it to you if you want it.
Chairman: Please.
Mr. Angel: You have the right to look at that particular determination date ... in other words as if it didn't
exist. You look at it on your own. I don't think that there is any presumption of regularity, a presumption of
regularity attaches to a legislative act. Like the Town Board. It certainly doesn't attach to C.O. and Building
Permit in this case. You have the statutory right to review it under 267 2 a & b of the Town Law. The other
technical matter that I want to bring to your attention, is that Mr. Amoff on the second page of his letter
talks about the definition contained in the dictionary that is at issue. He mentioned that there is a definition
though it was marked as obsolete. If you look at those documents that we submitted last time regarding the
meaning of obsolete. It means that it hasn't been used. The particular definition has not been used since
1755. There is no realistic possibility of that definition being used today. So when they say in the dictionary
that it is an obsolete definition, I think they really mean it. It hasn't been used. I really have no more to say.
I think was in our presentation last time and in the extensive letter by wrote you on June 6th. I will be
pleased to answer any questions and perhaps after Mr. Amoff is finished, I may want to rebut or comment
on something he said and 1 hope you will allow me to do that. Thank you.
Chairman: Surely.
Mr. Arnoff: I decided to leave my 45 page outline back in the office. There are standards of review which I
think the courts have set up. You must look at whether or not the initial determination from the Building
Department is arbitrary and capricious. Whether it was something that this board, although it has
jurisdiction to review local return. Presumption of regularity is that he did it right. Unless he acted in an
arbitrary capricious manner, what basis to you have to review. You don't like it. I don't think that is a
standard of review that we should apply certainly in Southold. The dictionary definition is kind of
interesting. Obsolete doesn't mean anything other than it has fallen into disuse. It doesn't mean that the
term doesn't mean what the dictionary said it says. It doesn't say that definition is no good anymore. [t
merely means that it has fallen into disuse as far as in common parts. Let's not be mistaken. It is there. The
Building Inspector used it. I think that rule doesn't stand wrong. Mr. Angel in his letter to you stressed that
we don't fit within the third definition. Something that by surveying represents or testifies that greatness or
achievements and then the letters esp of an individual or the name. Let's examine that. It doesn't mean just
an individual or a name, it means especial them. Can it refer to other things such as the preservation of the
bays? Yes it can. It is not an exclusionary definition, by any stretch of anybodies imagination. Isn't a lasting
reminder of something notable or great? Mr. Miller I think wants to address the Board on one more
occasion here tonight and I think Roberto the sculpture does as well and their comments will be brief. I
think they will be to the point on this very issue. The customary and incidental argument which was raised,
a site I also have to address. Mr. Angel is correct. I said that a 37' high line is not customary. But are
monuments customary? If the Board finds that monuments are customary, then you must take the quantum
leap that the statute provides, that the height requirements do not apply. It is interesting to Mr. Angel uses
parallel comment about 20 car garage and how that is not customary but garages are. It is the same
Page 39 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
argument. If that language was not in the code that exempted height requirements from monuments, and
that 20 car garage argument applies. But ladies and gentlemen it doesn't apply. Because if you take out that
issue, then this board has to decide the other issue. Are monuments customary? And we know that they are.
There are statues, their monuments on properties throughout the town. They may be 2' high, they may be 6'
high, they may be of varying heights. Our code for some reason, 1 don't know the genesis of this particular
element of the code or they particularly exempted heights, but they did. No board has chosen to change that
I might add since we started this. The code can't give-and-take away. Whether it is an accessory structure
or not and whether or not there are maximum height requirements to accessory structures, the exemption
that is applicable to monuments applies to section 100. All of 100. Not just part of it. One other issue and I
will be quite brief.
Chairman: I need some requests from you also before you leave us. I need another look at the bird, a look at
the structure prior to making a decision. I think what we will do tonight just to hold up one second, I don't
want you to loose your train of thought, is to again close this hopefully tonight to verbatim testimony and
then close it for anything either attorney wants to submit on the next two weeks so we have it by July 1 lth.
O.K.?
Mr. ArnofI~ The Board is welcome at anytime.
Chairman: Mr. and Mrs. Miller were very gracious to us last time.
Mr. Amoff: I think Ms. Tortora brought up the issue of collateral stock or had some questions of me about
it. And in this instance Justice ... was required to determined one issue and one issue only. Was this a
structure that required a building permit? He made that determination. Everything else he says it is not the
law of the case. It is not something from which we can spill over and say we are collaterally stopped from
doing anything. He said and he never made the determination of the monument exemptions didn't apply.
There was nothing else in there. Whether he was leaning one direction or not, does not dispose of any issues
of this Board. The things that we have to think about are this, Mr. Miller litigated vigorous his right to have
this burden on his property, this monument. During the course of the litigation, which took quite a bit of
time and effort, a final determination was made against him. So what he did he do? He did what any citizen
of this town would do under similar circumstances. A he was compelled to remove the quote offending
structure. He did. He didn't leave it there he took it and went Greenport where we all know it rested on the
dock for quite some time. Then he came to town with plans and went to the building department where he is
supposed to go. He said here are my plans, here is the court decision. The court said I have to come to you
for building permit. The very first time I believe in the state of New York that anybody ever got a building
permit per statute. 1 found no other records any~vhere. He came here and he said building permit. He got a
certificate of occupancy a few days later, because unlike a house in this didn't require any kind of extensive
actions by them. And he built it if you wish to refer to it, the heron and strict conformity with the building
permit. As the gong was striking 12, D. Callis came in and flied an objection. Are we now going to have
Mr. Miller remove this again? I submit that he is entitled to have this board say enough is enough, he is
done what he supposed to do any is entitled to have this monument rest on his property. Thank you.
Chairman: We need to get from you Mr. Amoff, basically 2 or 3 things. I need the real height of the
structure as it exists right now from the base to the top of the structure.
Mr. Amoff: From the bottom of the base or the top of the base'?
Chairman: From the base which includes that base. I don't care about the power pit that it is sitting on but
from that base. The depth of the base to the top of the structure. I also need the to know the height of the hill
that is in back of the structure. Of course on the Sound we call that bluff so on the bay we are going to call it
the hill. The approximate distance that this structure sits from, on the sound we call it the toe of the hill. On
the bay we will call it the base of the hill. That is what I need to know. After receiving that, I don't care if
you use a laser as long as it is within a couple of inches.
Page 40 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
Mr. Arnoff: That is my question, do you want us to get a surveyor.
Chairman: No. I don't spend a lot of money. Just use a laser and get an approximate height. After I receive
that I just need to come back and review that for about a half hour or so.
Mr. Arnoffi l can get that in about a week and have that delivered to Ms. Kowalski.
Chaim~an: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Angel anything further on this or would you like to wait for any other
comments?
Mr. Angel: 1 would like to wait. I have nothing pertinent to say this point.
Chairman: Any comment from anyone on the left hand side of the room.
Mr. Miller: Yes. I got some photo's here I would like you to take a look at. These are some photo's of my
complaining neighbors properties. They have some accessory structures on their properties that certainly
exceeding the 18' restriction. Some 35' high. One as high as 50'. There are accessory structures on their
property certainly. I believe that they are exempt from the height restriction as the town code writes.., and
monuments are all exempt from the height restriction under the building code. They are exempt from the
very same sentence that has monuments exempt. I believe it is appropriate. I also would like to make an
observation at the section of the town code that pertains residential property and writes about the exclusions
for exemptions, the height, are all about residential properties. It directly mentions that monuments are
exempt. Certainly the fight is of the town code to believe that monuments are a usual in customary use in a
residential zone. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't of had that in a residential building code.
Therefore I appreciated if you review this and maintained the building permit any certificate of occupancy
has issued.
Chairman: Thank you sir. Anybody else from our left hand side'? Anybody in the center. Sir.
Roberto Bessin. (handed in 6 copies) As the creator of the heron I would like to help the Board understand
why the heron was erected here in Southold and why it is most appropriately characterized as a monument.
There is no doubt in my mind that the heron stands on the shores of Peconic Bay as an on going monument
to the resources to the area. While the Peconic Bay remains beautiful, we all know that it is at risk. Pollution
and overuse have degraded Peconic Bay resources. The heron honors past and on going efforts by
individuals and organized groups to conserve and preserve our natural resources. Through such support the
Peconic Bay is making a come back. The United State Environmental Protection Agency has singled out the
Peconic Bay system as a nationally protected marine sanctuary. To recognize this achievement and related
events, we dedicated the heron as a monument quote to the conservation and preservation of the fine bays,
tidal wetlands and wild life in the Peconic Bay system. I have included a copy of the dedication ceremony
for each of you. In the packet you will see that after the 2 page testimony I provided you with. In deed
characterization of the heron as a monument, is consistent with my work as a whole. Making monuments is
part of what I do for a living. It constitutes the bulk of what I am truly proud ot~ Proud to have
accomplished in my professional lifetime. Some 50 tons of art work. For example, if you look at the photo's
after the dedication information. You will see a white tailed eagle monument that commemorates the
founding of the Chamber of Conm~erce in Shari, Japan. The other photo at the end of the packet, is of an 18'
Jared Falcon erected in Okyto, Japan as a tribute to nature. Most recently I have been creating a 7 ton 40'
tall bronze and steel osprey monument that will erected in Greenport here on Monday. I don't believe that
any of you could have missed some of the publicity about that. The Osprey will stand permanently on steel
beams that were removed from tragic ruins of the World Trade Center. I have chosen an Osprey for the
Greenport location because the Osprey like Peconic Bay were endangered and through huuran efforts are
now making a come back. Characterizing the Osprey and Heron as monuments are legal arguments
challenging zoning restrictions, but a tribute to past, present and future conservation and preservation
Page 41 June 20, 2002 Hearing Transcripts
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Prepared by Jill Thorp, Transcriber
efforts. Both the Osprey and Heron are monuments to Peconic Bay. They truly represent hope for Peconic
Bay. Thank you so much for your time.
Chairman: Thank you sir. Anybody else on my right wishing to speak. Seeing no hands over here.
Mark Miller. Just a quick conunent. Mr. Angel's comment about the term being obsolete and not being
used since 178 whatever. The Statue of Liberty is certainly a national monument and that is a term that is
used every single day people go and visit that. The fact that the term is obsolete certainly doesn't mean that
anyone in this room will not declare that statue as a monument. That is being currently used every single
day. 1 think that trying to characterize it as a word that doesn't make any sense to anyone that is not used, is
really false.
Chaim~an: Anyone else. No. Mr. Angel.
Mr. Angel: I have no ( ) comments. All I would like to do is, I haven't seen those photo's of my clients
property. If I could... I don't think that we can deal with them realistically in the context if this hearing. I
would be willing if necessary to look at them and make what ever comments I want to make in writing so
you have them by the 1 lth. The connection with the submissions that you asked for Mr. Goehringer, if they
could be done within as they said within a few days, l could look at them when I examine the file and I will
comment on those as necessary.
Chairman: Submissions that I am requesting'?
Mr. )a~gel: Yes, 1 want to see what those numbers are. l reserve the right to review those.
Chairman: Of course. No problem
Mr. Angel: That is it. l have nothing else.
Chairman: We would like to thank everybody courtesy at this hearing and I am going to put forth a
resolution to closing the hearing to verbatim testimony. If anybody has any written testimony, they have
until approximately until 7:15 pm on July 1 l th.
SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
***
End of Public hearings.
Respectfully submitted by
Jill Doherty
Prepared from ZBA tape recordings of hearings.