Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/20/2003 HEAR SOUTI~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD FEBRUARY 20, 2~)03 (Prepared by Jess/ca Boger) Presant were: Chaitwvoman Lydia A. Tortora Member Gerard P. Goehringer Member George Horuing Member Ruth D. Oliva Board Secretary Linda Kowalski Absent:. ~" ' Member Vincent Orlando PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9:41 am NOD 5243 -- RORY and JENNIE FORRESTAL. This is a request for a Variance zmder Section 100-244B, based on the October 2~ 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended December 9, 2002, regarding a proposed second-story and porch addition to the existing dwelling. The basis of the Notice of Disapprovai is that the additions arxd alterations will not meet the code requirement for a side yard total of 35 feet, or the minimum 15 ft. side mirgmum. Location of Property: 1065 Saltaire Way, Mattirack; Parcel 100-i-23. CHAIRWOMAN: We are sorry to be running a little late here but we had a cancellation that kind of bumped everytb2ng off a little bit. Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Seeing no hands Pd like to offer the board a resolution to consider Cae applicant's February l0th request to adjourn the heating until April 3rd. All in favor? 9:42 am NOD 5192 -- DAVID BELL AND RICHARD BUCKHEIT. This is a request for a Variance m~der Section I00-244, based on the Building Department's June 6, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose a deck addition at the rear of the existing dwelling with a single side yard of less than 10 feet, and minimum total side yards of less than 25 fee~. 1375 island View Lane, Greenport; Parcel 57-2-14. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? DAVID BELL: I'm David Bell. I bought this house 3 years ago in Greenport and at the time I looked at the house and up until t~'~e day bethre the closing the house had a deck that went along the whole length of the back of the house. Tt~e day of the closing an attorney called me and said you can't close on this because only half the deck is legal so they said we are tearing down the whole deck and I said don't do that cas~'t we just do half of it the half tb~at's illegal. They sa~d no we have to tear the whole th/rig down. Southold ¥ow~ Bos~dofAppea~s Regu!ar Meetin9 Pub[io CHAIRWOMAN: ~is is tlqe owner? MR. BELL: The attorney for the owner, i ssZd I1! go a~nd tear it down myself so it's whldn code, Ti~ey said I couldn't bec~ase ofinsur~mce. ~ay to m~ke a long sro:7 shot: i went out th~e tore it down-~en I tore it down there were Frenc!z doors that opened up onto p~ o~fize deck that was missing and pa~ oftl~e deck that was open. So we st~ed the process ro legalize the deck then and it's been almost 2 ~ ye~s. I had tc go ~o t~e T~astees. to the DEC. the a~y core offen~ne~s, then I w~2 to the Building Dept. ~d said I'm ready m~d ffhey said no you're :_ot_ you need to go to tlne Zoning Board. Beffore ail of'aMs I went to ~_ agen: ro see if they could do all of this because I'm not a builder, I don't ~ow all this stufff mhd it was almost bla~ail to ge: somebody do fihat and it was almost $4.000 to have somdbody ~o the pe~itting for me ~nd sa:d I can't do that so ~ sta~ed the process myself m%d tl~e way ths~- mhd ~ don't mean to landbast you or ~ybcdy around here but the way the agencies work together has been vow difficult as someone w~_o doesn't ~_ow the process becazse ~ was ready to b~ld that. It was S¢stember tb5s year ! was going to the building pe~it I had eve~hlng ready to go and they said no you need to gc ro the zoning bo~d smd it mi¢_t be because I don't kaow tk_e vaxfiances and the laws need to F_appen but as a tax payer md somebody who just lives fn the co~)~ it's a vow difficult ->rocess :o ge': this done ~d les been 2 ~A ye~ now. CHAIRWOMAN: I'~ so:~ it's been 2 ~ years mhd lees just get a cle~ record of-~ns~'s happemng, it's my underst~_ding mhd you;ust stop me an~here along the line the fox. nar deck was located 5' from the east property line tBat is gone~ MX. BELL: Go~e. Or. S%stember 2~s ¢_e new deck was completed. CHARWOMAN: Now we have an "as built" deck. T~ere was no CO fen tleat it. Tl~is is the deck on the east side but that ~s tl~e deck tlzat was tlzere was no CO 7or that whiz you purchased it. The other deck which co~.ects to it on the west side is the legal decla : ~< we m'e getfin~ somewhere, Let's ke~ going along so the deck on ~:e west side fize legal dec!< is set 3.5' from the side prope~ line and there is a CO on it. MR, BELL: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: We are going to say ~t's m~ as bu~it deck at this point. Lees tW to firm up some other nmnbers. We have a setback 5' on the east prop~¢ Line mhd 3.5 on the west so that would give us a totsl side y~d of 5 and 3 is 8.5 Yhat's what we need to fi~ up, I'm going co see if the board members have ~y ~;;ner suesfions or any questions. Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORN~G: Could you go into a lhtie more detail as ro you submitted a photo.apb with your application there were some pilings there minus that poe:fort of the deck and now tizere is ~other deck there. How did fi:at M1 tmke place? Was there a deck ofi~nahy on ~ose FiEngs~ Page 2 of 63 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. BELL: Yes I had to tea~ it down be£ore the closing, qJ~e deck was one long piece with 4 pilings right before the closing I had to go cut off the deck and there were 2 pilings that were that I just left there. MEMBER HORNING: And you did this last September. MR. BELL: That was 2 ½ years ago. MEMBER HORNING: 2 ½ years ago you took that deck off, lef~ the pilings and then this past September you re-established the deck there without a permit. Why?. MR. BELL: Partly out of frastration also because I have 2 doors on the back of the house that I couldn't even use because they opened up to a 4' drop off the back of the house. MEMBER HORNING: You could have put a temporary stairwell or something. I was just cmbous how it got build again. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: Normally i£the house Mr. Bell didn't extend out to that point I would not be so inclined to grant this application because of the fact that I think 5' is a little fight to get to your rear yard but I guess the neighbors all get along down there and somewhere along the line you'll have to use somebody else's. MR. BELL: Actually my neighbors were telling me as ][ was tearing it down they kept telling me just build it back up no one will ever know and I said we are just trying to go rE, rough the right process. One other thing is this deck that I had to tear down had been there since at least 19d7, but I could~Jt find aerial photos to go back that far but we did have not documentation but we had the neighbors that lived there that long and had been there since 1967 but I couldn't find anything that documented that said that except my neighbor said he bought his house in 19d7 and it was there then. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: You have no intentions of enclosing this deck in any way? MR. BELL: No, it's going to remain open. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In that respect I have no further questions. MEMBER OLIVA: You have the whole deck the across the whole way or just half the deck? MR. BELL: Now it's the whole back of the house. CHAIRWOMAN: Did you replace the part that was illegal did you marry that or is all new? MR. BELL: The whole thing has been replaced but it's been replaced in the footprints of the old plus the new part that I'm applying for. Page 3 of 63 ?age 4 Southold Tow~ Board of Appeals ~eCu[sr ~eet:~9 Pubf~o HesS% CXAIRWOMAN: ~:at was the s~ze of tlxe foyer deck do you happy2 to l~ow? MR. BELL: it m~g5t be on tITe sneer. CHAIRWO~AN: I ac~ally d~d ~ook. I cou~&~'t get 2~e foo:~ge o~fcfthere. The west side · _e deck is the pa~ that was legal V¢ha~ was tee wid'& ofh~e one teat d;~&~'t h~ve the CO? don'* M:ow. If you could just give us teat ~eas'arement wo'~id it be possible to do teat wi25n next t 0 days? MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Do yon wasa tee e;evation of it? ChEA~WOMAN: I5you do that's ~ne Je~. MEMBER GOEHR~'GER: It's about 48" hi~h. MR. BELL: ZCs not that hie. 2 depends on where rouge st~dng, On the ez. st side 2 5%2~t 5? but at ~e othe: ~td it's only- CHA~WO~¢~N: ~fyot~ co=id get ~Eat othgc infmmation. 2 doesn't have to be ~i~Et th~s ~25nute but if you could get ~hat info~atio2 so when we address ?l~is we ae gcmg ro say pe~ssxon realace m XYZ size deck. is khere ~yone else i2 the audi¢2ce who wou}d Eke to speC& for against the application? Seeing no hands. FEi make a motion closing tee heazdng resmwEng dec~sion, pending the %gpEcaEzs providing us abe size of tine re~laced as bdit deck. 10: l 0am - BELL CONT. MR. BELL: The additional deck is 8x12'. I had it on one of iEe other plaz, s. CHATRWOMAN: He has confi~ed the deck without d*,e CO is 8xi2L %Crank you yeW muclz. PLEASE SEE ~WJTES FOR RESOUoW~ON Pa~qe 4 of 63 FebrUary 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 9:55 am No. 527;l - A. ~nd B. DWORKOW~TZ: This is a request for a Variance und~ Section 100-244B, based on the Building Deparl-ment's October 28, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for a total side yard setback of 22.9'. Applicants propose construction of additions and alterations to an existing dwelling. Location of Property: 4225 Peq~msh Ave., Cutcho~e; P~ce] 1000-13% 2-~7. CHARWOMAN: ls someone here who would like to spe~ on behalf of the application? ALAN DWO~O~TZ: We've owned this house for 15 ye~s. It's a modest house not too l~ge about 20x40' m~d we'd like to m~e ~ addition in fi~e back. We ~e appl~ng for a v~ce to continue the line of~e ~ouse on ~e s~de. We~d also ~ike m get a v~ce for ~he police in the ~ont which ~s about 2'. CHA~WO~N: I*m just refermcing ~e Notice ofDisapprova~ ~ need to do ~at because maybe ~¢s ~ oversi~t but ~'m not sure. That was not noticed in ¢~e NOD. Is ~hat someLh~g you added a~er you presented yo'~ p~s to t~e Build~ng Dept.? MR. DWO~O~Z: No~ ~ ~ iCs in yo~ ~p~es. CHAIRWO~N: Qu~te honesdy ~e BD d~d not find ~y fault wi~ that to us. We c~'t ad,ess that. That's not to say they won't ~n the ~t~e but for yo~ own ~nfo~ation. ~e addition, what you ~e replacing, was a fo~er deck. MR. DWO~OWITZ: No, the addition is fi~t next to the deck. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm talki~g about on ~e east s~de where you have existing proposed porch. MR~ DWO~OWITZ: That's already thee. MEMBER OLWA: You just w~t to ~close ¢~at and m~e a room out of it ~ ~ und~stood your pI~s, co~ect? MR. DWORKOWITZ: No ~at's already enclosed. MEMBER OLIVA: I ~ow ~t's enclosed, bu~ I'm saying ~ th~ you ~e going to m~e a k~tchen or something in there? MR. DWORKOWiTZ: No~ les already like a den. CHAIRWOMAN: So that's what we are see~g on the su~ey ex~sting ~closed porc~ is an ex,stag ~mng room ~d den mud ~e setback on ~at is 10.4 is ~at co~ect? ~. DWO~OWITZ: Yes. Page 5 of 63 Page 8 7ebrua~, 20, Southo[d Town Board of Appeals Regular Mee?,ng ~t~b[ic Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Now on the west side flint proposed sddition that's for t~e mast~ bedroom? MR. DWORKOWITZ: Yes. C~/A~RWOM~h And les a i-sto:~ add~tlon and I have according -co your p~ans con5~ this for me that it's 20.3"x20' and ~t's one-stow. MR. DWO~OWiTZ: Yes. that's ~t. C~AIRWOMAN: ~e ex~sting setbacl< of¢~e house which you a~e going to continue against on the west side you have ~ exisdz:g setback of ;2.2' 5eca~;se the prope:~ ~s ~gled even Gou~ you will be following ihe line of~Ae house that% going to We you. the :new sefback of 11.9L Have we got a21 the facis here? MR. DWO~OW;TZ: Yes. MEMBER OLIVA: ~ was dow~a d~ere a::d looked at it s:_d didn't see aW probit_ w~t;: ~t ar:d you're more or less in compliance wi~h the res~ of ti~e houses on ~at block MR. DWOR;(OW;TZ: ~:: fact the nei~5or ro Ge west. h~s housc is set back about 75-80' we imve a letler from l~:ca sayhxg ~e addi~io;~ wou~d be MEMBER HORN~G: No questions. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Mr. Dworkowhtz ~ ~us: wa:r you to be pup on :mtice that Z would not be in favor of ~y Pmlhe:' reductions afro: t[ae coasfmcho:c of t]az;: ~o%her:y proper%y -which was I ~ess noahwestedy prope~7 tine becsmse of~e need at :Shes to ge': ~:~to yonr rear yard aea possibly wit;a heavier co~strac2on so in t:~is p~cul~z case it's r_o probit, you're line with the house, but ~ just :55~ you have steps o:: ~.~.e opposite s~de mad yo;; [:ave 10W but th~ we a'e geildng to that red;~.cdoa sit%:adoa ~1¢:e ! th2~ yo*~ ~eed ~o ke~ '~ose ;ines opex on a: least tha~ side of :;~e hoL:se. MR. DWORKOWITZ: This deinitelywould be it. CI~AIRWOMAN: ~ ]asr wanted to clear o:~e thing ~.p because it did say the s~Lwey shows porc;~ ~d the pla~s show an existiaf din:_ng room and den and there's s. lso ta]ks about demolishing ~hat has that already beep_ dot;e? MR. DWORKOWrTZ: No that wor;idn't be demolished at all_ that's actually pa~x of the house. It was odgin~]y a ca~po~ when they 5rst built it in the 5O's. Then t;~ey enclosed ~t and we bouet ~t as it was enciosed. CHAIRWOMAN: And you put the den ~. DWORKOWITZ: No ~t was already there. Page 6 of 63 Page 7 ; February 2O, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: There was no plans to demolish any part of that. As far as the total side yards, if you're going to have 11.9 on the west and 10.4 on the east, what would our total side yards be? ICs 22.3, not 22.9 as the NOD states. Just want to confirm that. I agree with ~¢~r. Goehfinger that we would not like to see any farther redu~Z~ns on that side or any further reductions in temps ofbdngSng the side yards in and just to make it very clear, we are approving a 1-story addition in that area. If you decide you want a 2-story addition then you would be required to come back to us and seek additional relief. MR. DWORKOWtTZ: This is all we can afford, this is all we'd tike to do. This is it. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, I'1t make a motion closing the hearing reserving decis4on until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 7 of 63 Page 8 Februaw 28, 2083 Southo[d Town Board of Appeals Reoular Meeting Public Hearing 18:05 am Noo 5269 - 7OSEP~ BASANI. T~is is a request for a Va~r~*:ce m~der Section 30A.3_ based on tee BriC,ding Depa~ment's November ~ 3. 2002 No~¢ce ofD(sapprovaL amendeE November 15.2002. The bas~s o~the Not!ce of D~sapprova[ ~s tb~t add¢tLo~s ~%d akera:~o~s ~*e proposed ~rlch de.~xor meet tle m~n~m~m froot setback of 50 ~ee~. Lcca~o:x ofProp~: :572 Roc;<y Point Road_ E&st M~don: Parce~ ~ 000-31-2-~0.2. CHARWOMAN: ~s someone ;~e wEo wou~ 5ke to spe~ a: be;~¢~7 of :he JOSEPH BASANI: Good mom{ng, ;'m Jos~z B~sa=L lye o~m. ed t~.e prope~ s~nce }995- ~gPd. It was ~ ~ccesscw s~cct~re flat ~'ve cor~v~ed to a si:_g~e fa~2iy dwe~2ng. My f~w_i~y has increased ~:~ size so we dec, deE, we needed to put ~ addition on. Now bec~ase conditions aro'~nd the bents we feat that building in an easterly direction was tl~e way -re go so r~y wi¢e ard i desi~.ed ~ls addition ourselves we ca~led tine Building D~t. aad~ asked for a yard se;uack ~ey told us 5OL We des~ed it 52' back ~om o,:z prop~ line ~d aXer we go~: o-~ AmMngs s, pproved by mn en~nee: we fcu:;d out K:ere's a ROW on :5_e proF zr~ [ slou;d have bem~ ~om the ROW Now we abeady ~ncm%ed dnese costs sc we fe~t comfc:t~;b~e w~t5 s~ze ofdqe additlon to be tle m~nimum d~st we reculre ~or adequate be&moms for the ~:_5}dre:~ we K3ouot we wox~d ~ ~o go ~ead ~t;~ t[~e adordon ~ &m~ ~d see 57~5~e was my problems w~*h CHAXRWOMAN: The ROW wou~d bdng 5t we ~e }ook~ng a: a 24' ROe- com'ec:? MR. BASAN~: ;t's a 24' ROW w}:ich is ~ by-road t;~at ! live CHAIRWOMAN: %nat's about d' into yo~propexy }i~e? MR. BASAN;: There's an addi~iona~ d' ~n~c~ m~<es it a 30' ROW overall CrEA~WOMAN: ~xe BD me~s,~ed ~t ~om t~e ROW m~er ~:a~ your proper~ ib~e so you des~ed i~ ar 52' it caxme in d' sb_o:1 M~ck ~ocks k dow~ (o 4d is t::at tle ~ong and s;~o~: MR. BASANI: Now the 4' I'm encroaching I'd ~ke to say that 2' of~ is cl~mney space so it's only 2' ofliv~ng s~ece mhd since los 2 stories. Ws abou_t 88 se ~. oT~ivixg space we are CHAIRWOMAN: The size of the addition on your plmns l ~ave tke surwey says 24x22. t;:e say25.gx22. Sl:ou~d we go MR. BASANI: 24x22 is the Guxd~don. The 25.8 is to the o'atside oft~e ck2;~:ey. 25.8 becomes 4d' ~om tle ROW. CHARWOMAN: We skou]d tM<e the 25% Z don't Nave a~y questions. 2 appears this is ~paved ROW ~2~: comes off of tB.e e~ s~de of RoExy ?o~n: Road ~d b~s p~,or approwE 5-om Page 8 of 63 February 20, 2003 Southold ToWn Board of APpeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the Zoning Board o£Appeals for access. The property across the street from the ROW on the west is owned by SCWA. MR. BASANI: The east side of the property is 35 acres SCWA. CHAIRWOMAN: les all open fight now. MR. BASANI: They are currently sm'vicing I believe Or[ant and East Marion ~rom the wells in existence right now. MEMBER GOEHR~rNGER: The 6' ROW, what is that for actually? MR. BASANI: I don't know what it's for. I asked the surveyor I was down at Pecoiffc Surveyors I was talking to Jvtm I said what is tiffs for. The only thing they could tell me was tTaat if that road was ever paved I guess a d' ROW on my property would be for sidewalk or utilities or I don't really know what it would be for. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We see these all the time, unfortunately it cropped up on yeu. I have no objection. MEMBER HORNING: I have no objections or questions. MEMBER OL1VA: I went to look at it and I did not see a big problem with it aud with that extra d' you are really stuck. CHAiRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the heating reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MtN~i'ES FOR RESOLUTION Page 9 of 63 Sou~hoJd Tow~ Baard o?' Appeals Re~uiar Mee~]~ P~Nic Hearin~ l~O:l@ am Nm 5270 - PAUL DAYxS. TrJs is a request for a Vai~se umc~ Se~m~ 100-3¢A.3 based on the Building Depa~.enfs October 2. 2002_ Noice of DisapprovM amended October ~ ~'00-48-2-3 :, 28. 2002 for a proposed a :educt~on in lot area of Lot ~ ~ ' !8.557 sq. fl. mhd_ p~rmposed _~educt~on_ ~ ~'n ..... ,~ depth,= ~' ~om 159.97 fee?~ 174.97 feet The remMning Lo~ ~000-48-2-33 will ~ncrease in m~ea ~om 5,625 sc. 2~ mcrease in width fi'om 5( feet to 65 feet Location ofPropeny: ~025 Ninth Street and 235 Limnet? St.. Greenpor: CHAIRWO~N: Mr. Daws h~s asxec ~o, ~ ,.cjo~m~e:~: to Apn2 3 ~;e :sm the Frocess of getting penmiss2on ~om the propmzy owners 'm merge 2 ]ors ~_c: then modess o~ ~=a., =e sMt~d ~h~ ~zai ready re:iff April 3ra a~ 6:50. Pm going ~o gmq~ ~e ap~xcams ~eq~es~ ~o a~o'~ this being until 6:5~m April 3. I1@:3~ am N®. 5273 - AMELIA° MEND©ZA. Th{s is a request for a Vmimnce ~mnder Section i 00=3 lA.i. based on ~e Bu{idng Dep~epX s Nov~b~ ~ zO02 Noice or D~s~o~rcvaL bas~s o~ ~e No,:ce of D~sapprova. ~s Aat the ¢roposee accessou bmlmng ~s des~ for hzbitable living ~ea in addhion m ~3~e existing pfindpM dwelling~ ~d that only one dwelling is pe~med on a mr. Location: 38015 M~n Rd., Orient: Pmrce~ 15-2-15.R CHARWOMAN: Is someone here who ~ be__a!~ of ~ ap~Lcaam~. seeing ne hands N! censid~ {he appHcg~?s Febmml reques'r to a~e'm~ the he~{ng 3rd a~ 7pm, Page 10 of63 Page 11 February 20, 2003 Southold Tow/} Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 19:31 am No. 5275 - NANCY IANNONE AND ttELEN MARSHUT, LIFE TENANTS. This is a request for a Special Exception for an Accessory Apartment nnder Section 100-31B(13) in conjunction with the owner/applicant's residence in the ex/sting single-family dwelling located at 19105 Seu~g, view Avenue, Southoid; Parcel CHA][RWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? ARTHUR ZALESKI: My name is Arthur Zaleski and I live at 19215 Soundview Ave. and east my property-Ss east of Marshut. I have received a notice here that she wants to have an accessory apamnent. Now that accessory apartment in 1984 was a garage and Mr. Mm:shut at that time he changed the garage to a room and fight after that Mr. Marshut passed away and Mrs. Marshut and their daughter Nancy have been living there since. Then I received a letter from her council Patricia Moore and she states that they want to have it converted to an accessory apartment and she also states in her letter that they are 2 older people and they are having their problems and this and that. Well as far as that goes w/th older people I'm a step away from 90 and my wife just got through a very bad spinal operation so we have our problems too if Patficia Moore wanted to work that angle. Why are we against it? In that entire strip Soundview Ave. from Horton's Poker Iighthouse to 48 there is not one accessory apartment. These are all individual homeowners, they all have their own driveways. Never a car is parked on the road. Marshut is a very short driveway if that was ever occupied as an apartment where the people would park the cars I don't know. On the west side of Marshut the neighbor Condoms owns the property his wife called me up and incidentally Mr. Condoms is paralyzed and he's in a wheelchair and she told me that she was unable to make the meeting because of the fact that he gets at this state around this morning time he gets a special medical procedure so I totd her exactly that the Town Board would like some kind of response from her a letter and I believe she faxed in. On the west of me is Mr. Rook. He's a NYC lawyer and has his own staffand all and he called me about it and he says to me Artie you go ahead and you cam have rr_y proxy. He says a proxy is no good. I says you have to send a letter or something else to the town board. I said this doesn't work here the proxy so I betieve he sent you a fax letter. I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN: He did. We have that in the record. MR. ZtEL1NSKI: What we are concerned about is a case like I'm a resident here for 36 years. 25/26 years ago when I come out of the navy we built our home and we love it there if we open that up we don't want this to happen here that happened in Southampton when they get these here summer groups that rent out a room and they raise holy hell and I think it wouId degrade an area and beside Mr. Roth who is east of me he just finished he bought 300' of waterfront property opposite Chszdonnay Estates and he built a palatial home beautifal grounds and I think anything like that would interfere with the pleasant mode of Iiving we have. I know maybe Nancy and her mother Helen has the problem financially we all have it we are all struggling, r'm on a one crummy navy pension and I'm struggling along but I could turn around my garage is a double garage I could convert that easily it's all insulated because the town hall when I was building my home was witl/ng to let me store the stuff in there and spend my weekends there at the time 27 years ago. But the point is we could do it too, that's a problem we all have but we are agaLnst it Pagellof63 Fa}~rua~y 28. 208,3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Reguiar Meeting Public Hearing because of the fact that we thir2~ it would down~ade the prope~y ~d ~t would cause a crob~em wif~ smsa%er people coming here especially these yomug r~zks from the city that re~Iy rMse hel~ over ~n Southampton a~d th~s would be an ~deal sp or because ~t's ~5~t on the w~ter and t!nat's our problem so folks I hope you give it some real good thought because we a-e you proud of smp~ c~x property and:~ze a'e veu proud of the siraadon we have in go~z;:hold tho:- you ~e ~ng to maintain a hi~ sta~dad. CHARWOMAN-: Mr. ZMesk~ we appreciam yom' co~ents. ~ere are questions that we dc need tc ask the apphcan': [ have some notes ~t h~e and one offi~em is pa:king so thor :s one of~e concerns ~ have. We also have questions about the CO issued ~fior re 1984. The applic~:¢s a~rmmey is not here avMlgMe today m aaswm~ those cuesdors so it mai<es it !rind cf difficult ~cr boff of us. A 5trio backy-ound here accesso~ apart:ems eze p~itted by S~ecfal Exception that is why they a'e before our bo~d if they mee. a whole set of cfite5a and tine criteria is quite extensive ~d those are the criteria we ae going m ad&ess including yo~ concerns which ~e ve~7 valid. Tze applicant has requested yestm-day requested float we leave 'chis headxg open and the bond wfli consider that. Y~gn'r now i'd like to hoax some co:~en:s ~om the bond members ~ER HOPcN~G: Cm we r~est a be~m~ su~ey? CHARWOMAN: ThaOs one of2he :~iugs. ~ do not have a p~ng plan. f was locl~ng it t thou~t perhaps it was an ova:sight but [ do nor have a pad, rig pia: in fine ff~e showing off sz-eer poking that would permit this w~thout backing on to the st-eet, f do need to lmow the szze of the apa:<menr and the size of ~e existing dwelling wi2n a CO or ~roof of occupancy p~or to 1984. Taese ae jus~ some notes that f made George because f don't see a poking plan on th~s. ~ere's a number of things we need on this. J~ LIEBEL: ~ live west !00' ~om pr% m~y ifne to prope~ iine ~_d f condone this ~n the area we !lye im It's just not called for to bring ul: an example this apm~etat is being ecc':pied a: dais time for years. T~me ~s someone !i~ng tlaere. We~ve and prob!ems w~tln ~neir do~ down on the beach oft bulls what have you my wife ~d f also a gal ~end was ro:~iess on the beach isn:t nice. We don't need this here. This is one of the prime areas o~ Southold. CHARWOMAN: The mother a~d daughter a'e living thee in the main house. MR. LIEBEL: There is constant pohce action there. There ae ambulances the daughter has 3 major accidents one 3 weeks ago when the car was totaled agora. Evidently she's under the influence of drags for her ailments ~d los a sonT siimadon. CHAIRWOMAN Are you saying the apm~ment is already rented? MR. LIEBEL: ~m' 15vas fi~t next door. I have mo idea who the reno% is. ~ have no idea what tlne circmnstemces are maybe he's there to help out with their case. ~ don't k~ow. There's a v~ ~ked fixate. ~at about khe septic systems? Yo~ ae gomg ro add more pollu~ns :o ~e ~ound ~d ~'m h~ng az ext~sion built o~ my home fi~': now. 2's a snq~! home but 7 Page 12 of 83 Psis 13 F~bmary 20~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing do the same thing. And my mom's 90 on SoundvJew Ave. lives alone 50 years and she could convert a big 2-car garage to financially she's on social security and lives as best you cmn under the circumstances, qt~e area just doesn't call fer it. You have beautif~d Chardonnay Estates across the street, Mt. Beulla around the comer, the Booth estate, it's just beautiful down there. thought accessory aparmaents were just going to be limited to commercial areas above store fronts. There are no guidelines in the paper on what accessory apartments are. CHAIRWOMAN: There is in the code. What she's applxfing for has been in the code a long, long time allovdng accessory apartments in residential areas providing the p~ncipal dwelling is owner occupied and providing that the li¼ng area does not exceed 40% of the house providing there is sufficient off street parking, I'm just naming a few prov/ding that there is a CO for the dwelling prior to 1984 or proof of occupancy and there are a number of other things. ~'ve just highlighted a few of those things and when we look at a special exception we also look a number of criteria wrStten in the code. That includes how it's going to affect the community. And we will be looking at those. MR. LIEBEL: I could see if it were an elderly person. 2~ae mother is quite old now needs this fine Pm not against that to take care of somYbody but if it's going to be used for income influx of rentals in and out no way. That area does not cai1 for CHAIRWOMAN: Is t~ere anyone else/n the audience who would l/ke to speak for or against the application? MR. ZIELINSKI: On that accessory apartment just a number of years ago when he put that room in I think he has a toilet in the back some sort of a nook. His cesspool from that is about 20-25' from that and also from my house that cesspool with the allowance on the sideyard would say it's ~3out 45' or 48' all totaled and a few years ago that cesspool caved in. CHAIRWOMAN: The applicant has requested that we leave this hearing open and we are very definitely going to do that. The board would like to do an inspection ofth/s property and we are going to set up a time it won't be for the public. We will go through and do an inspection and then we wi]I continue the hearing. The question ~ have at this point is do we want to set to continue this heating because if we set this for March 6th, it's not going to give us sufficient time to schedule the inspect/un so I think the next date we would be able to have this is March 20th that would put them at a long time. Why don't we put them at March 20th at lpm. Page 13 of 63 February 20, 2003 Southo]d Town Board of Appeals Regular Meetin9 Pub:ie Pieadn9 1@:49 am Ne, 5268 - GERALD LEMM©N. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-242A basefi on the Building Depa%menfs November 7. 2002 Notice of Disapprova~ The basis of the Notice of Disapproval is that ~_e proposed second-ston~ addition to the existin~ dwel:ing M!i be less thug5 feet ffcm t;~e Lent ;et 2ne and less teton 35 feet from t~e re~* ;et line. Location oTPropexy: ~427 ~_di~n Neck Lane. Peconic: Parcel 8d-d-22. CHAiRWO~N: Is someone here wio would like 10 s.e~ onbehal¢ofthe application? PETER STOUTEN¢URG: Good morning, t~m h~e ~ust re s2swer ~y questions you may Lave or ;o supply addifiona~ in~o~ation you may CHAIRWOMAN: Le~ me get the su~ey o'~, just a momenl. I have a copy of the s,&wey and floor pl~ s~d Ijus7 w~t to go over some whxr you m'e requesting appoints to be a yew sma'_2 5000 s~. ff. and the ROW that goes t~ou~ ~e lot co-Zd you eve me Cze widt~ offthe ROW? MR. STOUTENBURG: I believe it's ~5' on rite s'~ey in t¢.e lower ieff 2~d comer. CHA~WOM~: ~e~e'ROW goes d~,t ff~ your iot ~d fiz~t is what ~s losing you 2' setback to the ROW is evewone fo!lowing? %l~at leaves you with * or - 2' on tlne ROW which would be on the east side ~ht? Excuse me west side w~c5 is a¢:u&iy 17' to the property line. ~e 2nd sto~ addition that you are proposi~g - teat add:~on :s for a bedroom. ~-d a small of~ce. But that does not go over ti:e entire certs, ge, itlust goes ov~ t/~e p~e ofti%e cottage to where the ent~ay ~s. ~2e ;6x4x26' pogdon MR. STOUTENBURG: Co~ec:. CHAIRWOMAN: And you have 3.8 which you'll be maintdning o~ the east s:_de. ~. STOYGTE~URG: Yes that ~c~a~}y changed. %~ere was a pre, oas s-~ey that had 4L lout ti~e was m old sudsy ti~at did siaow it at MEMBER OLWA: ISs basically almost like a ~ ~ sto~ house tiqen. MR. STOUTENBURG: ~ey didn't wan': m ~msam the lot any more than they Nz.d. TEey ~e plamning on mowng out lucre mxd they just. it's not a weekend home for the 2 o{ them MEMBER OLWA: Tlney se limited w~th that ROW ce%airily going t~¢cugh the front ysd. MR. STOUTENBURG: I believe h s~ices 2 houses directly in ~ront on the water. No,h5 and to the xvest and then the propeP;y to the eas* ~%ms ali the way from tine road to the water. MEMBER OLIVA: Was that an o~nal subdivision Pete:-? Page I4 of 63 Page 15 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STOUTENBURG: Idon'tknowthehistowofit. ~t's been that way for quite a few years. Most of the houses to the west on the water are small lots on the water that they cut. Stuff to the east runs the length. CHAIRWOMAN: What~e height on the 2nd stoW going to be?,=;¢~ MR. STOUTENBURG: I don't have that on my plans. I can get it for you. Basically following the same pitch that's on the house it's not going to be anything ~e~v or temporaw. CHAIRWOMAN: You are not extending outside the existing footprint and you're not in essence the part that% a screen porch is still going to remain 1-stow and the southerly part of the house is still going to remain 1-stow what is indicated on the survey is 18'xl 9.8' - that's all 1-stow. MR. STOUTENBURG: Yes there may be slight roof change for the sta/rway. CHAFRWO1V~kN: Going up I saw that in the plans. MEMBER HORNING: i'm all set. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This addition does not encroach over the porch situation or wl*,at they refer to as the 1-story addition on the north side. Very simply in the center of the house like this. Over what is now the kitchen and living room area and there's no decks out there. There's no anything that they are going to ga/n any access except through an internal stairwell. MR. STOUTENBURG: No. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have any fttrt1*,er questions. It's an extremely small lot. It looks like the footprint of the existing cottage couldn't be more than what 800 or 900' so you are extremely limited would not like to see any further encroactzment into either the rear yard or the front yard. Try to keep that footprint although I see you are ex2emely limited. Let's see if there is anyone in the audience who would tike to comment. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 15 of 63 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Reguiar Meeting Fub][c Hear[n9 ]10:55 gm No. 5274 - LYONS BROVON~ ][JI. this is a request for a Vzri~ce ut~der Sections ~ 00-239 and ~ ¢0-244B. based on the Building Depa~ment's November 7. 2002 Notice off Dis~pprowh App!icm% is proposing to cons¢:uct a additions and alterations that do not meet tie minimum rem' p:d setbac~ 50 geet and does not meet the minimum 752. setback from the bullhead. Location of Prope~: Hedge St.. Fishers Isled; Pm'ce! ~000-~0.-7-!2. CHARWOMAN: ls someone he:e who would Ii2e to spe~( on behalf of 2to ~.pplication? STEPHEN HAM. ES~: Stephen Hm~_~ 4-5 H~mpton Road. Southampton for ~e Browns. My zoning however re square off Ce building Hnes they wouM ~ike 20 exiend the porch a'2d thai results ~n a problem with bo{~ the remr yard setback and the setback ~om the concrete retMrirxg wM] which ~s on the photo~aphs you c~% see. ~e arg~enrs Z m~e under ¢he to-~ !aw are d~e written memorandum. } mar w~x ~o smess a couple of~hi:~gs. The ex:~ansion of the :~crch wPich is why the Brown's need a v~mnce will no{ diminish ~he views of any ne~bo~ng propemies. That's point ¢i The encroacb~e::t to the rear ysd is toward a body of wa{er anpvay Chore's no resMents back ~%ere {~at wou~d ~ ~ effected. Poin~ ¢2 ¢he area tl~at tlney ~H be expanding into ~d you'H see that ~om *he photo~aphs which were foRnnate~y ts~kex before last Monday indicate t2~at it is.a maintained ~awr_ s~d what they se going to be bMlding em ~s :uo* a pdsti:%e wed~d or meadow it's an m'es ¢_na~ wou~d be mowed mtd d~sf~bed ~n ~y even': so ~hose are the 2 key elements here ~om~ mn architecturM point of,dew as well Pm told {his wiR actuM~y ~mprove the views Prom the wamr. Tc fha% memorm~dum i've attached an exhibit which is the no~i elevation. The v~ew ~om the water that shows on ~e do% hmtd side would be the new screened porch wl:~ch bMmaces the appearm~ce of ~he dwelling Eom ~ac m-chitectura~ poir:t of v~ew ~d what we ~'e asMng for essentially is a few feet Eom the already existing setbacks is citijet case so ~om wM¢ing the behest to the appHcm% as opposed to the clermont re the whe~er from sz envirop~eniM cr neiotboilood point of view I ~:i~( ~he bMa:~ce woMd ce~Mn~y tend toward tb~e app~icm~t ~n fa~s case. ~e oth*z point ofd~s%rba:ace. %ac on~y pdn{ of d~sr¢.rb~s~ce, i~e s*~'oom itself which will be confo~ing w~!l have a fo~datlon that's required however ~he o~y d~stmSa~ce for the porch for which we need the van~ce for the soi~ will be a one foot concrete 'oi}ing which will support that pm-c of the 3orch. There will be xo ~adh:g no removM of~H or mav other rype ofdis{~.~bance. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Ham what is the existing because i don't have ~his on or_~ suNey What is the setback of ~he existing porch. MR. HAM He d~dn't pm it for flee rear yard. he has it for the retMning wMl. It's 39' an8 ! would add to scape tbs* off it should be s}i~tt~y over 40' the existing rear yard se:back is that wh~t you CHAIRWOMAN: '~at Fm having trouNe ~nng out o~ the p!mxs you gave us is where is the exfst~mg porch tP~sI you w~% re replace or expand {owed the wacer. Pd¢% now {iuis is ex~sti~ug :age I6 of 63 Page 1 ? February 2:8, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing this does not exist there is nothing here. I think we need to mark that clear. This is ali - because what we were talking about before the porch here it was unclear. MR. HAM: If you look at my memo the last page is north elevation that's the view from the water. ThaCs how if you juat~put your right hand over the right handl~>ttion of that you'll see- MEMBER OLIVA: I see this one sticks out on this side and this kind of balances on the other side. MR. HAM: This actually improves hhe vie~v from the water ang that's the only view that will really be effected here. CHAIRWOMAN: Does everyone understand that the little dots don't exist now.9 MEMBERS: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Were the neighbors noticed? MR. HAM: Yes. MEMBER HORNENG: I noticed on the proposed sunroom which you said doesn't require a variance anp,vay they have it situated on the north side of the house and going down there it struck me that there isn't going to be any sun going into that sur~room because of the location of MR. HAM: That sur~room is the term that has been used. It's actually going to be used as a dining room area what I'm told by Skip Broom who's the builder. That's a dining area and they are moving their kitchen which is tucked away in a comer. They are trying to make it 21st century house out of a 1940~s house opening it up to light and air. Apparently there are some views there if not sun there are better views on that side which is part of the reason. MEMBER HORNING: The whote prop~ty is on waterfront so I don't ti'fink there's a question of not having a view from any place on the property looking at it in terms of my opinion as to can this applicant do something without a variance and I'd have to say they could. For example the sun room you're calling it something else now but if that wasn't there and the proposed porch started at the very edge of the building in the existing line with the rest of the residents then you wouldn't be calling anything closer to the bulkhead because you're making a new distance to the bntkhead at 32-38' you're lessening the distance to the bulkhead which I found odd because I'm saying that looking at this and looking at the site the proposed "sura:oom" in my mind as a practical measure doesn't even fit in that space and if I was going MR. HAM: They are redoing the entire 1st floor. This might be helpful. MEMBER HORNtNG: Why do they need to encroach closer to the bulkhead? Page 17 of 63 Page I8 February 2©, 2083 $outhold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Pub[',c lVfR. l-lAM: The reason is tluey are putting ir_ the s~oom wl~ich cozafb:~s in rids -place and they need to squm'e it would look odd if [~ey did not put this porch on, it already looks odd did not put this porch on if you look at the last page of the memo i~you pm your hand ever the proposed porch which is on the ;d~,t it's an unhal~_ced look already it looks as if somethizg were chopped off'at tl:at end~¢~rom the water ?m talking about. 5fthey did nothing that required a valance just built a sun room that would look yew odd ~om ~ architecfaml ->tint of view. The point is to square off the building lines by extending that existing pomh and put it in a line wiida a sm~ room to square off,at comer that's the reason. Now could they do some~ing else? Well you could theoretically redesf~a ft and possibly put it on the othe:- side but the:o's az interior srai~ay on tiaa>side if you like ~ will show you the fioo~l~_ in fact ~'11 put it 5n the record. Tr~d~lly 2zey could possibly pur it on that side but it would involve much mere effo~ mud expense th~ i'c does now. M~MBER HORN~G: The kilchen's o~ the south side of the house so I dor~'t consider tlaai d~k side, MR. HAM: From a buildfng point of view it makes it more problematic. The poin! here is we aejust asking you to weiga what's the dei5ment to the ~ubtic here ~d tl~ere's yew little because ~:~e's v~ I~le d~smrbance. We ~e building in a la~. which is go{~g to l~ave to be mowed, fe~ilized whatever that will be covered. The d~smfbance to lhe soil is minimal it wiF MEMBER HORN,'G: The de~menr is the fact that it's mo~ng closer to the bu!~nead whet_ ~¢ct if you asked the ques~n can the applicant do some*2~ng wi~out a v~*mce and ach!ow simil~ goal I would say the ~swer ~s yes so it m~(es me wonder wk.y they would have ~o locate that Net ~5~ere requinng a variance ~nen in fact they could easily do something else ~d not have a MR. H~: ~tey would like to exp~d their dwelling lhey ~e entitled to %% they are asking for 12 Ye which is what it will be al:er tiao i~tlds were ~ed a~a com?leted. So fhey ~e entitled to some expansion here ~aat you a-e suggesting here is thor *hey w~:id put it e?t{rely on the other side and ?m sa~ng there are cwxenfiy some probl~s with that according to the builder and fi~e by squaring off the porch has a ~enefit wi~out much det~ment is the point it's a balancing act here this is an a*ea vaCance. I'm asking you 'co mgre a]ud~e% based on balancing ~no is h~,ed based on who or Mnat if they dc this and thee ~e a nmmb cz' of criteria under the town law the main one being balmace the benoit to the applicant agains: the detriment to the publfc and ~ go throu~a each of the various c5teda below that including any char_ge ~o chszacter of the neiCborhood the substap_tiality of it the fmpac: on er_viror~enlaI conditions these issues are address so fs it possible that they could do something else 5'm not going to say it's not I'm sa~ng this is a plan which is well thought our which will im-)rove the w. lue of this and neiCbofing proped~es withoul much ha~ to the public in a situation where this house was put there in the 40's without zoning before ~h~ng was thouCt about distances 5'om properzy lines and so fo~. MEMBER GOE;d~GER: ~aat wo~d be fl~e possibiiit7 si~l~ to what ~o ~o~Jag ;~d say but ::ot pushing the sm-zoom all the way out imto the e~sffng porch 5n otk_er words sc2~ng Page ! 8 o-? 63 February 2(}, 2003 Southoid Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the house off with porch all the way across the front and then opening the doorway which we are looking at and then opening the doorway which we are looking at onto the open porch thereby balancing the house as you had suggested you would have the same setback, but w'e would have to do an open porch you understand? MR. HAM: No I don't. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: Retarding the open porch back to the existing front of the house. MR. HAM: We've got a~etback line here. Are you saying staying within the setback line? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm saying keeping the setback at 38'7" however- MR. HAM: 38.7 is the rearyard setback not the concrete wall setback. We have 2 issues here. MEMBER GOEHRtNGER: Pardon me, I'm sorry. But retarding the existing sum'oom back to the existing front of the house or the rear of the house and the house in question part of the house overlooks the water and therefore the actual reduction would be the same but it would be to an open porch. Ln other words not malting it ~ncIusive of an entire room and pushing that room all the way out but you know balancing the house off in that respect. There is some merit to the fact of balancing the house off because I understand Chat but there is also some merit to what Mr. Homing had said. What if this was just cut off here. This was the porch supposedly proposed porch on the side of the house and bringing the existing porch all the way across. The actual balancing test is the fact that ali you are doing is balancing the house off but leaving an existing porch to balance the house off: CHAJ~RWOMAN: I don't get it this is what they are proposing. MR. HAM: According to the plan this is open. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is completely open? CHAIRWOMAN: That's why there's no change in what yon are saying. MR. HAM: There is a discrepancy between what the elevation is on there and what it's stated to be. Doesn't it say open? MEMBER OLIVA: It's going to be a wrap around screened in porch. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We didn't see that and that's where the problems came in. When you gave me this Mr. Ham, I got the impression this porch was ali the way out to the end and then looking at the existing plan like this in the crosscheck area I understand that's the new portion of it but I had thought that was all inclusive. Page 19 of 63 Pa~ ~ 2C Februa~ 20, 2003 Southo[d ¥own Board of Apaeais Regular ~eetin9 ~ublic CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. H~_ l jus; wan~ ro go over few things with you veW beefly. Page 4 your 2emormad~_ the de~ee oldie variance. The degee or,he vazbar, ce does not go ~o wlat is ex~sdng. It goes to the code. !wof]d rake ~ssue with you on fne de~ee or,he van ~nce w~th respec~ :o 32.8' to the re'raining wail iu relation to the 75' required ifs subsr~iah I reco~ze what you aCe saying I reco~ize~e issue you are r~ng %o address I jus: wm~ed that- MR. HAM: If you look ar my p~agaph on the nex~ page I say if you cons:~der ali Ge circumstgmces here namely les a few feet 5:om what's already there ifs r_ot like we are building tMs ~_ew and asking for 32'. CHAIRWOMAN: ARer we look at this Mr. Homing and Mr. GoeFMnger now that he has clea4y explained wt~at is ~nd whaes proposed ~s there ar_y other aUematives ~at you see ¢ha: ~ab]e for the appUcaxt at this poin~ in view of eve~&ing he has said an¢. hrougkt fc~b ~o us MEMBER HO~N~'G: I see al:creatUres sure but the appEcan¢ is requesting wk¢~ they want ~lat's it. CHARWOMAN: [ t~ M~; Ha~ ~at you ~¢ h¢~d~ is there ~s concern ~cnS ~h¢ memb~s emi they m~t not be abIe to ~_r yo~ ¢~at you ~'e app~54ng ~%r ~¢~ fi'~ey wou;d ro see a reduction there. Is that accurate? MEMBER GOEHR~GER: We always gc to the board member ~2o~s ~n Zhe geogap~c area and ~n thus case ~¢s ~_ 2sland [7 roues ~om here MR. HAM: ~en yo~ say a reduction th4s ~s ~_ open ~ea. To not have a vmd~_ce at d~ 5s dte~afive~ We don"r need ~ at eUl ro put a sur~oo2 there ~d we ca2 b751d u7 'to the ex!sting se*&ack for bo'& the we~l l ~ess we coddn't do i2 for the re~ ya-d unless we inreeret that fxo;~ the concrete wa*.l we ~e entitled ro stay l~dward Eom the existing setback well as ies ~e the building depa~enc coes rM<e the oosition that if we ~e wiihin 5f ev~:~ %kou~. we are clos~ {n one p~ace {f were still need less than: 50' then 'g~ey ~e going ro say we need a va~xce but you routinely ~anr variances when we're nor getting closer tins an existing sefoack so I'm ~ng no- CHAIRWOMAN: I'm_ t~r~g to held you on: here of deleing to the expeidence and :kc Erst hand k~owledge of the Fishers Island Board. Member wno is really o'~ eyes ~d ea's on ~EMBER GOEHR~GER: We go over d~ere ~d acmaI]y look at these are: the fact or you ~ow of course if we have pending appticsXions we look at them before tlne fact. MR. HAM: To get an idea of the a!temabve is to confo~ if that's the on~.y alternative lhat i see a~d ~ don2 know ~ha he would even build that. Mr. Brown told n:e w~en i 5rsi asked him ~¢out t>Js i said would you Hke ;o proceed wit~ just building a su~-oom now because you ae e~tit;ed ro get a building Fe~it for that and he said no it would stick out like a car breaker. ; need ro ~at umder tMs pi~ so if he needs more living space on ~e ~rst ioof he's nor go~ng m pun il tha~ side they would have to alt~ ~reir *~an completely ~d pnt it on ~e sonf~east~ly s~de Page 20 of 63 Pa~e 21 FeSm~ry 2~, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing there is ample room you know and there is still going to be a problem with the unbalanced look o£this house but there's nothing we can do about that. CHAIRWOMAN: How far can you cut that back the proposed porch with it being reasonable? MR. HAM: I'd have to go back to the builder. The sunroom or the dining room t didn't k~ow until this week that that's what it was when I asked them for the plans, but it's a dining room think they need the space they are asking for there and therefore t2~fink either this plan goes as is or it doesn't go but if there's I don't see it would be a different plan I think they would use~ MEMBER HORNING: My only comments are with respect to the bulkhead and whatnot we run a number of applicants dealing with bulkheads and I have detected over the years a reluctance of this board to grant applicants further encroachments into bulkhead areas which is why t have some concerns with this when one of our questions is can the applicant accomplish something on the parcel they have without a variance when this case t would have to maintain a personal opinion I believe they could. MR. HAM: They couldu't to maintain the views that they would like to get from tiffs sunroom/dining room area t understand that's not a legal- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I mention something as a compromise - that would be to take this existing drawing and again I'll go back to the chairperson and I'm not an architect but if you 45 this r~ght over here that would take yotuc same access out and create almost the same setback t think you would achieve the same thing. You would get a pretty good balance and I think you'd have it there. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's make sure we are all on the same page. We are talking about taking this point here and doing straight across. MEMBER HORNING: That's a reasonable approach. CHAIRWOMAN: I could see it this is easier because this is the setback line. MR. HAM: I think you have to come back here, draw this line. It's not on here what Jerry is doing. CHAIRWOMAN: What we are suggesting is that you take a line even with the existing residence draw a line parallel to that and then take a line to the comer of the existing porch and then diagram. Now without you coming back here in 3 years- MR. HAM: t'll send you a new survey. MEMBER HORNING: That's a much more reasonable alternative to dealing with the bullhead. Page 21 of 63 Page 22 Februany 20, 2083 Southo]d Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHA][RVCOMAN: ~iow ~on~ do you th~ ~t wo~d t~ce you m do ~is? ~ ~R. HAM: 2 weeks. C~iA~WOMAN: Do we want ~e c~ose th~s hea:dng pending receipt cf the revise4 map as inst~acted? MEMBER GOE~a~'GER: We close the hemd~g to verbatim per_ding tLce receipt o~ s map to 5e recexved by M~c~: d' at wbJcLs poxnt we'L c~ose t~e ~ea~ng. ~ ' ~ ~ ";'-" * ~*'~ in?oXant to b~ag that. , MSMB~R HO~G: 7m not ~ng to We the a~omey a head time, but we coxxe ow: lsera we we - we're ~n a no w~n situst[oa ali ~:e time. liwe ~aat wl~a2ever ilse a}plic~t wants scader all coadit~o2s the pcblic says we ~e gLving away [ce town. C~A~WO~N: f'~ ~m~i~sg a motion ctos~n8 Ge hearing pe2d~ng rece~st of a revised mao ~y Marcls 6th. PLEASE SEE k~FJTES FOR ~SOLr~ON Page 22 of 63 Page 23 February 20, 2083 Southold ToWn Board of ApPeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ~11:26 a.mo App~ Ne. 5267 - ELLEN HINSCtt. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-30A.4 based on the March 4, 2002 Building DepartmenCs Notice of Disapproval for construction of an accessory garage in the front yard. Location of Property:, 6925 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; Parcel 1:~-126-10-I6. ~i CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? ELIZABETH THOMPSON, ARCH: i'm Elizabeth Thompson the architect and I have proposed to Ellen Hinsch the locatiomof the garage which is in the front yard that we need a variance for it's a rear lot and I thought site plan wise and considering the neighbors and the locations of their garages that this was the best place to cluster her garage with the neighbors garages and it's a heavily wooded lot that you can hardly see from the road this time of the year and there's a golf course back there her view are around the hack of the house that's where the privacy is and to the south and east there's garages and other lots, houses right in there. CHAIRWOMAN: There's a couple of things - a survey that we have does not show the garage in the front yard it shows maybe it depends on how you measure it could be partially in the front and partially in the side. But it definitely looks like part of it is in the side yard. Obvious question here is you have a huge piece of property and I looked at it and I saw that you are ahnost trying to use the proposed garage to block a view from your neighbor's property of this house. MS. THOMPSON: Yes I didn't wmxt to have a driveway that wraps around the back of the lot. Yes the garage is large but the buitdable part back in this key is not that large. CHAIRWOMAN: We are now at 18.3 off the property line and I see where you have the sanitary system and everything else I'm just wondering if you're able to move that off the property line as I say it is quite a large piece of property. MS. THOMPSON: The sanitary system is taking up all that space we are trying to allow some room around that and have the shed located that actually belongs to the neighbor and once the lot was surveyed and we are trying to- CHAIRWOMAN: The reason I'm saying that is it's a I-car garage and in the furore you may want to have a 2-car garage and rather than placing you closer to the property line in the future which I doubt if we'd be inclined to do we'd like to get you offthe property line to begin with. MS. THOMPSON: We are not interested in expansion the house is very small it's a cottage it's for 1 retiring person. She's not interested in accommodating future uses for future owners and- MEMBER OLIVA: How large is the house.'? MS. THOMPSON: It's 2500 sq. ft. it's really a 1 and ½ story there's some bedrooms upstairs but they are in the roof. Page 23 of 63 ?a~e 24 Southo[d Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearth9 MEMBER GOEHR!iNGER: It is hoc a particularly large house partmmarly the way :he comes down and cuts into the bedrooms upstaks. MS. TitOMPSON: ~qe mast~ b~room is on the first 5oor. MzMBnR OOE~RINGER. The upstairs bedrooms ~e extremely proh%ft[ve m reference to the way fine roorfne is. MS. ~IOMPSON: ~ey ~smalL She is going co sh=I the ups~ax, s ofi mche w_n~ed:me we wouM be able to drain the pines, it's reaLy a l-stow house whh some s~mmer ~es'~ rooms upstairs. CHA~WOM~: So you really don't tl~nk it's possiNe to move ~t off~¢ prope~ ~ine because o¢~ie ~ocation o¢t~e s~t~ syste%,? MS. THOMPSON: %es md isn't a side yard flor a 8ars. ge somethin~ like 3 or 5' CHARWOMAN. ICk's ~n ~5e ~es¢ yazd ~t MS. T~OMPSON: ~o me ¢~s is kind ofkeepin8 il in the re~* y~¢d because ewwon~ eIsds :ear y~ds ~e there. I didn't want tc paw a whole lot to pan a d~veway around the b~ck MEMBER GOEHR~GER: I just thi¢< i~you squ~e it offfat exactly 20' wouM ~hat m~4e a~y d~_:~ence to you? 18 to 20' CHAIRWOMAN: You'd have to re-do t~e su~ey. MS. THOMPSON: We did take wSen the %oundation was po~ed ~or the honse we poured some ~ootin~s ¢o: the ~a~e there. MEMBER GOEH~GER: USlities in this g~a~e w(I1 be what eiecV~city onl~ No wa .... no ~eat. no ~-~h~nS~ Fs a one stoz~ appmx~mstely !2' to the ~d~e? MS. THOMPSON: ~ believe you have drawings in your package, it's vow small 14x20. MEMBER HORN~G: Point o¢interest questio~ for tSe applicant have they considered the altema~zve o, put2n~ the garage [o :he bu~ldins in some ~sshion and a~;ev~atin~ the necssskv '¢o have ~ v~ance? MS. THOMPSON: As a desirer ~ often ~ry ~o separate th~ unless tne cnent spect~ca**y j- "- "- Lhe s~e o~ the b~/idin~ do~_~ p~dcul~ly or_ ~ s.~a~ ne~zse o~en recuest8 x, because ~ keeps ¢ ~ , r* ~ .~ ~ ,. g~ege c&n be ee largest room in the whole house. The idea. was · {- { R ",+ in ~e woods modest scsie size m~d often you c~x c:eat~ $ be~ter sx~e mmh w~O~ som~ o=~ a n~e bzt of a yara buildings you have to gve some comexr ~:o it ~_d yes it provides "; * ' *~dvate ~ from Page 24 of 63 Pa~s 25 Februsry 20, 2003 Southold Town Board Of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the other garages. The other houses have detached garages too. It's a neighborhood of sinai1 cottages so I feel it's a matter of scale acmally keeps the bui/ding down. Actually the roof might have been higher on the house that sort of thing, have longer spreads. CHAIRWOMAN: Any further qt~tions? I would ask iftherds anyone else ~n.lhe audience who would I~ke to speak, b'at I just don't see anyone in the audience to raise a hand. I'll make a motion to close this hearing reserving dec/sion until later. PLEASE SEE M1NUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 25 of 63 Page 2,8 February 20, 2883 Southold Town Board cf Appeals Regular .,Meeting Pub!ic l~earing i:O© p,mo App. No. 5264 - M~CHAEL P[SACAN©. The app!icmnt has flied a reques~ 5or a Lo~ Wa{vet under Section 100 24A based ~n ~he November 7. 2002 amended; ~-8-02 Bui]d~ng Depa~ent'sNoticeofDisapproval for consm~cdonofes~ng]e f~flydwe!ling. Yhebas~s of the Notice of Disapproval ~s ~ha~ t~3.d; d sc. ft. om-ce~ is no~ per,tied ~n the R-SO District because k ~s not a recc~Jzed lot by ~y offl:e fora~ code stmnd~ds, m~der: shall be created by deed recorded ~n the Suffolk Cotmt? C~erk% office on or before d-30-82, and the ~ot confo~ed to the minimum lot requkements se: fo~5~ ~_ Bu~k Schedule: 2~ Lot was approved by the Soufl~old Town P~in~ Board. or 3~ Lo~ is showz on a subdi~sion map approved by the Southo~d To~ Bom*d prior to d-30-83, or ~ Lot is approved/reco~Jzed fo~ action of:~.e Bo~d of Appea~s prior to d-30-83 Locaffon of Propers: ~457 Cox Neck Rd., Mattimck; P~ce~ I 13-07-~ 9. ~; CHA~WO2 ~AN: Is someone here who wou~d Hke to spe~< on behalf of the application? MICHAEL PZSACANO: ~'m just go(ng (o read tl~s. My name is Mi ;hael Pisacmco. Nskom~s Road ~n Southo~d. Fm requesting a vafi~ce for a building pe:%m~t be issued flor proper;y located on Cox Neck Lane in Matti~%ck 1 !3-7-19.11 whbch ~ pm'chased on Au~s~ 27, 2002 f~om W~II~am C!~ud~ak. %~e prop~ consists of !.7 a~es which ~s ~szg~ sm?ounding parcels attached ~o the proper~y. I have m my possessmn a deed. a variance search. a smwey, a mm map Mso prior m p~chas~g :he pro~ ~y ~ had a wamr rest done wi*rich proved waer a rea hole dug whicln proves d~e proper~ has suffide% dra;mage. When ! appFed for tke Heahh Dep'a approvals they had {nd{ca:ed ~o me that ~ would need 'no sf~mff C&X's for a wei~ mzd also a hoo~p ro public water when k became ava{lable which ~ have com'ai{ed wkh. ~e prope~ was sold to me by a realtor who is well respecied in the area rid was a bufldab]e ~o~. Due to extended resemmh and compii~ce witk various ~ssues wkh heakh depa:~en~ and SCWA my ffme ;o obtain heJth deomxmen: pe~its could was faced with a dec~sion to close on the property immediately or ch~ce ~osing ~t. Since appeged clear at the time ar_d my single gtd sep~are se~ch did not indicate the prope~:y was merged with any su:%omxd~ng parcels I deeded to close title. However, sl~o~ly after closbzg received word the d~menr of beakS_ would no~ ~m:~ my approvals due to the prope~ry being !he sub~ect of a town p]mnming bom-d decision which indicated tkat the prope;~' had been merged with a~acent propm1~es and was not to be built upon due to lot line ~odificafions. [ feel this decision was not sufficienffy researched m~d prematurely enforced sedng ~o oftke lot ~ne chm~ges never took o]ace. In an efbb~ to rec¢i~ the si~ation ~ approach Lie building and plaming depa%~enrs as wall as ~he town attorney where ~ felt they ~ndicatec some optimism. However this is where I began to be bounced back and fo~h from depr 'm deoL for about weeks withon~ any s~a~¢~ or clear answ~s. Fve pxr my Hfe savings into the prope~ ~d k has cost me we]~ over $ [0K {n interest without bring able to get a s=sJ~; answer. ~ here many unpa{d bil~s ~_d i am 4 months behind in my rent. My f~fiy m~bers have helped me finanda]ly and ~ have made promzses to them and o~.ers hop{ng thai the decisions of the hesitl~ dep,a ~d the ZBA wo'~Jd be in my favor smd I mi~at be able m pay them_ bach( recti~ the s~mafion ~o my benefit ~ must stm~ ~o consider 5ne possibility of filing for chapter 7. really don't w~t it to come to ~at, I'm aw~tmg decision in w~g ~om the am told ~ia it -~II 5e a~ina shoffdy in the ma~l a~d I did ga a heads up ~om them ~a ~t leeks Page 26 of 83 Page 27 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board Of APpeals Regula~ Meeting Public Hearing like it's going to go through. I would great]y appreciate a decision from the board today if at all possible. I really can't afford for this to go on may longer. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need to make a public statement. It was brought to my attention that it appears that Mr. Pisacano I d~gt know if you know me, I*m Gerry Goehringer I'd spoken to you on the phone that the firm that you bought the lot from my license is held by them. I have to tell you that I have no interest in this one way or another, t just don't know at this time if I should continue on this hearing or not I have not discussed it with council. What I may do at this point is get up from the dais go sit in the audience and I11 be part but I will discuss this with counciI. CHALRWOMAN: I'm not, let's start off at the begimning and try to make sense of this because it is confusing. I read through the file and I have to admit I haven't got a clue as to what's going on. Let's try to follow me. You filled out an application for a waiver of merger, correct? MR. PISACANO: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: And then in your opening statement you said this is for a variance. MR. PISACANO: No there was a variance search which was done showing that the lot was single and separate according to the tide search I had done. Basically the Planning Dept. had created tl,Js lot. They are saying it's an RS0 zone well this lot is larger than like I said, it's the 4th largest lot in the area out of 7 lots so it's not like it to me I would consider it a pre-existing lot because it was basically made by the Planning Dept. who pretty much created this. CHAIRWOMAN: When was the lot created? MR. P~SACANO: By deed or? CHAEP, WOMAN: By the Ptanning Board. MR. PiSICANO: Well the Chudiak's own a large piece of property which they you know shaved offpieces of property throughout the years but for this to become under the RS0 which I guess is the reason for this ~ mean the Plarming Dept. created it. The Planning Dept. also decided these lots would not be buiIt upon if they merged with the lots in front of them which they never did. CHAIRWOMAN: When was the lot created by the Planning Board? MR. PISACANO: I'm not sure when this ail took place. I mean I have it Ijust have to look. CHAIRWOMAN: You are - this is a lot that was created by the Plarming Board with conditions on the lot which were never fulfilled? MR. PISACANO: Right. We11 there was 4 lots on Cox Neck Lane bekind that was a large piece of property 2 of[hem took title to the pieces behind h*2em 2 of them never did. So the Planning Page 27 of 63 Fabruary 2¢ 2803 $outho[d Town Board of Appeals P, e9 slat Meeting Public Hearing Board making their dec~sion ~ thought was premature because they d~dn't th~r~k ~t out ~f these peop;e nev~ acquired the F ~rce~s be;q~nd them. CHAIRWOMAN: Let me tw to v~a~ze ~t ~rst. %ney ~eated - there were 4 ~ots Chat were created by the P~&~n~ng Bo~d. MR. P~SACANO: Two o~them were never created. Ca~ I]usr show you o~ here? SHAIRWOMAN: Ce~a~n~y. We have the maps we lust don': have aqy reference as ko what they m*e. That's o,dr prob;em. Lees s~m% to ~dend~ these by the mx map n-Crab,s because tbzoa~hout the 5~e there% rePerence to War_nits and M~owsk~s ¢x~d ?eop~e that doesn't te;~ cs what the tax nmmbers are m~d when you are read,ag 5~ou~a tk~s you're sa~rg well w%mh ]ol ~s that? ~ have a tax mae here. Do you have a copy o~the tax may so we cm both follow the same th~ngs here? You are Ce owner of ~o~; 9. } k co=ec~? ~. P[SACANO: Yes. CH~WOMAN: Now ~e PI~5ng Bo~d ~d Z believe we ~e ta:k~ng g~o~ what ~s ~¢eled as {n f~e file has been id~fified as a ~ot Hne chm~ e ~d tbe date on th~s ~s Nov~fb~ ! 8e; don't have the rest of map there Does anyone have reference {t's the Rod~ck VanTyle map. Do you have a date on thg sir? Becmgse k's not show~ng up k says Nov 18 but the rest of the ds:re ~s nor on here so we don't ~now when that occ.¢~ed. MR. PiSACANO: %~e splits for ~r. Wells and Warm~t were done in M~:_ off t985 CHAIRWOMAN: Iftl%~s is the Pl~m{ng Bo~d map thg was the sub~ec'; ora lot line chmzge, vew dif5cuIt to read but tlne :most important thing {s :he date which is not on the mao. We need that date on tlne Van Ty~e map that the so called Plmning Board- ~. P!SACANO: I see ~e map yon have but I don't have tlne date. Wou4d ~t be on the tax c~d? I memn the pr% sr:y the b~k of the propexy the?ye owned for 30 years or more. CHA~RWO~N: ~ere are a couple ofdges on here November 19 we don't ~ow what and then map amended k's yew faded k could be Deck. er 3. 1985. So wkat I*m t~ng ro find ~s when did d~e Ptann~ng Board crege these lots? MR. PISACANO: Z don't have the ~swer to thg in front of me. I'm prob~oly going to go back to the 50% which *his lot was p~ off CHAIRWOMAN: i l~now but the ~t's d~cuk because the !cts that we see on ~d ifs ve~ dif~cuk to read th{s copy of don't the iot n=mbers on the map oft]~is sc called lot line chmnge or approv~ of the Pla~ing MR. PISACANO: Dec.bet 16~ 1985~ Page 28 of 63 PaGe 29 Februaw 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Don't give numbers of the lots we have nothing to match them up with what we have now and apparently from what this map shows lot ld was supposed to be part of lot 19 and lot 15 am I calling it so far? MR. PISACANO: Right, which never..~k place. CHAIRWOMAN: So that never took place. And a~er that time how did the lot get sold if the Plapafing Board had already made a determination that your lot would be merged with these other 2 lots? MR. PISACANO: That was done back in 1985 and it's been t don't know how many years since and the owners of the homes in front of it never did acquire it that's why i'm saying their decision seemed a little premature to make a decision like that when they waren't sure the properties were merged. CHAIRWOMAN: When did this lot 19.11, when was it first a described lot with meets and bounds that we see now. When was the first date of that? In other words I want to go to a deed that shows me meets and bounds of a described parcel 19.i 1 when would be the first date of that? MR. PISICANO: This one William Ghudiak to William Chudiak 10-19-99 recorded liber page 1~ guess that's I don't know when it went back to - I don~t know what I'm trying to 5nd out. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't know either, if you don't know, i don't know. MR. PISACANO: As far as I'm concerned it's a pre-ex/sting lot. It's been there forever since they've owned it, Plam~ing Board carved pieces off it and that's how it was leer. How they can determine it's in an R-80 zone after they shnmk it down to 1.7 acres I don't have the answer to that. That's why I'm saying I don't think they did the right thing by making this decision because now Chudiak did not sell the 2 parcels that this would have been at one time and got the money for it, therefore they shouldn't get stuck with mx un-buildable lot. If it's in a R-80 zone, that's basically what we are trying to decide? CHAIRWOMAN: Let me try to follow it because it's very confusing. MR. PISACANO: It's not as confusing as it looks. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's go back to the Planning Board created these lots in 1985. Half of your lot was supposed to be - let's go to the tax map the northern half of your lot when they created this subdivision was to be merged with lot 15. MR. PISACANO: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: The southern part of yom' lot was to be merged with lot ld. Right? Page 29 of 63 Page 30 February 20. 2883 Southold Town Board of Appeais Regu',ar )7;oeting PuNic Hearin9 MR. ?ISACANO: Yes. C~AIRWOMAN: That never took place. That's a big blank. %nat never happened bnt feat was the conditions of their approval ~qd so at thai time. I don't ~ow ~ae~he:' ~here -were aescdbed p~cms for ~ot i5 going back to yom- lo~d ]or 16 going back to your ~o: or nor~ MR. PISACANO: They never took titles of them, they never purchased them for whatever CHARWOMAN: Then yoga come a~ong in 1998 or was it 19997 MR. PiSACANO: That's jus~ when ~e v~m:ce se~¢n went ba~c ~ bout% i: in October or Septe~oer ~ believe I closed on fi. CHAr~WOMAN: ~nd thaCs the first time a deed describing a - that's the first time tlnat was described in a deed wo'cld be 1999? MR. PISACANO: No, ~ would say it went back to ~957 or thCfs ~¢ ooinion it want back to when they ofi~nally o~ed the p~ceL CHA~WOM~: Here's what we have m do because it's ~gx~ :~ow in order to m~<e a decision we need some facts here ~d they are miss:_ng. We will conrac: the Pl~ming Bored mhd ge~ more ~nfo~aiion ~om ~hem. I don't thi~ we have enough info:~afion ~om the Pimping BomCd VCe w~l~ ask them for their complete records as m ~nen the lot was created how ~t was cregfged evm%hing else Hke we have sometNng in the file. It's nm s~fficxen~. MR. P~SACANO: I did have 2 a~omeys tha: were rapposed m be here. but they' m~e 5oth away. CHAIRWOMAN: What ~ need ~om you or your armmey i need to see '~en tlza: lot ihe lot that you have was first a descrihed lot ~n a deed. MR. PISACANO: Wouldn't th{s variance se~c¢_ show that? CHAIRWOMAN: No in fac~ wflh tee variance se~ch after ~ read the vmd¢~ce search iC shows that eve~3ody's lot was p~ of everybody e~se's lot - MR. PISACANO: They ail have homes on al;em. CHAIRWOMAN: it does no~ g~ve me a described pm~cel so it's yew difficu]~ ~o read ~d the easiest way ¢o find our, ~ know you have a deed describing [he mee~s and bounds rofior ro yourself, when was the firs~ deed on tha~? ~nen was the first deed recorded w~th the meels and bo~ds ~i~at ge desm5bed on Lhe ]ct ~hat you have? Then w~ c~. t~e it ~om '~ere~ [ don't w~nl to send you aromnd in circles anymore but we don't have m~y facts to st¢~ ~,d the bo~d m~bers don't lmow what the iota rare. We need a lot more facts. Page 30 of 83 Pag~ 3'~ F~r~ar~ 20, 2003 Southo]d Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearin9 MR. PISACANO: Is there any way this doesn't have to be extended for another 30 days? Is there a special meeting? CHAIRWOMAN: The problem is t went through this file twice and we've done a lot of waivers of merger but I don't even know where t~:'~gin because I don't have a record. We don't have a clean record to be able to look at this and know what is in front of us. MR. P!SACANO: That's what I've been doing for the last 8 months trying to get this together and that's what I thought I presented and that's pretty much evewthing that I could get on paper and that's what I handed in Platming:Board decisions, planning board the way things were created it should all be in that paperwork. CHAIRWOMAN: I think your attorneys will be able to help you with this. They are far more experienced in tlpJs and they know what the board has to have to make a decision. Right now we don't even have, we have references to lots that don't exist on any of these maps- MR. PISACANO: You mean lots that already have houses on them that don't exist- CHAIRWOMAN: t don't even know which ones have homes on them, that's the problem. If this was a condition of the Planning Board*s approval, was it a condition? If it was a condition, then why didn't it occur? i don~t lanow why it didn't occur. MR. PISACANO: Well they can't force people to purchase property that they are not ready to purchase. It was a choice. That's why I thought the decision was premature. CHAIRWOMAN: You do have 2 attorneys? MR. PISACANO: They said iii could keep it open they will be back next week. But for a couple more months I can't. This is killing me. CHAIRWOMAN: I understand, but please understand us we have nothing here to even begin with. MR. PISACANO: If they are back shortly and if there's some kind of clarification, is there any way I can get this sooner? CHAIRWOMAN: We are booked right now ali the way until April so the next hearing date would be ApriI. But your attorneys are going to know what we need to see. We need a described lot, your lot. After the lot line change was made or prior to the lot line change being made so we can say yes this is the lot that was created either before the Planning Board approval, xvith the Planning Board approval, but one of the things we can't do is we can't undo Planning Board approval. I£the Planning Board approves something, this board can't come back and undo it. MR. PISACANO: But they approved something that didnt happen, that s what Im trying to say. Page 31 of 63 Februaw 20. 2003 Southold i-own 8osrd of Appea~s Regumr Meeting PubEic Hesri~9 CHAIRWOMAN: Trym get the information, 'ay m get the tax maps, even 5fyou simply with the attorneys wd~e a ~e~er to us mx ~ap n~mber M~MB~X HORN~G: No cuesdo~s. MEMBER OL~VA: ~m in the same pred:_ca~em ~d the c~a~r~ady Ss. ; don't ~ow because according co ~e Piarming Bo~ they say your Ior was merged wfih ~he o~e: 2 ~ots :5~:t on the road ~d yet I ,~derst~d because I was dove:_ there ~hat there a'e 2 houses on those :ors. But your lot was supposed to ~ave merged with those other 2 lots. MR. PISACANO: But they didn't CZ~KIRWOMAN: The other th~ng that's rea12y difficuk ~s tine PL~ming Bo~d says yot~ lot was never supposed to be bunk ~R. P;SACANO: ~ftkeymerged. CHARWOMAN: The ~e~ we go~ s~5~ they w~en't supF ~sed MR. PISAC~70: They presmnted ~s today? CHAIRWOMAN: We will request more ~nfo~ation. 1he ep25re ~le. We wfl2 do that. Let's ro gzve yo~ sm._c_e,_t ~z_~e. a~o~ .h~s to Apn~ 3 at 7._0. m dmt going ~. PESACANO: Next week wo~d be suf~c~ent. CHARWOMAN: ls there smyone else in tBe audience who would Hke 'm spe&k for or agaLnsr ~ALCOL~ DOUBLEDA%: ~'m Ma;coD% Doubleday. in Fio~da figh, now. He would like to approach the A*ofi~ Did you receive a copy of a petition sic_ed by- CHAIRWOMAN Yes. MR. DOUBLEDAY: Ted }s vow ~mtionaI about this and ~ csm't be because ['m not familiar enough but he is involved wkh the Chudiaks when aH this Dappled and at one time he had considered on that piece of propeNy for his daughter but he and a couple of eib_er people have thoug~t about it ~d a¢er going tbsough the wealth of pape:¢¢ork on the subjec- realized it was ~mpossib]e. 5m so~ Mr. Pisacsmo bought the propm%y but it's - his probimm is sos of self ~flicted fi~ut now, Evewbody else did enough rose,ch to walk away fi'om it ~d reafzed Chat they cou~dn2 build on ~t, As ~ said_ Teddy would be up here for hours ~elling you the histow ofk but ~ just w~{ed m mM{e sure ~ got Pfis po~n~ across tha~ 2 was ~-b:~dable for ~xybody ese so ~t should r~mln [tat way, Ail those divisions were for lot line ch~ses ofi~nal[y, I ~ess Page 32 of 63 Pa~e 33 February Southold Town Board Of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing somebody didn't but their piece for their lot line change, but I don't think that makes it a buildable lot in 2-acre zoning. That's really it. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? CHRIS HILLIKER: I'm Clzds Hilliker, my property abuts this particular piece of property in question and just a co'aple of things. There is a long paper history on file with the Plapming Board apparently and in there is a letter dated August 13, 2001 from Valefie Scopaz, the Town Plamner and she highlights that she discussed the matter with the Planning Board and 2 of the members present were on the board during the 1985 time period. They emphasize that the intent of the lot line applications were to merge 1and, expand the size of existing lots not to create new building lots. The record indicates that the subject lot of this memo 19.11 t believe is what it is was intended to be merged with 2 adjoining lots and not to be retained for sale as a building lot at some future date so that's one thing that's on rite. I don't have that particular map that showed the numbers that you were talking about but Mr. Chudiak's parcel was quite large and at several points in time he did divvy up several pieces of property. One of which was so[d to the Milowskis which was larger than the 2-acre zoning which was required at that point in time. th~nk that was 1985. CHALRWO1VLAN: Wl-fich parcel? MS. HILLIKER: If you have the map I'd be able to point it out to you. There were 2 parcels in question, one being Michaels lot and the other being the Milowski property that was sold. 19.8 is the number. That was the odgdnat parcel and it also abutted the property in question se at that point in time if the owner had changed his mind he could have done some changes at that time. Also at that time his attorney filed information regarding original covenants and th/s was also on th the file and this was dated November 6 1985. CHAIRWOMAN: This is for what lot? MS. HILLTKER: Once again I don't have that. It says proposed lot line changes, William Chudia the following is the language of a covenant which we intent to insert in any deed made by the Chudiak's to the owner o£the adjacent parcel and we understand that any approval o£by the planning board o£the ~ot line changes will be subject to the requirement of the deeds which convey the Chudiak property contain this particular covenant and that's this particular parcel in question. Then lastly, my particular property got subdivided - I don't know the total acreage but it's now considered Tallwood Lane there were 4 parcels. CHAIRWOMAN: Your lot is what number? MS. HILLIKER: Don't know again. Hilliker. CHAIRWOMAN: You're north of rids parcel? Page 33 of 63 ~ebrua~y 20, 200:3 $outhold Town Board of AppeaIs Regular Meeting Pubi[c meari£g MS. I-HZLIKER: Where ~ I - west. Once again this clouts the ps~hcuIsr ?~ece ofproper:y ~n question and ~f ~ndeed k~ow~ng wkat the zon~:2g and new bz2ding consWzc2~on reqcxremeCzs were th~s could have been ¢a2 oftl~s ~m~icular subdCv~s2on. ~t was not done at thtt point and t~me. My husband along with the other 3 people were nsmdsted 2nto the new 2-~:e zoning constract~on log. T2at ~eaves me ro show you. that d7is is really a subst~nda'd re2atdng lot and wkh the paper ¢~a~1 that it has. reaiIy should not be able tc be bu~It upon. Wkh the le:ter regarding today the Build2ng Depamnent Not~ce of D~sapproval for consL~act~on of e sCngle f~21y dwelling the basis of~s NOD ~s Ch~t 73~2d sq. ~. p~rcel ~s not pe~itted. Wkh that one 5ns~ note as fm~ ~s ~ne prope~zy te~n kse~f; ~k~ someone skou~d walk k ~f E~s ~s being consid~ed a: a!h C~AIRWOMAN: Fve done a srce inspection on the prope~- MS. HILL~R: IOs sever~ fee~ below k provides a na~aral ~nage bas~s for tke su~o~d~ng ex~sting ~chmnged topo~ophy and ~ ~2~< ~La~ ake~ng ~ke ekvaion in ~y way wou~d result !2 destracdve devers~on of r~offto no~ ~nly ~he s~o~ding res~den~g gzea bu~ ~so L wc~2d end ~ in Cox Neck Rom& CHARWOMAN: Is thee ~yone else in ~he audience who wo~ald like to speak for or aga~nsl ~he application? CAROL BEC~R SWiTOCHIA: Hello. C~ol Bed<er Switochia, One oYE~e parcels that my faker's house was on ~d they did 6~e lot line change he's the one ~no didn't *gun hxs piece because he died before- CHAIRWOMAN: Do you happen to ]~ow what lot ~nd tax maD rramber? Fve got a little map ~ sre ~d I'm ~ng '~o find it. Let's nut it this way, me you on Cox Neck Road? MS. SWtTOCHIA: Yes, i'm next to Wells ~d Sidoro¢x which is on ~ne other side and he didnL buy his pgcei CHARWOMAN: You're the souff~!v- MS. SWITOCHIA: Easterly. CHAIRWOMAN: Half of Mr. Pisacano's lot MS. SW~OCHIA: So my neiDhbor said yes. %~ai's what happened that's ~ny k wasn't 3ou~tl. Also Wannit ~d Wells did the lot line change it was the und~standing ths* you could not build on tha property. When my father died. l didn't buy k because you couldnk build on it. 5 understood {t to be thg it could only be ofikred to the people in the Eont so like nobody could really buy it exc~t ifI did mzd th~x if Sidorock's bought ~=eir ptece. You ~ow we were the only ones tlnat were entitled to b ay it. Is that wha ~ understand to be so? Also there's a letter I donl ~now if you have this bnl it w~ 5'om ¢2~e Pla~Lng Bogd ~d evening ga~ing that Page 34 of 63 Page 35 Februsry 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing lot line changed and it was not a buildable lot. They weren't going to that was the idea of why the neighbors really bought there because they didn*t want anybody building behind them. CHAIRWOMAN: Ttn:oughout the years what happened after the lots weren't bought what happened with the lot? MS. SWITOCHIA: Nothing it was just there it was just like an extension of our property. It's just like a piece that's behind our property nothing, it's vacant. I don't understand the taw and whatever it was my understanding that nobody could buy it to build on it. So who would buy it if they couldn't build on it. (MALE IN AUDIENCE) You had to have property adjoining it if you wanted to buy it. CHAIRWOMAN: It's like a ball of yarn every time you open it, it continues to drop little pieces. I think we have a litde bit more understanding. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing until April 3rd at 7:10 pm and Mr. Pisacano we will try to get everything we can, all ttze information we can from the Planning Board. In the mean time I'm sure both of your attorneys could assist you in helping to identify ali of these lots in terms of meets and bounds, numbers as opposed to names, what the tax lot so we can see immediately whaI you are talking about and a deed description for an exact deed description for when it was first created, iit make the motion. Page 35 of 63 F®brL(a~ 29, 2003 Southo[d Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ~:3g p.m. App~ Nao 5224 - S?Pd;NT S?ECTRU_hh. LL~. This ~s a request 7or ~ Excephon under Sechon 100-~2A.i regarding the proposed ~ns~r~a:~on o~tdeco:nmun~cat~ons antermas ~ushde t!~e exhsthag {c~ch) sreep~ef*uh~d~ng, bcated at 23045 M~r_ Road, Ohen~: Parcd ~ 0OO- } 8-2-22. L CHAIRWOMAN: is someone here who wou}d l~ke to speak 02 behalfof*he ap?c~t~on7 LA~ENCE XE. ESQ: Good ahemoon. Appearing 7or the appl~cm~r. Lawrence Re. Meade. NeiIsor_ and Re 36 No.J:. NY Ave.. N~-&ntin~on. May ~ proceef.5 CHAIRWOMAN: Cena~rJy. MR. ~: ~ t~s ~pp}~cafion Sp:dt Spectrum_ LP ~s seeing a specha2 use pe~21 lc enable ~t to [nstaH sma;1 w~reless p~.e~ ~term~s ~n '&e steeple of t~e con~egahonai c~cE ~2_ Cd,hr ~d [2stal} red,ted equ~pm~_¢ ~n ~&.ere and mn ~ccessow buhd52g on tko ?rem~;ses. As the bo~d 2s aw~e. Sp~:x~ 5s l~censed by Ge FCC to co2_s;mcr_ ma~n*a~n. ~.d o~erate ~ w~reless co=~uMcadon system 2ere in Suf~blk County and t~oz~ho,at the US mhd 5t's s~ces s.:'e a bene~t to the commm~t~ p~dcul~!y w5en in mn ~ergency for plachxg cults to 9! t -dion conventional phones are not avMIable or operating. ~ thonk the s~adshcs most recextty show abou~ 45% of ~2 c~ts placed ~o 911 a-e made from mob51e telep!zo~2es. So Lhey kayo become p~ of s~fety network of 2he community. At 52e present nme. Sphp_t does ::o: 5~ve reh~.bLe se~ce ~n the O~e:.t ~ea. 5n order ro provide rehdb]e se~ce we ~u. st estai31hsh ac ~te~a s~te and as ~e board ~s aware. Spd~xt has ceen go~ng out of 2t's way ro ':~ to ~2~Eze exhst~ng raft, er 22an to come befo:e th~s board seeking a p~,it to bu~id a new tower. In thhs case we've done one better, we've fo~d not only ~_ ex~sdng stw. cture bur we foun~ a way *o md<e ~;ze e~dre s?~e ~hvhshb[e to Ge outside world. T;~e ~nter=nas w~i be compiete;y enciose4, w~2k~:n the sree->le and the rotated eou~pment w511 be ~n mn accessow bu~id~ng on Oe ~c"~ds :hear tLze ~.2-~ch. The s~te would be '~mpmed morhtored r~.ctely on ~ continuous 5ashs 24 ho~rs a day, 3~5 d~ys a year ~d the she w~I! o,erate at st:&' a ;ow pow~ love! t;~at we w~11 be at !25 dines less th~_ the FCC stand~d [ have a ~ambe: of exh~bhs t22at; can s~.bm2 ?ad ~ 5s¢e a %~nb~: whtnesses here. Rather ahan go d~o'c, gh a len~hy procedzre, what ~ c~ do 2~Ge be ~rd preTer ~s to s¢amit a rehml ¢rom eackz w~:ness and then I have tlxem here ~f you'd Eke ~o usx qu. esdons or 2ear an~2~ng Pahber. And also rat2er tkan go b~ck ~d 5b~k_ wht;7 these exk~b~ts. cra% l~st them and then bring the~, up all ar once. The ~rst is an afhdav2 of Ja~es McCmzneiL is here today he ~s a radio frequency eng~xeer for Spzdnt and ~n ;x~s ~f~dav~t be ex31a:_ns 5ow the system works, wky ~(s s~te 2s needed and then wht5 accompanying maps. b~e shows w;nere the exhst~ng coverage ~s a~d ~nat coverage t;qis Mte wonld pro, de. ~ aisc 5ave a phaz~nhng study pr~ared by F~der&al and Eikow~cz ~d Te~ E}kow~cz Ge p~nc¢.pa! pim~mer ~s aisc here. ; ktve a repoff: by S~et~cs tkat ccmprehenshveiy &na}yzes the radio P:e~uency emissions from s~te and concludes tlxat the site whl be whhhn the FCC l~m~ts ~d ~t's pnnc~pal Lou Cotmoccha here sho~td you kayo ~y E~aesdons. md we ~ave the afhdsv2 of Mhchsel L~ch. 2~censed P~ appraiser that a:tests tkst th~s proposed s~te wouId not 2ave a negs/dve eTfect on protege'' o~¢ake s~o~zn~ng ~es. ~ Mr. L~c5 2s keno. ~ a~so kave ~¢~er 2om the State H~stodc Prese~sdon ofhce thz~ cond~.~ona71y approves cnn tppIhcat~on Mt5 the conditions ~d we c~ ?age 38 cf 63 Page 37 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing abide by the conditions listed so we do have approval of SHIPO and lastly Ms. Kowalski was kind enough to provide me with a copy of a correspondence from Ann Hopkins that was sent by e-mail today was one Ann Hopskins that expresses her support for this application and I'd like to submit that as well. CHAIRWOMAN: We have that in the record. MR. RE: Having said that, if the board has any questions with respect to the layout we have the architect here and we have the planner here with regard to planning issues with regard to propagation we have the radio frequency engineer here the appraiser and we also have the health expert. CHAIRWOMAN: I went through the plans quite carefully Ijust - the existing church steeple is 76' tall? MR. RE: Yes it's 76. The center line of the antennas wilt be 62'10" inside the steeple. CHAIRWOMAN: How many antennas is this going to be? MR. RE: Tl~ere are 6 panel antennas. They measure 30" in length and 8" in width and 2.75" in depth. I think they are shown on ZO5. The steeple itselfwas erected in 1940 following the hurricane of'38 and we are going to preserve and restore the shingles that are removed in the church building. CHAIRWOMAN: From the exterior of the building when I go by, what am I going to see other than a church steeple? MR. RE: It's going to look identical. 71~e shingles that are removed will be replaced with shingles that are transparent for radio frequency transmissions, but will have the same appearance as the existing shingles and then the church steeple will be re-painted so you will see the - it will be identical in appearance. CHAIRWOMAN: When I drive by, I'm not going to in any way, there won't be any hint that there is a- MR. RE: None whatsoever. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to mm it over to the board members. Mr. Goehr/nger. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'd like to ask Terry Elkowicz a question ifI could. Terry you've been before this board many times how many of these situations do you see from a planning aspect placed in steeples and this is not an undisclosed location it's the public hearing, but prior to this public hearing how would we know if an~hing was placed in dome of a school or steeple of a church? Page 37 of 63 Fabrua~ 20. 2083 Southold Town Board of Aa~eais Reguiar Meeting Public Hearing MS EL~OW-rCZ: [ can't spe~ for the radio engineers but I c~ spe~( for my own expedesce represenling d ceEuir companies, V~aa we ~ ~o do ~s we do ~, the ca. ers do ~ ~o desi~ these things sc Gey can be more as invisible or as unobtrcsive as ¢ossiNc and the reason for that ~s obvious, We don't ex; ay coming before boszds like th{s wi<~z ~_ appHca~don Knaes di~cuk you fo~ me, Now if you're asking me could someone go md put someding 2n this szeeple never come to you and you wouidi't ~zow ~t? MEMBER GOEHR~GER: No Pm just say~ng in yo~ pasz expo;deice as a p!a~_ning expex many o~ these h~ve you seen? MS. ELKOWXCZ: %iasc pa22cnl~z ones. I've p~obaNy worked on 4 but yma have -~o ziso ~emember this ~s a difficuk process for a cm~er becaus~ ~ cm~er is conhned 2o pa%meters like where is your se~ce de¢dency. And dq¢ 5rst K22ng ~hey look for ~s i nave a so.ice dehciency gap ~d; c~ on!y put the site in one p~ieM= area to ad.ess ihs gap, The ~rst thing they look for is a~e tlnere ~.y tMl stuccos and then tiey i~ed~ately go :o ~q¢ to lease that tall s~*ecmre bectuse believe me none of is enjoy coming to you 7o zW ~o erec,: new ~ER GOE~GER: lnt~-est{ng, in tie past whet. you have come before ns in hearings we were ta~king about s~los, we were ~alk~ng a*ou': roes_ we were talking ~bo,~.t t~es ofo~er dis~dsed t~es of s~actu:es. The steep!e aspec: dtb_ou~2 new ro me is an {nteresdng fo~ of h{ding ~ese tFpes of ~tep:~as, ~tere the ~nte~a is ~n effect the only thing dia's rea!fy hidden Mi the mechanical aspera ofk is in the building, MS~ ELKOW~CZ: ~:z the basem~t in the bui!d~ng 2~%ediate!y to the no~h ~d a12 of the conduit is undergom~d so you will not see tlne w~dng, yo'a won't see tie aqua*merit and yon; not see the ~Iep=na. And l-he steeo!e will took as k does today. ME~ER GOEH~%GER: From a 91~ing perspective~ yon fr_d ~,solute!y p~o change at as th~s aeneid._ spoke to the chd~:son was addressing us we ~diX see E~solutely no~!ing exceot possibly a m~nor change in the color of shing!es for a cer;ai2 peiod oRime. MS. ELKOWICZ: UntdI it gets pah~ted yes and that ~s echoed by the !oF:er Hint Mr. Re to ~ke bo~d fxom the ~YS of Ece of oaks recreation 2isto~c 2reseTation because you read their opimon ~d the reason why they issued a letter of no effect is that this w~li %o'r in any way eYfec': the v{sua! or historic ~nte~ly of that steeple or the building. MEMBER GOEHR~rGER: Is there ~y loading, i know this is hoc a question for yon. but is there ~y loading th~ng that we have to wo~ about. MR. RE: l can the simple answer is no. ~ have tk.e ~cbitect here who ~swe:cd the same question ~en we appeared before the pl~mg *oa-ds. ~*. Mfaa~a why don't; yo,a come ~R. P~T. A~CH: My 2~e is ~ Rifaat Pm ~[th & Mesi~:o. 240 Cedsz ~no!ls Rd. in Cedar I~o!is. NJ. Pm a licensed ach~teo~ in ~, Page 3~ February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board ef Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The approximate weight of the antermas? MR. RIFAAT: They are 9 lbs. Each. · MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Times 4? CHAIRWOMAN: 6. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Times 6, I'm sorry. MR. R~FAAT: RougbJy 60 pounds with mounting brackets. 60-70 petards maximum I would say. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the cable is insignificant in your opirfion? MR. RIFAAT: I would say so yes, 7" cable for that mn until it's supported so add another 10 pounds if you tike which would be a lot probably. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in your opinion the stmctura! integrity of the steeple would not be compromised in any way? MR. R[FAAT: No way. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In no way am I asking these questions saying that I'm in favor of this, I'm very simply asking them as a matte~- of education and I thank you. MEMBER HORNI-'NG: Your current coverage extends through the village of Greenport area ~ see on the map? MR. RE: Yes the map shows that we have coverage in Greenport approaching Orient, it doesn't make it to Orient and this would provide the coverage in Orient. We have a larger blow up map that Mr. McConnell could show the board that I think would be helpful here. The smaller map that we submitted, this would be a little clearer. MEMBER HORNING: Can you tell us for the record how many Sprint subscribers you have for the township of Sou/hold? MR. RE: Because this is a mobile technology, many users of the service in So~thold are coming from elsewhere and in Orient I guess in particular on the way to the ferry, so I don't know whether the statistic is - ~fyou were to look at the __ along Rt. 25 there is a signiSca~t Mount of traffic of users partaking of the service. MEMBER HORNING: Is your motivation to pick up new subscribers? Page 39 of 63 Page 40 Februaq¢ 28, 2083 Southold Town Board of Appea~s Regular Meeting PUbr, ic }{earing MR, RE: We are licensed th~o'c,~out Suffelk Co~t} and ~%ouCaout much of the motivS~on is to provide the soN, ce o'~ c-as':omers expect when tlmy s~p_ cp. It's Fie a washing machine ween you tam ~t on ym~ expect it to work The customers expect reN~Sie se~ce tbz'o,a¢our the Hcense coverage ~ea ~zd. we s~mpIy emn't provide seNice ~o seas i;: Ozient. MEMBER HORN~G: is there ~_y msxim~m n~.mSer of subscribers teal you can Bm~d!e at ~iven time? ~ hem¢ ta~es of people not being able to make ca~is at certain times of the day because ~t's busy ~d such. ,J~MES MCCO~ELL: Jinx;es McCorme]P, S~nt PCS, ~ I%:emadond Blvd.. ~arnwgh NR Yon are abso?a~e~y co=oct ~n that there is a m~{mnm capacity on shy ;-ype of wit&ess sys:e~ it GSN tec~no~o~, TDA ~;eE~o]o~ or CDMA tecknolo~ which ~s winst we emp]oy~ That's wha: you're refe~ng to when people co~¢]a~n gbo~? not being able to m~ke cJls a: ce~a~:~ imes those ~e what we call our pe~ ho'~ times. In those inst~ces when o~ Nock~ng rmes ~,own as block{ua when a call can't go ~o~¢~. ~en o~ NocMng rams stun gearing s~g~i~cmt, we've got options to ad&ess that one being add~;ng ad, d~(onal ca,Jets ~n{cl~ ~s no~ r, ecessadly ~y equipment change the modular cabinets eq'aipmeni ~hat o~ radios ~t in we can h~Aie 'ao ro six ca%;ers in other words we can employ additional ~equendes wh~& ?,ys~c~ ch,*ge to the ex{sbng sysrpm~ Each cannot cmn h~d]e eam 6 maximin ffequ~des at a thne. in the rare even~ that we had ~ ~. we am Hcensed m go u;p ro i i whi6! would e~l adding ~other mod c&L B~,t for point of reference ~¢tr now, Mm-~_att~ is o~y 3. so E~e odds of Oient eve: gett2~g to that stage are pretty m~rlmal I thi~. Does teat mnswer yo~ question? MEMBER HORN~G: Wha~ 7m ~ng ro get at ~s the proposzI is to lease some ~:n the basement of z pre-ex~sting accessow building ~o EoM the te]ecomm-anications equipm, ent associated wit! the gPemna, Is that co,oct? M~. RE: Yes. MEMBER HORN~'G: ~s there gde~are space 5n that b~ement tha~ ad, equam space exists witbAn ~hst building to handle ali your ~¢~re needs? MR. RE: We always huMd in a mm'~n of comfo~ ~n mnddpgtkg 5~mre needs ~nd tee answer ~s yes. MEMBER HORN~G: To ~zacrease yo~ capacities at th~s pg~(cuiar proposed s~te wEar gze sa~:xg ~nat yon would have to do ~n gdd{fion :o ~nst you are proposmgq MR. RE: The s~te ~s designed to handle ce~ain margin of increased capad~ fcr ~:he &~mre. MEMBER HO~N~G: ~d you feel 6 ~2e%as ~.d the eqmpmem storage space is adequgte~ Y~. RE: Yes. Page 49 of 63 Page 41 FebruaW 28, 2083 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: I just had one questiou. Being that the Oz4ent Congregational Church is a historic building, what axe the rmniScations if by some chance the steeple was hit by lightening? MR. RE: James, would you be able to handle that question? MR. MCCONNELL: I'm not an expert in that burl can testify that our systems are fully grounded. They are grounded at various points for the very reason you're talking about. Understand most of our sites across the US are up on towers whic5 are still structares anyway, lightening magnets. The odds axe much greater of a structure like that being hit by lighterdng than say possibly the steeple but even as such~we do the systems are fully grounded there's breakers, there% the whole host of safety built in to not only the system being blown out but our investment too. This equipment costs a lot of money so we build in as much safety as we can.. As far as causing any additional, is that your question, is it more likely to be hit by lightening? MEMBER OLIVA: ~ don't thank so, it's one of the tallest structures in the neighborhood, Fm just concerned about fire. If there's anything there that couId explode or do something that would cause a fire. MR. MCCONNELL: Oh no, not in my opinion. ' CHAIRWOMAN: Okay Mr. Re I'm going to see,if there axe any questions from the audience. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? If you could bring that map to the side and face it to the audience so they can see it. Seeing no hands, Pi1 make a motion closing the heating reserving decision until later. Mr. Re I'm going to note that there is a letter in the file from the Planning Board in support of tlMs as it is in keeping with the Toxv'n's goals of pole location and designs and to minimize the number of new sh'uctm'es and sites. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 41 of 63 February 28, 2~03 Southo[d Town Board of Aooea~s ~eBa,ar Mee~m9 Public ~ear[ng 3:58 porn. AppL Ne. 5218 - J, sad ~, WOOD[~OUSE. ~h~s ~s a ~eoues, ~m a Van,_ce Section 100-30A.3 based on the Bu[]din~ Department's Au~csl 15~ 2002 R[otice of Disapproval, amended Dec~ber ~ 6 2002 and December 24, 2~02, for lot ~ea ~d : ~ ~ ~ ' w_dtn o~ Lo~s i mad 2_ as shown on the lot line ch~ge map revised I 1-4-02. Location of Propers: 2395 Village Lane mud 255 Na~ St.. Orient: P~ce~ ]000-26-~q2. CHA!RWOM~N: Is someone here who would like to spe~¢ on oe~a~f o~ ~ne app]cation? JE~IFER GOULD. ESQ: Good afl.men my nmme is Jem~fif~ Gould. ILm here today representing Jo~m ~nd Je~ Woodhouse who are a~so here with me. ?fi, or to the ope:zing up of tins heanng I h~ded up to Linda I~owalski a suppl~,entai submission brat Pd tike to be made p~ of[se record mud ?ye made conies for ail o~you and they ~e t~abed. T: ...... ~ ~' :,-q you w~t to follow ~ong. CHARWOMAN: Jzst one moment if you dorft mia& I~d like to We h5em to each board m~b~. MS. GO~D: Briefly w[hat me pa~x ~ncludes is fi~st the So,afiaold To~ Code secffmzs 124,. ......~ me otngmms of aH these 126 an~ ~he buI~ AA schedme a cet~n~d title search mud Linda has '-~ ' ' docmmen'~s. Th~s is a sem%h by co2~menwea!O:. Rb cerdfied hhe recorc o~e~s er t:~e pac~-s ~d how ~e parcels were created stm~ed back in 19!8 tbnmu~ the Weodhouse% tide at pres Bm2n fins. ~ - ification me actual comes of all ~e deeds. The ~_t7~ thx'cg .....~m ~vmg yea is a letter from Southold Town Assessor Scott Russell dated Febm~ ~2~ wiflh copxes off assessors cm~ds offt~e ¢~0 houses, the one at 239S Village Lane ~d t~e 255 Ns~ St. houses are both assessed as single f~iiy residences. ~.xe fo~h tiling m the : ' pace ~s sm ~ of a !ffstow of the one lime there were 4 souses ~_ L_e cm%e.~t pm'ce[ pszce] ~mre's a 1909 map showing that at ': ' ' ~- ~ ~atez there were 3 Mr. Knob!eob who acauired all the prope~y ~ocked down the u~o souses Vi]age Lmne mud ccns~actsd the c-~ent house which is 2395 Village L~e. ~r_afs reflexes to as 255 Na~ S~ee~ m o'sz a slication is ~o~n as [~e ~sm~enl chief co!ts e ~_d the records on that buJcmg ge b~cx( to 18% ~.a m the record xs a book ,y the hmtonc orient village sma ~he members packets I~ve jus'~ copied excepts showing ~hat 255 Na~ St. ~s on Che re~ster ofhisieffc p~aces and ~hen ~ have eld sur~eys rhar 3 of the n~cels ~e m tins waole parcel amc ~so be SPL[A Society for ~he prese~afion of Ll antiquities d~d inventories o~ ice property i2, 1973 reco~zmg them both as sesarate residences Hse 5a i~em in the pacx is ~he ~E apprmsa] that Pat Costald~ prepared for us. She appraises the proFercy as it ~s ] propm~. She ansraises property as L ~i is 2 prope~ies w~a~ Khe e~isfing lo~ line which is exhibi~ 6~ Ij~s~ nave a smm~er stow y you ]] no~e mat ne ~ot line ~o~ 25~ Navy Street s~parating the 2' '- --~ ' garage and msJes the garage pan of 255 Na~ St. as a poXmn of ;he ba:_~ ~s well which is real~y why we are here t¢ straighten thai out. That's what ! warn to add into the record and you've received a letter that I got a copy from the Pluming Board today. We have beea working with ~he Pl~smg Bead s~ee J~ o_ last ye~ on this application ~d what we a~eed to do in Au~sr ~vas go for a lot line change ~d they asked ss of core-se to go to the building d~pa oz= NOD. At that time fAey thos~.t we"d be go~s~g for a w~ver of merger but tlte BD picked ap on sometSing that we s~l packet ap on was .ns parcel ~omes u_~de~ mn exc*stion w?Jdn ke~s the Page 42 of 63 Page 43 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Bosrd of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 2 houses from merging and that's the exception 100-25 C5 if you have 2 houses and they are 850 sq. 12 2 single family dwellings and they are at least.850 sq. 12. and they either have CO's or they would quatify fi}r CO's they haven't merged. That's why the BD in their NOD back in August didn't even address the merger issue because in their opinion, I'm speaking for them obviously, they didn't think it had merged all they saw was that me had 2 pre-existing nonconforming lots and what we were asking the PB to do was reconfigure those lots and as far as the BD was concerned, they were still pre-existing nonconforming. That's why we are here. As you know in December they issued an amended NOD where they said the merger law did not apply and also we changed our map to try to make it as conforming as possible. Org/nally what we tried to do was draw a new tine malting both 1ors exactly equal in size and what we did was we put a line 3.2' west of the garage well that creates a nonconformity. It has to be at least 5L We moved the line to 5' on the final map so the size of one lot is 22,250 sq. 12. and the Navy St. lot would be 19,904 sq. ft. so each lot would be approximately a ½ acre which in this neighborhood you know is large. Most of the houses in this neighborhood are probably on ¼ acre like our 909 map that we have that shows the whole area in that book of the historic district everybody's on probably a ¼ acre Or less in this irrLmediate vicinity of Vii]age Lane Navy St. and so forth. Do you have questions? CHAIRWOMAN: 21tis has been a long haul w~th ~ds, it's been back and forth and back and forth. The NOD [ have on the 24th says the merger laxv does not apply to this property in question. For your information we did meet with legal council about this and the reading that we have of this in one sentence is the merger law does not apply to here because if it was 1 lot before the merger law cannot subdivide it now essentially in other words you don't get to the exemptions, you don't get to any of the exemptions. This has been one described lot. l'mjust looking at the deeds you handed up since 1958 or before? MS. GOULD: I think the 12rst time it was conveyed out that was to Mr. Dorman in 1958. CHAIRWOMAN: Since the crdcat question this was 1 lot in 1958. It was not 2 lots. Xt was a litde described parcel on a littte sMp of Imad please bear vdth me originally he bought the 1or that we see on the tax map as lot t2, then there was a little 10' strip of land that went from Navy Street up to the end there and he added that on in 1970 but at the time that Mr. Dorman bought it, it was 1 tot and it has been 1 lot since that time as far as I knoxv. MS. GOULD: I cannot argue with you that it has been conveyed as I lot from '58 on. However the code is what's giving us protection here. The code says in Section 124 A1 they will recoguize the lot. The code says we recognize the lot if you can show a deed that created it. Well we showed the deed for the 1919 lot and that has a house on k and that has been forever that deed was even before I919 and then we're conceding that everything else merged. Now yes xve did have people treat the property as one and pass it on because they didn't care. Frankly un~l 1997 we didn't have an exception to the merger law that we would fall nnder. We would be here for a wa/vet of merger. Page 43 of 63 Southo[d Town Board of Appeals Rec~ular Meeting Public ~earin~c CHALRWOMAN: Let's see ifl amderstand what you a~e sa~ng. You a'e saying d~at the merger [aw in i997 was amended and fitat ~:endment allowed you to ts.kc a iot ffzal was created {r~ 1919 as _ lot was held as t lot for 60 years and then allows y m rc subdivide it. MS. GOULD: We ~e not sffbdividing it. _ -~ CHAiWOMAN: A lo~ line change under an exe~¢tion would be a subdivision. MS. GOULD: We ~e sa~ng ~nat we had 2 lots each lot is cn~enffy developed with a one- f~ily dwelling. CHAIRWOMAN: You had 4 lots MS. GOULD: We had 6 lots some were vgc~t ~d we canh say tI~e7: ~zose- CHA~WO~': But the basic p~r~cipa1 is f~at ~n~t you &-e sa~ng ~d this is wP_aCs ve~ {~Doi~t here is that so~ehow in 1997 that a clzange in the m~:ger law wou]~. ~]low yo;: a ]ot one lot thaCs been a single t~ lot for almost 50 ye~s and what amounts :o ere~',e a snbdiwhsion on it bec~nse it lnad a ~iage ot~ t8~e ~m~ oft?e lo~ ~o~2 a lot line change. ~he sho~< and the ]ong of it? MS. GOULD: ~ thix~ you're describing i2 in veu technical te~s to cra7 on ~om whet Sprint p~ple said. ~2at we are proposing today no one there*s not going ~o be a single ch~_g~ in ~e Village of O~ent. CHAIRWOMAN: ~y not go for ~ minor suTodivision? MS~ GOULD: Becazse there% a morato:d*~m. That was the oroblem wizen we stale& CHARWOMAN: b~ a no~_~J c~arse of th{rigs ift>~ere wasn2 ~ morg. to~n~ wo~dr.~t yon go for a minor s~odivisim*~ MS. GOULD: We w~ald have 2~ed for g se~offbecause we confox~ ~o what a se!off:~s, but not accordhlg 8ze PB has iCs own set of roles abou~ setoffk that ~en~t codi~ed. Mafbe t~_ey them to be codified, but they're no~. CHAIRWOMAN: In my book they would be probably a minor subdivision mxd you would say yes the ~ot is hi keeping with ail ti'~e cther lots sizes 37g1~ ffTe Sots in the nd~oorhood znd would be a st~dg4 area vadmnce. MS. GOULD: But look at i~ this way, we m~e talking about prop~y that the BD recognizes zs 2 seo~ate homes they ~_ve [he2 sep~gte addresses. This isn't a this is one ho,ase on Village L~e which is ca/led 2395 and one house thaFs 255 Na~ S~. Prior ~o this you know how the ad,ess is Kways switched we h~J 25 Na~ St. ezd 95 Na~ Page 44 of 83 Pa~e 45 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Headn9 CHAIRWOMAN: Actually the old deed on this property when Mr. Dorman bought it there was no mention of Village Lane, it was called something else. It was called Navy St. MS. GOULD: At one time it was 25 and 95 Navy St. but as long as the assessors have kept cards on them they have been separate. They assess them as 2 separate single family residences to make us go for a subdivision because something has existed one house has been there for t30 years, the other one has been there for 83 years to make us go through the subdivision process is really cruel and unusual ptutishment. CHAIRWOMAN: We've never had one like this. in all the years that we've dealt with waivers, of merger I can honestly say we have never taken a sin~e tax lot and said okay this is a single tax lot that's been held in common ownership for 50 years under one tax name and said okay well therds a deed in 1919 that says there were 6 lots there and therefore the merger law applies. We've never applied the merger law on a case like this. MS, GOULD: Well one thing about this single tax lot parcel thing. I talked to Jack Sherwood about this because I wanted to get clear in my mind and maybe this will help you get over some of this about the single tax map number. I said Jack if I'm fortunate enough to be able to purchase 3 houses on Village Lane in my name ~nd Ihave ~00% ownership in each of these houses what does the county do and I take a deed you know I take 3 separate deeds just like Mr. gh~obloch did and I go to record Uhem he goes ifies 100% ownership they get assigned 1 tax map. number. As long as it's 100% ownership if you own parcels ail in a row it's going to be I00% ownership. That's what the county does. What's the protection for this parcel? Somebody when they made this exception in 1997 this must have come up at some time. People either had deeds right next to each other or houses next to each other that they didn't want merging and were actual houses and were used as actual houses, I think I've given you a lot in this supplemental package to show that these were in fact 2 houses. This isn't a situation like we see in Orient and throughout the town where we have garages and barns blossoming into residences. That's not what's happening here and you have pictures you have documentation of'houses the 255 Navy St. house it says when dormers were added on in t906. The SPLIA inventory shows us it's not like you are going to be setting a precedent where somebody comes in here and says well I had a deed for my house and then I had a deed for my garage which is now a studio and I want to split it because that's not going to happen. CHAIRWOMAN: One question because that was a little confusing to us and that was in the original there were inspection reports on the cottage and it said it was the one on Navy St. and at the time it said it was an accessory building. The CO was for an accessory building. It was a dwelling an accessory- MS. GOULD: They called it a cottage. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes but the CO- MS, GOULD: There was only one CO. Remember that CO was issued in 1995. First of all the people who bought it from Dorman probably didn't care, but at that time there wasn't this Page 45 of 63 F~bruan/20, 2~3 Sou~hold iown ~osrd of Appeals Reguiar ~eet~n~ Pub~c exceplion to ~he merg~ ~aw s~ no one was thin~mg of splitdng [t or asking for 2 sep~a~e Now ~fl take my deed to Michael Veery in the BD and ask ~ar a CO if~ splk rahs o~-the way m now with ~ do,ted Hue. according ro the code. he's go7 ro gzve me e CO for tlnat house because the house [s totally w[t~[n tko ~990 pmme1 and tha~s why he d~dn% raise merger recluse he s~w thet [ geve hhm the deed he couZd measure 2t out he h~1he smwey. The probh~ for us and why we ~e here at al! [s we have h~w m~ketable [s the house axe the probh~ for the Woodhouses [sa 2m~dsh~ ~d 7~ let them tgik to you about k because they can no ~onger affbzd to kee~ 2 houses. !f 5fey could we wouldn't be kern to be~n wkh k*s a hezd~n~p shtua5on. So who ~s going m buy the house on Na~ St when ~ne [2~e ]nc>ades the g~zage when 2qe garage rationally goes wkh the ho~se on V~H~ge La ~nd then k cuts ~hhon~ the b~T~ a Ett~e bit We've got m sua~nten 2 out ~t*s ~ahon~L [fyou cou!d just look at k as a stz~[ght v~ee ~s there going to be ~_y ~desk~b!e club_ge ro the ne~:J*ofAood_ no hfs 3em~ Eke flnhs for 8g 130 ye~s. k*s not gohng to ch~ge. AnyA[ng that had to be done ro the house ~f ~foody t~ed to ch~ge the n~r~:e of the houses, they'd be back [n here for vmd~ces. They'd kayo Io be because of setbacks. CHAXRWOMAN: You've Wen ns e lot to iook a. in tlne meantime: ]et ~e see irony of the bo~d members have o¢hqer MEMBER HORN~G: On the sunny that we have tlne do,ted 2ne that you're refe~[ng ~o pa~,iaEy curs tLmu~n g~age ~_d also another accesso~ bullring tell us agahn MS. GOULD: Tha ref~ences fp~se dotted lines reference the t919 deed aad wLa ~Ea is - the ~ansfer in f'om Adela ~d Arkie Paachess his wife to Kep~ ~ob~och fne deed was 7/I/1919 recorded 7/12/1919. Tka oacol as fa- as our code is concerned is protected because ifs got a single family residmce, it*s geae: tban 850 sq. fr. I thi~4 Eno assessors 5ga-es show 1486 sq. Pi the barn behng 897 and the assessor ~ might add has the Na~ St. p:oper~ and the b~ on one c~d and the Village Lane which is 2479 s~. fa amd ?he gazage 504 an the ether card as does ~e SPLIA inventor. MEMBER HORN~G: Is there a CO on one of the- MS. GOULD: On all as ,m entire p~cei. ~nai we want to do is mdae a more rational lot Eno and get a CO for each parcek a senarate CO. MEMBER HORN~G: And you are maintaining thai you are enlkied ic 2 sepa-ate CO's because withoul s2'ai~tenip, g our the lot !{ne MS. GOULD: Absolutely, the code protecm us and i think any reading because it was in one mx lot for 60 years, we can% even be considered because never mk~d exception m ~erger bu! waive7 ~o merge- ~s just awOL 5 don% know how else to dese~be it. it% so h~sh g~ven lhe s!i~aalion. CHAIRWOMAN: That's the way ifs beep_ kxte~reted for 7 ye~s. Ifs not singly cause ora tax map, k~s because of the deed. ~xe deed desc~bes one lot The deed has des~sed one iot for 5~ yea~s. ~en we cons~d~ a wa{vet of merger ever. wkk a house on ~ we have 2 desmdbed 1o¢s as Page 46 of 63 Page 47 February 20¢ 2003 Southo]d Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing of 1982 we can see 2 described lots in a deed. The merger Iaw makes reference it goes right back to 1983 and if the lots have not merged since 1983. So to take a flashlight v/ew of eveLything in 1983 when the merger law was passed what does this look like in terms of the deed? The deed description is one lot. Yes the tax map is one lot, but it's still one lot and if the town has been foolish in it's/nterpretation of it's been f(m~h since 1995 because that's the way the code has been interpreted and that's the way it's been applied. Now you've given us something else to think about and we will. MS. GOULD: You told me before this situation has not come up before. CHAIRWOMAN: Right because our reading when they say to us this is not the subject of the merger when we see that, that says to us it's not eligible for any of the cr/tefia under the merger law. That's the way we would interpret that. MS. GOULD: If that's the way the BD had meant that they would have said go back to go get a subdiv/sion. They knew where I was going. CHAIRWOMAN: We very may well have to get them to come in and testify to get that cleared up because I can only speak to what is on a piece of paper. But they are not here. If it takes them to come in here and explain what they meant to help you, to help us we will do it. MS. GOULD: I mean I have seen back to this thing of the one deed if you want to go talk about waiver of mergers, I've seen plenty of waiver of mergers where you do this deed certification and originally they take than all on one deed and say lot 5, d, 7, and 8 and then they realize they have a problem and they start convesdng out to make them separate but there's hundreds of them that all started on one deed ar, d then they started doing the deeds out so I just don't think that given our situation and the existence of these houses for so long, they are not made up houses as I said they are not garage conversions it's not a barn conversion that if you take this kind of hard line with us they are going to have to sell the house mud I'll let them talk about it because we can't wait for the moratorium. CHAIRWOMAN: It's not even taking a hard line with you the question is whether or not we can look at this after the building department's determination in terms of the merger law. That's the question. It's not a question of a hardship or a merger or any of those other issues at this point. I'm being as candid as I can because I don't want you to go around in circles for the next 6 months. The critical question is can we address this under the merger law? That's the question. MS. GOULD: Back to this thing about the one deed again. I don't see any reference in the code about the deed it having to be one deed, 2 deeds, 3 deeds if you're because what you're telling me is that because it was carded for 60 years on one deed you're out, go back to go. I don't see that in the code. I really don't and I'm not trying to just be combative, I don't see that and I don't think that's what they meant in the code and I don't think that's what they meant whe2 they put this exception in under C-5. That was there for a reason and it doesn't say and by the way you have separate deeds now showing that they are separate deeds as of 1983 or 1997, but I would t{ke Wood. house to be able to testify too. Page 47 of 63 ~ebrua~, 20, 2803 Southo]d Town Board of Appeals Regular ~eeting Public Headn9 CHAIRWOMAN: Mss. OIiva. MEMBER OLIVA: FrmGrly Jem~y there"s se much mateffal here and there's so mary legalisms involved I don*t w~t io m~e some sef. of rash prono~ent -~.til we really have time re sit do~ ~_d digest it. I really wouldn't be fair to me or ~o you. You have eve~hing here ~m inteliigen: enoup~ to read it and understmnd ~t ~d ask for legal council. MS. GOULD: It just seems really um~a~r when there's ~e houses on o~e :ax pscel to somebody go t~zou~_ the ~noie subdivis{on process: We a:readv have separate septic, s~arate wat~. the wateffs tested eve~ ye~ because f~ ~ns a business out of the house so SC Heahh Dept. comes eve~ yom*. Iffyou look w~at you're supposed '~o be doing on the ZBA aren't you supposed to g:_ve relief on situations l~ke th~s ~here there's a problem? isn¢t that what this is ail ~bo~;? MEMBER OLWA: ~en ags~n Jemay we ~'e con,ned 5y ffhe code ~nfi what the inte~:etation of fine code has bee:. in ff~;e pas;. Thereffcre ff~affs why ~'m sa~ng we have tc ~o back ~:d look at ali frae i=fo~_afion once again, sne~ to o~r town artom~ey s~d then get back to MS. GOULD: I just can't believe that people who ~ave 3 and ~- houses on a lot have to ~ou~ '&is subdivision nrocess or '~at ~.~ey've been made to do 2~at in ~e CHAIRWO~N: You'd stiil need a v~_ance. MS. GOULD: No matter what we need a v~mce fm the lot. MEMBER HORN~rG: Did the applic~t ~o to the Pluming Board with the pro?sod lot ch~zge? MS. GOULD: ~e~ve be~ copied otc eve~&ing we did mud as yc'a cma see the Plmmning Board is in favor ofwha~ we ~e here to do. MEMBER HORN~G: I can see that via thelr letter. MS. GOULD: This was unsolicited too_ [ had no idea they were going to do this mud ~ asked rice Woodhouses. Fbey haven't talked to the Plmm~nng Boar& We haven't asked for ME~ER HORN~G: R's been my casua~ ~mpress~on 'chat the PImma~ng Bo~d has some domain over lot Kine chm~ges. MS, GOULD: We have to go back to them after we are here. MEMBER HORN~G: ~nat happened, you went re the PB with a proposed lot line change and wha-~ h~opened? Page 48 of 63 Page 49 February 20, 2803 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. GOULD: Originally Mark Terry and I discussed how this was going to proceed. I wanted ro go lot line change because I thought that's what it was and he said no it's a setoff. To me the extra step was going to the health dept. which I wasn't too happy about but ~ said I've got pre- existing everything so we'll do it. We wanted to get this done so we started in June. Well we went to our first conference and they were all confused bemmse of 2 houses being on one tax parcel. I mean they had an issue with it too but we said you know you really have to consider the merger law in this and they said yes you are fight but we don't know anything about the merger law, weYe just going to have to look into this. Two months later I received a letter sa;cng you're not a setot2'becanse a setoff to us means that if you set a piece off the piece you have left is big e~*,ough to further subdivide now I haven't found that in the code but that's their policy you know I look at page A i06 and the cfitetia for a setoff are pretty much the criteria for what a variance is you know what's it going to do to the neighborhood but they also said there was a light at the end of the tunnel they said in their letter go to the ZBA and get a waiver of merger because we think that maybe some of your lots have merged and you should get a waiver of merger because we think that some of your lots have merged you should get a waiver of merger so- MEMBER HORNING: Buy you're not here for that. MS. GOULD: No, but ~'d be happy to go through the criteria for waiver of merger because we fit all of it% criteria. MEMBER HORNING: One f~nal question on tiffs mechanism ora procedm-e lets' assume that in fact you have the agreement of this board for a proposed lot line change you mentioned going back to the PB. How does that work? MS. GOULD: We go back with this map and a variance from you saying okay we agreed to &five you ar, area variance for these lots. This is kind of a side issue at this point. I'm kind of confused in my own mind when I have 2 pre-existing nonconforming lots why we need a variance. MEMBER HORNING: Because they are only one lot. MS. GOULD: That's not what the BD said. They say you have 2 lots that are nonconforming you're still creating 2 nonconforming lots so go get a variance. That's what the PB wanted us to do. We go back to them we say we have this variance now and they say it's okay with us. So it's just then we have a public heating. MEMBER HORNING: You need the ?B's approval? MS. GOULD: Because we've discussed it all along. I know that ~ had to go back to them. I said to Mark is the board happy with the division line yes it's equal as possible. I said then we are going to make thcma a little unequal because we don't want to create another variance issue with a side yard issue with an accessory building that's why we moved the line from 3.2' to 5~ so we get zhd o£ tlmt problem and they were okay with that too hut they wanted us to come here because Page 49 of 63 Februaw 28, 28,03 Southo]d Town Board of Abpes s Regular Meet:n9 Public Lc. eT thought there was a re_ergot. They w~%~ed us ro get a waiver of merger. But ti~e BD said go get an &rea v~nce. MEMBER HORN~G: On paper the proposed ~ot 15~e change iooks f~f~y reasonable. ~ ~ow ~f tk~s board cmn ccme ro ~;~e co=c;us~oa that we c~. ~ove ~t be:ause we don't 5~ve enougt infm~ation at this time. B~.t off'hand it looks re~sonable, i w~t ~c m~e s~re tP_e PS ~hinks les going ~o be reasonable too if this did happen based on ~his letter it seems ~o be okay. MS. GOULD: They've renewed ail 5his. MEMBER HORN~G: I appreciate how you se~ the line so you have 5~ c~earm%e from Gat garage, etc. t personaEy don'~ have a problmm wi~k Chis Z thh~< o-~ bo~d k, asa probit, with mechanics and the techmca~ides mud s~ai~tenh~g out the pape~ork to m~(e s~¢re eve~Zv;ng is in order bec~0,se we hm*dly reco~ze t~2s c:5t~er in te~s of so~ng ~Ezou~ ~e fact t~s.t itv 'as never m~ged, there is only one deed mud we'l; oroceed Eom there. MS. GOULD: We could make 2 deeds, but ~ do,Ti w~ to do ~_at. Fcr one reason, we have mortgages on this propez:y. MEMBER HORN-~G: ~ was wondering ~fyou could go tc the BD and ge~: a separate CO for th. ar other building, Lha: would help MS. GOULD: ~e reason I can't do that 5s [ have 2 momgages on the pro?er~ ~,d the would have to re~ease pa% of the mo~gage premises and they m'e nor going ;o do CHARWOMAN: We are going ~o have to cut this short bec~ase we are r~hr_g over ~.d we have more peop~ ~ here. G~ve us ~ oppo~:~ni:y ~o read what yore'ye presen:e¢, to ~igest L, ro discuss ~t wi~h leg~ comncxi as ~ sa~d the issz:e 5s which door ~e we coming 5n~ Merger o: ~o: Eno chmnge or subdivision. It ~sn't whether what you wan: ro d.o is ~ht or wrong. As tl:e rn~5~ fi*om F(shefs !slar. d sa~d ~fih~s wes a s~ai~ appEca~on for a m~nor s'dsd~vhs~on ~ you would have been in and ou~ of here 7 morAhs ago qu~tc ?a~rly bec~¢se Lhe ~ot is v~ :much confo~(ng with all the other ~ots in the neighborhood we could go :5~t down the c~e~da under 2d7 which wou~d be a lot easier :hah this ss you !mow ~ memn come on. ~s 5s ~ike ~. long haul which should have been a yew sho~% MS. GOULD: Cma my c~ient say a couple ofwo~ds? You notice no one ~om Ofier_i is here complainin~ because Gey don't have a problem wifn this a~d you l~ow Orient l~kes ~o com~o~ain. CHAIRWOMAN: ~at's your comment no~ ours. MS. GOULD: I know. I ~ve ~n East Marion JERRY WOODHOUSE: I'm fe~ Wood!rouse. ?m the owner of this proper~y, i apprec:a':e saying a few things ;o you~ Z ~ow we ~e ~hng late b:zf~ for us ycu ~now irs been morJ&s ~d mort*As of ge~g to ihls pohzt ~d we are reM~y here at (~s point for 2 v~/diff~erfc reasons. Page 50 of 63 Page 51 Februaw 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing one of them that Jenny didn't bring up. We moved to Orient because we wanted to live in a historic community and as soon as we moved there we were both very active in the historical society and we've done a lot of research. It was our intention that we would live here for the rest of o~r lives. My husband retired here. This is our second home in Orient. We bought this house because of the historic nature of it. It was a real ~hnanciat s~-~, h for us to buy it. The only reason we were able to do it is because my husband had a self fur. ded retirement plan that enabled us to have some sort of a backup if our financial situation changed and so d years ago we bought it. Surprisingly to us we were only in the house a couple of weeks when someone came hi and made us a ridiculous offer to buy it for 2 lA times the amount of money we had just paid for it and we were like what's going on here? After talMng to this person, it was clear that this was someone who was not interested in historic preservation but recognized from the size of the lot and the property that we had and because we have a wonderful waterview it would be very easy to tear down the houses that existed and build a big Mcmansion. In fact he pursued us for quite a long time and showed us on paper how he would do that and it wouldn't require any of these kinds of procedures to get those kinds of applications because he had enough square footage. We lived in a house where 2 houses had been torn down to build it. Our barn was the creation of 2 barns put together and he could do it and that was really frightening to us. And I began to do some research at that time to see what we could do to protect our property in case we were not there forever. Many of you know I was involved whth the Orient Historic Preservation Association and we tried to figure out everything we could to protect properties because we don't have the kAnd o£1egal protection we have in the town nor do we have a certified local government though ~ hope that wou~d come someday. The only thing we could do is try to put on our houses with separate deeds historic faCade easements to try to protect them in the fut~.uce so nobody else could build them. That's really how we started out thinking what could we do to protect it so ar%er we're gone these 2 beautiful buildings with a historic barn and historic garage could stay exactly the way they were far into the thture, but somewhere along the line things changed. Two years ago my husband was diagnosed with cancer. My husband is approaching 80. The amount of work required to take care of that property for me became a really difficult prospect for the future. The amount of money that it would take for us to continue to restore the property particularly the barn and the cottage were beyond what we had and like many other people, retirement plan which we thought would protect us forever evaporated and so at this point and time we have vmT¢ difficult decisions we can make. We hope we can ~gure out a way with your help or whoever can help us to protect this property forever because we think it's an important part of Southold Town that should be preserved and protected forever but most importantly we hope that we can afford to stay there forever and live here because this is where we want to spend the rest of our lives and we can't frankly aft'ord 7 more months to 5gure out what we are going to do and if we have to sell the whole parcel there is nothing that could protect that property in the fx~O_~re and we would have to go somewhere else and we don't want to have to do that so anything you can do to help us we would appreciate. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Gould, one quick question. If this board cannot go through the route of the merger law but the board was very w~lling to look at an area vmiance for the creation of 2 lots and I think the board generally is amenable to that will that be okay? I have to ask you that because we have to talk to legal counc~ on hkis and we have to be able to have some options here. Page 51 of 63 Southold ~own Board of Appeas Regu]~ ~eedng Public He~dng MS, GOULD: it has to be okay with the Plmnming Board. Do you see what I'm saying beca-c, se it's going to be interfered as a subdivision- CHARWOMAN: You said lot line change before, w~at is t~ MS. GOULD: I thiI~i we can live with an area vat.ce because then we can go hack and yo~.'ve avoided merger. CHAIRWOMAN: ~y don't you !et us talk to legal coued! on reis ~d la us see if {here is a way we can h~d~e {his because counci~_ ad. sos !ha we c~not a~dress this under 124 5zen ~aw some options MRS. WOOE HOUSE: We spoke to ali ofo,~ nei~}ors and they are in favor ~ they actually si~ed screening ~a they were in favor of it CHAIRWOMAN: We're lea~ng this kea~ng open. We will leave this open unf. i wha's our next dee? I don't thirx M~ch 6th iS going ~o give us enou~5 time, MS. GOULD: ~ know Linde will let me know. CHARWOMAN: ?m afraid Ma:ch 20~ is th~ e~Ifest. I'm goiug m a~oum this to April 3 Ill meX~ a motion a~ouming this ~ntii April 3~ a'c 7:i0 pm. Page 52 of 63 Page $3 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 2:52 p.m. AppL No. 5217 - LINDA S. SANFORD. This is an application based on the Building Department's August 20, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended January 22, 2003, in a proposal to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling: (1) at less than 75 feet from the rear lot line and bulldaead. Also requested is a new sm/~2ming pool structure at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead, and Vahances under Section 100-235A(1) and Town Law Section 280-A, for a determination regarding improvements over an existing phvate zfght-of-way for sufficient access by fire and emergency vehicles. The right-of-way extends over privately owned lands now or formerly of Kaytis, and land of McDonald, from a point starting along the east side of Paradise Point Road, Southold, to the applicant's lot, referred to as 780 Private Road 17, Southold, Parcel #81-3-27.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Are you Linda Sanford? LINDA SANFORD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: We have a very complete file from you. We also have some additional information that was handed in on February 13th letter 2 of 2 and this is a paperwork matter. I want to note that in the letter of February 13th there's a request for Lnterpretafio~ is that something you want us to address before the variance? MS. SANFORD: What we are asking is for an interpretation against the code that we have been referring to here and depending on what that interpretation is we may need to go forward on the valance, we are prepared to do that as welt. What we would like is to have the interpretation frst based on the data we have presented here. CHAIRWOMAN: There is a legal techrdcality that's going to gum up the works here. A, you didn't apply for an interpretation before the legal notice was posted so the legal notice does not g/ve notice for an interpretation. B, there's no compliance with Chapter 58 which is nedghborhood notification, board interpretation. C, you did not pay the requisite fees. So to put it bluntly we- MS. SANFORD: Skip the interpretation. CHAIRWOMAN: You can certainly apply. We can accept this as an application with just filling out the rest of it, but you would have to very definitely descfibe it looks to me like just reviewing this it looks hke you are asking for an interpretation for 3 dif]'erent positions of the code, then you really have to - we could use part of this fill out an appIicafion, fill out a little mark interpretation and say here's this area, this area an this area, just as you have here and then we would advertise it for a public hearing and give neighborhood notices and the whole 9 yards. That's why 2f didn't want you to go forward with th~s until we - so if yon want a couple of minutes to talk you your please go ahead. MEMBER GOEHRtNGER: Lydia I have a presskng issue I need to discuss with you. George has to leave at 3:t5. I have to leave at 3:30. Page 53 of 63 CHAIRWOMAN: We have some people here who have beep waking eve:* ~_ ko'ar so if you wouldn't mind we are going to 'rake a temporaw recess sc you can discuss -his and make a decision as to how you wish ~as re proceed a~d in the meantime we are going ~o proceed a~ong until the next he~mg. We are (akh~g are recess for the S~ord% to decide w~a they would like to do wP& their inte~retation request and we ~e going to move re tee next keaing. 3:08 pm SANFO~ (CONT.} MS. SANFORD: We have confezenced ~d that we would like to proceed w5¢5~ is t~e rec~,est for a v~ance however and thhs is my 2rst time tkzou¢ ~s so please he;p me. ~:_at ~ like to do ar the end we'd like re go t~'ou~ a shem presentation a~d then po1~ the bo~d to ge*: a sense of what your th_o'a~ts mi~_t be ~d rken rese~e the option to p*:haps adjel_ 2~we need to adj a-am on that if E~at's a!5¢t. MEMBER GOEH~GER: We have a m~or problem. Mz. ~o~hng ~s leaving at 3: ~ 5 and have st~ggied *&m?.gh an eye ap?hn~ep2 all day. [ have a~ appointmem on the o~er s~de of Southold at exactly 3:45. I'm go~n~ to leave at 3:35. CHARWOMAN: We have a v~ complete record in front of ~s. ~ we>z; L~o=g~ what the nature of the variances are. ~just there are 2 akemat~ve sim p*_aqs that you have sub~itted. Tke tkst site pla~ is the Angst 26d' one and that includes E~e pool.~ssentza~y ~ ' * me dimensions are Ehe same tkerds no change kz the setback d~ensions. The site plan Gat was prepuce Jan~ 20tk you've eliminated the pool ~d increased 5qe dist~ce to the b~z;;~ead by 2L The distance to the the ihne_ prope>~ l~ne is Mmost ~denticaL ~ave ~ go~ CTdARLES NAPOLL ARCR: Oneth~ng, we are~andw~d oftkebul~ead. MS. SANFORD: We had moved landwad 2' ~mher away from the CHAIRWOMAN: A co,pie of things k~e. There is ref~ce in 2~e to oe&~ lots i2 ti~e area. Mr. ~nderson went through a yew iendhy d~sseFmtion abo~t the otker ~o~s ~ong the beach 20 some odd lots ~,d one of the things ke tMked about in ke:e is that there ~-e ~d. the:ds :no page nu%ioer but ?m s-~e you'E find it k's under variance c~tetda p~mber ~ FhagsgaZ. ;-Ie says among these parcels containing nonconib~ing buhldhngs ~2 s~acPJre the average seDack p~xc~pai build,nas Eom t:he real lot l~ne was found re be 5% The average setback for stracg~e for ~he rear let line was fo~_d to be 38'. What's teat based on? ~. NAPOLX: Based on the a~al. We gauged it a1~ going m~tke a~aL Here's the higE wat~ mark whi& ~s Lhe rea lot I~ne and we basically measured th~ a~; ~nt here. We rook an average of each structure. C~KWOM~: ~d the lot next to it on i~e eat is MR. NAPOLk No, it's ~mproved. i belheve there's oMy 2 re%reproved out of~e 20. Page 54 of 63 Page 55 FebrUar~ 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: The average setback is based on- CHAIRWOMAN: It's very tough to see this you'd really have to look at it, Because when people use the aerial is very dif~cult. Usually what we see is a rope and then a survey marks back and then th/sis- ~ MEMBER GOEHRINGER: les confusing Jerry because some of it references accessory structm-es and other reference principal structures. MS. SANFORD: We've got it both ways so it's the averagesetback of principal struc'mres from the rear 1or iine is 57'. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's normalty where the high water mark would be. MS. SANFORD: Then the average setback fi.om the bulkhead is 36'. We've looked at both high water mark and bulkhead and setbacks from there. CHAiRWOMAN: The neighborhood average is 36 and you're asking for 27. MS. SANFORD: From the bulkhead, MR. NAPOLI: 9' exists now with the existing house. CHAIRWOMAN: The average setback in the neighborhood is 36' according to this aerial. The proposed setback on the January 30a plan is 2765. You're proposing 59 to the lfie line which is the property line. Your deed goes to the tie line? MS. SANFORD: Yes. MR. NAPOLI: That's a p~ctorial definition of the rear yard setback in blue 75' back from the fie tine. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to ask you the proverbial question. If it's brand new construction, why can't you move the principal structure back further from the bulkhea& You know Bruce Anderson your consultant talked about a number of very valuable trees that are going to be destroyed. MS. SANFORD: Let me ask kw~n Potter. Irwin is the environmental landscape designer. Irwin you may want to use the microphone. I was trying to preserve very much the current wooded area the environmental properties of the land. IRWIN POTTER: 1 was asked to look at the property from several perspectives but most impoFLantly from the perspective of putting a new house on the property with as little destruction to the ex~sting forest cover to the exAst~ng tree line as possible. The reason for that and i'll be very quick and if you choose to cut me off do so is that in looking at this property both across the Page 55 of 63 Febru~W 20, 2803 Southold Town Bosrd of Appeals Reguisr Meeting Puh[~c bay or Eom the water ~d ~om the neighbors tha~ i~tde comer you see cu'~ ou~ ~-o t~e ~e¢: there the neighbors house is a few feet over in lhat d¢recdon. In ~ook[ng at this prope¢;y ~om tha~ is was my consideration that one ofthe lm }o~!snt environmental restates (n te~s ofvisxal snd in of pu%ing a new house in there was to try to maintain the ~ree cowr hne because when you look al thhs shore line alonghere I don't have to tell you about yo-~ ow~neighbofnood but when you look a: this shoreline what you see ~s a wooded shoreline. Now what l~ap?ens ~s this. T~s bu[[dlng occupies a potion of the existing structure and a potion of t;m property immediately behind it. As a consequence that building m:d ~e revised driveway t~Xes out only 8 or 9 trees does not h~te~pt the croupy, doesn't break ~he c~opy. So in my opi:~on [t protecls ize neighborhood that ~s the n~faorhood across Ge bay ~nd i~ ~mpacts the near nei~aborhood is the people ~ving ~0-~_6 it. Keep ~r. mind t~e people who ~ve ~rmm6 it have E~e forest cover. As yo~ can see from the p~_s we have sho~r~, we remove veW few ~ees_ we are :~ng :~ maintahn the cmnopy so what you have is in essence the same kind of structure you have :~ow is a bu[~ding sitting under the c~¢opy or within the forest ~:d then is ve~ slm[lar ~fnot exacdy ~he smme as most or,he houses ~ong here. That is C~ese houses are houses i:at ~e tucked beneath 2ie c~.opy. From my perspective that was an :~po~mnt conshtuent of ire ~sua[ of-what this ne[¢borhood is MS~ SA~O~: And (n mMnta[n[ng the s*~rdt of the en~rommext. CHAIRWOM~N: On the m~p what is Ge b!ue? MR. NAPOL[: The blne ls 75' back Eom th~e tie ~ne. ChEAZRWOMAN: 5fwe go to 5ne last map the most recent map wot Jr ts2<e MR. N~aOM: The pu¢le in th~s most recent d[a~am is the existing house ar.d deck. ~:ere's the deck C[=~A~WOMAN: %~e white ~s [~e proposed deck mud house. MR. NAPOL[: h*s not a house it's ~ open porch And I what ;'d Hke to do 5s tmke off the old house. If you see the size of ~he old house mud deck I'd l~ke to remove that it's the on[y puce Gat's into the sefoack Hue ~_d as you c~ see ias sJmost all porch. C:GAIRWOMAN: Fm iook[ng for Gat map. ~ER GOE~GER: ~e pu~ose for pla&rig the house on thst skewed ~os¢~on is r assume one based upon what Mr. Potter said and two probably commands a better v[ew ~hat way. MR. NAPOL[: No as a mumm' of fsct the bes~ view would be to hsve it a~ong Ge se¢oack Sine. This happens ro be the d~recdon of mom~ng s,~. Yon can see '[ais ~=ow ~¢~ down here these ~e the sun augies. Linda came ro me and said ~ wamt a beach house and a ~b~a! house. is to m~e one out of bo[~ of~ose requests The oiher ~ng she said ~nen we were inte~e~ng tow she wan,rs ro use this p~ace. She loves mo~ing s~mli~at so h~ be&eom Page 56 of 63 Page 57 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing happens to, be fight here on the 2nd floor. In addition directly underneath that is the informal living summer room also in the morning sun. MR. POTTER: I want to add one thing that make my job a bit easier as you caa see al! the trees that remain to the right the only one that is likely to be lost is the CHAIRWOMAN: You know the autocat that showed the porch area and the intrusior: I just want Mc~rnber Homing to see this. This is the only area of the variance. MR. NAPOLt: As you can see it's quite less in mass and of ceurse you can see in volume it's considerably less in volume everything else is open porch. CHAIRWOMAN: On that map it almost cuts a diagonal fight through the porch and then this way maybe a tiny little piece. The porch is a total of 276 sq. ~. MR. NAPOLI: No the entire area in the setback is 276 sq. ¢L including the piece of the kitchen. CHAIRWOMAN: So the total area of the variance is 276'. ~s that correct? MR. NAPOLI: Yes. And of that 250' is open porch. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You will covet that porch to remain open? And allow us to restrict that if we are so inclined? MR. NAPOLI: She wants to be under cover in the rMn. MS. SANFORD: I want a wrap around porch. CHAIRWOMAN: I have no problems with this at a11. Let's go to the 280A access. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: ~ have to tell you I spent a ¢:eat deai of time on that property walking around and looking at the treeline and getting the feeling that your landscape architect has devised for us. This is a wonderfi~l device in allowing us to analyze this and I was so enamored with the property and the trees and with the destruction of the existing house I don't mean destruction I mean in it's physical obsolescence that I spent very little time on the 280A and I have to admit to that. CHAIRWOMAN: Basically what we would be requiring J~ry is a simply access for fire and emergency vehicles. MS. SANFORD: And the fact that the ROW is also where several neighbors also enter to their property so ~t's been in use £¢r many years. MEMBER OLDCA: Wtfich ROW do you use the one going through McDonalds or the one that's just to the east erst? Page 57 of 63 Feb~uaF~ 20 2003 Southold TowR Bosrd of Appes[s Recu]ar Meeting Public MS. SANEORD: it goes Zhrough McDonald% on one side. Kaylis's are o2 tke o'-her and tken througt~ m ours. CHAIRWOMAN: ~at's on the ROW now2 nny gavel b~d2 ~ MS, SANFORD: Yes, MR. NAPOLi: We have nhotos and we have stroked ~t. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: I'll submit a bffef resort on who my analysis is in reference tc ROW. Remember we are not evaluating it into the prope~y only the tangent of the prope~y tine, So whatever you i~%end to do ~Tom your prope~y '.ine in is yom~ business We ~e o?ly interested ~n getting ~xom Pm~adise Pt. Rd to your pr% s~y. ~ff have a nrob!em ge*~ir_g to ye'ar prepay, oaim it stake it so ~ can see the 7monument coming in. MS. SA~ORD: 2 has be~ staked. We c~ uncov~ MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Just uncover one so i cmn mnderst~_& MS. SANFO~: On Ma~c5 ~th ~ won't be here but i thief my colIea~xes can renresent me here if finat's okay with you. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't thir& we 2ave ~ more quesficns. ~ fi~k& ~ can safely say tie is fairly comfomabne wifin ~xe J~.umj pl~_ ~ th~nk ice a clem~ record you presented us wi~z. The only ofixer issue is the 280A access that Mn. Goe~nger is going to go look at and we have ~zat wrapped up by the 62~. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: ~ have to tell you that having these gaphics m-e ~nvdudsle evaiuaing an evaluation of <~is nauure. MS. SANFORD: It is ve~ fliTficdt for me to look at a 2 dimensional drawing and it reaEy came to light with the 3D. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: Ve~ ve~, well done. We appt*eciate it especially since tko existing house 2s ~n fine cent~ or.nat you want to make wiffn ~esk new eons~uction. MS. SANFORD: -We stoked out the new home but thor wes veu hard for me to visualize walking the prope~ Hue. MEMBER GOEHR~G ER: Are y >u a con. act vendee or did you buy the properly? MS. SANTOS: i'm fTom Laurel. l ~ew np h~e on t~e no~ fork ~md I houri ffxe Pa!~e 58 of 63 Page 59 February 28, 2083 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: 7pm March 6th. rh{s WaS SO easy and clear I want to compliment you. Great job and we'll see you March 6tit 7pm. Page 59 of 63 Page 80 eb~uaw 20, 2003 Southo[d Town Board cf Ap?eals Regular Meeting Public re~uest!ng a Spec~at Exception under Section ] 00~3 ] ~ for an Accesso~ Boa and B~eakfas. the owner's dwelling for renting of up to 5ye (5) ~est rooms, and uo to ten ~ !0) g~ests, with breakfast. ~ ~' ~' ~ocaao.~. 2500 Mgfn Road, OCent; Pgcei i8-6-10. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would tike ~o speak on behatfof the appicaffon? ~CH~ ~A~ ESQ Rfch~d ~k. Main Rd. Cutcho~,e, NY for the appflcmnt. The application is rmfly comolere. As p~ of the B&B ~hmg: _n~,~ec. eve~chfng which met ~2~ of tlne requirements ~.d on fha:her reques'r ~ brou¢:t z person who is going ro be a ofincioat o~_er. As you ~ow Eom the ~stow of the g?pllcation before you ~_d the Mstow of the prope~:y ~om the p~or apolication and having v;s t~ the orc:~e~ fi :er now c r; ' ;' '~ ~ ~" ~ pu¢oses iCs hdd in a corporate nmme. You have a cop]. of the deed that was in foreclosure the ~ owner of the sh~es of stock in that eomoradon. K~en Voss who's wm~ me ~oday .sm ~h~ ~ ¢'~ ~ ~-: ' ms ~e~ principal res{dence. She ho'ses to have this process o~ ~e,oca~:g arid ;,,a<mg ¢~' ;- ~ accompnsnea w~lhxn txe new 30 oays w~_ere ste wlJ be c**m~ng 2er p;qnclpat res~aence where she presently is ~n ~assachusetts to O~ent N~. It's more a fo~stity of moving zr up bec~se she wes ge~ng ted¢ [* w~ r~dr~en ~d ev~g ~s s~mer so sL~ s~ys wL~¢s ~f~erence. I% lust reeve ~ ~p a~e~d ¢Tfime and ge~ a~] the accomen~ents d~a: yo~ neec ~he ve~er the ~ver's Lc~nse ~d ~J the ~er s~u[! She dCes m~end rc occupy 5r hx fae~ ~ffs ~me wx~L ~:e ether ew~er she s2ys l~m go~ng ~e 5e Hying h~e which ~s realiy wha~ We a~ways w~med ':e ~e bec~xse as y¢~ ~:¢w the b~ck bedroom an ~qe ~ ~ ~oer ~s ge~ng ~e be Let qna~e:s ....xo~ LLe d~_e ~t s z:anay ~d you've got ali "he ,~ '¢ ¢ 1 4d fiCzt next door to you. you ~zow the living room the khchen and so on. _n y axe going ~o s~ the 2=~ floor they going '~o use 5 of tflose bedrooms and they are going to just use those 5 that ~ge set up the only tmng ~ey neec to get ~one ts to put a h~f shower in one and get nd of me combmat:on ~ fo;~ ~e o~h~'- z.~ ~'~ ne see tl%ou~ ooeration, that they want ~o do ~ght away. ifs really the only m~or renovation they ~e going ro do now. i've been pushing them also just so you know apply for a p~2~t also just so yon !mow to spp!y for t p~fit aisc -to get the handicap rmmp and MI ~_at done especially on the side; thip2< that's just going ,:o be m ~h~ ~ong pan a goo~ That s aH basic~Iy tha~ s going ~o be done for now. As you know to move mt%her we re going have to get the zone fining chmxged for the Coun~ Inn ~nie~retgtion mr.d thep they m-e going have to get squ~ed sway with the Health Depn because once we go over the 10 they have a class_~cg~on rrom I 0- ] 4 which is not as sttdngent but {f you go over t 4- ~&en les really stdngent w~th the waste water mmnagement mhd aH that other business, So they've got a Io~ ofplamning tc do But they want ;c renovate that potion of{t 'which ~s ,he bathrooms that wi]l lz robably the only th~ng done this SI dna and 1at~ th~s summer 7"I1 get t~ to ~o &~ han~{~ap ~.p bec~nse- CHAIRWOMAN-: The board has done an inspection on this and met with the owners m~d we're aJ ~mm~nar with the first floor layout and weYe ¢11 ~1har with the 2na 5ocr myou* and we're f~fl2~- with the see ff~ou~h bat~oom ¢&zt you will need to close up ~d the reasons why. Tha~ s room to r~om tha~ rs. We're also f~ili~ with the parking situation ~: ' ~ ~ p~ng ~di~ated on the Page 60 of 63 Page 61 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. LARK: I gave you a parking plan you know what is existing and what they are going to do there immediately there. CHAIRWOMAN: I personally don't have any questions of you at this time and I'm going to move this right along.- :- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you going to let us know exactly when Mrs. Voss is a resident of that so we can vote on this at that point? MR. LARK: You can make a contingent on that. I would say it would definitely be done in the month of March. CHALRWOMAN: Can you give us copies of the requisite papers within - what's a reasonable time? We can close the heming and make it contingent upon - MR. LARK: Or you could even grant it and make it contingent that the building permit that she's got to go because you know the renovations have got to be done. That's m~other way of handling it. She's going to do it, it's a matter o£the formality now. She's got to do it duhng the business week. CHAIRWOMAN: How would the board like to handle this? MEMBER GOEHR.rNGER: Close the hearing pending the receipt of the proper information. The only difTerence would be if we don't have it by Mm'ch 20th. CHAIRWOMAN: I11 make a motion closing the hearing pending receipt of the proof of residency and renovation of the bathrooms. MR. LARK: Then they have to do the B&B application. The BD is waiting for this so they can do the batbxoom renovations, k's a $100 fee with the inspection. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 61 of 63 ?abruar~ 20, 2003 Southo[d Town Board of Appeals Regular Mee':]ng ~ublic Hearing 3:@5 porn, AppX, No, ~239 - JAM]6S AND KAREN 1~5©%G. This is a raciest for a V~ance ~nder Se¢ien i 00-33 based en the Ba~din~ De~a~e~l*s Seotember 2~. 2¢¢2 Notice ef DisapprovaI to locate ~. in-go.nd poe! mid as b,ailt accessow sued in an sres~ other th~n tlze required rear yard, at 35( Willis Creek D~ve. Mattituck: Pm-cel 100O-i 15-~7-17.i0. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here w~.o would I[ke to speak on behalf of the application? JAMES ~qOEG: i'm James Hoeg, ~'m tpfir~g to get a poo~ mzd a b~_ put in ~d [~e BD denied it ss~ng :key &_at riey don': consider it to be in ~e rear y~d. However boca-asa o~hte wehands it's ou. shed ss far back as i cmn. Tko *ool actu.~ly is if you measured it from the ~o:% proper~y line 2s cotipletely behind ~y stmct,~e of the house. They datelined 2 that way boca-asa if yo'a &zwa line t~om the comer of the ~hest re~ corner of :my ho,asa ali :ne way 2o: ?.st to where the wetland st~s but to my bzck proper~y line tiey'll measure the d~stance ~d 5f yov. see my back proper~ line whi& is ~mder water ca.es therefore bfing~t~g that ![ne to ~nere 5t wo~id be in the wedmnds ~most. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. [~oeg, thst could be a long [:au4 to undo that confi~czafion tiara. Tlze and a proposed 20x40 inbound pool w~th a ~ade level parro a~td tlnat's ail according :o the J~u~ 2-0i su~w. You've already received T~stee approval on 'd*~fs J,~ne ?? MR. HOEG: Yes. CHARWOMAN: f have r_o ~robtems wire this. Ms. O!iva. MEMBER OLrVA: I was down t~ere mud you: wife ex23}Mned with all t~1ose Mds %~2fng around you wanx it a Iitfle bit away. ; lxave no probl~s. ~ER HORN~G: No questions. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: At no tit:ne you're ~_ticipatrng any encicsnres ~ound th. is sw!m:nmg pool. Zs ~at con'ect? MR. HOEG: Just a fence. MEMBER GOE;~R~rGER: No intentions of closing ~t up in any way? MR. J~OEG: No. MEMBER GOEHR~'GER: f just want to point out to yo~. these were acre lots and by the %arare of~e bs~ on the opposite side the o%y way you gte reMly going to ge: ~o yo~ reex y~rd is between the b~ m~d t[ie house so i would not look favorably on any 7mture constmact(ozz over o22 ~st side. Page 82 of 63 February 28, 2803 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. HOEG: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, I'lI make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 63 of 63