HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/03/2003 HEAR SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
SPEC[AL MEETING
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARLNGS
HELD APRIL 39 2003
(Prepared by Jessica Boger)
Present were:
Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora
Member Vincent Orlando
Member Ruth D. Ollva
Member Gerard P. Goehringer
Paula Quinteri
PUBLIC HEARiNGS:
~5:47 p.m. CHARLOTTE DICKERSON #5256 - (continued from 2/6/03) This is a request
for Variances under Section 100-239.4 and 100-33C, based on the Building Department's
September 3, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for: (a) a proposed new location ,afa dwelling,
replacing the existing building, with a setback at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff
the Long Island Sound, and (b) a proposed accessory building in a side yard area. Location:
4630 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconlc; 74-1-35.51.
CHAIRWOMAN: 16' from the rear property line and 36' from the top of the blufff
MR. DICKERSON: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: So on this you're showing 20' from the rear line and I'm trying to figure
out how you'd manage to-
MR. DICKERSON: Remember the L-shaped portion of the structure to the east? You asked
if I'd even it off with the front of the house.
CHAIRWOMAN: That's how you got the 4'?
MR. DICKERSON: That's where that section went out 12', now it would only go out 8', so
we'd cut off4' off the front of that, so we gained 4' in here and then we had to move because
the structure would be located right in the middle of where the L~A pole is and we'll have
that moved to the rear of the property.
CHAIRWOMAN: Once we have concluded this you Mil prepare a survey before we finalize
this.
MR. DICKERSON: I'i1 have Mr. Aihlers on the job and send down some new surveys for
you. There was a question about the house being occupied. The neighbors to the west
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
indicated it hadn't been occupied for like 10 years and I have a copy of the closing statement.
I have all the original papers from the closing statement. I didn't make 6 copies of this, hut
it's the bill for the closing statement itself that indicates that the buyer reimbursed us $33dd
for the year 2000 because it was rented for the entire summer season of the year 2000 and I
think I wrote down the names of the renter with his work number and his apartment number
in NYC. He called and asked us to rent it again in the 2001 season and we declined because
we wanted to start to renovating and move the heuse and have it ready for our own use. You
also asked if I took any pictures of any events that we might have had there~ These 2 sets of
pictures were taken by my daughter. I'm not a picture taker, but this was in June of 2001 and
these were in May 2001.
CHAIRWOMAN: Just give the board members a chance to look at these a second, okay?.
MR. DiCKERSON: I thipJc the neighbors to the west are very concerned that ail we were
going to do is move this dilapidated structure back and try to occupy it in it's present
condition. Just ~or the record and so the board knows I wanted to tell you that I bought 2
buildings in Mattituck over the last 10, 12 years and ] was in an unoccupied Exxon gas
station on the corner oi'Wickham Ave. and Main Rd. in Matfituck and we turned that into an
insurance office completely renovated the building and now it's a credit to the location and
Dr. Notate is the present owner of the building. ~ also bought the building directly across the
street which was an old Bohacks supermarket on the south side of the road and it hachn_'t been
touched in quite a few years. And I think we turned that building into a credit to the
community. ICs presently occupied by the Reeve Insurance Agency and Peconic Bay
Medical Care on the east side o£the building. So we plan to completely refurbish this
building and make it look entirely different than what it is but it would be in the same
footprint if the BD will go along with it I would like to try to preserve some of the historical
elements of the building, but I think that's probably within the BD's purview I have to go by
what they tell me to do.
CHAIRWOMAN: Have you had any further discussions with the neighbors?
MR. DICKERSON: No. I went up in the middle of the winter when it was snowing real bad
~ see he put in a cattle fence along this property. 4' high wire fence with a 12' opening. It
doesn't bother me to have the fence there because we can shield it off from our property, but I
do feel sorry for the neighbor to the west, Mr. Dina who has a deeded ROW over the Wick's
property and they have a 12' cattle gate across this cattle fence and if he was concerned about
the appearance of our renovated cottage, that didn't add to the neighborhood I don't think.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In light of the 4', I find that extremely positive because then
you don't crowd that rear property line. It's not really rear, it's really front, side, whatever
you want to refer to it as. And as you know at the prior hearings, I supported the amount of
work you have done on this piece of property and I think you gave us a figure in excess of
$50K in reference to re-nurturing the blufl} build, ending the toe of the bluff and that can opAy
further e~ance the stability of that piece of property so bearing that in mind I have no
i~ther questions.
Page 2 of 33
Page 3
AptiI 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MR. DICKERSON: That was one of the first things we wanted to do was get the bluff
restored and put a bulkhead in and we finally got that approval from the DEC and the
Trustees. We went ahead and the work is completed.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yon are the only one down there where the bulkhead in that
general vicinity, right?
MR. DICKERSON: The neighbor to the west has a bulkhead, Mr. Dinas.
MEMBER OLIVA: I'm just happy at least you're at 36' from the bluff, I don't think you can
go back any further.
MR. DICKERSON: Actually it's a little more than 36 - 6 or 8" or a foot more, so I think it fit
into the area and it keeps it 20' off the south line and more than 36' from then crest of the
bluff.
MEMBER OLIVA: What type of plantings have you put on the blnffto hold it in.9
MR. DIC~(ERSON: The DEC required that we plant beach grass the entire length of the
bluff and also put in some other different things. Virginia creeper and-
MEMBER OLIVA: Poison ivy is wonderful. You may not like it, but it does hold it in.
MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions from me, Mr. Dickerson has done everyt1'fing
that we have requested.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or
against the application?
BETTY CONSTANTINE: Betty Constantine, Fm here to represent Mrs. Wicks and we
wanted to wish Mr. Dickerson many wonderful summers in that bungalow.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or
against the application.9
KENNETH HOLMAN: Kenneth Holman, ] own the parcel to the east and I'm very happy
there's going to be some positive work done on the cabin.
CHAIRWOMAN: Are the board members satisfied that the information requested is all in?
MEMBERS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: I'tl make a motion closing the hearing reserv/ng decision until later. We
need the survey ASAP. Within 30 days, because well hold the decision until we get the
sn~wey. So pending receipt of the survey within 30 days.
Psge 3 of 33
Page 4
April 3, 2083
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
6:59 p.m. GARY GERNS~ as contract vendee (rhomas and Annette Jordan, Owners)
#5245 (continued fi-om 2/6/03) This is a request for a Variance under Section i 00-244B,
based on the Building Department's October 9, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a
proposed new dwelling with a front yard setback at less than 40 feet. Location of Property:
1680 B15gantine Drive, Southold; Parcel 1000-79-4-25.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application?
We did get a letter faxed to us say/nE Mr. Gems would not be here with no further
explanation tonight. This is the 3rd postponement on this hearing or 2nd, i'm going to make a
motion to recess this hearing without a dale.
7:{)1 p.m. PAUL DAVl[S #527{) - (adjourned from 2/20/03) This is a request for a Variance
under Section 100-30A.3 based on the Building Department's October 2, 2002, Notice of
Disapproval amended October 28, 2002 for a proposed reduction in a lot area of Lot 1000-
48-2-3 i. ~ from 20,168 sq. ft. to 18,557 sq. ft. and proposed reduction in lot depth from
159.97 feet to 174.97 feet. The remaining Lot 100-48-2-33 will increase in are from 5,625 sq.
ft. to 7,313.55 sq. ft. and will increase in width from 50 feet to 65 feet. Location of Prope2y:
1025 Ninth Street and 235 Linnett St. Greenport.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. DAVIS: I'm not exactly sure what I need to do at this point.
CHAIRWOMAN: Why don't you just get up and tell us a little story. I don't mean to be
sarcastic, but when we f~rst looked at this application we saw 3 lots and then we said these
lots don't match the other lots, then we finally began to figure out what was going on so that's
why at least I didn't maybe you can tell the board members. It's fairly clear to me.
MR. DAVIS: I purchased a small lot in Greenport, 50x112 and in the cleanup process the
next door neighbor offered to sell me a portion of his lot next door. We agreed to 15'. At
which point I thought it would be very simple to buy t5' however I felt I had to apply for a
subdivision so to speak and I've merged lot numbers from the adjoining lot, a couple of
surveys, tide searches, every detail you have requested I think I've accomplished.
CHAIRWOMAN: What we have let's try to keep it simple and you correct me if I'm wrong.
What is happening is you are taking the 15' tkom your neighbor's property. Your neighbor's
property is going to become 1 lot, and you're going to have 1 lot so actually what we are
doing is reducing the degree of nonconformity because what was 3 lots is now going to
become 2 lots, correct?
MR. DAVIS: No. What was 3 lots will become 1 lot that would be on the east side.
Page 4 of 33
Page 5
Southold/TownJ Board Apri~ 3, 2003
of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see - yon're going back even ~rther than I a.m. I see what you're
saying. Right now on the tax map it shows as 33.i and 32 that's going to become 1 lot and
your lot 33 and youYe going to take the 15' from that what you are referring to as 1 lot and
that's going to get a new tax map number.
MR. DAVIS: Eventually, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: And you are going to get a new tax number or will you stay the same?
MR. DAVIS: I couldn't answer that, I think I have to get another one.
CHAIRWOMAN: I fliink you stay the stone and your neighbor has to change.
MR. DAVIS: My neighbor has a new tax map number at this time.
CHAIRWOMAN: What is your neighbor's new tax map number?
MR. DAVIS: It's on the last page of the tide search.
CHAIRWOMAN: I see it, is it the same number that's on the survey? It's going to become
tax map 32.17
MR. DAVIS: The new survey has the former tax map number and the new tax map number
on it?
CHAIRWOMAN: And it shows everyth'mg as 32.17 So he'll be 32.1 and you're going to be
33.
MR. DAVJ[S: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN: It was very complicated initially to figure out.
MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: So the proposed house is going to be yours?
MR. DAVIS: Correct.
MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: So you are going from a 50' lot to a 65' lot?
MR. DAVIS: Correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So your lot is going to be 65xi 12.57 approximately.
MR. DAVIS: Approximately, yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as I have that down pat, I'm okay.
Page 5 of 33
Page 8
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions.
MEMBER OL_FVA: No questions.
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 hearing reserving
decision until later.
PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION
7:g}7 p.m. AMELIA MENDOZA #5273 - (adjourned from 2/20/03) This is a request for a
Variance under Section 100-31A.t, based on the Building Department's November 4, 2002
Notice of Disapproval. The basis of the Notice of Disapproval is that the proposed accessory
building is design for habitable living area in addition to the existing principal dwelling, and
that only one dwelling is permitted on a lot. Location of Property: 38015 Main Rd., Orient;
Parcel 1000-15-2-15.1
CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here xvho would like to speak on behalf of the application?
MATT IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental Consulting representing the applicant.
Pll just ran down real quick a few things. The subject parcel consists of 26.7 acres and is a
waterfront parcel having approximately 515' of water frontage. The property is adjacent to a
well established neighborhood to the west.
CHAIRWOMAN: Could you puli the mike up a bit?
MR. IVANS: The neighborhood is made up of 18 residentialparcels of approximately ½
acre each a 2.6 acre residential parcel to the southeast and a 2n~30 acre parcal to the west. A
~/~ acre adjacent waterfront out parcel acre excuse out parcel is found to the northeast of the
property. Mrs. Mendoza proposes to construct a 1,785 sq. 12. guest cottage for the use of her
parents. The cottage would consist of 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and sitting area living area
with an un~nished attic, t have plans with me if you'd like to see those. The proposed quest
house will be 112' from the eastern lot line 9T from the 15' ROW that serves this and the
adjoining property to the north 320' from the westerly property boundary, 1870' from the
Main Rd. and 750 from the waters of Ll Sound. We suggest the construction of the guest
house for the sole use of family members is not uncommon in eastern LI and is permitted by
the towns of Easthampton and Southmnpton provided the result in density is less than the
density provided in in this case the property could be subdivided trader the current
zoning ro provide approximately 12 lots. The applicant does not wish to subdivide instead
wishes to keep the land open. The applicants desires are consistent with the established local
land use policy to conserve open space and limit future density. We suggest the application
be approved for as applied for given the applicant's goals to preserve open space and the
town's goals to presto'ye open space are 1 in the same. In addition, we also suggest that a
decision be approved on condition that the guest cottage cannot be deeded out separately
Page 6 of 33
Page ?
Apri~ 3; 2083
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
from the main house without f~rst obtaining subdivision approval from the PB that the use of
tt~e guest cottage be restricted to family members only and the guest cottage may not be
rented. And I'm here to answer any questions.
CHAIRWOMAN: In the town of Southold, there is only 1 dwelling unit permitted per lot.
The structure you have proposed is a dwelling unit by design, by nature, by definition. We
do not have a guest cottage which is why you were asked to f/Il out the use variance and I
know you did answer some of the questions, but essentially, it's a 2nd dwelling unit is what
the BD has said. Maybe it's permitted use in the Town of Southampton and maybe it's
permitted use in Town of Easthampton, but it is not a permitted use in the Town of Southotd.
A couple of quick questions I'd like to ask. It is a large piece of property and assuming it's a
guest cottage, why would you want to constract a guest cottage so far from the principal
building? How far is it from the principal building?
MR. IVANS: Well over 500'. I'm not too sure about the design layout why they did that
but-
CHAIRWOMAN: If it's a guest cottage, I'm trying to figure out why you would place it
500' from the main house.
MEMBER ORLANDO: They don't like their guests?
MR. IVANS: I could say something about in-laws, but I won't. Again, this is the design
that was brought to us and again we were just coming before the board we thought this would
be a good thing instead of just subdi¼ding instead it's a unique, the application itself is for us
extremely unique.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is that 1700 sq. 2. 1st floor?
MR. IVANS: ~ believe it's 1-stow anyway. Actually, let me see-
CHAIRWOMAN: The floor plans look like 2 stories anyway.
MR. WANS: Actually it's probabiy 1 ½ stoW. Would you like to see the plans?
CHA][RWOMAN: Yes we would. You're not showing a 2nd story here. But you are
showing a 2nd story on the elevation. It looks like you may be going up when you raise the
dormer on one. You don't have copies of this for the board members?
MR./VANS: No.
MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: You di&'~'t advise the applicant or the applicm~t didn't suggest
or there was no conjecture that you'd try to set off one lot - th/s entfl:e piece - even if it was a
floating lot from the PB's point ofv/ew knowing right well if they went to subdivide the
property sometime later, that !or could be considered vc~thin the subdivision?
Page 7 of 33
Page 8
Apri~ 3~ 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MR. IVANS: I would say no, the applicant doesn't know that. We are here, again, this is a
unique application. We just want to find out what the board feels about it. I could go back
and talk to them about that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In other words, tlmre's no attempt to go the PB and discuss the
possibilky of setting off 1 lot?
MR. WANS: No, not at this time.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is that because of the moratorium?
MR. WANS: Possibly.
CHAiRWOMAN: We are not the answer to the moratohum. I'm not going to mislead you
absent the one on the board who's going to tell me the contrary - this is a use variance - it is a
dwelling unit by definition, by plans, by everything else and you would either have to
address the standards ora use variance under law which you haven't done which requires
expert testimony dollars and cents proof, dollars and cents proof that the land cannot 3field a
reasonable rate of return for each and every permitted use in the district including those uses
which are provided by special exception. ~t's a very tough test. I'm trying to save you a lot
of time and Gerry, do you have any other thoughts?
MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: You could add an addition on to the house to accommodate the
parents, but you would not be permitted a 2nd kitchen.
MEMBER ORLANDO: I want to comment on one of the last sentences you had made on
the statement regarding you would not sell the property unless you subdivided it first with
separate deeds which leads me to believe they are not opposed to subdividing the property,
they are just trying to bypass the moratorium. I just get that impression because you made
that con,merit.
MR. WANS: I don't believe they want to subdivide it anyway regardless if there was a
moratorium or not.
MEMBER ORLANDO: But they are not opposed to it because if they did sell it-
MR. WANS: Again, down the road, who knows.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm suggesting you go to the PB regardless of the moratorium
issue and discuss with them a floating setoffofjust enough to encompass the square footage
that they would ask for a minimally to surround this house bearing in mind that it would be
relinquished and maybe modified when and if the property was either sold or a subdivision
the own~s of tbJs property the Mendoza's wanted to subdivide.
CHAIRWOMAN-: You could do that and it would not involve us. The house is brand new
isn't it?
Pa§e 8 of 33
Page 9
Apd~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MR. IVANS: I don't believe it's even complete yet.
CHAIRWOMAN: The house is in the process of being built. I know you may want
distance from your relatives, but 500' is stretching it.
MR. IVANS: Can I table th/s until next month?
CHAIRWOMAN: Want us to leave this open? It will have to be re-advertised. We w111
recess the heating without a date and you will get back to us and tell us wheat you'd like to do.
7:117 p.m. MI[CHAEL PI[SACANO #5264 - (continued from 2/20/03) The applicant has
filed a request for a lot Waiver under Section 100-24A based on the November 7, 2002
(a~nended 11-8-02) Building Department's Notice of Disapproval for construction of a single
family dwelling. The basis of the Notice of Disapproval is that this 73,616 sq. ft. parcel is not
permitted in the R-80 District because it is not a recognized lot by any of the four code
standards, under: 1) The identical lot shall be created by deed recorded in the Suffolk County
Clerk's office on or before 6-30-83, and the lot of conformed to the minimmn lot
requirements set forth in Bulk Schedule; 2) Lot is approved/recognized by the Southold
Town Planning Board, or 3) Lot is shown on a subdivision map approved by the Southold
Town Board ptior to 6-30-83, or 4) Lot is approved/recognized by formal action of the Board
of Appeals prior to 6-30-83. Location of Property: 1457 Cox Neck Rd., Mattituck; Parcel
113-07-19.11
CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application?
PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Good evening ;[ am here because I had represented the
Chudiaks from the beginning and I'm very familiar with the property. Mr. Pisacano had been
represented by Paul Camthifi, but unfortunately he's in Florida I felt in ali fairness I should
present the case and the whole process is an unfortunate circumstance that I tbhnk requires
your help in seeking.justice here. What I did is I put together first and foremost the first page
is the applicable law that I think the Building Lnspector had cited and t highlighted for you I
think stra/ght out why we believe this property was a single and separate lot that could be
built on. Lot recognition says the town shall recognize a lot that is approved by the PB. This
lot would not be here if not for the PB the second page I recite the chronology of events and I
know I've had a chance to review your transcript from the prior hearing where I couldn't be
here I was out of state and I understand it's a very confusing history. I'll sta~I out in May of
1985 Chudiak approaches the PB and by letter says he had an agreement a long standing
agreement with Mr. Zabicky, Becker, Well, and Wanat that at some point in time he would if
he developed the proper_fy he would give them more land and he would do by way of the
process would be boundary line agreements. The lot line changes have never been a very
well codified section of our Town Code and if you read the section of the code it seems to
imply that it's an informal process nevertheless, the PB when Amele Dipetris who
represented him at the time approached the PB, the PB said no we want you to do it formally
Page 9 of 33
Page 10
Aprit 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
we want you to do it as 4 formal applications to the ?B. He did that. He came in with 4
separate ?B applications the file I believe you have access to so it's obvious the lot line
changes were accomplished and one of the issues that came up through Va?s memo was the
fact that somehow or another this parcel was sterilized by the action of the lot line changes
and I attach a November 6, 1985 letter from Amele Dipetfis regarding the language that was
agreed to be placed in covenants and that language was in fact placed in the covenants. The
lot line modification let's take the first one, the one I know was done Wells. Wells was
approved the Wells deed or the deed from Chudiak to Wells placed a covenant on that deed
which said hey we are going to take the property, we are going to treat it as one and the one
house is the development of this property. So it was a merger of the 2 just as had been
planned and just as he had agreed to. There was no language in that covenant that even
implies that the balance of the property was going to be sterilized. There is just no reading
even if you turn the pages upside down and backwards~ there is no way of reading it into the
language of the covenant. So as far as the balance of the property goes there is no restriction
with respect to the balance of the property. I get on to the next specific date that o~x Dec. 1{5
the PB granted the separate resolution for the lot line changes and what was occurring here
was for example the Wells property 12500 sq. ft. of vacant land from Chudiak to Wells was
conveyed again as a boundary line agreement. Well's property went from being a ¼ acre
improved on Cox Neck to a little over a ½ acre on Cox Neck. It was a no brainer it made
sense. The same occurred with the Wanat piece, Wells and Wanat actually completed the
transfer and the properties are the way the lot line changes were approved and that's the way
the property is today. To imply that what's lef~ wasn't created by PB action just dehes loghc.
How else are they going to do it, they did it by separate application they did it by specific
application to think the PB had no knowIedge of this or had no intention of this occurring,
that may be fine and good but we don't operate in the zoning code by intention. :It's done by
code, it's done by covenants. If you intend to do something that is not otherwise permitted in
our zorfing code you damn well better be careful to put it in writing and put it as a covenant
because future attorneys like me and Paul Caminiti wilt look at the file well of course this
property is a single and separate lot that was created by the PB. With respect to the Becker
and Dibicki property, those 2 parcels never were completed. Ms. Becker t think from the
transcript as I rem~nber made mention of the fact that her father may have become ill
couldn't consummate the transfer Dibicki was no longer a title owner his title chmtged hands
in ~82, but he didn't tel1 anybody about it. This Siderakis was the new owner and somehow or
anothe~ Val makes a point of the fact that there was a letter in the file from Siderakis that he
was ready, willing and able to close. That's very trice but that would have left a half acre
parcel behind. The Chudiaks re~Jize wait a second, I can't sell this piece and leave myself
such a small piece I have nothing left to do with it. That didn't make sense. So they retained
the parcel. The parcel was specifically identified parcel with a tax map number they have
been pahdng taxes ever since. It's always been taxed it's always been recognized by the town.
In fact when I got involved in it with both daughters, Mr. Chud~ak tmformnately is ill. The 2
daughters are here and I started with them what feels like a very long time ago ba about 2001
the first day as soon as I got a chance to review the zoning code I met with Ed Forrester and I
sat down with Ed we went over all the documents and Ed had the same op/nion that we ail
came to just about every lawyer that looked at this file came to the same conclusion that this
is a buildable parcel it's what's rema~rfing a~er PB action. Exhibit B is an affidavit by Ed
Forrester who very kindly stepped to the plate courageously because it may it goes against
Page 10 of 33
Page 1 1
Apri~ 3,
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearin~
Val but we had a meeting with Vel and we sat dumbfounded by some of the points and some
of the comments and the beliefs / conclusions Val was coming to. It didn't make sense to us
we thought we11 as a matter oflaw the BD makes the decision of whether or not one gets a
permit not the planner and certainly not somebody who's telling you well that's not what the
PB intended and we're looking at her and saying that may be fine and good but you don't
leave behind a 1.7 acre parcel and expect it to be sterilized property rights due process a
constitutional fights of property owners there are certain basic principles which are land
ownership. You don't create a parkland for your neighbors 1.7 acres is not a parkland and
Ms. Becket last time she was here pointed out why would we buy the property when we get
it for nothing. Thai memo that Vat put in the fiie if you notice it's a memo to the file. Did
she bother sending me a copy certainly not because she knew how I said I disagreed with her
did not send it to Paul Caminiti to my knowledge certainly it wasn't something we were all
aware of it came up when Mr. Pisacano was ready to get approval from the Health Dept. He
was days away in fact we had signed covenants for the property for Health Dept. purposes
standard covenants. The Health Dept. was just about ready to stamp the map when the memo
appears and the Health Dept. thinks it's too much cfa hot potato and they send it over to the
Board of Review. The Board had their hearing and has come to a decision the decision is
attached as Exhibit C the decision pretty much accepts our arguments with respect to how the
1ct is created, recognizes zmting issues, but as far as lid issues we exceed any of the HD
requirements so we certainly are entitled to HD and now he's going to be getting it. With
respect to the memo I make point by point I have point 1-5 but my these are the points when
I reviewed tt~e memo by Vat just some of the issues do not make sense. One issue she says is
you can't have this property as 280A and they use you as an excuse that this lot could not be
deve]oped because of 280A. This is road frontage property it faces Cox Neck it is subject to
a ROW we have not effected anyone's ROW. The only reason Miloski needed 280A is
because 'they are getting access over a ROW. We own to the road. The Chudiak property
takes the larger piece, the rectangular piece and fete tide is taken ali the way to the road so
there is no 280A issue here an no requirement under 280A one of the other issues you raised
is the fact that 'this property shouid have been sterilized just doesn't make sense. The parcel
the lot line changes we're making other lots more conforming than they were. It made sense
to grant bomtdary !ine agreements giving these property owners land. The fact that the piece
that remains thank goodness it's a lager piece of property and they had the thought to retain
sufficient land or I'd be here discussing with you a much smaller piece of property. The fact
that Siderakis was interested in buying the land I pointed out before that was 3 years later and
again leaving behind assuming that property would have been sold to Siderakis what then she
made no discussion did not address the issue of the fact that Becker would have been left and
then what with Becket that piece would have been sterilized aI the benefit of who our client
would continue to pay taxes on that property and Becker would have never been obligated to
buy it there's no obligation there it just doesn't make sense. As far as point 4 is that the
Chudiak piece, imagine this you have a piec~ of property that you could put a house on it
Chudiak's piece could have a house on it today. You're not creating additional lots. You still
have the Chudiak piece with the potential of one house and you have boundary line
agreements you have lot line changes giving those very small parcels extra land. You're not
increasing the density there it's the same number you still count the same nmnber of heads at
the table same number of houses at the table you're not there's no effect there and I've already
mentioned the fact that how this memo came about and how upsetting it was to find a memo
Page 11 of 33
April 3, 2803
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
where it's being used against you with no opportunity to respond in a unilateral veto of the
development of this property and finally Ed Forrester's affida¼t which speaks for itself and
recognizes the fact that the building inspector would have just made the decision when Val
was making her decision that this property could not be developed Ed Forrester said of
course and we proceeded under that conclusion and Mr. Pisacano as well it only started
getting bounced back and forth after he came in to request to start looking into a building
permit.
CHAIRWOMAN: When the intended merger of the lots did not occur why didn't Mr.
Chudiak simply go back to the PB and ask for an emended plan? Why did he instead
proceed to put the house on the market for sale knowing full well that the PB had intended
these to merge by action by deed by record by everything else assuming that something
happened along the way.
MS. MOORE: Let me answer. Because each application was independent individual
application there were 4 applications by Val's own memo she admits there were 4 separate
applications the fact that you could see them on a map doesn't change the fact that they asked
for 4 independent applications. Could the PB said yes to one and no to the rest absolutely
they would have had that right because each of them had to stand alone. And what happened
was each the PB when you do a lot line change the completion of a lot line change is the deed
that gets sent to the PB through the Assessors office or wherever recognizing the merging of
the 2 parcels that's where the covenant would have been applicable - not to the balance of the
property it's to the deed that goes f~om the Chudiak piece over to the other owner in every
instance of a lot line change. That's the piece that gets conveyed and it's a recognized action,
you're doing a boundary line in some towns ifs called a boundary line agreement it can be in
many cases it's not formal action of the ?B at all it can be done informally between adjoining
property owners.
CHAIRWOMAN: We have Chudiak to Wells. We have Chudiak to Zabicky, Chudiak to
Wanat, Chudiak to Becker and some of those just took place and-
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind, it's done by PB action. The section of the code says if the PB
acts you don't just create lots out of thin air in the Town of Southold they are either by ?B
action or by conveyances and what's left.
CHAIRWOMAN: So these lots were created by the PB action and they were subject to
certain conditions. Conditions that they merge. The merger took place on some of the lots
on I5 & I6~
MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that not every application for exempie you have several
variance applications that may or may not ever get built. The fact that you ask for and get
permission to do it doesn't force you to implement whatever relie£you've requested, tn this
instance it wasn't Chudiak t~.at said oh you know forget it [ don't want to do any of this it was
the property owners who said we can't do it r/ght now we can't do tls we can't do that.
Those that could, it got transferred. Those were Wells and Wanat those 2 got completed that
was the balance of it to pretend that lot does not exist it doesn't make sense.
Page 12 of 33
Page 13
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: Is your request for recognition?
MS. MOORE: I believe that's what the building inspector cited.
CHAIRWOMAN: Very seriously, what is the application for because we have an
application for a waiver of merger.
MS. MOORE: But the NOD says recognition of the lot and your notice I just read says lot
recognition.
CHAIRWOMAN: I know that. Our application is for a waiver of merger.
MS. MOORE: I didn't do it, Mr. Pisacano made the whatever application t think he's gone
to the next step which is exceptions 'the non conforming lot has a minimum lot size of 40000
sq. fL it doesn't merge so I don't know where I didn't get involved in that I know for a fact
that what the BI directed and what your own notice says and I think that's ar~ accurate.
CHAIRWOMAN: The NOD I'm just saying if you take a look at the application in the file
is for a lot waiver.
MS. MOORE: That's the way he interpreted it, not my interpretation.
CHAIRWOMAN: Application for waiver under Section 126 - that's what we have in the
file.
MS. MOORE: I guess you notice properly then because the notice you have I read - I can't
answer your internal pape_wvork I can only answer with what I think is the relevant section
and what the relief should be granted.
CHAIRWOMAN: Reliefmndcr 1247
MS. MOORE: 124 1 think is the applicable section that the lot was created by the PB and
therefore should be a recognized lot. It's single and separate and now has all abilities to be
developed except for the BD directed us here.
CHAIRWOMAN: That's why it's so difficult to understand because yes lots were created by
the PB. The configuration of this lot was not.
MS. MOORE: How else would it have been created? It's not by deed.
CHAIRWOMAN: The lot in question was created by the PB as part of 2 other lots.
MS. MOORE: Yes, but it's done by the PB. The language doesn't give much except that it's
done this or 'chat way it's approved by the PB by virtue of here you have a piece of property
Page 13 of 33
Page ~4
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
you take a piece from here and you take a piece from here pretend it doesn't exist - you can't
do that - the PB has created this configuration.
CHAIRWOMAN: The PB has created lots, I agree with that. Did riley create this lot, no.
We are going to have problems with this because I'm not sure that this does not require an
action by the PB to undo whaFs been done. I'm not sure at all that this would fall under this
exemption in any way shape or form because the PB did not create rids lot that is before us
today.
MS. MOORE: I respectfully disagree because the PB took separate action on each of those
lot line changes they most certainly did. The fact that they did not intend in they say this but
that is not what is w'Hrren, that is not what is said and that's not what the code says. The fact
that they were sloppy and they came up with you know you have 2 board members who still
remember well that's not the way zoning works, it's not to penalize a property owner for what
is left behind from PB action that is completely against ali zoning principals that I'm aware
of. You can't treat people in this town that way. You cannot treat people that way and let my
just say before we even started here Frank Murphy who was the broker for the Chudiaks at
that time contacted and sent a letter and I just spoke to him today because I didn't remember
this he said ~ sent letters to ail of the adjoining property owners offering them this property
and nobody wanted it. I know Frank Murphy asked me about sending letters and he
remembers sending !etters.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or
against the application?
TED WELLS: Just to get on the record, my name is Ted WeIls I live at I575 Cox Neck
Road I've been there for 40 years. My property is adjoirfing to th/s. ~'m one of the guys who
got the lot line change. ~[ know more about this than anybody because ~['m the guy that did
the legwork for Mr. Chudiak setting up these lot line changes because he was too busy he
was farming he said you want this property you people you got to do this so whom ~ had to go
to plan it took me a year and a half with the ?B to get to buy this property because it wcmt
into M80 which is 2 acres and there wasn't 2 acres ]eft in this strip which was 125x500' long.
He says to me - you want it, you take the whole thing if you want it I come to the ?B he says
youYe not going to put a house there, there's enoug~ houses we want to leave it open because
you've got a natural water drainage for 136 acre farm that's on the side of it because when
you put the 2 acre zoning in and started building houses up in the back from the first part he
knocked offit blocked offw~th Artie Foster built a road, the water couldn't mn like it's
natural ~xm to the big hole in the bottom of Cox Neck Road that blocked it off so now ail the
water comes down by us and it goes into a big hole on the back end of this property and
when I say a big hole, a big hole so a year and a half they made us put restrictions in that we
couldn't build a house on this property in any shape or form it was never to come back as a
lot, bnt then what happened was Mr. Becker died and I was friendly with Mr. Chudiak 1/ke
family every day I used to see him work w~th him and all that stuff so we have a good rapport
so les not that I don*t know hhn because I do real good and then what happened, Mr. Becket
died and while that was going on he had it surveyed before he died because there was a copy
of Mr. Becker s snrvey because he was buying the property-
Page 14 of 33
Pa[~e 15
April 3, 2003
Southo]d Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Becket was the one that was supposed to merge?
MR. WELLS: Right but he died one night ambulance came and got him, he gave me t~'le
keys he told me lock up my house they are taking me because his wife had died a year prior
to that and I locked the house up he died 2 or 3 days later. Meanwhile he already had that
surveyed because he was buy/ng it his strip and of course Zabicky had sold it to Sicerakas so
when I went to Sicerakis and said hey do you want to buy the property he said yes I want to
buy the property and at that time those pieces $3K a piece so when it started slowing down,
Mr. Chudiak said to me I got to get rid of that property, I don't want to pay taxes on it no
more see what you can do, I'll sell it to you for the same price.
CHAIRWOMAN: This was when they didn't merge?
MR. WELLS: Right but as soon as this started when Mr. Becker died and so forth be says to
me so I went back to the PB from scratch one and said listen he wants to sell me that
300X125~ which is less th~Ln ~'s of an acre and that's the piece that Mr. Pisacano's got. And
the PB said youYe more than welcome to buy it but you have to come back and you're going
to have to do the same thing. It's going to be a lot line change to your property line and it*s
going to run that way but I*m going to tell you right now it has restrictions on it. ¥ouYe not
going to build a house on it. I though maybe I could build a house for my daughter there.
No way shape or fonm I got thrown oat of here twice. So I give up on it, we bought a piece
of property in Laurel and built a house for her. Then about 3 years ago I was approached
aga/n the 2 daughters come to me and I know them and they said listen we have to sell the
property because Dad we didWt expect him to live that long and he's up in his 90's now and
be needs the money and I got along with Bill Chudiak like that so I said I kazew I couldn*t
build on it so I gave her an offer, 1 5gure I'll buy the danm thing and let the neighbors look at
it. I know I can't build on it just leave it there, let the neighbors look at it I got all good
neighbors and like I say, I've got all good neighbors and like I say I've been here for 40 years
well that wasn*t good enough I guess because I heard it was up for sale for $100K so I
understand Frank Murphy got involved. Well Frank Murphy made some telephone calls. He
didn*t send letters, he called because the neighbors I have, we talk and he called up and said
to them Mr. Sideraks because he got a hold of me and said if you want that piece you can
have that piece behind you but it's going to cost you $50K which is 200' wide by ]25' deep.
CHAIRWOMAN: This was his part of the merge?
MR. WELLS: 'Yes. Yon want we he can have it for $50K because he was going to sell the
property he called Carol Becker and said if you want the property it's going to cost you $20K
so he ~hgared lae~d get $70K out of the thing so all the neighbors know that they can't build on
it and to pay that kind of money on a piece of property that you can't btfild on it just don't
make sense and I know I~ve been going through t.hhs since 1986 because I'm the one that
brought Mr. Chukiak down and sat right there on those 2 chairs and when Mir. Orlowski sa/d
stand up and I~e stood up with them arid said you understand that when you made these
clzanges, these lot line changes with the covenants you agree with it and he did so it was
signed, sealed and delivered at that time. That's going back like I say I know all this I had to
Page 15 of 33
Page 16
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
have a key map made with a natural water runoff showing how much water would run down
there Van Tyle had to do it at that time so I can't see how it can come back as a building lot
with a house now I toId the girls when they wanted to sell it I says sell it I don't care someone
is going to buy it, let them buy it but they can't build a house on it because if that's going to
be reversed by the PB I want the covenant in my property to come out and my mother in law
wants hers out and Kevin Milowski wants to split his acre off because he's got an acre on the
other side but he had to buy 2 acres from Mr. Chudiak to be able to build his house right
across the street from this. So everybody around had to buy 2 acres back in 1985 and 86 to
build a house now you have less than ~A's of an acre and it's going up as a building lot. 1 can't
see how. I just can't see how. Like I say I know this property situation from the word go and
I can't say anything bad, but I'm just saying if he bought this property knowing he couldn't
get a building permit, then he shouldn't have bought it. If you didn't know that, I feel for you,
I really do.
CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Wells, address us.
MR. WELLS: Sorry. Everybody in this town including Frank Murphy knew that you were
not going to get a building permit hinged to this when you bought that when you went to
closing.
CHAIRWOMAN: Mn-. Orlando has a question.
MEMBER ORLANDO: You made a comment about a ½ hour ago when you were talking
that when you went to the PB they said you could not build on the back parcels, do you have
any documentation or letters from that?
MR. WELLS: I would have to get the minutes from when they did ail that. I also had a
meeting with the same group on August 13, 2001 one week before they did with the PB and
the Town Attorney, Ed Forester, and the rest of them and we spent 2 ½ hours in there and
that's what they came up with the same thing the Building Inspector he picked tiffs book up
and said I'll issue a building permit. Well he can issue a building permit for anything. How
does he know if he didn't see where the house is going to be? How do you issue a building
permit?
CHAIRWOMAN: Wait a minute, there's something conflicting let me just get this straight -
you had a meeting with the Town Attorney, who else7
MR. WELLS: Valerie Scopaz I think you should have a copy in your file that memo - Ed
Forrester and they had somebody in there taking notes. I don't know their name.
CHAIRWOMAN: What's the date on that?
MR. WELLS: That's August 13, 2001.
MS. MOORE: For the record, nobody from our side or Mr. Pisacano's side was invited.
Page 16 of 33
Page 17
April 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meetin§ Public Hearing
MR. WELLS: This is a meeting that I called and asked to find out when it ~vas offered to
me by the 2 daughters when 3[ made the offer and they didn't say no they didn't say yes, then
had a meeting with them figuring I would try this one more time and if they gSve me a hint
that I could get a building permit then I could go back to Barbara Chudiak and said look,
g/ye you more money because I know then I could have built on it the same thing you did.
The real problem here is you had a meeting with August 13, 2001 that doesn!t jive with I
mean it fives with what the ?B says, but it doesn't go with what the affidavit from Mr.
Forrester.
MS. MOORE: I had a meeting but I never knew about this meeting that be had with the
people he's talking about.
MR. WELLS: The property was offered to me first.
CHAIRWOMAN: There's no record of this that we have?
MR. WELLS: It should be in there, yes. R's a PB town of Southold memo in isle Aug. 13,
2001, Chudiak property located on west side Cox Neck Rd. Matt.
MS. MOORE: Is that the meeting with Valefie Scopaz? And she didn't list you as being
there? ICs not your fault, it's just inappropriate for them not to included the owners of the
property, the attorney or the owner of the property at that meeting.
MR. WELLS: I just asked if ~ could get a building permit.
MS. MOORE: Not your fault, nothing to do with you.
MR. WELLS: I know this family, I've known them for 40 years, I've never-
CHAIRWOMAN: So this meeting was 1 week before the memo from the Town Planner?
MR. WELLS: Yes a week before them.
MEMBER ORLANDO: By your request?
MR. WELLS: Yes I called and asked ifl could have a meeting with the PB and a Building
Inspector to find out ifI could get a building permit because Barbara and Joan both come to
me and sa/d look we are going to sell the property-
We approached you to tell you we were going to sell it.
CHAIRWOMAN: Order. Okay Ijust wanted to get the facts of that straight.
MEMBER OLIVA: August 13th, the town attorney, the building inspector and the planners
said you could not build on that lot?
Page 17 of 33
Page 18
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MR. WELLS: They said if you want anything you'd have to go to the ZBA.
CHAIRWOMAN: Was Mr. Forrester at that meeting.'?
MR. WELLS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: Maybe we'll subpoena ali of them here because there's something wrong
and we're not going to sit here and tiddlywinks around and try to figure out what it is.
MR. WELLS: I tried to get here last time for the last meeting but I was stuck there under
doctor's care and I'm only here now because we had a death in the family arzd I had to fly up
for it. Just on the record that's why we weren't here.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or
against the application?
RITA WELLS: My name is Rita Wells, Ted is my husband. I would just like to say that
last fall ~ received a phone call from Mr. Pisacano and he wanted to talk to my husband and I
said I'm sorry he isn't here can I take a message and he said well, he probably doesn't want to
talk to me anyway just tell him and you also not to tell anybody that the piece of land is not a
buildable lot because it is and I said oh and he said I've got all the permits i need to build a
house on that little piece of property and I said from the Town of Southold, he said don't you
worry about it I've got all the pem~its I need and I said from the Town of Southold and he
said I can build a chicken house back there and I said I don't think you're agriculturally zoned
for that do you recall I'm just saying i didn't think when he said his lawyers would be coming
after us if we told any more people that the place was not bnildable I didn't appreciate that. I
just thought you'd like to hear that.
CHAIRWOMAN: is there anyone else in tt,.e audience who would like to speak for or
against the appIication?
BARBARA CHUDJAK: My name is Barabara Chudiak my father owns the property and
unfortunately what Mr. Wells is not accurate. My sister and I knowing he would cause us
tro,able went to him and told him we were planning to sell this property we are putting it on
the market I resent what he's saying my father about buying those lots and my mother was
very ill. I always lived in Manhattan by the time I came home the property was sold to Wells
because he was pursuLng my father and my mother signed a document when she had a brain
tumor so that's the situation on Mr. Wells but I just let it go and said what goes arc'crud comes
around. Mr. Wells when I lived in Ma~&atta~ his daughter was calling me because they
wanted to buy the property for $1 OK that's all he wanted to pay and he was pursuing my
father and my father gave him my phone number in Manhattan and he was calling me and I
said the property is not for sale and he wanted it for $10K and that's been going on for years
mnformnately my father had a severe stroke this past Monday or ~[ would have brought him
with me. This is not right what's going on and I resent this. He was very good to Wells and
the neighbors and what they are doing now is not right. He was very idnd to them and he
would not be giving somethLng away or doing what he's saying. I resent hLm putting words
Page 18 of 33
Page 19
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Pubiic Hearing
in my father's mouth. It's not r/~=ht and I resent I wasn't here ~vhen this lst transaction took
place because believe me t would not have let it go throu~. My father's old and he was old
then ~d ve~ disoriented and people took advantage and it's not fi~t.
CHARWOMAN: Is ~ere anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or
against the application?
CHRIS HELLIGER: I'm Chhs Helliger my prop~y abuts Mr. Pisacano's prope~y. I
addressed you last time. I'm probably going to repeat myself on a lot of topics. The 5rst one
being the paper histo~ on the prope~y that the PB reco~ized ~d has in the ~le testimony
of 2 PB members did have ~owledge of the o~er intent to be that of merging with ex~sfing
~d not for sale as building lot in ~e. ~ updated version of that ~s the Au~st 13th memo
~d on ~e 2nd page the last p~a~aph if you wmnted to read that it would reiterate that. Mr.
C5ud~ cemainly owned a lot of prope~y the majority of it being all to ~e west of that little
strip of homes on Cox Neck Road ~d had m~y options to inco¢orate this p~icul~ piece
ofprope~y in ~ture sales which he d~d not ~d you'll be able to see that wkh the dates. The
1st piece ofpropemy ~at he chopped offifyou w~ll for residential was the MilowsM prope~
that being 19.8 on the map. Last time I didn't have the map to ~ve you the proper
nmbedng. At that point ~d time he ce~ainly coMd of encompassed ~is piece ofprope~
on there he did not instead he m~e specific p]~_s to Bave the coven~ts w~tten up and
submitted ~d approved apparently to the PB ~d I'm sure zoning approval by ~awyers ~d
PB are M1 t~en into consideration upon that. That was a~er the Milowski prope~y was
subdivided then the p~icular piece of prop~y where my husb~d ~d I now own was a
l~ge p~ce~ which was subdivided into 19.10, 19.28 1 believe ~at says, 19.27, 19.15 ~d
19.17. I'm not sure what the totM acreage was there but once again riffs p~icul~ piece of
propemy ce~M~y could have been encompassed there also when this was soM and it wasn't
done. I me~ ~at pa~icul~ subdivision m~dated all those pa~icul~ people on Ta]~wood
Lane to the 2 acre subdivision. I would just ~ike to point out on the map my prope~y in
p~cular encompassed that potion of the ROW and eliminated ~t because Nudak*s who ~e
13&14 had ROW at the new Ta~lwood access so proposed ROW there was never a ROW so
~ay that was my main point. He ce~ai~y had options to ch~ge Ms mind never d~d away
with ~e coven~ts - te~ it as is subdi~ded that s~ounding prope~ to the 2 acre m~dated
zoning ~d we were le~ with that p~icul~ subst~dard building ~ot yes because it was
obv~ously maintaining the st~d~ds for the o~nal coven~ts w~ch were on file. I
that pret~ much covers that aspect of it I just did ~ave a question of the proposed ROW
because ~e 2 people being We~s ~d W~at that did have ~eir prope~y l~nes merged with
that p~icu~ prope~y have Mways had access on the back end of those mer~ngs ~d so that
ROW c~ never be eI~minated so they cm~ always have access to those back entrmxceways so
that Mso is a reason for the ROW not to merge w~th p~ce] ~9.11 ~d then if there is a
question a~ all of tbs the te=a~n as ~. Wells has said I don't ~ow if you've walked it but
it is really severM feet below ~ade it provides a natural &Mnage for the sm~ounding
unchmnged topo~aphy ~d I thi~ Mt~ng ~e elevation in ~y way there woMd be a
des~ctive division of that ~ don't ~ow if you ~ow Cox Neck at M~ but it has a sev~e
drainage probl~ as it is so if you woMd just consider all t~ese problems I just brought up
mhd eve~hing ~hat's on file the nei~bors would appreciate it weYe all representing all the
Page 19 of 33
Page 20
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
names on file there for the people who could not be here tonight and we would appreciate
your decision in our favor.
MS. WELLS: I just want to say that Ms. Hilliger said my father had to opportunity to sell
this before you have to understand my father is a farmer and he's not a businessman nor an
educated person and for the past 25 years he has macular degeneration so he has really not
been able to see or really understand a lot of things so I did want to bring that up. She said
he had the opportunity to be able to sell that, he couldn't. He wasn't aware of what could be
done.
MS. MOORE: Just 2 points with regard to the property if you look at the overall tax map
you can see that this parcel remains and it's bisected on the east and west by ROW's. So it's a
natural logical break in the property to say that the property as Ms. Chudiak would somehow
be attached to something else it's cut up by the ROW's one to Milowski and one to the north
so that's not quite accurate. I want to read I was recently at the appellate division with
respect to a Southold case and the case is Iannone vs. the PB that case started out it's a
supreme court case that dealt with the PB's imposition on covenants on property and their
covenants on no further subdivision. The supreme court, the lower court found that the PB
had no authority in the law to place those kind of covenants on it. The town obviously
objected to that conclusion by the lower court amd went to the appellate division and I was
there arguing that case the interesting thing was this was my clients piece of property was
one where there was n9 covenant placed on the property that prevented it from being fxu-ther
subdivided even though the PB intended that case to be applicable but from the subdivision
maps and the only place that the condition could be found on it by was reviewing in
thoroup~aly in the PB file you might find mention of covenants that should have been
submitted that were never submitted in our case there were covenants l'm going to read my
next point I'tl read the covenant language but the appellate division quizzed and I'm waiting
to find out what the decision finally holds but the quizzed the attorney for the PB and said
how is anybody to know about a restriction essentially sterilizing a piece of property if there
is no covenant on the property making it clear that it is the ultimate intentiun and I submit to
you that's why I attached exhibit A because this clearly shows what the intentiun was
between the parties and this was a letter to Ms. Schultz and the way the language of the
covenant and alt the deeds read is the parcel thereby conveyed shall merge with premises of
the grmttee contiguous there to on the east and the 2 parcels shall thereupon 'be deemed one
parcel for the pm'pose of zoning ordinance for gte Town of Southold so under present
provisions of the zoning ordinance only one residence together with accessory structures may
be constructed and maintained upon said 2 parcels which are being merged into one. That
does not apply to anything other than lot line change the individual lot line change that parcel
and that conveyance that covenant is a restrict/on on the deed when that cunveym~ce is done.
That is not intended or ever assumed or any reading of it whatsoever could come to the
conclusion that the balance of the property has that condition, that covenant on there, it may
be the intention it was poorIy done if that was the intention because that is clearly not from
the language of the deeds or the language of the conditions on the lot modifications so Mrs.
Tortora you asked about the application of that covenant look at the language it speaks for
itself which is the I can give you the copy of both deeds, I'll get them for you and I'll send
them to you both the language of the Wanat deed and the Wells deed have ti:Ss language as a
Page 20 of 33
Page 21
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
condition. The balance of the property has no such covenant so as far as restricting a
property owner as to intentions or conditions, if it's not as a covenant on the property it is not
binding, it is not appropriate.
CHAIRWOMAN: It's maintained that it was a setoff agreement with those propc'rties.
MS. MOORE: We are talking about 2 different things. There was or/ginally a setoff she
confuses things. There was a setoff from the parcel on the east that was between Cox Neck
and the ROW and the west end. That was a setoff. That setofi'which you actually looked at
tttrough a 280A application the balance of that lot. There was no such restr;cfion as far as no
further subdivision or anything else on the piece that remained. There was nothing about
Zt was a standard setofl: She argued that well your own conditions of 280A therefore you
couldn't build on this because your decision said any further action or any further
developmertt would require 280A that's not true 280A is only applicable if you're over a
ROW it's not if you have fee title to the road so I think she's grasping for straws trying to
come up with rationale for finding that this property is sterilized but it's not applicable so
Milowski setoff has no application here and the covenants which is I think then she gets onto
another issue with respect to the covenant language in the deeds they were impi~mented
when the transfers took place when they actually completed the lot merger the lot line change
and that sale took place there was to be a covenant on the deed of that conveyance which is
tlae standard the way it's done today there's generally no covenants-
CHAIRWOMAN: So you're sa;cng because it didn't take place the covenant is not valid?
MS. MOORE: Of course.
CHAIRWOMAN: Well if it didn't take pla~e and the covenant is not valid then I still don't
understand and maybe I'm missing something and maybe we need to consult with legal
council why you wouldn't go back to the PB. Why are you here?
MS. MOORE: Because the PB took applications for lot line changes. They took the Wanat
application, they took the Wells application, they took the other 2 applications, but they
chose not to act again I come to you for tm area variance t may choose not to act on the
variance, I may ask for 5 variances from you on one time and only implement 3 of the 5.
CHAIRWOMAN: But why aran't you before the PB?
MS. MOORE: Because they don't have jurisdiction here. Zt's an issue of creation of the lot.
How is the lot created. The lot was created by tl**e PB by actions that they took on the other
pieces. It's what's left it's a balance cfa piece of property.
CHAIRWOMAN: That's a stretch in my mind.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, talk to your town attorney as far as every attorney that I've referred
this to and said please am I missing something here? They said no this is what's lel2 when
you take pieces you have a piece and you take off another. What's left?
Page 21 of 33
Page 22
Apri~ 3~ 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: I must be missing something because ali I see is that the PB did these
setoffs 2 of them occurred 2 of them didn't and you're saying because 2 didn't that this lot
which wasn't even a lot when they did the setoff-
MS. MOORE: Yes it was. It was a lot you have the lot that started out as take away ½ acre
it was a ½ acre larger because they each got a ¼ acre extra on their lot line modification so
you started out with a large lot, you took and I've done multiple lot line changes from one
application where you have several, maybe you can educate them-
CHAIRWOMAN: Everybody's excited, let's not get excited. This lot you're asking us to a)
recognize a lot that wasn't created by the PB because the PB created merged lots okay that
didn't happen so this parcel ended up even if you ignore the PB and go fight to lot
recognition this lot did not appear this way in 1983 did it?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: Part of it was Wells so it couldn't have appeared the same way. Isn't that
correct?
MS. MOORE: Maybe I'm not following you but I have to get-
CHAIRWOMAN: This lot as it looks today did not look this way in 1983 did it?
MS. MOORE: Pre lot line changes or post?
CHAIRWOMAN: Pre.
MS. MOORE: No of course not it was the result of the remainder of lot line changes. It was
a boundary line agrec~nent it could have been from this side to this side.
CHAIRWOMAN: You're saying except this lot line change, yes that's valid because these
didn't occur don't accept that one, that's not valid.
MS. MOORE: I'm not saying accept these and don't accept these, I'm saying each of these
were independent acts that the PB took on. Had they done it as a comprehensive lot
modification, they should not have done it as 4 independent lot line changes. Even today
they get greedy because each one is a separate application with a separate hearing separate
notice the whole thing and they take each one, one by one not as a subdivision would take all
the lots on a subdivision map and look at them all together. They take each lot line E~lange as
a separate application and when they did that they took the Wanat piece okay it's done we are
taking this piece here you go you've got 3 pieces of paper we got Wanat is done from the
bottom. Well's is done we've approved 2 more for this but it doesn't get implemented for
personal reasons they just don't get done hut it doesn't mean that this doesn't exist. It just
doesn't make sense. Put yourself in the shoes ora property owner when you do a lot
modification with your neighbor, maybe I'm just missing it here.
P~ge 22 of 33
Psge 23
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: Do you have any questions?
MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree with 17 think we need to get everyone here from the last
meeting in August to determine what happened because the same people said 2 different
things a week apart.
CHAIRWOMAN: Wejust got this memo tonight and we're going to have to review it and
go back over it and meet with council on it. 17 would suggest that if the application is for lot
recognition that you submit a revised application so the application is not for a waiver of
merger.
MR. PISACANO: The ZBA gave me an application to fill out for this purpose.
CHAiRWOMAN: Because I asked and they said that's what you filled out.
MR. ?ISACANO: That's what I was told to ask for from the
MS. MOORE: Well it's been noticed properly so the paperwork can come in to you cleaned
up.
CHAIRWOMAN: Right now we actually do not have an application saying what you are
requesting.
MS. MOORE: Wei1 you do actually my memo essentially tells you what it is the correct
application is. Pll have him fill in the blanks.
MR. PISACANO: If17 did not purchase this property, the Chudiaks would be left with an
unbuildabie lot that they can get no money for whatsoever. It's ridiculous.
MS. MOORE: And we are talking about 1.7 acres.
MEMBER ORLANDO: They are ail landlocked parcels.
MR. PISACANO: As far as the drainage goes, the HD has approved me, the soil samples
everything is good, they've approved it they've recognized it there's lawyers on the Board of
Review.
CHAIRWOMAN: Don't say that they did not recognize this lot.
MS. MOORE: They left the zorfing issue to the town - it's out of their jurisdiction. There
are not lots of this size that are out there that are unbnildable that are sterilized.
MEMBER ORLANDO: There are lots out there in the world landlocked that happened as a
result of things. I actualiy saw a tax map of a lot upstate in NY that has a landlocked piece.
Page 23 of 33
Pa~e 24
Apri~ 3, 2(}03
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MS. MOORE: But this is not a landlocked piece.
MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm just answering Mr. Pisacano's question. I wasn't here at the last
meeting, but I have a question are you building a house there for yourself?.
MR. PISACANO: I honestly probably couldn't put up with the neighbors. At this point I
would probably build a house for somebody or sell it or if they'd like to buy it be my guest. I
put ali my money into this I have no money left.
CHAIRWOMAN: How much did you pay for the lot?
MR. PISACANO: $80K.
MS. MOORE: This was not sold as an unbulldable parcel.
CHAIRWOMAN: I'm saying that's a buy. ,
MR. PISACANO: I have a deed. I have a single and separate - it's a building lot.
MS. MOORE: When we went to market in 2001 the market really escalated we gave them
time to get permits and-
MR. PISACANO: And Michael Verity said he would issue a building p~rmit once I got the
permits. But them it sec~med like everyone was wonded aboul Ms. Schlickim who I believe
was Mr. Wells attorney I don't know but the PB was-
MS. MOORE: Everybody's covering their butt and sending it over to you.
MR. PISACANO: I've gotten the mn around for 9 months and it's a lot of money to have
tied up.
CHA]/RWOMAN: It's a lot of money, I'm not unsympathetic to you on the other hand the
board cannot really create lots and that's the issue we need to discuss and resolve and so let's
- weYe not going to resolve it tonight.
MS. MOORE: You may have an answer from the Town Attorney sooner.
CHAIRWOMAN: You're very optimistic.
MS. MOORE: i'm going to harass Nm.
MR. PISACANO: ~l~ere was no problem with this piece of property when I approached
him.
MEMBER ORLANDO: That seems to be the problem it sounds like he gave Mr. Wells and
thc~m one answer and you another.
Page 24 of 33
Page 25
Apri~ 3, 2803
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MR. PISACANO: I ran around for 9 months.
CHAIRWOMAN: The Board Secretary had to run out but otherwise we'll have to re-
advertise.
MS. MOORE: No, no we don't want to re-advertise.
CHAIRWOMAN: Let's try May 1st. We'll adjourn it to May 1st and get her to get a time on
it. Are you planning on submitting anything else?
MS. MOORE: You asked for the revised application form. I don't know until I know what
you need or what you come up with. Understand I'm not being paid, I don't represent him,
I'm here because in fairness this is an untenable situation I feel there's justice in this world
MR. PISACANO: At the last meeting you asked me to explain how the lot was created I
just felt that was ail explained to you and it seemed like that was the only thing you needed to
know, how it was created.
CHAIRWOMAN: We got into names and it wasn't tmtil we started to get information about
numbers of the lots that we could put txhings together because everyone was talking about
Milowski and Wanat and so and so but you have to understand we are looking at a tax map
and we haven't got a clue what you are talking about. We want to subpoena the Town
Attorney, the Planner, and the Code Enforcement Officer because of the conflicting-
MR. PISACANO: That would be your own personal meeting?
CHAIRWOMAN: No it will be a public meeting.
MEMBER ORLANDO: That's the objective of the next meeting to setde out what they
were say4ng.
MR. PISACANO: They have been g/ving me the run around. That's why I'm here.
MEMBER OLIVA: Well they w/Il be under oath.
MR. PISACANO:
CHAiRWOMAN: We understand but rig_bt now we have 2 conflicting testimonies on who
said what.
MS. MOORE: You have an aff~dav/t from Ed so-
Page 25 of 33
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southoid Town Board of Appeafs Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: And we have statements from the PB that are totally contrary to what Ed
said and we have statements from the neighbors that are totally contrary to what Ed and so
and so and so and so said.
MR. PISACANO: Whenever the next meeting is I want it to he resolved that day.
MEMBER ORLANDO: If they are put in a comer they will have to tell. It is what it is.
CHAIRWOMAN: It's going to be adjourned to June 5th 6:30pm.
8:40 p.m. & and J. W@ODHOUSE #5218 - (continued from 2/20/03) This is a request for
a Variance under Section 100-30A.3 based on the Building Departmenfs August 15, 2002
Notice of Disapproval, amended December I6, 2002 and Decmnber 24, 2002, for lot area and
width of Lots 1 and 2, as shown on the lot line change map revised 11-4-02. Location of
Property: 2395 Village Lane and 255 Navy St., Orient; Parcel i000-26-1-12.
CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application?
JENNIFER GOULD, ESQ: Jennifer Gould for the Woodhouse's. I'm going to try to keep it
bhefif there are any questions, just interrupt me. We had a pretty through hearing last time
we were here sorry you weren't here Mr. Orlando but I just wanted to say when we started
you know we went to the PB 1st. We went with the ohginal idea of doing a setoff
application. We were told by the PB we started in June of last year. We didn*t qualify for a
setoffbecause their definition ora setoff although it is not codified as such is that when you
do a setoff you are creating a conforming lot and lea¼ng a larger parcel which is could be
further subdivided in whatever zone area youYe in. So we have a 1 acre lot now a tax map
lot of 1 acre. We have 2 single family dwellings on that lot. Our lot is basically I would call
it the mother of all subdivisions because it's in the Ohent Historic District and if you look at
our supplemental act back in February we show that at one time there were 4 houses on what
is now 1 tax lot because the man that acquired all this property between 1918 and 1934 he
just basically bought up the block and all the houses on the block. He demolished 2 houses
and created t2~e larger house which is the Woodhouse's live in now which is on Village Lane
arour~d the comer on Navy St. is the existing another house which has traditionally been used
as a rental - it's a yearly rental for the Woodhouse*s now it's a separate single family dwelling
that's the oldest house, it goes back to about the 1860's we think it was built and beh/nd that
house at one time you'll see from some of the old surveys was the Murray house. The
Murray house burned to the ground that's why there*s only 2 houses left. So los like a guy
bought the neighborhood 4 houses in the neighborhood and he's left with 2 houses and he
keeps 2 houses and he conveys out in 195d riffs one parcel and all along it was conveyed as
one parcel the reason the Woodhouses want to separate into 2 distinct parcels recognized by
the town is they can no longer afford to mn 2 houses. They have to sell one house or
going to have to come down to selling both houses if we dun*t do something qu~cldy or soon.
When the PB told us we didn't qualify for the setoff, of course the moratorium was coming
a~nd we knew that so when the PB we discussed you can see that we had these old lots and
Page 26 of 33
PaGe 27
Apri~ 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
perhaps there was a merger and the PB said we'll give you that there was a merger go back to
the BD and the ZBA because under no circumstances no matter what you do here you need
m~ area vahance because you've got a 1 acre lot and you want to create 2 ½ acre lots another
argument can be made we have 2 pre-existing nonconforming lots and that whole area is
nonconforming. Someone argued that we don't have to get a variance, but we're not going
that route we are here for an area variance.
MEMBER ORLANDO: Then the PB for a lot line change?
MS. GOULD: Right. So we went the BD in August once we got this letter saying go get a
waiver of merger. So I put in a lot line change application with the BD. And tine BD's NOD
which you have in the pack says lot line change cluotes a section of the code it recluires an
area variance. They did not say waiver of merger was necessary so implicit in their decision
was they found no merger so this was a nice surprise. ~ have to tell you this. ~ went to the
code and looked at it because from my past experience I am ilxated on waiver of merger
because that's how most of the applications come to me. You know we have vacant land and
somebody wants to split it up. But the code has exceptions in 1025C5 and that's where I felt
they were coming from although they've never said it in the NOD and I know this has been a
problem for this board that they never aflSrmatively say-
CHAIRWOMAN: They've never set our jurisdiction.
MS. GOULD: I think they feel they shouldn't have to be pm in the position of saying why
it's not a merger or why it's an exception to the merger. They just say this is what you need
and no one has to hold our feet to the fire as to why it*s not a merger or why it's an exception
to the merger law. That's really what I think their position is they don't have to say what it's
not, they are saying this is what you need they are not going to say-
CHAIRWOMAN: Except for one thing, 10025 no building permit or other development
entitle will be issued by the town until this section has been complied with. The BD will
issue a written determination whether a property falls with an exception to the merger
provision or not. ;It's fight in the code.
MS. GOULD: For whatever reason-
CHAIRWOMAN: They didn't do it which is why we wrote to the BD. It's almost like fili in
the blanks. We said to ourselves okay, what do we have before us? We have a lot ofheresay
and I'm not saying ~om you. Our jurisdiction no matter how you have it is appellate we are
taking an appe~ and we have to know is that for a lot line change? Because a lot 1the change
can only occur if there's 2 lots. Is it for a subdivision or whatever it's for and that's why I
wrote the BD and that's why we felt this application was in limbo.
MS. GOULD: Well, it's been in limbo for a long time and that's why we need a decision but
I don't want to beat it to death but they by not saying to us no you can't get an area variance
because you've merged implicit in their decision was even though they're not willing to say it
is they recognize 2 lots because we gave them the survey showing the old lot line. So it's like
PaCe 27 of 33
April 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Mee[ing Public Hearing
the glass is half full or half empty - I don't know ~vhat it is they don't want to go out on the
edge, but we have to deal with that and we know we have to deal with th.at so what we are
kind of proposing is 2 things. The first is obviously our preference that you consider the area
variance application and just based on the criteria of an area variance and say subject to PB
approval and let us go back to the PB and hassle it out with the PB about whether we are a lot
line because ultimately we have to go back to the PB this is just a pit stop here a long one but
they are going to have to say whether it's a lot line change or a minor subdivision.
CHAIRWOMAN: They won't do that though.
MS. GOULD: Why?
CHAIRWOMAN: The corporate chairman will tell you exactly what's going to you. Here's
what's going to happen. They are going to say we cannot do a lot line change unless the
ZBA says there are 2 lots. Trust me, am t wrong?
MEMBER GORHRINGER: That's the reason why you want the issue of the area variance.
Wt~at you are saying is you are more than ½ way there when you had that determi~atinn.
MS. GOULD: Right because it appears from their Feb. 20th letter to you the way the PB
interpreted the BD's decision is the BD recognized 2 lots and they affirmatively state thaCs
okay with us if the area variance is granted.
CHAIRWOMAN: Then they turned around and said well if it's not 2 lots, tl21en it's not a lot
line change.
MS. GOULD: But as long as we get the area variance, I think we can deal witt~ them.
CHAIRWOMAN: What are you granting the area variance for?
MS. GOULD: A lot line change.
CHAIRWOMAN: But you can't grant a variance for a lot line change unless there's 2 lots.
MS. GOULD: Of course our argument is that we had the 19.19 lot and the code no matter
what all the owners of the property did the code says if you have a house on a piece of
property that is a single family dwelling of at least 850 sq. ft. that has a CO-
CHAIRWOMAN: That fails within the existing lot lines-
MS. GOULD: That lot was created prior to a zoning code so it conformed to the bulk rate
schedule when it was created as did every other house on this lot-
CHAIRWOMAN: But it doesn't have a CO does it?
MS. GOULD: But the code doesn't say it has to have a CO, it says it has to qualify for one.
Page 28 of 33
Page 29
April 3, 2803
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: If it falls within the existing lot lines, has an existing CO or could qualify
for one-
MS. GOULD: It's in the record. The size of it is on the survey-
CHAIRWOMAN: But you would have to - let's go down that argument - in order to qualify
for one to obtain the exemption first you'd have to have the pre-CO.
MS. GOULD: I'm not following.
CHAIRWOMAN: In order to get that exemption-
MS. GOULD: I don't thio& it says that in the code, I think it just says-
CHAIRWOMAN: Each lot is currently developed with a 1-family dwelling with a
minimum which falls within the existing lot lines and which has a CO or would qualify for
one and you cannot get the exemption until you have the CO even if you, you know we've
done this before and people come in with a pre-CO, but the larger issue is this, go back to lot
creation and there is no way that on the effective date of this chapter which it kicks back to
which is 1983 24 goes back to 1983 and if we took a snapshot of what this lot looked like on
May 30th 1983, it was one lot and the whole provisions of the lot recognition and merger of
waiver law and the exemptions they are in are to exempt lots that were merged as a result of
the creation of this lot not to ummerge lots single lots that have been single lots for the last 40
or 50 years.
MS. GOULD: I think we are going to disagree on that we see it differently. I see-
CHAIRWOMAN: That's the way we have interpreted it, the way we have implied it in
other words, when they created the whole 124, 125, and 126 the exemptions in there were to
exempt lots that might be caught up in this net as a result of this law. It wasn't to go back in
history 30 or 40 years ago and start recognizing old subdivision lines that existed in 1919 and
1937 and really if it comes down to an intc~rpretation of that provision, that's what it wilt
come down to.
MS. GOULD: Just based on my own experience I've had cases where if you go with the
snapshot thing I would have never been able to get a wa/ver of merger. What I'm saying is
I'd come in here with a deed with 8 vacant lot parcels on one deed and it's only on one deed
but they were old subdivision vacant lots and what happened was after '83 somebody started
conveying out without approvals and then they come and they ask for a waiver of merger so
not everyd:fing that comes to you if you take the snapshot approach is going to be one deed or
it was on one deed or 2 deeds that's what I'm saySng.
CHAIRWOMAN: I'm not talking about one deed at ali.
MS. GOULD: You're say/ng when you look at that parcel?
Page 29 of 33
Page 30
Apri~ 3, 2803
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: At that time, yes prior to this law. In other words you're implying
somehow let's look at constmctural law and you're implying somehow that when the town
board enacted this law that they meant for it to be retroactive to lots going back 50 & 60
years. When the board's historical interpretation of the law is that the exemption provisions
and the waiver provisions in the law the specific kick back date in this law is 1983 and the
provisions in here for the exemptions are meant to exempt those lots which were caught up
and merged as a result of this law, not to unmerge properties that have been merged for the
last 50 years.
MS. GOULD: I don't agree w/th that but we are asking it would be a lot easier for us if we
could go to Planning on the basis ora lot line change, I mean we still need an area variance,
it's the same criteria, the same factors, vs. a minor sub when we are talking about 2 houses
that have been in existence you know we have separate septic, separate wells for you know
one house is 125 years old and the other is 85 years old.
MEMBER ORLANDO: They ali have CO's but the way the CO reads now, one is treated as
an accessory however it's taxed as a single family dwelling, one of the exhibits shows a letter
from Scott Russell that says we tax both of those houses as single family dwellings. Not as
the house on Navy St. they have separate addresses. The house on Navy St. is taxed as a
single family residence, not as an accessory structure or accessory building. It's taxed as a
house. There's 2 separate addresses.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It meets the 850 sq. ft. requirement which bounces back to the
issue of the fact that it is able to be applied for a CO because the house is large enoug~ to
accommodate-
MS. GOULD: It's carved out I think I said th/s last time but for the'C5 in 1997 we would be
merged and I would see it as a waiver of merger. You're saying we're not even eligible for
brat.
CHAIRWOMAN: That's what I think the BD says when the BD says ti:tis lot is not subject
to the merger law, that's exactly the way I would take that. It is not subject to the merger law
and it's not subject to the exemptions or anything else of the merger law.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So let's go back to the area variance aspect. What does Ms.
Gould have to do?
CHAIRWOMAN: For us she'd have to apply for a minor subdiv/sion. She'd have to amend
the appIication for a minor subdi,Asion because no matter how you hack it, the PB isn't going
to do anything on it. We both k~_ow t~hat.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean a minor subdivision in the way of an area variance
before tls board?
CHAIRWOMAN: Yes.
Page 30 of 33
Page 31
April 3, 2803
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you do that then?
MS. GOULD: That's what option #2 is going to be. Obviously we would prefer you to
deliberate and decide an area variance based on a lot line change, but if you can't or there are
some votes to do that, our alternative is we would amend the application and ask for an area
variance subject to a minor sub because it would give us some place to go. Do you see the
problem it's creating for us? One, we have a moratorium so we have to go before the Town
Board and ask for a waiver from the moratorium and even as difficult as that might be
because the other one had vacant land-
CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to make this suggestion. It's not that we don't like you we'd
like to be done with this for your sake.
MS. GOULD: We don't want a continuance we don't want to subpoena him in to find out
what he meant-
CHAIRWOMAN: We tried to get him to do something at our March 4th letter and this is
why the whole nonsense with hearsay, well what we meant when we said the merger law
does not apply is we meant we are not eligible and we tried very hard to get them to change
it, it doesn't change, you need to go forward with this. 1 think you had submitted a lot of
testimony as to why an area variance is warranted for the creation of 2 lots at the last hearing
and I'd make a suggestion to the board members that when they go to the PB that our board
can certainly send a letter to the TB recommending a waiver from the moratorium on this
because of the tmusual circumstances and because it's not going to increase the density.
MS. GOULD: It's not going to change anything, it's just going to allow my clients to-
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's subsequent to us granting an area variance so let's get to
that right now.
MS. GOULD: Do you want to go over the factors?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You want her to submit an application for an area variance.
CHAIRWOMAN: I want her to amend it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're going to let her do that tonight and that's the extent of
it, then we can close the hearing.
CHAIRWOMAN: Let's do it formally. The board accepts amended application for a minor
subdivision subject to an area variance and we will go ahead and act on that.
MS. GOULD: As quickly as you can. I'm going to ask to be put on the ?B calendar
tomorrow.
Page 31 of 33
Page 32
April 3, 2003
Southold Town Board of Appeals Special Meeting Public Hearing
CHAIRWOMAN: Can you give us a little Ietter? We'll leave yours open for 20 minutes
and go out and write I wish to amend the application for a minor subdivision and area
variance as stated in the previous blah, blah and then we can wrap this up tonight. We'll
recess this for 10-15 minutes - is that okay?
Weodheuse - Reconver~ed
CHAIRWOMAN: Attorney for the applicant has just given us a letter dated April 3 which
states regarding the appeal ofJ&J Woodhouse continued from 220-03 please accept this
letter as an amendment to the above reference appeal requesting an area variance for a minor
subdivision application at the Planning Board. Si~ed John Woodhnuse and Jennifer Gould
Esq.
MS. GOULD:
9:00 p.mo PAUL AND MAUREEN CACIOPPO #5256 - (continued from 2/20/03)
Applicants request Variances under Sections ~ 00-244B and 100-33, based on the Building
Department's October 15, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose a new dwelling at
less than 35 feet from tbe front and rear lot lines, and for approval of the existing location of
an accessory garage in a yard other than the required rear yard, at 195 Skun~ Lane,
Cutchogue; 85-%2.2
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sorry to say this is a simple area variance we are talking about. It
will provide a nice respite for you.
CHAIRWOM~AN: Where is your amended plan in the tile, oh yes, here it is. We are 10'
from the front line.
MR. FITZGERALD: So the thought was it would seem to me that the front yard is most
important to the board. I don't think the very small rear yard setback could ever be a problem
because the lot that backs up on that property extends to the main road and there are already
slx'uctures on that up toward the Main Rd.
CHAIRWOMAN: Well you got rid of the front yard variance?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN: Congratulations. You did very well, you rearranged it so there's no - and
your side yards are fine mad the only issue is one variance. Very good. Is there anyone else
in the audience who would 1Lke to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, Ilt
make a motion closing the hearing reserv4ng decision until later.
PLEASE SEE MENUTES FOR KESOLUTION
Page 32 of 33