Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/17/2003 HEAR SOUTH@LD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~GULAR MEETING TPOiqSCPdPT OF HEARifNGS HELD APPalL 179 2003 (Prepared by Jessica Boner) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortnru Member Vincent Orlando Member Gerard P. Goehringer (until 3:40) Member George Homing (until 3:35) Board Secretary Kowaiski Absent were: Member Ruth D, Oliva PUBLIC HEARiNGS: 9:33 a.m. Fishers ~sland Club, ~nc. #5290. Request for a Special Exception under Section 100-31B(7) for construction of a maintenance/storage building and adjacent covered area at an existing golf course site. Location of Property: East End Road, Fishers Island; Parcel 1000-1-1-3.13. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? STEPHEN HAM, ESQ: Stephen Ham 45 Hm~apton Road Southampton for the FI Club. As you can see from the site plan that was submitted, the club is proposing a storage building for golf equipment that's one purpose, or golf maintenance golf course maintenance equipment that's one purpose, the primary purpose is you'll see a covered washpad at the end of the metal building and that's designed for a recycling system which I'll try to explain a little bit and I have some literature which I'll Ieave with you on that. The building itself is just a simple metal building mad as I say the site plan is self explanatory on that. I'm going to give you and this is my only copy and I can get additional ones if you need it but it's a brochure fi:om the company that the club has engaged to provide a recycling system. I've spoken to the club superintendent and to another person at the clu'o and also a surveyor I understand this to some extent but I'm not familiar with the science on how it works, but I will try to go through what will happen. Let's say there's a mower that's been out on the course and it needs to be cleaned. At present, they will they have a well on sight, it's not public water at that particular location. They will wash it down and the grass clippings will remain on the ground. This is a very environmentally friendly system that they will install at some expense and what will happen is the equipment will drive on to a concrete pad I guess you'd call it which has depressions into a drain and they will use a microsolution with the water as they wash P~ge 2 Aprf0 179 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the equipment and the runoff wilI drain into what they call a sump, but it's a collection area which has a screen for the grass clippings. Then the water, this microbe sohnion apparently breaks down the contaminants whether it's pesticides or gasoline or organic residue and carbon dioxide and water and the water is further treated, recycled and used again and again2. The grass is removed, grass clippings are removed and when they are dry they will be spread into the rough on the course. Water Mil have to be additional water wi11 have to be introduced because there is some water loss due to evaporation. However thee is no need for excuse me, let me back up a second. There is no need for a drywelI for this system. Nothing will go into the ground, it's either going to evaporate or be used again and again. There's 2 drywells that are proposed at the other end o£the building but that's for rain runoff. So what this is essentially is the 21 st century golf course ~eatment center for the club's equipment. The rest of the building is for storage as far as your criteria for granti~ng special exceptions under section 100263 i think it's clear and ~ won't go into detail on thnse but it's a use that's very consistent with yottr stmq~dards. ~¥e heard fron~. 2 neighbors who both support it, John Spaford whn lives very close and a trust which checked with the actual owner of the property which is lot 3.16 told me they have no objection. I believe from being over there myself this is not going to be particularly visible to anyone. There are woods from their adjoining proper~:y so the standards in section 100263 is so far relates to the surrounding area are satisfied as are the others. CHA~rRWOMAN: There are 3 existing maintenance buildings on the property 2 of them you are going to keep and I you are going to demolish ~ assume. MR. HAM:There are what you calI the Barricks ~'m not certain I can End out for you. Mr. Spaford when he catled he was most interested in whether or not ttSs would go through he's the neighbor who lives right up there - I can't remember the tax lot number but he talked about possibty acquiring that for himself. CHAIRWOMAN: The building? MR. HAM: The building, yes. But it will be abandoned by the cIub. CHAIRWOMAN: So you don't know if it's going to be demolished? MR. HAM: No, but I can find out if that's important. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the height of the building from the ridge.'? MR. HAM: I believe it's I4'. ~t's shown on the page A3 of the site plan on tbe lower left it indicates a height there of 14'. CHAIRWOMAN: Would you accept a height limitation on the building of 18' to the top of the ridge? Page 2 of 66 Page 3 Apr~l 17~ Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. F:AM: I don't t~ave a scale and I think this is what the PB has accepted. I don't want to if it's slig~htly more than 18 and ][ can't tell from this - you're referring to the accessory building standard- CHAIRWOMAN: It's a very large structure and the impact of the structure is substantially fled to it's height and what we don't want to see is a 40x80 storage building with an attached 40x20 storage building that's 24' high. MR. HAM: I think just looking at this that 18' would be acceptable, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: You can get back to me. MR. HAM: I will get back to you if it's a problem. CHAIRWOMAN: Let us know about that and the color is steel gray? MR. HAM: I believe so again, I'll confirm that. CHAIRWOMAN: ~ don't have any other questions. MEMBER HORNING: In the questiormaire part of the application there's a mention letter A the property contains or pond areas - you answered no, what can you say about that? MR. HAM: The club handled the enviromnentals and as I submitted to you a letter of nonjurisdiction from the state now I*m aware just from my own practice and what I've been told from the person that handled environmental permit work that if it's clear that it*s out of their jurisdiction which is also 100' they're ~ot even asking for letters of p~onjm~isdiction but certainly if they do, we will obtain one. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't know where tb~e 9th hole of this golfcourse is, if you could just indicate whine it is as the entire facility area exists. Because we want to look at it this August if the board is so inclined to grant this. MR. HAM: You would keep going past the club which is on thee right and follow the main road and hug the golf course you'll at that point on your left would be the 17tl~ tee the 16th green, the 15~ green the 15~h fairway as you get up and you stay straight I'm not sure where the main road continues after the east end but there would be a fork at some point you would stay left then yun'I1 start to see the storage buildings on your right. Now there's a road, driveway in there and where the tax map shows as a road, but it's not it's a error, I've tried to ~ix that as the road ending at the property line near these buildings and it's just a private drive in there but the 9th tee is right around that area. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can depict that for us on the p~ctomap, maybe reduce it a Iittle and give us a copy? Page 3 of 66 Page 4 Apri~ 37, 2003 Southold Town Bom'd of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. HAM: Sure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'd appreciate that. MEMBER ORLANDO: Would that be when we went past the waterholes kind of?. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes as you go up into the private area we saw those elevated tees, it should be fight before that. MR. HAM: The 9tb tee is in sort ora wetland area. The hole itselfgoes up a hill and then down to the water. MEMBER ORLANDO: Jumping back to the height of the ridge, the scale was ¼" a foot on that drawing so you might be able to scale it off quickly before you leave today and con,un thal. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? MEMBER HORNING: ts there anything in this project that you think would endanger the general welfare of the neighborhood? MR. HAM: No I think it's an improvement of what we are doing. There'I1 be less disturbance to the enviroument with this nexv recycling system it's a big improvement over what they have now. MEMBER HORN]2',TG: Do you have an estimated cost on what the system is? MR. HAM: The surveyor told me about $30K, but again I can gSve you a precise figure, the person from the club was not there to speak to when I had questions yesterday. MEMBER HORNING: If you could give us the specific figure- MR. HAM: Just of the recycling system? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. CHA][RWOMAN: 1'11 make a motion closing the hearing pending receipt of conSrmation that an i 8' height to the ridge condition would be acceptable to you we can go as high as 20 no more. 9:53 MR. HAM: Mike Verity just scaled that offfor me, it's 18 to the midline of the roof plus or minus 20 to the crest or the ridge. I will finnish the other information by letter. ]?age 4 of 66 Page 5 Apr~l 1% 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting PuNic Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: So Mr. Ham did confirm that it's plus or minus max to the ridge and we*lI accept that condition. PLEASE SEE M~%~UTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:40 a.m. Christooher ShowaRer #5291 - Request for a Variance u~der Section 100- 239.4B, based on the Building Department's December 4, 2002 Notice of Disapproval Applicant proposes to construct mn addition to the existing dwelling at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Location of Proper~y: 1015 Orchard Lane, Southold; Parcel 1000-90- 4-15. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? ROBERT LEONARD, ARCH: The application we have here is for a covered porch at the rear of an existing house on the water in Cedar Creek. As you know if you*ve been down to the site, we currently have a construction project going on down there and this is the one part we are extending past the existing setback Iines of the house. The covered porch which is what we are looking for I think is going to aesthetically add to the rear of the residence and it's pretty much minor sized as compared to what the house itself is on the lot it's going to go over a set of proposed steps which we plan to build. The structure itself the covered porch we are proposing falls behind the setback lines that we were granted for the original project from both the Trustees and the DEC still falls within those. The porch itself is not any detriment to the neighbors as most of them, ali of them can't see it. On either side of the house, we can't see the neighbors it wilI onlybe seen from the water and as for staying within the character of the neighborhood, ~ think it's well within the character of the neighborhood, the porch we are propesing. If you look at the houses to the south and to the west they are aIso of substantial size and have these same structures on them. That's what I have today. CHAIRWOMAN: The steps are included in the 48.5 that's to the steps not to the moonshaped open porch? MR. LEONARD: To the steps yes. CHAIRWOMAN: How far are the steps off grade? MR. LEONARD: The steps off grade are Yo CHAIRWOMAN: ~ also noticed the new steps that will be attached to the - they are not inctuded in the NOD - are you aware of that? MR. LEONARD: No, the steps themselves are part of the Building Permit. Page 5 of 66 Aprf~ 179 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: So it's just the shaded area7 MR. LEONARD: The steps themselves being steps to get down to the house and being the heiglht they are were included in tl~e original BP. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have I believe there's a letter of opposition. I'll read it into the record. ~ reference to Mr. Showalter's request for a variance as owner of lot 39 I'm opposed to any further cons:ruction to existing dwelling at less than 75' from the bulkhead, I'm concerned of the delicate nature of the wetlands and bays. The letter is by Jean Wolker. I would note that there is a substantial amount of building on this property. I recognize that you have Tmstee's permits and the appropriate peri'nits for the other areas that are not in front of us however the stoop thai was removed was substantially smaller than this - it's a very massive structure in fact because of it's shape we don't have the actual size. What is the distance of the stoop that extends out, not the stoop the covered porch from the existing house? MR. LEONARD: 10' and trSe radius is well it's a 10' radius so it's going to be about wide. MEMBER ORLANDO: Conflicting comments between you and the chairwoman - this is a covered porch not open to the sky. MR. LEONARD: Open, covered porch, there's no walls, just columns and a roof. MEMBER ORLANDO: What is the distance from the house to the bulkhead? I would guess it's 58.5. MR. LEONARD: At it's closest point, of course it's not on this survey here - the house also includes the existing steps as they sit there now° MEMBER ORLANDO: Is it safe to say if it's 48.5 to the bulkhead now, add the radius it's going to be 58.5. CHAIRWOMAN: The NOD to the old steps was 55 the small steps that currently exist. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: Is this the one the stoop that was there was basically a small deck that's what I observed prior to this application and now it's about 4-5' wide so this is about double that, it's about 10 so you have that circular effect. MR. LEONARD: The circular effect is adding to the size of the porch. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: What you are doing is filling in the circular potion of it. Page 6 of 66 Page 7 April 17, 2@03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 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 M1NUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:55 a.m. Jack Weiskott #5292 - Request for a Variance under Section 100-83A, based on the Building Department's October 25, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes to construct two greenhouses at less than 100 feet from the fight-of-way, at 41000 County Rd. 48, Southold; Parcel 59-10-3.I. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? JACK WEISKOTT: I'm Jack Weiskott, I'm the owner o£the business in question and I guess you have ali my paperwork and forms and stuff that you want me to briefly give an overview of it, I can. CHAIRWOMAN: I was looking at it on the way up the north road and essentially one is 9' and the other is 10' greenhouses 18' wide and what you're looking at is the survey shows 1 at it's closest point 86" and the other is 88.2 so what you're looking for is a minor variance from the code restrictions, i did note the grass median and the berm and I noted the setbacks of the adjoining landowners are later than yours. I really have no questions. MR. WEISKOTT: They are significantly closer than we are. CHAIRWOMAN: This is an application for less than a 100' setback from the north road and as I just mentioned the applicant is seeking a minor variance and I have no questions. MR. WEISKOTT: ~ have a letter from my neighbor Mr. Kosta, the machine shop gave me a letter to give to you saying he had no opposition. MEMBER HORNING: Your building permit issued October 7, 1999 tell us about that and how the buildings got built without the 1 gO' setback. MR. WEISKOTT: At the time of putting in the application and building the greenhouses, no one made me aware that I needed 100' setback. I indicated on my survey that where I was going to put them would be approximately 100' and no one told me that was a hard role that it had to be more than 100'. I actually measured, I wasn't sure where the ROW was and I figured it was around the telephone pole was so I measured fi'om the telephone pole back and I got about 100' back and that's where I built it but as it tums out the telephone pole is about 10-I2' beyond the ROW line so I measured from the wrong spot. I had an old survey and the marks weren't out there and my lawyer decided at the closing Page 7 of 66 Page $ April 1% 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing tkat we'd save money and use the old survey which Fm never going to do again. I had to get it resurveyed for this anyway and I found out where my comers are and it's actually very beneficial. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any change that's going to occur with these existing greenhouses at this time. MR. WEISKOTT: IfI added more greenhouses it would go back the other direction. I would have had no objection to building it i00 or l i0' back, it doesn't make any difference I'm just trying to avoid moving them at this point. MEMBER ORLANDO: What brought you back here today? MR. WE][SKOTT: What brought me back here today was evidently the original BP lapsed because I also had a proposed barn on it and in the interim of building the barn w~_ich took me like - first I built the two greenhouses and used them for a year and then late in that fail of the following year I started building the barn and by the time I finished it, the permit had lapsed. MEMBER ORLANDO: So you never got a permit for the greemhouses. MR. WEISKOTT: I thought I should put it all on same permit so people would have an overview of what I was doing, but evidently I should have had separate permits and the barn then I could have got the CO for the greenhouses. MEMBER ORLANDO: So you're trying to get a CO for the greenhouses now? MR. WEISKOTT: I'm trying to get the whole permit and as we are going through it Mike is a more detailed person and he had Bruno hold my hand and walk me through the thing and they spotted stuffand when trying to u~aveI it all they said the best thing you can do is clean it all up and stat all over so I submitted the new application and that's when Brano spotted that it wasn't a whole 100' back and he said the best way to deny the permit and start from scratch get the ZBA approval and then reapply the whole thing. We are trying to get it so ail the ducks are in a row and ali the t's are crossed. I want to comply. CHAiRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, I'1I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision ur~til later. PLEASE SEE MI~NUTES FOR RESOLUTION 10:00 a.m. Richard Bird #5293. Request for a VaiSance under Section 100- 244, based on the Building Department's December 23, 2002 Notice of DisapprovaI. Applicant Page 8 of 6~ Page 9 April 179 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing proposes to build a second-story addition, portions of which are located less than 35 feet from the front lot line. Location of Property: 620 Lake Drive, Southold; Parcel i000-59.- 1-22. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. BIRD: Just a variance for the setbacks on the 2nd story addition. CHAIRWOMAN: I just wanted to note on the plan you had submitted to us I see it would part of the front yard because of the way the lot - the plans you submitted to us is that the same plmx that was submitted to the BD. The one that shows the front elevation is very difficult because there is no date or anything on the plan. The only reason I'm asking is because I wanted to make sure they had not flagged this as a 3rd story so you end up back here. They made no indication of that or anything else. MR. BIRD: They didn't require me to submit the drawing to them theyjust rejected it based on the survey. CHAIRWOMAN: Ttlat's a concern because sometimes what happens is they may say to you it's a setback variance but I would be reluctant to approve this particular plan unless it's approved by the BD because they may flag it and say no we viewed this as a 3rd story and flip you back here. I'm making you aware of that. MEMBER ORLANDO: Is it a 3~'d story7 Cathedral? MR. BERD: Yes it's a cathedral. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't want to see you coming back and forth. MR. BIRD: I realize that and if they flag it as a 3~a story, I'll have to come up with a plan. CHAIRWOMAN: Whatever action we do I don't think we could reference this particular building plan as the plan for that reason. MR. BIRD: They just rejected it because of the setback. MEMBER ORLANDO: You're saying it's an open cathedral, there's no landings or anything, it shouldn't be interpreted in any way- CHAIRWOMAN: They may flag it that's why I took one look at this and asked the nd question. So this is - the 2 story is essentially going to maintain the existing setback? Page 9 of 66 Page I0 April 179 2{}03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. BIRD: There's going to be no change in the foundation. I don't have any other questions. MEMBER ORLANDO: The existing footprint is going to stay? Because when I was out there it was kind of the house ali by itself out there, there's some in the front, but on their side of the st~reet, it's them and no one else. Do you have a height? MR. BIRD: The acmaI height, below 35'. MEMBER HORNING: Adding a 2nd floor is the best alternative to expanding the house rather than expa~nding the single floor towards the rear yard? MR. BIRD: Yes because the rear yard slopes off to the back a little bit there and we just built a 2t~d story. MEMBER HORN1NG: And again the front yard setback isn't going to be reduced or effected at all? MR. BIRD: No, there's no change in the footprint at all. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is not a devils advocate statement but the wood deck is 8' wide, why did they pick it up at 27.1 when it's really only 19.1 for 'the front property line with the wood deck. The wood deck is 8' wide as shown on the - the front deck - and you're showing it to the house at 27.1, but the construction in reality if you were going to do it at the least amount you would say the house with the deck is only 19.1' from the front property line. If you take the deck and- MEMBER ORLANDO: They didn't even look at the plans it so'ands like. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: That's my point, why don't you let the gentleman go back to the BD right now while we are here. CHAIRWOMAN: The deck is exempt - it has a CO. I see what you're saying. MEMBER HORNING: Let him check with the BD. CHAIRWOMAN: I'd still have to be re-noticed, new NOD. MEMBER ORLANDO: Unless you do what you did for Garrett last time. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Unless you take the deck off. MR. BIRD: Are you saying 1 could go the BD right now and speak to them and see what they are going to interpret it as. Page 10 of 66 Page 11 Apri~ 1% 2{}¢3 Southold Town Board o£Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It would make sense, why make a decision at that point then even if you had to recess it and rehear it with the new figures- MEMBER ORLANDO: They might be able to write you a new NOD quickly. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We may need you to amend your application, you may have an extra fee, wdd have to re-notice it in the newspaper so it will be at least a monti2, maybe longer before you have any decisions if you want to combine the 2. You could either keep them separate or combine them. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the issue here is are they going to pick up the 8' extra on the deck and if they say yes you*re going to have to go through those hoops. CHAIRWOMAN: We will recess it to give you an opportcmity to talk to them because the last thing we want is to have you going around in circles for the next 3 months. That*s something that they have to answer and that really should have been addressed to begin with. We'll recess it to approximately 10:45. 10:45 CHAFRWOMAN: Where is Mr. Bird? MR. BIRD: ~ have the amended NOD. The 27.1' is from the house itself that's where the construction is taking place so that's why they use that. CHAIRWOMAN: Pm going to read this into the record. Mr. Bird after discussing this with the BD they have now cited him for the proposed construction note the 3~d floor, the part ~ said would be quesflonabIe, they had detennined it's a 3~4 floor they have maintained the setback is 27' not inctuded the little deck area in there. The question really is you had indicated earlier that you would eiiminate any question of the 3rd floor. MR. BIRD: We might as weI1 do this all at one time and if we can do it all at one time, that's why ~ got the amended NOD. CHAIRWOMAN: We were talking about tI'~e setbacks- MR. BIRD: And as you said it may be a 3~d floor- CHALRWOMAN: ~f said it might be interpreted that way because you had not shown them those plans. There's no way however we can incorporate that in this hearing because it hasn't been publicIy noticed. MEMBER ORLANDO: You applied for a setback variance, this is a 3rd story variance. The punic has not had proper legal notice. We can't incorporate that into this hemSng process and that's going to botch you up. Page 11 of 66 Page 12 April 179 20@3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting ?ublic Hearing MR. BIRD: Can we postpone this for another month, bow's that work.'? CHAIRWOMAN: It's going to be- BOARD SECRETARY' KOWALSKI: You have to fill out a form, you have to pay an additional filing fee then it would be noticed for a date the board would agree to. CHAIRWOMAN: Re-noticed, you'd have to post signs again and everyth'mg. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Go to the office, get a new set of forms, fill them out now for the new parts you are adding. MR. BIRD: When I gave the sketch to your office, they should have picked up on the 3rd story and told me. Now you are costing me a lot of money and time. CHAIRWOMAN: Actually I'm trying to save you money because had I not mentioned this to you this morning we would have closed the hearing, made a decision you would have gone down to the BD they would have said oh this is a 3~'a story and then you'd have to come back to us and wait to get on the calendar. They should have picked this up. Had they picked it up we could have inco,-porated everything into the plan. We don't review wejust take what they give us. MR. BIRD: But I gave this to you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But you didn't give it to the BD and that's where you jumped a step. MR. BIRD: Should we proceed with the setback now? The cost is the same. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have a choice, you can either finish up what you had on the setbacks and the board can make a decision and then you can come in next week with a new application for the height and that will be put on a future calendar which is separate from this. MR. BIRD: There's not a problem with the height. CHAIRWOMAN: Or you can re-design the house. MR. BIRD: That's the best procedure. CHAIRWOMAN: That will also give you some time to talk with the BD and say look rd what can I do that you will not consider a 3 story and meanwhile youll be able to move forward with the other. I'm going make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision on Mr. Bird's application. Page 12 of 66 Page 19 Apr~i 17~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heating PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUT]~ON i0:10 a.m. Paul Dinizio #5299 - Request for a Variance under Section 100~244B, based on the Building Department's December 18, 2002, Notice of Disapproval, amended January 9, 2003. Applicant proposes a new dwelling with a setback of less than 35 feet from the _fi:out and rear property lines, at 2585 Gillette Drive, East Marion, Marion Manor Lot #34; Parcel 1000-38-3-17. CHAIRWOMAN: ls someone here who would iike to speak on behalfofthe application? PAUL DINIZIO: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN: We have a letter from a Mr. Bascard. What can you tei1 us? MR. DINIZ10: I have the letter and some coroxnents on it. I'm looking for relief on a rear yard setback to build a small house for my son who's presently working for me the same as everybody else in the neighborhood is looking for and has received and I guess my comments on his letter is the 3Y setback I do have in the front but ~ don't l~ave in the back like anybody down there doesn't have in the back and Mr. Bascard's garage is 3' off my property line. He wants to talk about setbacks with the garage. CHAIRWOMAN: He was objecting to the 19' sideyard from his property line, however would note that it is more than sufficient and does meet the requirement. MR. DINIZIO: Also he states the concerns of his $75K worth of landscaping and my cesspools. I would suggest that the board see where his cesspools are because his cesspools might be closer to his well than mine. And I don't know what he puts in cesspools but what's going in mine and ~'m sure it's the same thing. CHAIRWOMAN: I went down there and it's a brand new house and the front yard setback, the existing house would meet the setback the only portion of the setback that would not be met would be the 5x8 covered porch you have in the front. MR. DINJZIO: The BD told me the measurement wouldn't be taken from that it would be taken from the t'~ouse~ CHAIRWOMAN: That's not accurate, I'm not fooling with you. MR. DINIZIO: That's just what they told me. CHAIRWOMAN: That's not what's in the NOD, they cited you on that. MR. DINIZIO: I guess ~'m Iooking for 2 points ofrelie£then. Page 13 of 66 ?age 14 Apr~l 1% 2@03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Because the 5.8 is a covered porch. That's where they took the measurement from and in the back, the stoop is exempt so it's 24 in the back. MEMBER ORLANDO: I notice the water table is very high here with the big leaching 5eld but you're using a well so I don't know if your neighbor laas a well he's using. MR. DINIZIO: Ia his letter he says he has public water. MEMBER ORLANDO: 7tten the Health Dept. would regulate the distance from the well but weYe not using wells so ifs not part of the equation. ~ think it% a very modest house for the neighborhood and no other questions. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: As you cited in your application, we have a lot of these applications because of the shallowness of the lot. I just would like you to be aware we are so ir~clined to grant additional variances in the rear of this property any decks, patios are to be put on ground level after the house is build. I~m more inclined to grant the variance because of the nature, you know your son being- MEMBER ORLANDO: Es this house going to have a foundation or be on a slab? MR. D/NIZIO: It's going to have a foundation, but ifs going to be on a slab. Ln other words, ifs going to have a 3' deep foundation as required by the building codes. Cement floor with radiant heat in floor. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against/he application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MENUTES FOR RESOLUTION I0:20 a.m. Nancy Chin/Schlaefer #5312 - Request for Variances under Sections 100-244 and 100-239.4B, based on the Building Department's January 9, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, amended January 28, 2003, for the reason that the new construction area is less tl,_an 10 feet on a single side yard, and less than 75 feet from the bulkhead, afler the dwelling is demolished and reconstructed. Location of Property: i80 Knoll Circle, East MaMon; Parcel 1000-3%5-17. CHAIRWOMAN: ls someone here who would like to speak on behalfofthe application? Page 14 of 66 Page 15 April 1179 2@03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing DEBORAH DOTY ESQ: Good morning, it's Deborah D~ty. I have here the affidavits of posting. I'd like to thank the board for advancing this hearing from tt~e May session to today. As you know we've been left with an open foundation for more that_ 3 months. Previously there had been a nonconform_ing shmcture on the lot - the northwest corner was 9.4* from the property line and essentially there've been 3 bites at this apple and the most recent one was really quite painfill. TbLe first bite was we originally submitted a set of plans and specifications to the BP in April of 2002 at that point in 'rime there was NOD by the BD. After discussing it with the BD, they withdrew the NOD even though the gro'ands stated were substantially the ones they are now disapproving the project on. We went ahead, we took our plans and specifications with minor changes and when ~ say minor I mean internal changes not the overall strncmre outside and we got Trustee approval, DEC letter of nonjurisdiction and Heaitln Dept. approval. We then submitted the plax specifications to the BD in September 2002 and got a building permit. Demolition occurred we called for a foundation inspection when the project was disapproved because of the nonconforming sideyard and because we are 56' from the bulkhead both of those nonconformities have existed since the t~-ouse was built. The BD now has determined this is new construction and not a renovation of an old substandard dwelling. For more than 3 months we've been with an open foundation on the property and nothing has happened, well virtually nothing, something has happened the old wall that's adjacent to the walkway into the basement door has now collapsed and we are going ro have to replace the wall and I'm going to request the board amend the application to include a request the variance be ~¥anted with respect to the building of that wall on the north side on the walkway. I have a picture of it prior to it's collapse. CHAIRWOMAN: I see where that is. MEMBER ORLANDO: Access to the basement? MS. DOTY: Yes it is. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the height of the wail? MS. DOTY: 3 or 4' and it encroaches - it's sideyard setback is 8' at best. I'm just co~,cerned we're going to get a disapproval- CHAIRWOMAN: It's 5' above grade, so if it's a 3' fence above grade. JOHN BERTANI~ BLDR: There's 16" of exposure MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: So you're absolutely correct. MS. DOTY: I'm going to amend the application right now. CHAIRWOMAN: We don't have a setback on that do we? Page 15 of 66 Page 116 April 1179 20@3 Southold Tovcn Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. DOTY: E's 8' from the sideyard at it's closest. 11' otherwise. That wall was going to be reinforced but I have to assume and I'm not a geologist or an architect or a builder but I have to assm=e part of the collapse was the movement of the soil away from the foundation area the leaving it there for 3 months, the winter weather, the ranoff eve~wthing else caused it to fall down. MEMBER GOEHRIGER: A lot of freeze. MS. DOTY: I think it just gave up. MEMBER ORLANDO: You submitted a concrete foundation plan to the town and they didn't pick up on that so I don't see why- CHAIRWOMAN: Let's do this- MS. DOTY: There was a change in fact. MEMBER ORLANDO: You didn't put a measurement on the surveybut you- MS. DOTY: But it was indicated to remain. CHAIRWOMAN: What we think, let's go through a couple of things the variance on the noah side 9.4 instead of the required I0 it's diminimus. The 56' to the bulkhead is going to be maintained for the existing constraction the new construction will be either between 75+77 so it will be either very slightly below or above the required setbacks from the bulkhead. The issue of the collapsed retaining wail I don't want to see you come back here. MS. DOTY: Lq fact I'd like to get a house up. CHAIRWOMAN: We're going to ask you to take this letter, go to the BD and just say yes - no and please come back with an amended NOD today at 1 !: 15am. MS. DOTY: IfI can get someone in the BD to respond to this. I wilt tel1 them that you have requested this and that it's important that I get back here at t 1:15. CHAIRWOMAN: TeE them the ZBA has asked them to make a decision in writing or not in writing if it's not applicable so we can clear this matter up today. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: See Damon because he wrote this. CHAIRWOMAN: I'1I make a motion to recess this hearing until 11:15. 11:15 CHAIRWOMAN: How did you fare? Page 16 0£66 Page 17 Apr~l 179 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. DOTY: It was 4 against 1. Mike Verity rexdewed what we asked him about that wa!l that had coilapsed and whether or not they would require that the NOD be amended if we have to reconstruct that wall and he indicated to us that we could reconstruct that wail regardless of what's on the variance that it is not included as part of the house and it couid be even 4' from the sideyard and he said not to worry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I just have Ms. Dory again the actual setback of the new foundation or the foundation closest to the bulkhead, what the distance is to your knowIedge. MS.DOTY: The existing foundation closest to the bulkhead - X shouldn't say existing because it didn't exist - the old fo~mdation was 56' from the bulkhead a new foundation a portion of the new foundation was poured in that same location therefore the current fotmdation there was 56' at it's closest point. It stepped back however to 77.2' and the entire design of this house with the exception of those 2 nonconformities reflects that we have conformed with all of the sideyard/frontyard/backyard setbacks. It's gone to great lengths in stepping back the front of the house for example to keep us out of the front yard. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, ~'I1 make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 10:33 a.m. Gerard and Lorry Siani #5201. Request for a Special Exception 'under Section 100-31 B, to establish Accessory Bed and Breakfast Use for lodging end serving of breakfast to B & B guests, in conjunction with the owner's residence at 1100 Skunk Lane, Cutchogae; Parcel 1000-97-3~11.5. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would tike to speak on behalfofthe application? You wish to establish a B&B? ~ was down there and it is a very, very nice long piece of property ~nd it is setback at least 223' from Skunk Lane so you will have a lot of privacy. ~ really don't have a lot of o/destions regarding this application. You show the 3 parking spaces on your pIan and there is more than sufficient room in the parking plan to ~ around mud not have to back out onto Skunk Lane. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just going to hold any questions or statements it's truly a magnificent piece of property and a magnificent house and I'm going to sayj~st this. It's got the issues that make B&B's easy, but I will reserve comments if there are opposition. Page 17 of 66 ?age 1t8 Apr~1 17~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heating MEMBER ORLANDO: I was there aiso, it's a very beautiful house. I was there yesterday a~emoon but I didn't knock on the door it didn't look like anyone was home. MRS. SIANI: Anytime, you are ail welcome. MEMBER ORLANDO: My 2 questions are have you ever done this before? MRS. SIANI: Yes but we never got paid for it. MEMBER ORLANDO: And the access to these rooms wi11 be the front door? MRS. SIANI: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: You have no problem with strangers coming MRS. SIANI: It's separated. We are in the back and we have the pocket door on one side and the door on the other which we will close and lock. MEMBER ORLANDO: The guests wi11 be on the 1st floor? MRS. SIANI: 2nd floor - the 3 bedrooms are on the upstairs and the parlor and the dining room will be their areas on the 1~ floors. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because on our decision we put for a fire exit a steel chained ladder. MR. $IANI: We have 3 of them, one in each bedroom. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if there's anyone in the audience who wouId Iike to speak for or against the appiication. Seeing no hands, PIi make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until tater. PLEASE SEE MEXJUTES FOR RESOLUTION 10:40 a.m. Arthur AieIlo #5298 - Request for a Variance under Section 100-244, based on the Building Department's September 25, 2002 Notice of DisapprovaL Applicant proposes to construct an addition to the dwetling and an accessory garage with a total lot coverage exceeding the code limitation of 20%, at 6 t 5 Marlene Lane, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-143-3-26. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behaifofthe application? Page 18 of 66 Page 19 AprL~ i79 20@3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ARTHUR AIELLO: I'm building a house and I had a glass room attached to the old house now that blue house is going up on the rear and a garage put up in the back. We are putting back the structure that we had pre-approval for on the 1st house and we'd like to replace that back where it was and also put on the garage. CHAIRWOMAN: What happened to the original house? That was taken away. CHAIRWOMAN: So you took down the original house- MR. AIELLO: The new one is being constructed. CHAIRWOMAN: The existing footprint on the new house is 1995 sq. ft.? MR. AIELLO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Essentially when you built this house, you knew the su~oom was going to require a variance for lot coverage because there's no way to get the sunroom out of there now you were already at 1995 sq. ft. MR. AIELLO: Let me explain, when the house was constructed w~th the glass room it was supposed to be 20% of the property size. What happened was the person drawing the diagram went over 69~ with the glass room attached so we had to go back to the BD and put in - in other words, leave the glass room out so we are at much less. We're at 1995 but actaally 2255. In other words the glass room is over 69' if we put it in so now we had to take it off, now it*s 1995 but the total coverage is 2255, so we're 69' over so we had to come for a variance and leave the glass room unattached right now. That's why we are here. CHAIRWOMAN: The lot coverage you are requesting is not for you're allowed a total of 2255 sq. ft. the house alone is i995 sq. ft. so with the addition of the greenhouse, you are already at 2355 which you are already over your lot coverage and then when you add on the garage, that bumps it up to 24 which is 24% o£the property size. MR. AIELLO: Ifl add the garage in which is 400 the glass room is 69 or 100' or somewhere around there. CHA/RWOMAN: The real question I have here is this. When you constructed this house you had a opportunity to because it's a very small lot. The lot is only 75' wide. You've got a footprint on this house of- it's a large house and you've had an opportanity at that time to incorporate a garage in those plans to comply with the code. You had an opportunity at that time to inco~?orate the sunroom in there. Page 19 of 66 Page 20 April ]~7, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heating MR. AIELLO: We had it all planned out what happened the plans for some reason we didn't realize after everything was done by Penny Lumber there were 79 or something feet over the 2000' the greenhouse they were supposed to include everything. The total amount of footage but they went over and we couldn't change it we had so much invested in it. Now we are in the process of building a house, as a matter of fact the framing is going up now. MRS. AIELLO: The lot is 150~ deep and the back is woods that border the property is 500* deep up to Bay Ave. so there's woods behind the lot. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm familiar with the property, Fve seen it twice. 24% lot coverage what you are requesting on this size parcel the impact on that in my opinion is very substantial. You said it was an error that the sunroom wasfft included but there's clearly no e~or in the proposal now to put on a garage which could have been incorporated in the original plans~ MRS. AIELLO: They suggested we do it that way that's why- CHAIRWOMAN: I understand, build a house and go for the variance afterward, but very excessive and the impacts on this in this particular community which is a small older residential community would be significant. Those are my comments. MEMBER ORLANDO: I also saw the site the sunroom is sitting in the back waiting to be attached, existing. The ZBA one of our requirements is to give minimal relief. I don't want to speak for the board maybe you want to choose one or the other I mean you have an existing snnroom you can attach. Did you have a garage on your previous house? MRS. AIELLO: We had a 10xl0 shed that was removed. MEMBER ORLANDO: I know you have that big C type container trailer in there now, maybe you could live without the garage. I dnn*t want to speak for the board, just myself. MEMBER HORNING: The original building, was there something else there? CHAIRWOMAN: It was moved, it was a Iitfle summer core. age. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Was this a 1 or 2 story house? MRS. AIELLO: One. We hope we have been residents here for over 13 years and are hoping to make this our retirement home and live out here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we just have to play with the numbers and see what the board feels and thaffs what we'll do. There may be a change in percentage based on what ali feel. It takes 3 votes and we'll see what turns out. That alternate reliefwiI1 be exactly what the chairperson sa~d, either the gree~-house or the garage at this point. Page 20 of 66 Page 21 Apr~ 179 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MRS. AIELLO: Would it be possible to have a compromise ofa 1 car garage? CHAIRWOMAN: The board is not inclined to accept this kind of lot coverage for this small lot. You have a footprin~ on a 75' wide tot of almost 2000 sq. ft. house and you want to add a greenhouse and a 2-car garage. Our history does not indicate that we are inclined to give this type of variance. Think about what we said if you have a preference as to the greer~o~,~se or the garage. MR. AIELLO: It would be the greenhouse definitely. I just want to make a statement that if the both of them were approved, there's only 451 sq. ~t. you would be approving on both of them out ora lot size of I 1,275'. CHAIRWOMAN: The garage is 400' and the greenhouse is 360', correct? And your allowed lot coverage is 2255 at 20%. You're at 2355 now therefore the sq. footage is 560 sq. ft. over, correct? Is there anyone else in the audience who would tike to speak for or against the application? PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION I0:50 a.m. Philip and Jo¥ce Burns #5297 - Request for a Variance under Section 100- 231, based on the Building Department's December 2, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose a fence exceeding the code's four ft. height limitation when located in a front yard, at 500 Old North Road, Southold; Parcel 1000-55-i-8.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. BURNS: We have an application for a variance on a 5' fence. CHAIRWOMAN: Can you tell us a little bit about the fence? MRS. BURNS: We've asked for a fence because we are going to have a horse in the pasture and the horse will be 16 or 16.2 hands so having a 4' fence would not be safe. It would be wood fence. It would be 2x6 fiat board going into a split rail a square split rail post and that would interlock in there. CHAIRWOMAN: Are you aware that we have received a letter from an adjoining neighbor who's concerned about this application. MRS. BURNS: I was called yesterday from the office that she had wanted to know because her father actually lives next door to us. She lives in CA. Their woods join our woods and she was concerned with what kind offence it was going to be. Page 2t of 66 lP~ge 22 April 17~ 2@03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heafing CHAIRWOMAN: We couldn't answer her questions. It's a beautiful piece of property and heavily wooded and according to her letter she's apparently concerned about a setback of 6' scaled from your mutual property line. Is that where the fence would he? MR. BURNS: No it would be on the property line. Most fences are on the property line. MRS. BURNS: Do you have amap? MEMBER ORLANDO: Actually it shows the fence being a couple of feet off the line. MRS. BURNS: Oh ~ see, where I drew in the pasture itself. CHAIRWOMAN: What is the actual distance fi.om her property that the fence would be? IVIRS. BURNS: Well- CHAIRWOMAN: What's indicated on the map as the Chester Dickerson and Others. MRS. BURNS: Now it Matt and Jackie Cambell and all the vineyards behind us. They had joined Stan. The only property line we had joined with Stan's property and that's Mrs. Lions father which is ail woods. It's not his lawn and actually his house sits quite a distance away from the woods. Right across from the SC water pumping station there's a tittte piece of woods and that's what wejoin up to his property. OnIy he owns a little piece of the woods and we own a portion of the woods. CHAIRWOMAN: How far from your property line is the fence going to be? MR. BURNS: Is there a regulation? CHAIRWOMAN: There is no regulation, Ijust- MEMBER ORLANDO: Most fence companies won't put the fence on the property line because there's always a margin of error they usually put it off 6'- 1' depending. CHAIRWOMAN: She said 6' scaled from om* mutual property line was indicated on the drawing please advise whether that is an accurate representation of how the fence will be installed. MEMBER ORLANDO: She's basing her cormnents from the same drawing. MRS. BURNS: I didn't put the fence fight on the property line so you could visibly see it you know when you are reading the plems, but we certainly aren*t going to set it on the property line because of maintaining it. We are going to stain it white. MEMBER HORN1NG: What material will the fence be made oP. Page 22 of 66 Page 23 Aprfl 1t7~ 2@03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MRS. BURNS: The post will be a pressure cured locus and probably oak boards. MEMBER HORNING: What is the building, is that your house, you have a barn here. MRS. BURNS: The barn's not there yet, it's to the back of the property that's our home there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The first 17tl~ to answer you question about the property that affronts your road, it's public ROW so you would probably have to offset it that much there. MRS. BURNS: Which we had planned to do because we didn't want the horses fight up next to the road and actually, I've left a lot of woods, brush and everything so there's briars and everything there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no objection to the fence as long as you keep it off the property line because it*s easier for you to maintain both sides. As you see some of the vineyards do, more in particular in Mattituck. Also the horses are not eating the horses foliage, which you don't want anyway. CHAIRWOMAN: We're.just going to check something on the setback for the horse corral because I think it's a concern for the neighbor and I really don't think we can eliminate the concern because the woman isn't here. I think we do have to take that iitto consideration. MRS. BURNS: If she would like it 6' from the property line, that's fine with us. CHAIP~WOMAN: There is a provision in the code we just want to check because we don't want to mislead you. MEMBER ORLANDO: Did you file a building permit for the barn? MRS. BURNS: Yes we did January 1st, MEMBER ORLANDO: And there was no disapproval on front/year yard setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN: In ail fairness to your neighbor it does look like it's setback 6' from the property line and I'm sure her comments are based on that. MR. BURNS: The distance away from the ROW or property or road is really not a concern of ours. Whatever we have to comply with we will. Page 23 of 66 Page 24 April 179 20¢3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: When you are looking at this it does appear to be 6'. Horses and domestic animals other than household pets provided that such animals shall not be housed within 40' of any lot line. MR. BURNS: So that's the barn? MEMBER HORNING: T'-~ey are not cited for that. MEMBER ORLANDO: But they may when they go for a final inspection. They could catch it then and they'd be back. Sometimes the BD doesn't always catch everything in particular in the beginning when they go back for an inspection they may say oh the barn has to be 40' away. MRS. BURNS: I know the barn needs to be 40' away. The surveyor hasn't even come out to stake - the barn is not there yet. MEMBER ORLANDO: I knew that but you said you submitted the surveys. MRS. BURNS: I was told it had to be 40' from the Cambell families line. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application7 Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the heating reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 11:00 a.m. Gerard Schultheis #5296. Request for a Variance under Sections 100-242A and 100-244, based on the Building Department's January 2, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes to construct additions to the existing dwelling, portion of which is less than 35 feet from the rea.- property line, at 1640 First Street, New Suffolk; Pa~ccel 1000-117-5-6.3. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? GERARD SCHULTHIES: I'm Gerard Schulthies and my wife Callie is with us basically we submitted an application to do some additions on our house. The application for a varim~ce is based on the application we submitted to the BD on Dec. 26 TM 2002 and it was disapproved by the BD on January 2, 2003 as well as another notice we received dated April 16, 2003 the application is for additions and alterations ail of which will be preformed landward and within the existing building envelope. Updated elevations of the proposed construction have been provided. Lq consideration of tl~is matter we also request that section 100-239.4 paragraph B line i of the town code be taken into consideration as to whether that applies. Thai provision talks about building landward of Page 24 of 66 ]Page 25 April ~17~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing homes next to bulkheads, The area of the land is 12017 sq. ft. the lot coverage is approx. 14% of the lot. The existing house a bit over 1000 sq. ft. in it. tt has one bedroom in it, my wife and I recently moved here fail time from having 2 houses and we do have constraints with size. The location of existing buildings/bulkheads/tidal water and the septic system make it impossible to build in any other area and what we are proposing to do is basically use the existing foundation and go up. CHAIRWOMAN: It's not a fail 2nd floor, it's a partial 2nd ~oor right? MR. SCHULTHIES: It's a 2nd floor over 1 section of the house and a balcony over the other. CHAIRWOMAN: The enclosed covered deck on Schoolhouse Creek is that staying? MR. SCHULTHIES: There will be a plastic roof that will be replaced with a wooden roof. CHAIRWOMAN: It's staying yes, and you are going to replace the roof. MR. SCHULTHIES: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: We got a letter from a neighbor who supports your construction plans but is concerned about the dust created from construction and what could be done in terms of gravel on the driveway to mitigate the dust. MR. SCHULTHIES: I have a deeded ROW over the approach the driveway coming to he house and I would have no problem putting some kind o£ stone base to alleviate that. CHAIRWOMAN: That might be a plus factor for you and the neighbor to help those concerns. I have no other questions and if you'd be willing to accept that as some sort of condition, I don*t have any other questions. MR. SCHULTHIES: I have no problem witch that. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER GOEHtCrNGER: I have to tell you I've been boating in this creek for 20 years and I have several reservations as to the plan and the size and magnitude of it. I won't say any*hing else at this time. I realize what Jo~son's store was at one time pr/or to you people owvAng it. You keep the house in magnificent condition no question about it I just have a question on the degree of magnitude on this project. MRo SCHULTHIES: I'd be willing to address that concern. Like I say the house has got as I sayjust a little bit over 1000 scI. ft. of living area. The actual living area after the proposed work would be about 1500 sq. fto If you look at existing homes along Cut. Page 25 of 66 Page 26 Apr[~ 17~. 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heating Harbor, they are substantially larger. The Suza residence which was just put up has got 7000 sq. ft.. That's about 8 or 900' north of us but if you do look at ail of the homes along the waterfront except for basically one little one story house, they are all 2 story homes, they are all substantially larger it's not in taking away from the character 0fthe neighborhood. It's all consistent with the surrounding homes along the harbor including the harbor on Nassau Pt. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think since you have a 0 lot line basically where the porch is I think is one of the things that upsets me to a certain degree. X think if that lot line didn't exist and you didn't have a 0 lot line, I would find it more palatable. I am only one person I am looking at this critically from the point of view of what was there and what exists now and again there's no question on the way you keep it and so on an so forth. There's no question to the fact that it is a pre-existing building in reference to ail of those things in question. 1'm just saying to you that another story, I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for it, we'll see t~_ow the board goes. MR. SCHULTHIES: I would like to say that the location of the deck is all as a result of permits that have been applied for over time. The Trustees permits the DEC permits all of which are have been submitted have gone through the review process and have been basically granted. MEMBER ORLANDO: With regards to the ROW who owns it? MR. SCHULTHIES: The contiguous piece of land is owned by Mr. Larry TuthilL The ROW is 25' wide from Orchard St. to the house including a piece that goes along the side of our land. MEMBER ORLANDO: How far does it go down past down the docks? MR. SCHULTH[ES: ft goes down to the back western boundary of our lot. MEMBER ORLANDO: So if we put a condition in for stone, we would just do into his driveway or frontage as well. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Really the length of the 4dveway. MEMBER ORLANDO: We don't need the man to stone down past his house ail the way to the docks? X took that road, it goes pretty far. MR. SCHULTHIES: My ROW goes in a northerly direction to the &hveway that goes into the house and then there's a piece on the south side of the land that basically goes to the - actualty that's a swimming pool now and X'd be more than happy to fill that in as we11. The water gets to be 6-8" when it rains. Page 26 o£ 66 Page 27 April ~7~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Your house looks like it was newly renovated ~[ didn't know why you were taking on this task. It looks like it has a new roof, new siding. MR. SCHULTH~ES: No, there was a building permit in 1987. The house was extended at that point in time~ New siding was put on because the existing siding was rotting. There is a BP on file in 1992 addressing the ratting wood and repairing it. MEMBER ORLANDO: The rnof and siding are I0 years old? MR. SCHULTHIES: The wing that faces the east, that roof is actually rotting right now. The genesis of this whole project is that the roof beams are rotting, the plywood is all rotting and the original project was envisioned as just ripping off the rotten roof and replacing it and because of the type of constrnction there was a shed roof resting on top of an existing roof it made sense to just remove the entire roof and just frame an entire roof and then as we got into the permitting process especially with the DEC they felt if the roof was going to be higher it would require potentially more living area the issue of the septic system came up and we did replace the septic system as per the DEC in 1988. That combined with the fact that at this point in time I have a mother that is going to need someplace to stay soon~ my wife has a mother that needs care right now. We would like to be able to provide some living area if it comes down to that point in time. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? LARRY TUTH~[LL: My name is Larry Tuthilt. I'm the owner of the ROW and the area in . I would like to note that this is in a MI area. It has been the policy just recently the Suffolk Times said to enlarge these areas where they are non-conforming with the existing marine area such as this is detrimental. What's happened is often Mr. Schulthies has complained about our use of the MI area and has called the various organiza(ions to complain about this and the boaters going in and out of the canal which runs adjacent to his house. Almost 150 boats in school house creek plus people coming in to buy gas and it's more or less a nuisance for him and the people of the property for this boat traffic and he has complained many times because they are coming in early in the morning or late at night and it*s I don't think it's proper to allow the man to enlarge it because now he has a bigger inveslxnent in the land because it will only mean more complaints because if he has an elderly mother there someone comes in and sounds a horn coming in and out of the harbor there they are going to check that for navigation purposes or so. They have gotten a permit to rebuild the bullchead many years ago and it went out 2' into the canal which essentially should not have been allowed but Mr. Schulties showed that he had rights to it, but the rights I don't believe gave you the fight to come out 2* into the middle of the road. He was just issued a summons I believe in reference to his float because the float was not in his property and they are encroaching on us just recently we put a pile in there and complaints were made about the pile being put supposedly on his property there was an existing post there and it was replaced. I don't think allowing this man to enlarge his house they don't show anything, ~ don't see ]?age 27 of 66 Page 28 April 17~ 2@03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing any bedrooms they show nothing. Theyjust show photographs and I don't beIieve to allow we have no idea what this bedroom is going to look like there's nothing in the plan to show us any~&ing of what it's going to look like there's just an outline of the area. l don't think this application should be approved. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application.'? PHIL LORY: I'm Phil Lory of New Su£folk Shipyard. I'd like to commend Mr. & Mrs. Schulteis they have a beautiful home they have done a great job they keep it up real well My only concern is ~ go in and out of the canal quite a bit and the bulkhead seems to have a little lean to it. I'm just concerned about if/his structure is bigger and puts more weight on the bulkhead what's going to happen to that bulkhead and if it somehow gets obstructed or whatever we want to be sure we still have access in and out of the creek. It has been replaced or worked on. It looks in good condition but seems to be leaning and I can't help but think it's the weight of the structure that's leaning on it or it doesn't look like erosion but I would like to make sure we can maintain that integrity because the creek is used a lot. CHAIRWOMAN: We don't usually look at that. It would be a Trustee issue. MR. LORY: My only concern is the structure being too big without the concern of the creek because/he creek is becoming more narrow and shallow. CHAIRWOMAN: The property is R-40. MR. LOR¥: My only concern is him doing something without the concern of the creek. We should be concerned about it because we have a lot of boats coming in and out and nothing should be done to be degied that access. CHA~[RWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? MR. SCHULTIES: I*d just like to address the concerns that were broug~ht up. Phil Lory is concerned about the bulkhead caving in. Right now if you measured the bulkhead, it's completely vertical, it has a twist in the shape if it due to a modification in the permit where the original permit back in 1987 was to build a bulkhead 100' along side of the creek and it was decided in consultation with everybody that the bulkhead be built the entire length so rather than running a straight line after you get past the first 100~ the bulkhead takes a little jog to join the rest of it. The bulkhead itself was over-engineered the design specification called for 2" sheathing and 8'~ diameter pilings Me bulkhead was specifically built with 3" sheathing and 12" diameter piiings and when the bulkhead was act'~a!ly being built there was a section that was open and it did cause the water to undermine the foundation as part of the building process and entire new fou~ndation was put in on the north side of house alung the whole length that now goes 8' deep and instead Page 28 of 66 Page 29 April ~7~ 2@03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ora I6~' wide footing it's got a reinforced co~crete footing that's 24" wide. So the footing has actually been engineered in such a way that if the bulld~ead were to disappear for some reason the footing is still sufficient to hold up the house. That was a concern and there was au engineering design to take care of it. CHAIRWOMAN: We have to move this along because we are rupming out of time. I want to ask the board member what they wo~Id like to do at this point. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tel1 you that my concerns are still there and I don't know the construction on top of this existing house is o£grave concern. MEMBER ORLANDO: You're on kind ora peninsula, you*re ali by yourself out there. MR. SCHULTHIES: ~ere are aerial photos on the house as they existed before the 1938 hurricane~ MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was a baitshop. CHAIRWOMAN: Tl~.e other side of it is the living space is quite small in comparison to today's standards certainly 1000 sq. ft. is not a lot of living space and to go to 1500 sq. :2. is not a monumental request. Does the board want any additional information? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A floor plan would be nice. MR. SCHULTHIES: Right now I'm in the process of deciding the type of building construction ~ can put together a simple floor plan if you'd like in a day or two. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We need 6 copies. MR. SCHULTHIES: That wouldbe fine. CHAIRWOMAN: Why don't we close the heating pending receipt of the floor plan. I'll make a motion to do that. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 11:38 am Robert K. Scripps #5294 - Request for a Variance under Section i 0030A.4 and 100-33C, based on the Building Department's December 67 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended December 31, 2002. Applicant proposes to alter and construct additions to an existing accessory garage, relocating ~ts yard location to a side yard, and converfix~g its use to allow living area, at 2745 Pine Tree Rd, Cutchogue; Parcel 104-3-6. CHAIRWOMAN: 7s someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application.9 Page 29 of 66 Page 30 April 17, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ROBERT SCRIPPS: Yes hi I'm Robert Scripps I think you've been presented a general idea of what I'm doing. I'm trying to add some studio living space in essence above an existing garage without modifying the footprint the garage is on. The garage was built in 1938 and it's slightly bigger than a single car garage maybe one and a third. I have children, I have gandchildren this is a summer residence I'm here off and on all year rotmd but in the summer I have family here and I'm interested in adding another bedroom to the house in the most inexpensive way I can do it in a way that doesn't reconfigure the basic look of the house or the neighborhood and that's essentially what I'm trying to do. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Scripps a couple of things. You're plarming on demolishing the existing garage, correct? MR. SCRIPPS: Yes I don't believe the existing garage built in 1938 would support that additional- CHAIRWOMAN: You're planning on doing that and constructing a new garage your ZBA application would be i6x20 less tine balcony and stairs but your application to the BD said 16x23 ~vhich is it? MR. SCRIPPS: I6x23. CHAIRWOMAN: The NOD states that this use would create a 2nd living m~it on the property what you are really looking for is a garage and you want to create the bedroom/bath above it in an attached building. The board is not generally inclined to look favorably on this because it's a use variance and because the board doesn't want to encourage conversion of the 2 illegal 2"s family dwellings on a singje property. This property is 33000 sq. ft. ! can understand your needs for more bedroom space but what ~ can't understand is if you're going to demolish the existing garage and you want additional space, why not just attach it to your house? MR. SCRIPPS: We had considered doing that we just felt in essence this would be a far less expensive way to do it. This would be a unit that is not heated by the rr~ain famace of the house. It would be a unit that in essence would not be utilized except during the wa_truer months of the year so there wasn't any need in that sense to attach it to the house and it's not only quite a bit more expensive to do it but it would also d~ange the look of the house I believe. CHAIRWOMAN: In looking at the plans and everything and you have the 20x5' balcony and stairs ua to it I understand that may ~mt be your intentions but clearly the BD views this as a 2=~r dwellthg on the property. MR. SCRIPPS: Another reason in addition to the expense of not attaching to the main house is the fact that where it would have to be attached is a living area which has a 2 Page 30 of 66 Page 3~ Apr[1 317~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing floor ceiling in essence so in order to attach that unit with an inside passageway of some sort would involve a major reconflguration of the space inside of the main house. C~AIRWOMAN: If you're just looking for an extra bedroom why not do it internally in the house even if you don't attach the garage, why not do it as a simple addition? You have an enormous lot you have a lot o£potential. MR. SCR~PS: We looked at that and the only way we can b'aild on that house we are right on the lot lines on either side. We can't build forward of the house because of the waterfront the only way we could build the house out is toward the front of the house. The existing configuration of the bedroom downstairs which has a div/der so that it can in an emergency be used for a 2 bedroom would be to end up with 2 long thin rooms as opposed to without any additional bathroom and we~d also be coming very close to where the main septic system of the house is. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think it has anything to do with the ability to pass from this house to the addition. In other words I think you can attach it at it's closest tangent to the main house making it look as nice if not nicer than what you're having in the plan. I think you could insulate the new structure. I think you could electrically heat it if you wanted to for those cool times when you wanted to use it and use it as an adjunct to the existing house, but at the time it's already attached you would not have a 2nd kitchen but it would create the same bedroom effect with the same views you have been looking for forward and ~ think that could be done. You could increase your side yard a lit"Lie bit which would be a benefit to you to get to the waterfront if you needed to. I have to tell you the piece of property is gorgeous and I think you could achieve everything you want to do by just touching it to that house in one specific spot and the specific spot would be 2' of what I'm looking at as the plan where the wires and balcony is attached to the edge of the house and you don't even have to create an entrance if you don't want to into that. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm sure the BD can help you with this and quite frankly you wouldn't need a variance from us at all. You would need a variance for the location in the side yard and you certaivJy are not going to get a variance from us in all candor for a 2 bedroom detached. We don't grant that, it's a use variance and because the use is not permitted and in order to do that, you would have to overcome a legal test that is daunting and I wo~,xld seriously advise you to consult legal attorney before you can proceed any fm-~her with that. MR. SCR~PS: I'm not sure I'm clear on exactly what you are proposing are you proposing that the garage itself be widened so it reaches the existing corner of the house and somehow an entrance be put- CHAIRWOMAN: There's a lot of diff~ent designs you could do to achieve what you're trying - in other words neither myself nor Mr. Goehr/nger are saying no, we're saying you Page 3I of 66 Page 32 Aprkl 17~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heating could attach the garage by either moving it over by turning it around, by redesiguing it and essentially get the same effect of a garage but it would be attached to the house. MR. SCRIPPS: Where would the entrance be? CHAIRWOMAN: Wherever you want it to be. JULIA PLATES: I have a question. That attachment to the house, does that have to be enclosed with a roof and walls or can it be attached by a walkway or a deck? MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: Roof and walls. It has to touch the house. CHAIRWOMAN: And it has to meet certain standards, but that ail can be achieved. MEMBER GOEHR}2xIGER: Why don't you take some time and go to the BD and we'll recess the heating with no date and then if want to withdraw, then withdraw. MS. PLATES: If this is something that is not policy and not even considered in the first place, why didn't the BD tell me instead of waiting all these months and we did a lot laboring and footwork to put this thing in front of the board here. IfI had known that he could have been having a design drawn up and we would have been many months ahead. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What we recommend at the office is to the people to try to come up with simple alternatives that you don*t have to go for a variance. It's always good to try to open communications with the BD so I don't know if anyone attempted that. MS. PLATES: No one suggested that to us. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: When you are denied by the BD try to find out more about it. MEMBER HORNFNG: Our job is to help you come up with an alternative that alleviates the need for you to have a variance. I would say there's unanimous consent here unofficially that we want you to attach the garage. MR. SCRIPPS: I was attempting to do the simplest thing I could as opposed to I was trying to work with ax~ existing footprint that complied with the Trustee and the DEC regulations in terms of waterfront property a~td so m~d so forth and none of the neighbors objected to us doing it this way so we were sort of moving fmwcard witthout this information and we'11 get it for sure. C~IAIRWOMAN: I know we have seen a number of these we had one very similar to 'chis last fail and hmvever they withdrew it before we actually went to a hearing for much the same reasons you are looking for. More space and they did end up attaching and they Page 32 of 66 Page 33 Apri~ ~7, 2¢03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing never came before us. Fm sorry no one was able to steer you in the fight direction. We are going to close the hearing and make a decision and I'm sure you've gathered from the board's commaents, the decision will be a denial. I'm not going to fool around with you. I'l! make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MlfqUTES FOR RESOLUTION 1:00 p.m. George and StelIa Kalogeras #5320. Request for a Variance under Section I00-30A.4 and 100-33, based on the Building Department's October 21, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose an inground swirraning pool structure in an area other thaa the required rear yard at, 900 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituak; Parcel 1000-99-1-8.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? CHRISTINE RIVERA: I'm Chris Rivera speaking for the Kalogeras for an "as built" swimming pool at 900 Sound Beach Drive. I submitted a plan to the BD that had the site plan proposed garage proposed inground swimming pool. They issued the permit and when I asked for my first inspection the building inspector said where's your pemnit for the swimming pool? i said what are you talking about.'? I said I put a plan in on my original application I went back to the BD and said how come I dun% have a permit for the swimming pool. They said because on your plan it said proposed swimming pool I said also it said proposed garage I said you didn't give it to me nor did you exclude it on the permit. They said you should have known because of the amount you paid. I gave you a blank check I don't know what you are going to charge until you get the building permit and then they tell you what the fee is. Prior to putting the swimming pool in I double checked with the BD because I said I'm about to put the swimming pool in and make sure it's a minimum of 10* because I moved it 14* from the property line. They said fine so I built the pool after the inspection riley found out it was not completely in what they call the rear yard because of a roof overhang that is ex/sting in the building. CHAIRWOMAN: The roof overhang is a concrete patio with 4 pillars and that part of the roof which is what about 2 pillars over kicks the pool into the side yard. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. I saw it, it's in the ground fenced off. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All I can say is it's unbelievable. CHAIRWOMAN: Is tl~lere 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 tmtil later. Page 33 of 66 Page 34 April i7, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heaz-ing PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 1:10 p.m. North Fork Bank #5277 - Request for Variances under Sections 100-205N-5 and 100-206A, based on the Building Department's October 9, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for placement of a new identification wall sign which is greater than three feet in heig~ht and proposed to be lighted internally. Location: 9025 Main Road, Matfituck; Parcel 1000-122-6-22.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalfofthe application? RICHARD LARK, ESQ: Good afternoon, Richard Lark for the applicant. I represent this application for NFB in particular American Sign Crafters whose SC office is in Bay Shore. Last October I was smrpfised when I got a catl from Susan Dooley of American Sign Crafters concerning the wail sign at NFB Operations Center in Matfituck. She stated that the building inspector had tm-ned down the permit application to reduce the size of the wall sign at the main entrance of Ops Center. The existing sign was 13.4* high by 9' high and was internally illuminated and she wanted to reduce it down to a 9xT to 65 sq. fi. the reason was because the bank had been undergoing a logo change and throughout their whole system was changing their signs all over L! and NYC. I said I was surprised because the previous year 2001 Mr. Forrester was in charge of signs at time the free standing information sign which is on the entranceway m' towards the roadway they were changing the logo on that and he didn't approve it because he couldn't find any records that the sign had been approved. I did a little research and told him that appeal # 3522 granted by the board on June 5, 1986 the board had granted approval and the fact that the sign size was less than the board approved anyway going back and forth with the Mr. Forrester he finally gave us approval for Ge amended sign permit so the bank could change his logo, but the point I wanted to make our was doing the free standing sign with him the existing sign at the time I asked if there was any problem with the signs because we were doing signs at the property he looked at me and said no that's fine it's a good sign. The reason t remember it is the question came up with square footage because I was dealing with square footage with the signs with him how you calculate it because you know that logo on it with ail those points on the star and what do you include as the square footage of the thing which of course we never did resolve that. Wejust said go ahead and do it. That sign on the front entrance existed for many years again by way of history the building was taken over by the bank it was the old Bohak grocery store and it was taken over by the bank in the mid80's they completely renovated to add the addition on what you see now and made the whole thing into their ops center and I can recall the wall entrance sign in that area my memory will take me back to at least 1990 there was this illuminated sign and ~ remember it because they have a large computer operation in there and they have a lot of night people coming in and out and that at night identified where you had to go and it was illuminated so you could see your way for security purposes. Anyway that's why I say I was surprised at the whole affair because when the bank did take over from Bohak and renovated the building, they had permits from the Page 34 of 66 P=ge 35 Apr~l i7, 20@3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heating state, the county the HD as well as the town and I remember on one of the early applications when they came in for site plan approval they did have a wall sign as part of the application but when I went down to the BD as a result of this denial in October and went through the file with Mr. Rallis there was early bank plans when they renovated it there was no indication of a sign anywhere and even though this sign has existed for many years at that point he said ~ have nothing in the file, you'll have to get a sign permit and since your sign is exceeding and what you propose is exceeding the height requirements you'll have to go to the ZBA and hence the application before you. The point I wish to make there was nothing in the BD's records on that which totally amazed me because the year before there was staff in the BD file because I'd gone over it with Mr. Forrester and that's why I was so sure this was not a problem. Now it is a problem because there wasn't anything there so again you can't always rely on what's in those files ~ whether it got misfiled or not, I'm not going to say the frustration of taking the large 14x9 sign to taking it down to what is proposed before you. VChen I was down to the property a very short time ago getting the sign posted and getting everything correct I looked up at the sign and said that's not the sign that was there a year ago and what's there is what they propose. I called Susan Dooley she said she never authorized that then she calls me back rather sheepishly and says you know i have 178 locations for this bank and somehow the paperwork got screwed up and when the crew is out doing a lot of the signs on the east end theyjust put this up, ~ didn't give them approval except now I'm seeing the worksheets in the f~le and we can't figure out who authorized it. I'm embarrassed, she's embarrassed, it was just a goof up. Finally to reduce the sign the illumination serves a purpose especially during the wintertime when it gets dark early as you know it gets dark around 4:30-5 and that place is fully occupied plus on the weekends and night it is used for the computer people so the illumination which always existed is a worthwhile thing and during the day not having a sign there at all is very confusing as to where you go in especially if you pull up on the west side of the parking lot so it has served as a aide to it and when I reviewed the article 20 of the zoning code for the purpose of signs I could find nothing on the pm-pose of sign violations that would be violated by this application because this is a desirable change and there's going to be no effect in the neighborhood in fact the bui!ding sits what 400' back from the road and it has ~tever caused a probiem. To reduce it beauty is in the eye of the beholder but that's what the bank logo is and that was what she was required to come up with a new sign. Curiously enough when you look at the numbers on it the bank building the ops center is 290' of you can believe it and under the sign regulations you could have a 3x96' front sign which is totally fudicrous. The point of it is under the variance requirements what they are proposing the 9x7 63 sq. ft. is not substantial and as I submit with the bank building being back 400' it has no adverse effect, l*m here for 3 reasons 1 to get permission from the board which is a sign variance w~th strict application from the code in 2 senses of it's height size and of course it's illumination and the fact that the board wiI1 bless a sign there which apparently has never been officially approved by anybody although it has existed ail these years. CHAFRWOMAN: The former sign, the only thing lit up was the lettering, but it wasn't a solid sign. This is solid and the whole 'thing is illuminated. Page 35 0£66 Page 36 April 17, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. LARK: The other one was too. CHAIRWOMAN: This is a rectangle correct and the entire thing is illuminated. The other one just the NFB and star points so the mass of it - actually visually this is much more massive. MR. LAP, K: But the other one was larger. CHAIRWOMAN: Visually when you look at this from the road this one is far more massive. The other thing is how do we get around the fact that internally lit signs are approved for this use? MR. LARK: You don't get around it it's a fact. CHAIRWOMAN: No in the code it says the use is not permitted. MR. LARK: You can give a variance for it. Are you telling me this board's never given a variance7 CHAIRWOMAN: Fm not saying that. MR. LARK: The illumination is a safety feature here especially at night. MEMBER HORNING: ls the intention to have it lit 24 hours a day? MR. LARK: No I think only at night I think it's one of those timers. That's what the other one was. MEMBER HORN1NG: Would they accept a condition to have the light out in the wee hours of the morning. MR. LARK: That's not a problem as I understood the illumination was to provide the safety spot because the parking lot is a considerable distance and they do have some lights out in the parking lot. CHAIRWOMAN: He had wanted lights on one side we denied that we only did the one smMI side in the front. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any problem with them lighting the sign until midnight. MR. LARK: That sounds very reasonable and I will point that out to them because I was told the whole purpose of it was a safety issue for the employees you don't need to have an identifier at night for the public. Page 36 of 66 Page 37 April 17, 29~}3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: You could have other lights besides an advertisement. MR. LARK: It was an identification because it is confusing when you walk there was another office there and there was some emergency exit type things. That's not a problem from midnight until sm~up - they don't do it dinting the day anyway. MEMBER ORLANDO: Just my opinion, the old si~;n was much more attractive. And if you do the geometu, the surface area that's illuminated now is much greater than the old ODe. CHAIRWOMAN: Much greater. MR. LARK: Mr. Forrester said you have to complete the whole grid. I didn't agree with that when we were doing the points out on the identification sign out on the road. MEMBER ORLANDO: This is for an as built sign. MR. LARK: At the time of the application and verification it was not. CHAIRWOMAN: There is an identical one in front of Southold Savings Bank. MR. LARK: There is another one? CHAIRWOMAN: They are extremely noticeable. Gentlemen, what is your pleasure? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just what we said from dusk to midnight. CHAIRWOMAN: Well there's no one working there at mi&night is there? MR. LARK: I don't believe there is now that they are fully functional but ][ know there are people who work in the evening how late I don't know but midnight ! would think would be reasonable so you don't have that thing blming out in the middle of the night. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who wouId like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, t'i1 make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision uJ0_ti! later. PLEASE SEE MiNUTES FOR RESOLUTION 1:29 p.m. Joan Lanaemw #5247 - Request for a Lot Waiver under Section 100-26, based on the Building Department's August 12, 2002 Notice of DisapprovaI, stating that 1000-i04-6-12.1 (vacant area of 15,518 sq. fr.) has merged with an adjacent land area 1000-104-6-13 (15,131 sq. fr.) due to common ownership during a period of time after Page 37 of 66 Page 38 Apr~ ][7, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing July 1, 1983. Applicant proposes to unmerge the properties, referred to as 900 and 770 Oak Drive, Cutchogue. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. LARK: Me again. As you lcnow from the applicafon this is a waiver of merger application as time goes on I think we are going to see less and less of these hopefully in the town. I have with me here today the applicant Joan Langemyr and her neiF:/nbor Curtis Horton who lives basically fight next door to her who*s familiar with all of the background of the property in the neighborhood in fact he owned a portion of the property one time himself way back when as you can see from the single and separate search that you have. Fd like to hand up for the record at this time a couple of things that will make some sense as we go on. The 5rst one Mrs. Langemyr I'll give to the clerk got no objections from ail of her neighbors with the exception of Mr. Slaviu who Mr. Horton refers to later just enter that into the record. So that you have some understanding of this neighborhood I don*t think you have it I made a photocopy which was going to be a filed map and then it subsequently did not mrn out but it's called the mason development of which this property is part of and Pll put that in as A then there's exhibit B I'll put a current tax map of that basically most of that subdivision and which is south of Bay Ave. and then portions of the map and Nassau Farms on the tax map which is north of Bay Ave. you'll see that so when I'm referring to it and those 2 last exhibits I've highlighted what the applicants property which is the southerly portion and I've highlighted some property in Nassau Farms which is called the Sanko property and I'm going to be referring to that in fact PiI do it fight now so as to avoid any confusion. That sanko property which as the crow flies is about 600' north of the subject property. He bought an appeal on March 6 of 1996 appeal #4363 he gave a waiver of merger to those lots for Sanko and under almost a very similar fact pattern that we have in Ms. Langemyr% case. There in the Sanko the husband and wife purchased tl~e smaller 1or which was 15857 sq. ft. back in the 70's built the house and then subsequently bought a vacant lot which was next door to them which was 20200 sq. iL and then let it sit in about 1981 when upzoning was going on in the town lot recognition and things started to come in they transferred the property from husband and wife to the husband and it stayed that way until about i990 when the husband got poor iegal advice he was sick and elderly he transferred the vacant 1and to his wife and promptly died 2 weeks Iater. A couple of years later the estate went to se11 the house and was told naturally no CO's so they had to get an updated CO because it was done prior to zoning and the BD told them the lots were merged and the state had a contract to scl1 the property and the purchaser did not want to buy the vacant lot. The vacant lot had a little bit ora kettlehole in it, the depression in the back and wapXed no part of it wouldn't pay any more money. Similarities of the 2 applications are when you look at both of the maps areawise the lots are ail by today's standards under the zoning are small and they are very similar to the mason development which is south of Bay Ave. to the Nassau Farms development which is north of Bay Ave. in fact when the Sanko appiication the lots range from 10720 sq. ft. to 39700 sq. ft. and the vast majority of them are under 20000 sq. ft. so to Joan Langemyr's development the interior lots, the Page 38 of 66 Page 39 Apr~l ~7~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing smallest one is 92050 sq. ft. and the average of all the internal lots there are 14900 sq. ~. so it's very close the similarities of the 2 areas Mr. Horton will speak to you in a moment but apparently these properties were about 90% developed all by about 1970 which I did not know and that's one of the reasons all the lots are consistent size and under the 20000 sq. f~. so then in the appeal before you I won't dwell on the application because I think that has all the facts into it, but basically she Mrs. Langemyr purchased her lot with her husband, they built a home mad then subsequently he died she bought the adjacent lot for herself right next door and it sat ever since that time. One of the requirements is you know to get a waiver of merger is the economics in t~'~e Sanko case the board was confronted with a contract of sale of a small house lot alone of 115K and they bad an appraisal on the smaller lot for 63K so the economic hardship if they didn't grant the merger to the Sanko estate was 63K you have before you in your package the appraisal that was done at the time of the application for the vacant lot as it stood of 150K and the improved lot where her house is from 425 to 450 but the interesting thing is the appraisal fotmd that if it was one lot it would only add up to about 50K increase in value to the overall parcel as one so if she doesn't get this thing unmerged she tends to suffer under that appraisal regime about $100K loss so it is significant to her. It's submitted in both cases that all the crite~a are met. The Sanko case there was no signi~cant increase in the density there wo*ald be possibly one more ho,use in this situation here there would be one more house so that requirement of having the significant and also the land in this case is all basically level if you go see the property it's just basically almost tabletop it's flat whereas in the Sankn piece the vacant lot had a little bit ofa kettlehole in the back but there was sufficient room to move the house front on the upper portion to build another house there so the board didn't have any difficulties with it but when you consider all the issues for a waiver of merger this application falls squarely within it. The last ingredient the maps in front of you Ms. Tortora point out that what*s being asked for here is no different that everybody else has in tl~e neighborhood. The size of the lots are very much small. CHA~rRWOMAN: ~'m going to try to move this along because we have a busy schedule this afternoon. Both lots are approximately 15000 sq. f~. they axe described lots just to get this into the record lot t3 which is the improved lot she purchased in 1972 he died in 1973 in I977 Joan Langemyr bought the vacant lot. So the lots have been merged for 25 years they have been in common ownership since ] 977 is that correct? MR. LARK: Yes. MS. LANGEMYR: One thing Pd like to bring to the attention of all of you is one letter of objection from Mr. Slade he*s my neighbor when I purchased this property I purchased it in case I could not afford, my husband died on a Sunday, ~ moved irato my house the follow/rig Friday. I wanted to buy that property in case I couldn't afford my house that I would build a li~ie swiss chalet on the adjacent piece of property and I scral~ed to get the money to buy it at that time just being a single person and Mr. S~ade approached me and s~fid you have 25* you do not need and said he'd like to buy it and at the time ~ didn*t want to sell ~t you like to be 55ends with your neighbors &nd ~ said fine. So he purchased the Page 39 of 66 lP~ge 40 Apr~ 179 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regalar Meeting Public Hearing 25' and I had said to him before we'I1 share the lawyers expenses m~d he said fne. When that came to be and I told him how much it was he said he never told me that he would do that so I took on the full responsibility of paying the lawyers fees so I never associated vdth him thereafter and that's probably why he*s objecting and i just wanted you to know that. But as far as this ~ did this a single person for my retirement and then when ~ was going to build the house ~ checked all the prices it would cost more to build a little 4 room house than the house I was already in so I said ~*tl keep this as part of my retirement package and that*s what I did now it feels like the town has stolen the property from me and I never received a notice I get 2 hills and Mr. Horton alerted me to it he said ~ think your property has been merged so I checked it out and the fellow said no it% m2merged. Let me check he came back and said no it is merged. CHAIRWOMAN: It's been 1 lot for 25 years. MS. LANGEMYR: I figured I'd better see a lawyer ~ spent $3K for new surveys and whatever else because this is really my retirement as a s~ngIe person. I worked 43 years for Prudential. I drove 100 miles a day~ CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? CURTIS HORTON: My name is Curtis Horton. I live i sold the house to them ofig4nally ~ own the land fight next door and in front of it. The reason this piece of land what we call Mason Development was supposed to be subdivided, legally subdivided the plans were files but in the meantime the masons come along and sold ail the lots. The lots on the water are ali 70' lots the lots where Joan and I live and everything else are alt 75' lots. Some were bought and put together fight in the beginning there*s one lot and there's maybe 6 lots that are double lots. The rest are ali 75' lots. Hers is 112' 113' and mines 113 because I own 3 lots and I split one. Basically there's it's all in keeping with the neighborhood completely 100% and now as far as Slavin goes I'll tell you a little story he's sorry he's at Southold Town I built his house originally then he got a man in there to put an addition on years later when Howard Terry was a building inspector and he built it a little too close to the road. He ruffled Howard's feathers and he made him cut off backwood offhis house so he's been mad ever since. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay Mr. Florton thank you very much. MS. LANGEMYR: Can l just give yon an aezdal of the house - I think there's only like 2 empty lots. CHA~FRWOMAN: We wi11 include that in the record. Is there anyone else in the audience who urould like to speak for or against the application? PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 40 of 66 Page Apr[I ~7~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1:45 p.m. Mar~ C. Berdinka #5295. Request for a Lot Waiver under Section i00-26, based on tt,~e Building Depam~nent's October 9, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, citing Section 100-24 states ttxat 1000-114-10-25 containing +- 19,700 sq. ft. is merged with an adjacent land area identified as 1000-114-10-26 containing +- 13,500 sq. f~. Applicant proposes to unmerge the nonconforming properties. Location: 655 and 725 Youngs Ave., Matfituck; Parcel Nos~ i000-114-10-25 and 26 are adjacent to lots shown on the Map of Deer Park. CHAIRWOMAN: ~s someone here who would like to speak on behalfofthe application? ABIGAIL W~CKHAM, ESQ: Yes my name is Abaigail Wickham on behalf of Mrs. Berdinka I have the final receipt for the mailing I have the affidavit of posting and ~ have a map of the residence on the west side of this property I have 2 copies. I will be b~hef the application shows that this lot is not only very comparable in size to every' other lot in the neighboFaood which all of which are built upon. R was created years ago Mrs. Berdinka wasn't aware until 7 months ago when she started reading in the newspaper about potential upzoning and vacant lot issues that this was merged. She was paying a separate tax bill on this property since she acquired it in the 70's she had no idea the lots had merged her house is next door she's always maintained that it's a separate piece of property and she was really quite shocked when she found out it was under the zoning ordinance merged. I've done a lot of real estate out here and I can put into ~he record that as a vacant lot this property would be worth at a very minimum $125K probably considerably more as an adjunct to her residence parcel it would all anywhere from 25 at the most $50K there's a huge financial difhcuIty if it is not recognized as a separate lot. ~n addition to the current tax bill of $862 and all of the prior years tax bill which she has paid on this property she would be out of pocket on. She has simila~- to the lady previous she has considered this as part of her assets that she may need to fall back on. She bought this property shortly after she remarried and she and her husband thought that it would be part of their retirement unfortunately he died quite a number of years ago Mrs. Berdinka has on her own since her first ~'~usband died raised 4 children all of whom live and work in the town of Southold they each have a spouse who lives and works ~n the town of Southold this is a local family none oft~em had any idea this was a problem until very recently until very recently so I would ask that you seriously consider granting the application. You have in your package a map of 2 tax map sections that apply to ti'As lot and t~he surrounding properties and you will notice I ~'~ave written on an H notation al! houses on every single and adjoining lot with the exception of this one vacant parcel which is actually larger than her house parcel the map I just submitted to you shows that the house is 20~ from the line so it will not create an encroachment. CHAIRWO1V~AN: Were the lots ever deeded in S&S ownersl~Ap. Were t~hey always held as Mary and Robe~ Berdinka? Page 41 of ~6 Page 42 April lt7~ 20@3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. WICKHAM: Originally the house piece was held as Stanley and Mary Berdip&a. On his desk that property was in her name alone after her marriage she put it in both names as people normally do and the5, bougbt the house together the vacant lot together as well. CHAIRWOMAN: So in '67 Robert Berdinka, Mary Berdinka owned the house lot and they owned the vacant lot in corm*non ownership as well. MS. WICKHAM: They bought that in 1971. CHAIRWOMAN: In '67 the improved and in '71 the vacant and they didn't checkerboard it. MS. WICKHAM: They didn't know they needed to no. CHAIRWOMAN: The only other thing I was going to ask the survey you just showed us I know I went out and I looked at the property and there are other stmctares on there I want to kind of just talk about that a little bit Mrs. Wickham. MS. WICKTqAM: There's an attached garage which would be attached to the house which would be shown on the survey I'm not sure it shows it as a separate garage maybe some boats that their 4 children or their spouses like to use for storage those will be gone soon I hope if the weather holds up. MEMBER ORLANDO: What year did the 2''d husband pass away? MS. WICKHAM: 1982. 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 MENUOTES FOR RESOLUTION 2:00 p.m. Nicolo and Caroline DiBartolo #5254 - Request for a Special Exception under Section 100-3 lB, to establish Accessow Bed and Breakfast Use for lodging and serving of breakfast to transient gaests, in conjunction with the owner's residence at 475 Condor Comet (extends of£the east side of North Oakwood Rd), Laurel; Parcel t000-127-3-6.2. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? CAROL1NE DIBARTOLO: I'm Caroline. Myhusband and I are here. We have no one representing 'as. Page 42 of 66 Page 43 Apr[~ 1% 20@3 Southo!d Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Can you tell us a little about your proposed B&B? MS. DIBARTOLO: Yes, you have the site plan there. It's an acre ofprope:ty in Laurel with a house and a surrounding 17 acres. We are asking to enter through Condor Ct. It*s an area, Laurelwood area and we are proposing to rent 3 rooms. Basically weekends, it will be open ali year round but we expect to have mostly weekend guests. Just a regular B&B. CHAIRWOMAN: 1 have a copy of the f~oor plan and maps in your 5iIe. The rooms are going to he on the 2nd floor. As far as the rooms, are you plam~ing to put chain ladders for fire escapes? MS. DIBARTOLO: That's a requirement ~ understand yes. I have decks also mud access to decks in each room. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORNING: You have adequate parking? MS. DIBARTOLO: Yes ~ have 2 areas designated for parking in the front and in the back. I believe there*s 9 spaces there. MEMBER HORNING: They are not in the original survey?. MS. DIBARTOLO: Tl~le o{fginal survey was drawn before we decided to do the B&B so I marked it. MEMBER HORNING: So that's basically where you are proposing your parking to be. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I suppose I was the first to come down during the winter. I did meet your i~usband one day. I actually drove through. I have been the one who has been charged with the access aspect of this particular project as I had with the access with these projects al! the way through~ not necessarily this one, but any 280A situation. The one thing that was not done, nor am I speaking for but I am a member of and have been for 35 years a~nd that is the MFD. It's doubtful that the MFD will be able transverse this bridge you've construc~ted which I of course had no trouble driving over in the car. But the trucks today are so large in weight and ma~iimde that ~ doubt seriously that would occur which would only leave us to the point of getting access to your property over the main road access. I don't know if that access is adequate enough to support a fire vehicle. I am talking about from the tracks to your house. MS. DIBARTOLO: Did you travel from the tracks to my house? Page 43 of 66 ]Page 44 April ~7~ 2g)03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heating MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes i have. The problem is as you know that several times a year with either snow removal or the freezing and thawing of the ground and what we experienced this winter with significant thaw in the month of March there are questions that I don't want to evaluate. I think we should send a letter to the MFD and ask them if they construe it to be adequate access to the property. MR. DIBARTOLO: There is one comment I'd like to make. When that bridge was built ~md we got the request, of course we had to go through the DEC, we had to go through £~e Town Board here. One of the comments was made regarding the fire department trucks and the fact that Ray Nine who is someone most of you probably know helped build that bridge and he's in the MFD. He said listen when we have a fire problem, the fire W~.cks always take the shortest cut which makes sense. We have the HalfHoilow next door which has access through it 3 different passages, i would think technically we don't have any legal rights to having the fire truck come across there I think for standpoint this is what happens. So I think th/s should be considered because if there is an emergency that's where the gte trucks are going to go. They are going to take the easiest way to the particular location. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: The question I have is you have ROW over that ROW though- MR. DIBARTOLO: Yes we do have ROW, but it's a limited ROW. It's for persm~al use. It's a unguarded railroad crossing and it's not supposed to be used for cormmercial purposes and technically there's a supreme court order on it. It's a limited order, it's not a perpetuity and therefore it can't be considered for permanent basis. MEMBER GOEHR~TqGER: No one is going to stop us from going to a thre that way, but the point or question today is you're asking for access to the property through the other subdi~4siun and that is h'm sure the nature of the reason ail these people have shown up today. I'm just saying to you that I think the board should regardless of your application on Condor Ct. that we should discuss it with the chief or send a letter to him and ask him if that access through either your ROW or the Half Hollow Hills situation leading down to it assuming there's a problem getting throug~5 your ROW was construed by him as adequate access to your property and then you would have dual access conceivably. MEMBER ORLANDO: I have a location question. You have a i-acre lot surrounded by this 17 acres. Who owns the 17 acres? MS. D[BARTOLO: We do. MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's mainly wetlands and that's why- MS. DIBARTOLO: 27xere are some areas that are hilly and wooded. Page 44 of 66 Page 45 April 179 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: But you own ali that. So you enter from Condor onto your property to get through your other lot. Have you ever managed a B&B before? MS. DIBARTOLO: No. O~,~ly in my dreams for 20 years. I have fi/ends who have them. MEMBER ORLANDO: You don't have a problem with strangers coming intu your house to live and stay there. MS. DIBARTOLO: I don't have a problem with it because of the way it's screened. You don't just have people driving up to your door and asking to rent. It's done in a way '[hat [ feel very safe. People who ask to stay in your home are people who are used to frequenting B&B's and they know what it's all about. We are dealing with people who mostly wilt be booking through the intemet referrals from the north fork B&B association and we are probably not going to list ourselves through a telephone book, so it's going to be a very screened type of booking situation. Word of mouth probably from people who have stayed with us and like I said overflow from the other B&B's. MR. DIBARTOLO: The property that we applied for sits on 1-acre. That 1-acre sits in the middle of 17 acres that's our property also. That indicates that the house itself that will be used as a B&B is at least 600, 700' from any other house in the particular neighborhood so it's well hidden it's not disturbing anyone and there's plenty of room which means all parking will be obviously away from any particular residential area and the area that the house is on is agriculturally zoned. CHAIRWOMAN: ts there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? THOMAS NOVAK: My name is Thomas Novak, and I'm a neighbor of the DiBartolo's my house is just south of their properB, and mostly I'm going to speak about opposition and mostiy it has nothing to do with the B&B itself. It has everything to do with access to the B&B. I have my own famiiy and property concerns and aiso I share a cormmon community concern with my neighbors and Fm going to speak a little bit about each. I'm going to present for the board a petition that show's the community's opposition and the reasons why and I'll read it to you. As residents of the development know as Goldanview Estates in Laurel Town of Southold we have signed this petition in order to document our opposition to the proposed use of an access road located at the end of Condor Court as m2 entry to a B&B hotel to be operated by Nicolo and Caroline S. DiBar~olo on the DiBartolo's property adjacent to our community. This application is now being reviewed and decided upon by the Town of Southold Board of Appeals. The reason for om- opposition is the DiBartolo's plan to use Lanrelwood Drive, Woodside Lane, White Eagle Drive and Condor Court the only access roads to our homes in our community to gain entry tu tee business. This business use would create a steady flow of vehicles by B&B guests, de!iveries, hired help, etc. throughout our community and increased traffic and pose safety issues for many of the children who reside here. These vehicles will Page 45 of 66 Page 46 April 179 20@3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing compromise the privacy of the residents who purchased or built their homes in Goldenview Estates without the anticipation that a business would ever be built using these roads to gain access to it. For many homeowners, the fact that this is a dead end community was a major consideration when they bought their property pedestrians from business will atso compromise our privacy and we feel these issues coutd have a negative effect on our property values. We are not opposed to the DiBartoIo% attempt to operate a B&B on their property if the access road leading to the business from Condor Ct. in community is ciosed permanentiy, ljust want to give you this here then I'1I continue. We have 80% of the 30 homes in our community sign that 5 of the otbers we couldn't contact and 1 had no- CHAIRWOMAN: Let me understand something. You are not opposed to the DiBartolo's B&B what you are opposed to is the method of access they are proposing? MR. NOVAK: That's correct. When they bought their property there was no access obviously through our community because our community was just built and they were coming from the Main Road the previous owners came from the Main Road through the more difficult path ROW. I understand you had a ZBA heating here in 1995 in ~vhich they claimed hardship and nobody really objected to it, but then again there was only about 10% of the 30 homes actuatly built and people living in them at the thne so if you just let me continue you'11 probably get a better idea of what I'm talking about, t sent this letter to the board do you ail have a copy of it? My name is Thomas Novak and wife Maureen and our 2 children reside at 655 Eagle Nest Court in Laurel town of Southold we are long time residents of Southold having moved to Laurel in 1999 after residing in New SuffoIk for many years. We spent our life savings on this home and we like it the way it is. We are writing in regard to the application submitted to your office by our neighbors Nicolo and CaroIine S. DiBartolo requesting permission to operate a B&B business from their newIy expanded home bordering our property on the north. After receiving information about 'chis proposal by chance and I was never approached by the DiBartolos with their intentions either through the mail, phone or in person to this day by chance by one of our neighbors and subsequently we verified it with your office my wife amd ~ wouid like to convey our strong opposition to this opposition. Our strongest opposition being the use of t.he entry they plan on using for their business it is the access for Condor Ct. and it is a narrow dirt road that lies only a few feet from the edge of our property due to the setback requirements, placement of our weli and the fact that our shy acre borders Brushes Creek on the east requiring strict adherence to the town DEC regulations regarding clearing and preservation limits we have almost no buffer inbetween our property and this dirt road m_ost of it because we don't have much ora back yard most of our yard was preserved and left wooded and of course we have a 60' setback leading to that. From this road are clear views from our backyard deck home and we dine outside on our deck relax, kick back, entertain friands and family and swim in our above ground pool. Our privacy will be completely compromised by the flow of hotel customers vehicles pedestrians deliveries and hired he!p that will potentiaily utilize this entrance to the business. V~nen we bought and developed this property in 1999 this road had pre-existed since the DiBartoIo's had received a variance for it in 1995 as told to Page 4(; of 66 Page 47 April 37, 2003 Southold Towr~ Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing us by our neighbors in Golden View Estates who had been first to develop the property in tl~is subdivision created in 1986 the DiBartolo's applied for the variance to build the road originating from Condur Court a culdesac within our subdivision at the variance meeting the DiBartolo's expressed difficulties they experienced traveling to and from their home using the ex~sting ROW that begins from the Main Road consisting of a very long unimproved dirt road that crosses through agricultural land and over ungated RR tracks the DiBm~olo~s appealed to a few of these first Golden View Estate residents present and at the variance hearing to not oppose to their variance for the road and the GVE residents agreed not to only after the DiBartoIo's verbally agreed to limit the use of this road to residential use only at t~he time of that vmhance hearing and at the subsequent decision made by the board to approve it the residents that had yet to purchase and develop their already subdivided lots approved by the town were not there and therefore the most affected by this decision were not able to give their opposition. They didn't have an opportunity to voice their disapproval. We and the lot owners on Condor Court are examples of these lots. These lots were developed a few years later. Another strong opposition we have to this proposition is the fact that our well from which we receive our drinking water is approximately less than 40' from the ex/sting dirt road the road we are talking about leading to what is now just a fmnily residence. The increased traffic to and from this business increases the possibility of contamination of our water due to possible fluid leakage from vehicles which people are starting to realize that unleaded fuel permanently pollutes wells this is a recent discovery in the past 5 or 6 years. The proposition also has potential to impact wetlands that border Brushes Creek this hotel is very close to the creek and numerous cars parked there by the creek at a multidwelling site such as this will ultimately leak fluids that will seep into the ground contaminating the delicate wetlands and creek. We oppose the potential use of Laurelwood Drive ext., White Eagle Drive, Condor Ct, the roads leading to our homes for the use of this proposed business for deliveries, guests and I go on to speak about the communities concerns. Only the DiBartolos would benefit from the boards approval from this proposal many residents in our community will be effected negatively. CHAIRWOMAN: We need to correct a few things. The ZBA did not approve any access through Condor Court nor would it ~ave any reason to. It's not something that would come up before us. This is the PB action that created your lots. The roads that were created through Condor Ct. are created through PB actions. This application that you're speal~ng about was never before this board. MR. NOVAK: I'm talking about the application from. the DiBa~tolo's for the dirt road that they plan on accessing their business. I'm not talking about the roads in our commm,~ty. CHAIRWOMAN: You just said that we had given the DiBartolo's access through Condor Comrt. MR. NOVAK: Yes they had to come to the ZBA for a variance for the road. Page 47 of 66 Page 48 Apr[t 179 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hear/rig CHAIRWOMAN: it could have been the Trustees. Maybe it's under a different name, we're missing terminology or there's some confusion but ifynn have any record of it we'd like to see it. When I read you letter I specifically asked the board clerk to research the files for anything thal resembled anything because I've been on this board since 1995 and I don't recall it and I asked the Member Goehrthger who's been here since 1980. MR. N©VAK: So whatever agency, somebody had to approve a road connecting to a town road, correct? CHAIRWOMAN: Somebody did approve it apparently but it wasn't us. The only thing I really feet that this board doesn't have authority to tel1 anyone that they cann~ot use a town road. If your property if you can get to your property through 5 or 6 different ways there is no legal way that this board could restrict your access to the property through a cross town road so such a request is not possible. It's not even legal For exampie t can get to my property '~hrough about 4 different roads. MR. NOVAK: I'm going to get off now and let somebody else speak who was actually at the hearing. There was some confusion as to who was running the heating I obviously wasn't there. MEMBER HORNING: Sir could you mark on here where you live? CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? CATHY OBRIEN: My name is Cathy Obtien and I live in the same neighborhood as Mr. Novak. i'm a Iittie confused because I was in this room and it was set up just like this it was in the evening and the matter that was discussed was access to Condor Ct. for this residence that we ?xe speaking of. I specifically got up and spoke about my concern about opening 'ap our neighborhood to Main Rd. because as far as I was concerned ! had no access to main road mud I wanted to keep ~t that way. My concern was that this property would become commercial and now bring ail that commercial traffic through our culdesacs. I was assured that the reason for this petition whatever board it was that we were before was because of concern there was ax; elderly woman in this residence and Mr. DiBartolo explained that he was concerned about emergency vehicles having access to that property now I'm very confused because this gentleman was speaking about the fire trucks not ha¼ng access over that when that was one of the reasons that was brought up i need the fire engines I need the ambulance to get to this elderly woman should she become ill and Mr. DiBartolo obviously was at that meeting, myself, Mrs. Fedun amd at this point a woman who has moved from the area. So Mr. DiBartolo probably could tell us what meefing that was specificaliy but i do know i was in th/s room and it was about that petition and like I said my concern is that the neighborhood be opened up to commercial traffic. CHAIRWOb&AN: Can you assist us and enlighten us about this hearing. Page 48 of 66 Page 49 April 17, 20@3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. D~BA_RTOLO: At the time we had only access through a temporary easement so we wanted to go through Condor Court by the way to all the board members here I brought an aerial pictare here to give you a better idea o£what the area looks like, but basically we had a dirt driveway which went up across the RR. Condor Court was not a public road at the time we bought the property when Condor Ct. became a pubic road owned by the town of Southold our property the 17 acres that surround i acre borders right on that road. As you pointed out a few moments ago, it's a public road we all pay taxes we all have a right to access and so I applied for a permit for a driveway. The lady that mentioned at the time the application took place is nearly 10 yem's ago I happen to have my mot2~er living there who is very sick, s~e's in a nursing home in Marylaad but that was mentioned only as an additional support for having a permit applied this was by the way the bom'd of trustees were involved because it was going across that answers that question. CHAIRWOMAN: We were sitting here thinking we were all in the Twilight Zone. So the application- MR. DIBARTOLO: It was because the br/dge had to be built over the wetlands. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? ROBERT NAB: Good afternoon my name is Robert Nab, I*m a resident of Edgemer Park av.d I appear individually m~d as an attorney for the EP community association to the extent that this request would require a variance from the zoning regulations of the town of Southold we would be opposed to it but I would like to reserve my right to submit w~tten comments on behalf of the association prior to your decision. CHAIRWOMAN: Just for the record this is a permit for a special exception permit. There is no violation in terms of NYS town law this is ofig/nai.~ufisdiction granted by the town board by special permit which as you know if you are an attorney is presumed to be an acceptable use. MR. NAB: I would like the right to reserve written comments. CHAIRWOMAN: Certainly. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? AMY MILAVI: My name is Amy MilavJ ~ reside in Laurel on 245 Wt~ite Eagle Dr/ve maybe you can enlighten me because I'm a iittle ignorant in some of the issues of variance and such. Since this B&B is going to be used for corm_mercia1 use ~ don't understand how they can access that through I know it's a public road, but this is a commu~J~cy, it's not on the Main Road. I do have concerns ~ na,~e 2 small ckil&'en there's many, many children in the neighborhood. I also work under the Dept. o£Health ~n Page 49 0£66 Page 50 April 17~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing corrections and since I've been there I've learned there's a lot you cannot trust about people I am a nurse, I'm a very trusting person but I have learned a lot and I do not wish to have people coming through my neighborhood that are not invited. I/rust my neighbors, I love my neighbors and we have a very good community. This is nothing against the B&B. What I do have concerns about is I do not want people accessing through that so if this is a commercial business and if the DiBartolo's can access through the main road and it seems as if they have enough invested in their idea why riot let them improve on their land so they have better access through the main road an I think that is ali the community is asking for. We have no problems with them. I personally do not and I just want to keep my neighborhood safe, closed, personal and just invited guests of my neighbors and of course I know we I~ave public people coming through making their own deliveries but these are intended for personal reasons. Like I said again they have enough invested in this aud it seems like they have been going through all of this and now coming around the back to try to get this access I'd hate to see it try to go through when they have enough invested where they could probably improve on their propeay and go through the other side. Unfortunately their mother is not wire them at this time and they are in a nursing home then the point of an emergency access is mute for that pu~ose. CHAIRWOMAN: There's only one thing and I know since the letters were sent out and there has been discussion that this board approved access that there is confusion. This board has no legal authority to deny them access through Condor Ct. It's a town road. MS. MILAVI: I understand it's a town road, but if it's a commercial business? CHAIRWOMAN: What this is called a special exception permit and it's a pe~Tnitted by special exception by the ZBA so it is the criteria for is actually far less stringent than if it were a variance and they are not here before as for approval for access that's not even on the plate. They have access we would have no authority to say to them no you can't use Condor Ct. and as far as the commercial use in all honestly over the years yes we have heard many people who in different instances didn't feet that a B&B was appropriate in their neighborhood and many of them share a tot of concerns that I've heard today particularly your sentiments. This was a legislative founding by the town board. The town board found that B&B's should be allowed in residential districts by special permit. MS. MILAVI: What does it take to prove that this should not be brought about? What is not going to allow this to occur? What needs to be proven or shown? CHAIRWOMAN: As I say your largest concern is the access and that's the very area that we cannot restrict. We capmot say to these people you cam~ot drive over Condor Ct. We have no legal authority to do that it's a town road. They are not proposing a i0 bedroom B&B. They are proposing a 3 bedroom B&B. MS. M~LAVI: How many bedrooms are in the house? Page 50 of 66 ?age 51 April 17~ 2¢0~ Southold Town Board of Appeals Regalar Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I could look at plans. MS. DIBARTOLO: We have 5 - 4 bedrooms and 1 un,n/shed room which But at the present time we have 4 bedrooms. CHALk, WOMAN: Waere's only so much we can do. MS. MILAV~[: We wouldn't want a deli there. CHA/RWOMAN: A deli's not permitted in this dis~ct. It's not permitted at all. MS. MILAV~: That's not my point, it's commercial so if they are having commercial people coming through for commercial purposes. The issue at hand is access and you're saying it's a public road therefore anybody can use the road you just want to know if it's safe for use. CHAIRWOMAN: We are concerned with what Mr. Goehr/nger said but essentially the fire trucks have access to this could get access to it and we will certainly take into consideration any other concerns in that area because Mr. Goehringer is a long time fireman and has a lot of expertise in that area. MS. MILAVI: Is there another board we could speak to that would support our concerns? Trustees since it's changed from residential to commercial. MEMBER GOEHRrNGER: Don't say that it's a special permit. ~ffor some strange reason the DiBartolo's decided to sell their property and renewal of this SE occurred with someo~e else and they tr~ed to tam it into "a hotel" this board would rescind the permit. CHAIRWOMAN: This is not a change of zone, this is permitted B&B's are permitted in residential distr~cts in our code by a special permit. It's not business zoned. MS. MILAV~: Can we oppose the special perm/t? CHAIRWOMAN: Of course you can. MS. MILAVI: Tt~_at's what we are doing. SHARON VALID: My name is Sharon Valid and I live on Condor Ct. and I moved out of the Hamptons where ~ had cottages next door to me into this development because ~ thought I was safe I feel like I've bee~ b~indsighted now I'm going to have the same si~ation that I had when ~ moved out of the Hamptons I chose an area that I thought was going to be perfect for my children and I'm willing to pay the additional taxes that I paying more than when I lived on the south side and I feel this is totally unfair. I oppose. Page 51 of 66 Page 52 April 179 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHARLES SILECK: Pm here solely to oppose this as well. I live at 650 Eagle Nest Ct. I purchased land back there I paid a premium for the land on account that it is a closed area we do not have free entry into the area in other words people coming and going I know 99% of the people who live in the area I feel comfortable with them. I do not want my iittle son who doesn*t listen very well miming up and down the street one of my houses is on a cuidesac and having extra vehicles increase traffic in the area ! nothing personal about a B&B they are wnnderful I've stayed at them and inns up in VT while skiing they have their place they do not have a place in the area which we live. CARL CREST: 920 Eagle Drive I am opposed. My fist question is when your mother was sick and you proposed the bridge to cross at what date was that bridge proposed? CHAIRWOMAN: We don't have those records because it wasn't before us. MR. CREST: I0 years? DE.rRDRE FEDUN: At least 10 years. MR. CREST: 10-15 years ago they got permission for the bridge 7-10 years and I heard Mrs. DiBoxtolo say this has been a 20 year dream of hers so obviously long before the mother got sick it was in her sights that she wanted to propose a B&B down the road somewhere down the road she wanted a B&B perfect excuse to get that bridge in and get traffic in there. Nothing against the DiBartolo's but I live fight on the corner of Eagle Drive I have 2 young sons a lot of young children in the community a lot of families that are just having children in the community. I am totally opposed to this I mean we all had a dream moving tn there that we were moving into a private coimnunity with dead end streets with no traffic the DiBartolos going in and out of there with their kids and their cars I really don't have a problem the trafhc we've incurred since the building started there I have a major problem with and it's not going to stop there. The traffic with the B&B I have worked on the south fork for 30 years it's just going to get worse and worse they axe saying they are going to advertise on the internet guess what not only the people that come to stay there are going to visit Condor Ct. but all the people on the website that see Condor Ct. let's go check this out this weekend we're going to be on the north fork let's go see where Condor Ct. is I even have a problem with them using 474 Condor Ct. as their address they are not part of our subdivision they cut a private road into the town road Condor Ct. which you are saying is legal and I can live with that where do they get off using 475 condor ct. put on a website and advertising to people all over Manhattan the tri-state area I don't agree and I'm totally opposed along with the neighbors and it's nothing against the DiBartolo family. If they want to access across the RR tracks I don't think we'd ali be standing in front of you with the oppositions we have. ~ think if they'd reconsider maybe I'd be a totally different thing amd I'm sure the community would be very happy to let them go about their business but the way they are going abo~t their business not notifying anybody in the community backdooring people that*s not the way to do business here. Page 52 of 66 ]Page April 17~ Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ELANOR DIACHLrN: I'm Elanor Diachun from Peconic Bay Blvd. and my property adjacents Mr. DiBartolos in fact we sold them that property and when we sold that proper':y, we went ~om the Main Road to the house. My mother-in-!aw lived there for over 85 years I've been there 35 years I went over that RR tracks so many times/fit's not guarded you stop and look. Nothing happened to me and another thing is my mother-in- law, the ambulance was there a couple of times no problem because that was like a private road nobody else was going to go down it and another thing is we never got notified my son owns the last lot adjacent to his he was never notified I had to have people cai1 me and it was only in the Traveler not the Suffolk Times people buy ST not the TW. CHAIRWOMAN: Going to have to take that one up with the Town Board. MS. DIACHUN: I'm just saying we should have been noticed. BOARD SECRETARY ~OWALSKI: You're not adjoining. MS. D~ACHUN: Yes we are. My mother-in-laws property began where ours ends on PBB. It's not adjacent to the lot in question. MS. DIACHUN: Well what's inbetween it.'? SCOTT MCKILLUP: I have something short and sweet. agree with the neighbors that are here and I am opposed to the special permit that is being sought. That's my opinion. I do not want a B&B. MS. DIACHUN: I just want to tell you one thing when we sold them the property they could not have 2 entrances. If they decided they didn't want to go to the blvd another entrance was supposed to be closed. CHAIRWOMAN: ls there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? JANE SCHANTZ: I also live on Condor Ct. with my family t think people here are trying to say we weren't told we are going behind everyone's back and that's really not the way to do something. We certainly don't want to interfere wit1-~ their long ti:me dream of having a B&B but they have also not going to exploit our neighborhood to do tl,~at and it seems to me that when appropriate we could have a fire Iane through the nursery or we could have a fire lane through Condor Ct. or we could have a fire land somewhere else. We don't want to interfere with you having a B&B and I think everyone has said that. The only thing bothering us is Condor Ct. and the safety of our neighborhood and the serenity. We paid a premium to come to that neighborhood and have a quiet safe Page 53 of 66 Page 54 April 179 2003 South01d Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heating neighborhood. Maybe on your other 17 acres you are going to build motels I don't know. I don*t know if you're going to sell it in 6 months to someone else. I think maybe if the folks in the neighborhood could compromise is that okay we'll work it out through the nursery or Rt. 25 for access nobody would have approached your B&B but I think most of us oppose a B&B or special permfc because we don't want it in our neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN: Mrs. DiBartolo I'm going to ask you a question. Is there any way that you and your husband to see clear to develop a compromise w~th the conununity and work vdth the con'~rnunhy on this? MRS. DIBARTOLO: First of ali ][ don't think we have a choice because t don't think our ROW is legal for any use other than our own use. We can have guests come through it and there's one thing I want to say it keeps being referred as a private road it is not a private road it is my driveway that I access fi.om the culdesac. Pm not classified as Golden View Estates but my property adjoins that cu~desac it*s my driveway just because it happens to be 1/8 of a mile long driveway I don't think that classi~es it as a private road, it's my driveway it's right there my property ends right at it. I didn't have to get special permission to come through there and make it a road and you know I belong to the neighborhood and they said I didn't notice them. I sent the neighbors a personal lettcr and invited them to my house. Some of them came ~ wasn't required to do that by the town rules i sent out the notices return receipt requested to the people who I was required to. When they read it in the paper I got a little note in my mailbox saying we don't want our neighborhood commercialized we want our children to be able to play in the street safe now each person here owns an acre of property they have plenty of room for their children to play and they play in my culdesac in front of my driveway and I allow them to and I did- CHAIRWOMAN: What I'm hearing is there will be no compromise. MRS. DIBARTOLO: 71~ey don't want the traffic for their children- CHAIRWOMAN: The attorney asked for an opportunity to address the points of law regarding a special permit and of course the board is going to grant him that. MR. DIBARTOLO: We don't have legal access over that road so there is no choice there is only one access. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't think there's a choice. There's limited access by the court order, right Jerry? There is hmited access not because of this board it's because ora Supreme court ruling. Up to 5 bedrooms. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Please remember this is not commercial if it doesn't work out we'll puli the permit. We'll have another heating and we'll pull the permit we've done it before so don't ever consider it to be. Page 54 of 66 ?age 55 April 17, 20@3 Southold Town Board of AppeaIs Regular Meeting Public Hearing In 1995 there was no indication that this was anything other than a personal residence and now all of a sudden it's becoming a B&B. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Their property is contiguous to Condor Ct. there was no access granted because they own the proper~y contiguous to it. if they didn't own that and it was a ROW to the bridge yes access would have had to be granted. MR. DIBARTOLO: Weql address anything that the fire department requires if anything is required secondly what weYe asking is consistent with what the town has done with other B&B's on residentiai streets weYe not asldng for anything different than has been done previously. CHAIRWOMAN: Sir.9 Was that property always adjacent to the culdesac at Condor Ct. or bas there any land transaction since the property was originally surveyed and since that access bridge was put in? ~ don't know if you can answer that. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't know. BOB GAMMON: My name is Bob Gammon and unlike my neighbors I don't live on Condor Ct. I live at 70 Woodside Lane in Laurel which is the development just before theirs. ~ have 2 questions for the board. One if you have not the authority which you have just said you have special facture or spec/aI permit that will allow them to do this. What are we all here for? CHAIRWOMAN: You have a right to comment on the SE permit. However that does not include the question as to whether or not they are allowed to have access over Condor Ct. MR. GAMMON: __ and I have known each other for quite some time MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was a long time Bob. MR. GAMMON: Gmry ehided to the fact that this is a spec/al use permit and you as a board have the riglat to puIl the permit at any time. CHAIRWOMAN: If you have grounds. MR. GAMMON: What constitutes grounds? That's the first question and how often is this looked into to see there's no violations of whatever is permissible? CHAIRWOMAN: For example do you remember Ocean City?. MR. GAMMON: Yes. Page 55 of 66 Page 56 April 17~ 2@03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heating CHAIRWOMAN: That was a special use permit just like this is we had conditions on it hours of op~ation, parking, number of people everything they didn*t comply with it, we held a public heating we pulled their permit it was as simple as that. MR. GAMMON: Also does this B&B go under the ordinance of the Health Department? CHAIRWOMAN: Not trader 5. MR. GAMMON: I'd like to know why not. Pm an apple fa2mer on Manor Lane. Before I could sell my pies and process foods I had to get a special permit from the agricultural and HD so I complied with all the sanitary regulations. Now they are going to mn a B&B, you mean there's not going to be any supervision in there for the kitchen facility because they are going to supply the people food. CHAIRWOMAN: The only food they are supposed to be supplying is breakfast. MR. GAMMON: All I have to do is provide 1 candy apple or 1 pie and I have to pay $200 a year for that permit. Now they are supplying food to the p~Cblic like everybody else. CHAIRWOMAN: I understand what you are saying I just don't have your answer it's governed by the SC Board of Health. MR. GAMMON: I'm going to have the town look into that and the reason I'm suggesting that is because in fact that the town could be held liahle issuing this permit. Without a health permit to go along with the special permit. If you understand everybody's so sue conscious now so i'm just suggesting you look into that facet of it. CHAIRWOMAN: Board members would you like to adjourn or close this? MEMBER GOEHR_TNGER: ~[ think it should be dosed I think the gentleman from Edgemere Park said he would Iike to add some further information regarding it. EP is not con'dguous nor adjacent to any of this propem/but we are certainly welcome to it as long as he gives it to us in the next 2 weeks. CARL CREST: If there was another entranceway obviousiy the entrance through Condor Ct. is going to be a problem. ~ want to put it on record that I am completely opposed to the B&B. DIEDRE FEDUN: My name is Diedre Fedun. When I bought our property and one of the pieces we looked at was wetlands which you can't build on wetlands, ~ feel like I~m being blindsighted that tl~is driveway or what have you. So to not have ~rther traffic which Page 56 of 66 Page 57 Apr~ ]7~ 2003 SouthMd Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMrBER GOEHR1NGER: 5 bedrooms. CHAIRWOMAN: What is before us is for 3. They cannot change or amend that without coming back here. What I would like the audience would like we will close the hearing but leave it open for written comments for 30 days. Does that seem fair to everyone.'? Just address it to the ZBA and that way if you have extra points or thunghts that you didn*t think of today it will give you plenty of time to do it. Fm ignorant to the way of SE, have we been officially opposing this special permit now.'? CHAIRWOMAN: Everything you have said is in the record and will be in the record for the special permit. I'll make a motion closing the hearing to verbatim testimony and we will except comments for the next 28 days in writing. PLEASE SEE M~D,TErTES FOR RESOLUTION 2:I5 p.m. Madeline Droe~e #5186. Request for a Variance under Sections 100-33 C, 100-30A.4, 100-31C, based on the Building Department's April 26, 2002 Notice of Disapproval stating that the proposed structure is not a permitted use, and that it does not meet the code's height limitation or minimum setback provisions. Applicant proposes an accessory wind turbine structure at less than 50 feet from the front property line and at a height greater than the code limitation of t8 feet, at 885 Perry's Drive, Orient; Parcel I000-14.-2-24. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? DAN ROSS, ~SQ: Dan Ross on behalf o£Madeline Droege with regard to this vmSance basically Fd like to hand up to this board some papers including the affidavit of sig~ posting and some other material I'll refer to on the presentation. In addition 'Lo the affidavit of sign posting I've handed up some manufacturers information with respect to the wind turbine which is at issue h~e. I have also handed up a noise study ~by the manufacturer of the wind turbine and an article regarding wind turbines which again refer to a little later. Mrs. Droege resides at 885 Pe~ty% Drive Orient wi~ her 2 you~g daughters and that% the location she hopes to erect the wind turbine for emergency use and for the production of e~ectricity. She seeks a front yard a height variance and according the BD a use variance. T~e front yard variance she's seeking to put the wind turbine 33* into her from yard 100-33C requires 50* so we are seeking 1T variance with regard to the front yard sethaak. The proposed wind turbine is ~4~ high 138.4 permits an 18* height for accessory structures and we are seeking a height variance the NOD suggests we need a variance from 131C I respectfully disagree I submit that the use of the wind turbine is customarily incidental to residential use and thaFs really not a w~iance thaFs necessary in this case. A little bit about the premises. IFs located in an R40 zone. The prope~y is on the sound in Perry's bite it*s at the end ora road there is a residential Page 57 of 66 Page 58 Apr~ 1% 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing house to the west. The sound is to the north. The road is to the south with no neighbor across the road and to the east there is no immediate residential property, lt's basically at the end ora street. The approximate nearest neighbor in terms of foot. The closest neighbor is the neighbor to the west. MEMBER HORNING: How many feet approximately? MR. ROSS: I don't know I didn't have a good surveyor- MEMBER HORNING: 200, 300, 100 any idea? MR. ROSS: More than 100 1 believe but the wind turbine is 64' high the blades are 8'2" and weighs 75 lbs. As I indicated we submitted the manufacturers information with respect to the measurements and the wind turbine being proposed. In a R40 zone, the permitted height for residences is 35'. Of course that's not measured to the top of the residence so an actual structure can be more than 35'. CHAIRWOMAN: That's principal. MR. ROSS: Correct, I'm not talking about accessory structure but when yoga're dealing with height in a residential neighborhood you have structures that are 40' high. So really what we are seeking is another 20' another 1/3 over the top which is necessary because this is a wSnd turbine. I£the wind turbine was below the structures, the struct~rces would block the wind. So we are seeking basically a third over what normal structures urould be a 2 story structure in an R40 zone. Basically I look at it and I suggest it's analogous to a flagpole and instead of a flag at the top, you have some blades that are being moved by the wind. Objections have been raised and one is to the noise that it may make and we've submitted a study by the manufacturer the study was done in an area where there are 2 roads within a halfmiIe of the test site. ~ don't know the exact distance but the main road is probably about a half mile from Mrs. Droege's property so in that sense it could be considered similar. In the test by the manufacturer, the background noise produced and this isn't from the wind turhine was 48DBA to 57DBA with regard to the wind turbine the noisiest spot is 42' down from wind. So they took the measurements there. The noise produced for normal operation was 3-4 DBA's. MEMBER HORNING: What is DBA? MR. ROSS: Decibels. So the background noise at the spot from roads and other ambient noises is 48-57 the vdnd turbine is making 3-4 in another phase is called the unloaded where the turbine is allowed to swing freely the noise went to 6-7 DBA and at wind speeds at28 mph they estimate 15 DBA's so I think the study shows this is not a noisy operation. MEMBER HORNING: Are they going to lock it at winds greater than 30 mph? Page 58 of 66 Page 59 April 179 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hear_'ng MR. ROSS: The normal operation would be to load it not unload it and let it swing freely but even in the unloaded it's only 6-7 DBA which is minimum noise that was a test done on a 42' tower. This is a 60' tower being proposed. Recently an article in commongrnund which is publication of the LI Farm Bureau there was a note with respect to wind turbines whicl~l are being put on farmlands in Calverton and just a little bit fi:om tt~e article the wind turbine is the first of 5 to be erected on LIPA on farm ske in Suffolk County with the cooperation of the LIFB so this is happening in Calverton, much larger ones the caption in the photograph is there is now a working windmill dotting the landscape in Calverton. It is quite a site actually it is sleek, quiet, and unobtrusive as it sits among the growing cornstalks. You can't open t1~.e newspaper in any week without seeing an article about wind turbines and wind turbine farms. They are putting them on in farms, they are pu/tthg them out in the water. This is in comparison a rather small residential unit. MEMBER HORNING: What is the estimated electrical output of the turbine? MR. ROSS: It's in the manufacturers material. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Ross, the 64~ in hei~.t is that with the tilt up tower with the guidewkes? MR. ROSS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: So it's 64' up and the guidewires going down and what's at the base? MR. ROSS: I would refer you to the manufacturers- CHAIRWOMAN: They don't talk about it but I can't imagine at 34' up it would be sufficient enough to anchur it into the ground wouldn't it have to be into some kind of concrete pad? MR. ROSS: I would expect it would be secured so it would hold it up. CHAIRWOMAN: But there's no plans oftha? MR. ROSS: I will provide that if the board desires. CHAIRWOMAN: You said you felt this was customary in the residential districts, can you think of another one in Southold? MR. ROSS: There was one on Aldridge until recently and there's 2 or 3 in the Orient area I believe. CHAIRWOMAN: Aldridge? Page 59 of 6{5 Page 6@ Apr~l 17~ 20@3 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. ROSS: Aldridge Lane, it has been removed the fellow sold his property and took it down. CHAIRWOMAN: Are there any others existing in the area? MR. ROSS: I have seen them I can't give addresses though but if the board wishes I will research that and provide information. CHAIRWOMAN: So we can make a determination if it is in fact a customary- MR. ROSS: My point isn't that it's customary in the sense that everyone has one I'm saying it's incidental to residential use in this circumstance. This is a residential wind turbine which is being used not to sell power to neighbors but for her use incidental to her use the creation of power. MEMBER HORNING: ls it going to supply enough for the house? MR. ROSS: Yes depending on the wind and in fact it there's a storage unit. MEMBER HORNING: Batteries7 MR. ROSS: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Because it's going to produce DC power into the batteries to make it AC with either an alternator or whatever to maintain AC power, that's part of the package? MR. ROSS: Yes and she needs to get a permit from LIPA and she's required I understand to sell excess power back to LIPA. This is just the first step in a long- MEMBER HORNING: So it has some semi-commercial use. MR. ROSS: She's required to do it, she doesn't want to do it, but if you produce electricity LIPA requires you it's not really a sale it's an offset against what they charge you for your use. MEMBER ORLANDO: LIPA is required to purchase any power you generate so she'I1 be giving it back as a credit. MR. ROSS: Her pr~ma27¢ use she's out there and she has 2 daughters. Her primary concern is for emergency use last year there was reported in the Suffolk Life in July a quote from a LE~A spokesperson that said last summer LI came within 100 megawatts of heavy rolling blackouts and tls is a recurring issue whether it's to obtain further increases or not and none the less that% LIPA's stance and they've said it a number of times. Mrs. Droege wants to have her own electricity. Page 60 of 66 Page 61 April 177 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hemhng MEMBER HORNING: Most people get a generator for emergency power. Diesel or propane gas or whatever. MR. ROSS: The second reason is she wants to produce her own energy and this she wants to do it in an environmentally safe mariner. She feels strongly about this she intends at some point to put up solar panels and she desires she thinks the government should encourage this not discourage it. MEMBER ORLANDO: What is the cost of this unit? MR. ROSS: I don't think it's a major cost. CHAIRWOMAN: $2600 according to the figure here. The real issue I think the legal issue that we in my mind that we have to get over in some fashion or another is we have a number of uses that are permitted accessory uses in the code. A wind turbine is not one of them in fact I said well maybe there's a facsimile thereof and went back to the code last night and read it again and I simply couldn't find anything that even resembles a wind turbine. Now to presume that it is customary and incidental if it's not customary it's not incidental it's not accessory so the legal hurdle in my mind aside from getting over the variance and safety aspects of it the ability of whether it can withstand the windpowers whether this particular company has a demonstrated record and you can produce an engineers report that will document that it can withstand that kind of windpowers we have on the east end that there is a safe fall or collapse zone or the ability of that that would not in any way threaten any of the adjoining property owners. Before we even get to those issues, I think that in my mind the point of law is is it a permitted use. The BD says no. Does is appear on our code, no the words wind turbine do not appear in our code so I'm really going to ask you to address that either in a form of a memorandum of law because it's not whether it*s customary as well. So having said that there's o~e other question I~d like to get to the board members and to people in the audience going back to the base if you could give us the dimensions of the base, the guidewires, the widths at the center what it's going to be mom~ted on whether its' going to be a concrete platform, the height of the platform and the dimensions that the platform will be so we look at the total picture. Those are some of the thoughts that I have at this time. I'd like to ask the board members if they have any questions at this time, Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: Based on your data sheet it states it's a 1000 watt unit and battery storage 1000 watts that's 10 100 watt light bulbs this thing can power. That's it. I think it's a lot of gyration and efforts for 10 light bulbs. MR ROSS: Is the question that you don't believe this unit can power the house? MEMBER ORLANDO: Absolutely it can't. MR. ROSS: That's why 1 went to law school. I'm told that it can, but- Page 61 of 66 Page 62 April 17~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hear~ng MEMBER ORLANDO: Don't turn the microwave on. MR. ROSS: I'll find out. MEMBER ORLANDO: The second opinion question is would you want this next door ro your house? MR. ROSS: Iwouldn't have anyproblem withit. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: :[ guess the real question here is why this location and why this height? ~ know the height needs to be this iocation but why not put it back in another location? MR. ROSS: That was my last point. If the placement this is the preferred location if the placement is bothersome to the board and if you look at this from the standpoint it is on the west side and that's where the closest neighbor is. If the board feels a better location it would be more inclined if it was located somewhere else please indicate that because Mrs. Droege is not marr/ed to this site. This is her preferred location but we could move it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is she married to this height? MR. ROSS: The next lower height is the 42' and then you're around the size of the buildings so you might say move it to the water side of the house and if the board would feel better along those lines I think she would see clear to do that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are there any around that are operating that we could look at? MR. ROSS: There are some. Oftt~s particular make, I don't know, but I have observed and I request that the heating be lef~ open and I will hunt down that information and address the use issues and the more the structural aspects of it. CHAIRWOMAN: ~t would be good if we could actually see one but at some other location that's similar height and so on and so fort12. ~s there anyone etse in the audience who wou!d like to speak for or against the application? CATHERINE ZURO: I am a neighbor and I'm not directly across the street but Pm at a slight angle. I'm at 270 Petty's Dhve and my main concern is I'm against this because it's dangerons, i just wanted to say that the board member brought up here a very to the point about the fail zone I'm very concerned because the street is 50' wide I have a pie shaped piece and if I'm in my garden and this thing should decide to come down going to get it because when a structure is 65' high and it should fall are you going to say it can only fall 65' or it can go over the 65' when it falls and also she is not on a farm she Page 62 0£66 Page 63 Apr~l J~7~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing is on a small lot it's a builder's acre, not really a true acre and she seems to be looking for a lot of vmiances for this and also and ~ have seen windmills but they are usually on farms and they mentioned they are putting them out into the water arid I'm very concerned that Orient is a very windy area and being so close to LI Sound with the high winds that can go over a 100 miles an hour and just a noreaster is going to control tIhis tower and turn it o15t' and turn it on or whatever so I just want to say I~m against this. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes, sir? MR. ZURO: I have a letter I want to give to the board also. I'm her husband and the property is 6ff away from hers. I just want to point out the flag was a good reference if the town is 60' tall with an 8' blade that makes it close to 70' tall at the top of the blade. The circumference then is about 24' around so you now have a 24' object and I would like to point out the original C&R's were written to give homeowners who are not waterfront a chance to view the water. A windmill would certainly block the view and that's my can I submit the letter? CHAIRWOMAN: Certainly. MEMBER ORLANDO: Those are the C&R's of your community and one of them was hedges shouldn't be more than 4' tall so homeowners away fi'om the water could observe the water and a windmill would certainly block my view and other properties from viewing thee water. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there someone else who would like to speak? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: I have the whole packet so it should help. What I have provided for you is actually to begin with let me start over Mrs. Mallis is my client she is rigixt here she is the adjacent property owner to the east she owns 10 acres on the water and her house is actually directly adjacent to the Droege house. You can see them from windows and the backyard they are directly visible to each other. What I sta~"Led with are some of the issues that you raised Chairwoman Tor'tora the first issue is whether or not this is a customary accessory use. There is a case that I cite for you which is Presner vs. Leslie that case is probably the foremost cast on accessory structures it was decided by the ZBA in 1957 but is still a good case and it actually discusses an amateur radio tower and whether or not it is customary and accessory to a residence so that was the start of explaining what you should be considering on an accessory use and whether or not this particular tower would be appropriate on this particular property. I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Ross which is that this project is more analogous to a cell tower if you wanted to operate your own cell tower for your own cell phone that's fine but that's not customary an accessory for most residences. LIPA may be encouraging this type of use but I represent LIPA both in Southold and in Riverhead and they are very conscientious about zoning. If they were to come into the town with any type of turbines like this we would actually be iooldng for appropriately zoned properties so it is not so simple these Page 63 of 66 Page 64 Apri~ ~17~ 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Heafing turbines are more equivalent to commercial use and Mr. Orlando pointed out that LIPA wili go they are obligated to buy any excess energy so it is not to the extent that this turbine does generate more than the house rec~uires it will be sold that is a commercial enzerprise in ofitself. I also some of the issues you raised I identify in my memo. The 64* height of the tower tt~ere is a fall down radius similar to cell towers when you review cell tower applications you re~4ew very carefully the fall down radius and this particular proper~y the setback to the sideyard the building setback is 15* ~ measured from a fax copy o£the survey anywhere from 15-20* sideyard. The adjacent property is a lot on the subdivision map and that too would have a ~5' sideyard so clearly the tower if it were to fall woulc~ be off of this property. ~ even question whether or not the tie downs can even be accomplished. It*s not shown in the specifications as to how this is secured. Tlnat's a very important question that/sift answered in this packet. I did also research the C&R's with respect To this property. The zoning board while it's not in the power of enfurcing C&R's as it is appr/sed they are private covenants it does help you in making a determinatinn on character of the community. What I did is I highlighted for you it's paragraph 4 with placement of structures those 3 paragraphs deal primarily with the placement of structures and also 4 talks about and it never really anticipates wind turbines but it covers steps, stoops, terraces, patios and chimneys shall be located on a lot within 50' ora front street line so it's building or other structures except for stoops and small encroachments have to be at least 50' from the front property line and withi~t 15' of any side property line so that's the first step in the covenants that address some of the quality characteristics of this subdivision. Paragraph 5 speaks with respect to accessory structures which is garage outhouse outbuilding barn shed or other structure of whatever kind of nature shall be erected placed used or maintained on any lot. So you can have no separate or detached garage outhouse outbuilding should be maintained on any lot. Again the issue of what does this sit on it's no~ just the tower it*s the pad itself so under their mvn covenants it just I don't believe they can place this structure in this subdivision and 5nally in paragraph 10 speaks with respect to the height no fences whether fabr/cated or growing shall exceed 4' in height and the homeowners who bought into this subdivision had certain quality controls they were relyhng on a wind turbine will not be consistent with the expectations of the people buying into this subdivision and finally I include this case which is solely for the proposition that it is a commercial use this equalese corp and indemnity insurance company apparently this was some kind of investment scheme and the case is a fight with respect to notes and IOU's and things like that but it was selling ~e investment and taking your money and investing in some of these wind turbines and generating a return. So they are considered to be an investment that will start to given the nature of the use you're going to start seeing some of these applications so you have to be very careful that if you do rev/ew these applications you start focusing in on where they are to be appropriately located. The only other wind turbine that we are familiar with is one in Orient and we have done the research we can get you the tax map number ofwh~e it appears but it is on a farm. It did not even come in for a building permit from the BD because it probably was considered accessory to the agricultural application whereas with a residence with this residence the BD certainly would be looking at it immediately. Whether or not they even came in with an application we just don't know. We know there is none of record it just is there. Whether Page 64 of 66 Page 65 Apr[~ 37, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing it's legal or not we're not trying to create a problem for the farmer who's got this generator this wind turbine. It's innocuous on a large farm it is not innocuous on a 1 acre subdivision. I'd also like to point out that this particular lot while it is 1 acre more than half of it as far as the actual building area it's a much smaller building area than the 1 acre that he*s professing to have and I believe I*ve addressed all the points if you have any questions- ANDREW GREEN: I'm speaking favor and in particular in favor of wind energy. I*d like you to consider a few things. First zoning decisions have historically taken social value and social utility into consideration. Local examples the huge steel towers on the northern part of the north fork many consider an eyesore however these high tension wires carry electricity so they*ve been approved. The same is to be considered true with telephone poles seen on every residential street. These aren't things ofbean~:y but they are permitted because they have social utility. ~t's from this fl~at the theory of eminent domain comes in when things are deemed to have so much socio utility the government can even confiscate land for it so this is something which is inherent in zoning decisions. Some may claim wind towers are not visually appealing many including myself find them graceful and certainly preferable to the aforementioned examples I've provided and nobody can question the utility ofwindpower for society. If one looks at a ~vindmap you'll see eastern LI is the best place in NYS for ~ windtower and in fact it's one of the pre-eminent places in the entire country. Governor Pataki has set a goal for NYS to generate 25% of it's power for renewable sources by the year 2012. If we are going to do this wind power must be increased dramatically. Wind power has the poten~.ial for a grate deal of power for residences. My research has shown that 1 10 kilowatt system on a 40' tower suitable sittmted should be able to produce 2-3 times the electricity used by a 3200 sq. ft. house. Now this is produced without any pollution of any k/nd and it's for reasons like this that wind energy is growing energy in the entire world. When people see the benefits ofwindpower firsthand they will be more likely to investigate installing wind systems themselves. The more people get interested the more the price of systems will fall and it will be even more economical. Wind power is clean, safe and it's very quiet. The only plausible to object to windtowers is if one finds them unsightly. Therefore those making zoning decisions should weigh the potential social utiiity of wind systems against these aesthetic complaints as they have done many times in the past. Now those were just prepared comments a few issues which have been addressed here. First of ail regarding safety my research into this matter has shown that there have been very few in fact I haven't found any evidence of any accidents involving wind towers an!avhere in the country in the 1asr 3 years so ~ think they are probably safer than a lot of other things permitted in residences. As far as commercial use I'm a little perplexed by this talk because my understanding and I've done a fair amounl of research into this is that NYS at this time does not permit net metering for wind power only for solar so LIPA will not actually buy the power you generate from wind at this time although there are bills pending in the senate and the assembiy to permit this. But at this time I don't believe there is net metering for wind power. Finallyjust regarding customary use I'd like you to take into account that the technology for wind power has changed considerably in the last few years it has become a lot quieter it's become a lot more efficient so something which Page 65 of 66 Page 66 Apr~ t7~ 2(~03 Southold Toum Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing is new tectmology would be very difficult for it to be customary and I think zoning typically adjusts to new technology and changes with the times. MEMBER HORNING: Do you have any relafionship with the applicant at all? MR. GREEN: Not at all. MEMBER HORNING: A company that's going to provide or proposed to provide the wind tower? MR. GREEN: No and I think there are certainIy safety burdens which can be met. I'm speaking my reason for speaking is ~ would hate to see the boars sort of come out against wind towers just in general. MEMBER HORNING: You have no affiliation either with the applicant or the manufacturer of the product? MR. GREEN: I'm a resident who in the future would like to put a wind tower on my property. CHAIRWOMAN: I'd like to clear something up. The board is not going pass on whether or not we like or approve or disapprove of wind towers. That's really not an issue before us. The issue before us is whether it's a permitted use and if it's a permitted use does it sufficiently comply with the criteria for an area variance. The largest issue is if it's a permitted use in t~his particular location and there's certainly many plusses to the whole field of windpower. The real question is looking at our code does our code say yes this is a permitted use and yes it's a pen2itted use as an accessory in a residential zone because if you look at the code and you look tarrier use you had mentioned telecommunications towers for example. There's 5 page of regulations regarding telecommunication towers and even a tower that is identical in height to this the regulations that must be gone through to erect that are tremendous. There is no such provision in our code for this type of thing. That's the issue not whether or not we want them in Southold. Perhaps Southold is behind the times. MEMBER ORLANDO: ~ als0 have a comment for this gentleman with regards to our safety factor ~just want to educate you on a site plan that was done Plum Island as Pm sure you are aware did a major study that they were going to put many mini wind turbines on PI because as you said it's a windy location on the north east and it was turned down for safety not human safety but migrating birds. Wind towers are known to harm migrating birds. Not only is the north east windy, but the north east is know for migrating a~Jmals and these windmills are known to kill birds. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Ross, can we get the information we requested? We'll recess it to June 5th 6:30pm. Page 66 of 6{5