The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-05/01/2003 HEAR SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETI[NG TRANSCRI~PT OF HEARINGS (Prepared bs~~ Jes~ica Boger) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Turtora Member Vincent Orlando Member Gerard P. Goehringer Clerk Panla Quintieri Absent were: Member Ruth D. Oliva Member George Homing PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:43 p.m. Claire Tassune and Michael Nultv #5272 - (continued from 3/20/03) applicants request Variances under Sections 239.4A. 1 and 30A.3 based on the Building Department's November 7, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose a single family at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff'or bank of the Long Island Sound, and front yard setback at less than 50 feet, 590 North View Drive, Orient; Parcel 1000-13-1-5.1. Resolution consider app~ean~*s May ~, 2803 request to withdraw ~is appl~eafiOno CHAIRWOMAN: The applicant has decided not to pursue this particular plan so I will make motion to accept the applicant's request to withdraw the application. ~ ~- Page 2 ~ay 1, 2003 ~ SouthoM Town Board of Appeals Spec[a~ Meetin§ Public Hearing 6:45 p.m. Joseph & Theresa C~amua #5252 - (continued from 3/20/03) Applicants request Variances under Sections 100-244, 100-239.4B and 100.33, based on the Building Department's September 16, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended December 11,2002. Applicants propose an accessory swimming pool in an area other than the required rear yard, and additions to the existing dwelling: (a) at less than 10 feet on a single side yard, (b) with total lot coverage over the code's 20% limitation, (c) at less than 75 feet to the concrete retaining wall. Location of property: 650 Beachwood Lane, Southold; Parcel I000-70-10-56. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? GARRETT STRANG, ARCH: I'd like to just pass up for the record a few pieces of information. One being a copy of a Trustee permit and approval and the other being just an observation that we made w/th respect to the neighborhood. I photocopied the tax map and what we did is mark where we could see by observation from the street lots where it appeared there may be swimming pools. CHAIRWOMAN: We have a new plan from you correct? MR. STRANG: Yes subsequent to the last meeting as per your request. CHAIRWOMAN: The trustee, there's just 1 copy?. MR. STRANG: Just 1 copy yes. CHAIRWOMAN: We now have the house at MR. STRANG: We've pulled the pool itself back as shown on the plan and as discussed at the last headug. It's now 15' from the property line and the terrace that surrounds the pool is now 10' from the property line. There should have been 7 copies of that [ thought, yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Have we determined if the patio is at ground level? MR. STRANG: The existing grade is approximately elevation 6. Femur requires that the construction be elevation 8 so the terrace and the pool is elevated to we're showing 8.25 we could bring it to 8 even but we're factoring a little bit of safety there if will. CHAIRWOMAN: The original plan was i5 on the pool right? MR. STRANG: The original plan was 12 I believe. What we've done is reduced the size of the terrace. CHAIRWOMAN: So you haven't moved the pool at ail. Page 2 of 37 Page 3 May 1, 2003 ~' SouthoM Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: The reason we hadn't moved the pool is if you look in the cover letter, you'll find the pool as it's shown is and as it exists 7' from the building so we really couldn't shift the pool over so what we did was reduce to pick up the extra space that you wanted between the property line. We reduced the terrace size so we could give the 10' between the property line and the terrace. CHAIRWOMAN: And you dicha't think about an indoor pool? MR. STRANG: We could put a roof over it if you like. CHAIRWOMAN: So the difference is not in the location of the pool the difference is in the size of the terrace that surrounds the pool. MR. STRANG: As it is it's really tucked in there pretty tight. We wish we had the ability to place it elsewhere but we don't unfummately given the nature of the lots it's relatively shallow and the house exists so. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: What does that give us for lot coverage? MR. STRANG: The lot coverage is minimally reduced when you factor in the square footage that we took out I don't even know that I calculated it because it doesn't have that much of an impact so that's what it was. It may go down to 10's of a foot. CHAIRWOMAN: Did you include that in your packet7 Because it is a raised patio. MR. STRANG: According to the BD because it is not "construction" a deck as they said is their definition it is not considered in lot coverage because it's a stone terrace. It's not included in the calculation. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Even if it is raised? MR. STRANG: I discussed it at length with them and said is it on grade fill or dirt? I said the excavation spoils are going to be placed around the pool compacted and we'll place a stone terrace on grade. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We'd have to remember that for future situations. CHAIRWOMAN: It doesn't stand with Miriam Road. MR. STRANG: t made it a point to be perfectly clear with them when we filed our BP so the disapproval could be written properly and in fact what was given to them was the lot coverage with and without the terrace. They said the terrace isn't included because it's not is it a deck it's a stone re=ace- Page 3 of 37 PaGe 4 May '~, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ Meeting Public Hearin~ CHAIRWOMAN: The reason ~ve are asking is because we had another application about 7 months ago with a raised patio and the BD at that time included it in lot coverage because of the very reason that it was raised. MR. STRANG: I've had experience with the BD that depending on what day of the week it is depends what the determination is. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Generally you'd want to raise it a little bit I don't mean this one but in general even on flatter property for the sole pru'pose of the fact that you really don't want standing water on it if it rained and the water didn't diffuse through- MR. STRANG: Well you'd want a little pitch to it. CHAIRWOMAN: They didn't do anything with the steps - that wasn't in the lot coverage? MR. STRANG: No. The only thing that deviates from the site plan that you have and the site plan they have is now we've reduced the terrace. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anything you can do to this plan to be very blunt to cut down the total lot coverage on this? MR. STRANG: We've looked at this fi.om every which way and we've done certain things for example and I think this is a major mitigating factor in our case if you recall the property the property has an asphalt driveway in a circular configuration as shown here in dotted lines because we are remo¼ng it as a hard surface and replacing it with a pervious sm:face so that the impact environmentally if you will is being lessened I know that doesn't address this board's issues with respect to physical lot coverage fi.om the way you look at it but we are trying to mitigate the lot coverage if you will 5'om other perspectives. MEMBER ORLANDO: Just one comment on the tax map showing identifying the pools. MR. STRANG: What I believe pools from my observations. MEMBER ORLANDO: Of the 12 houses on Beach Lane there are no waterfront- MR. STRANG: I couldn't tell because I conldn't get to the waterfi~ont side although there was a correspondence that tiffs board received that this board there was a copy of correspondence that came to this board that I received fi.om a neighbor that made reference to the fact that there are other pools that exist on the waterside of houses now if that in fact is the case they were obviously put in long before DEC had jmSsdiction because they had as we do in this case a bulkhead that takes DEC out of.~mSsdiction but they still would have had to address either this board or at the least the Trustees to get permits to get a pool. I don~t have a boat so I wasn't able to go on the waterside to observe if there were pools obvious on the waterside of other homes. Page 4 of 37 Pa~e 5 tViay 4, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ Meeting Public Hlearing CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Member GoetLdnger any thoughts? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to ask you if we went with a 2.2 lot coverage over you want to give us a figure or do you feel that is go/rig to be adequate enough if the board is so inclined to grant this application? MR. STRANG: So alternate relief for 22.2 as opposed to __ we can work to that yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you can see here and I'm not speaking for the chairperson we have a 1/m/ted board tonight. So I'm not sure ffwe'tl vote torfight but in general you feel it's around 2.2- CHAIRWOMAN: You have 22.4 MR. STRANG: We have 22.4 but that was the original and I did not bother to modify that because the we are talking about 10's of a percent in reduction because we calculate the reduced terrace size but I am comfortable in accepting the 2.2 over not to exceed 2.2% over. CHAIRWOMAN: Any other questions? I'd like to make a motion to close the heating reserving decision to later. PLEASE SEE ME,JUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 5 of 37 Nay l, 2~03 Pags 6 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ Meeting Public Hearing 6:55 p.m. Estate of Nlurrav Sebl~ssel #5259 - (continued from 3/20/03. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-32, based on the Building Department's September 24, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed dwelling with a front yard setback at less than 50 feet from the front property line at its closest point. Location of Property: 3085 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue; Parcel Nos. 1000-I36-2-6, 7 and 8 (combined as one lot of 62,730 _+ sq. fr. total area). CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? DAVID OLSEN ESQ: I'm here for the applicant tonight. We've been going through this process for well over 3 years on this property and we've already received our permits and our approvals from the SCHD, from the Trustees, from the DEC. The last time we were here the board asked for some modifications to be made to the plans, which have been done and submitted to the board. Bob Task and Ron Fuel are here tonight as well as the proposed owner of the property who's under contract to purchase it, Robert McFarlane. As you are aware, this zoning board has already approved a 35' setback to the neighboring property, the LoGrande property. We are asking for the same setback, and do you have any questions? I would also like to add we have merged 3 tax lots willingly into 1 parcel to build this one house. ROBERT TAST, ARCH: I'm with Young & Young in Riverhead. IfI could show you this colored site plan a copy of which you have as well. At our last meeting, there were several items that you asked to be addressed, and I'd like to go over them, ifI could, and touch on them 1 by 1. The first issue was the setback from the street. You requested that the building be setback 35' from the street. And on the site plan in front of us, you'll see that's been done. Just to point out this color, and what the coior represents, of course, the blue is the water line. The wetlands is indicated by this beige tone the 40' undisturbed area is indicated by this green. The darker green represents the area that will actually be disturbed as part of the construction. And I should point out that that area represents only 19% of the total lot area, and, in fact, the house represents only 3% of the total lot area so you see it's quite mivJmal. But in any case, we have setback the house from the street the 35' that you have requested. That means making the living room and family room a little smaller to a 13' wide room. The second item was the reduction of the building footprint in terms of area. And building area has been reduced from the 1751 sq. fr. to 1684 sq. ft. So the building has been reduced in size basically by knocking off that jog that was in front of the building in the living room. And making the living room a reduced size as well as the family room reduction in size. So we reduced the house footprint area of 1751 sq. fr. to 1684 and actual living space of 1211 sq. ft. We've also tried to make the house simple and clean lootdng in keeping with the North Fork farm type home. So you can see it's a very clean, simple, fagade. rd The 3 item you requested was to consider the grade at the rear of the property behind the house. What we've done there is we've indicated on the drawing you have now. That the grade change behind the house is roughly a foot/foot and half above what is ex/sting. So it's very minimal and you can see that on the rear elevation where the existing grade is somewhere around 6-7 ½ we're holding an elevation of 8 at the back of the house. So it's very little disturbance to the back of the house and towards the protected area. The protected area does not get impacted at ali with this change, or actually tbJs clarification. And then the 4tt~ item you requested was storm Page 6 of 37 ~ ~ P~Ge 7 2003 Sou~hoM Tow~ ~oard of Appea~s Spec~a~ ~ee~n~ Pu~c Headn~ dr~nage or the idea oft~ing some water ~om the s~te. You look at that s~te ph~ again you'll see that we provided 2 ~ells that w~ll t~e the runoff ~om t~e roof ~om the d~veway and ~os~ of the landscaped area ~n the ~nt of the house. In addition ~ere ~e 2 y~d drains that ~e located in the back cf the house that w~l t~ce ~y ponding, unusual water ~n that ~ea and distribute ~mm t~ ~e d~el~s. I c~ po~nI th~ out to you ~fyon like. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: So the impact when the rain hits the de& is going to just b~st when it hits the deck. I*m s~e Ws the deck so that rain water will also be collected in the sto~ dra~n. YCu gentlemen w~t to look at this, ~d lady7 Ycu w~t t~ ~ve thru a copy of the house, too s~r, so they c~ d~gest all the plans. MR. TAST: I'd be happy to ~swer ~y questions on ~at. But basically we looked at t~e 4 it,s you mentioned at yo~ last hemhng. We th~ we've satisfied each of those. A~d really to the best ~ o~ ability present t~s response te ~ the items. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: I'~ talking genehc~ly, of corn-se, what we no,ally have in si~ations such as this ~s when the board ~ts the application, ~en a person, e~ther th~s applic~t tha~ you're representing, or subsequent applicants come in and O].en they want a lap pool or somethng or,his na~e. ~is site rea~y doesn*t lend itself for that Mud ef ~t~e exp~s~on. In other words we are fixating on a specific footprint for a specific use. That use is a 2 sro~ house w~th rather a l~ge deck on the s~u~east side ~d ~at% the extent of~e entire improvements apm ~om a bluestone dhveway er whatever t~e of ~o~d cover the applic~t is so inclined to put in ~on~ on the house. But that's it les m~ed out at that p~i~l~ p¢int based upon the ve~ ~a~le nat~e of this p~icul~ p~ece ofprope~. Am I co~ect in maderstanding that~ I~m not as~ng you to ~swer for the applic~t but I ~ow- MR. TAST: Ill have the a~omey for the appl~c~t ~swer the question. ~. MCFA~ANE: ~at we propose ~ere is what we ~e requesting. And if there ~e restrictions forever that that% it, iCs absolutely acc~table. I just ask the bo~d to be m~nd~l ~at 1/3~d ~fthe prope~ has been sequestered as a ~een belt. I thi~ we sa~d at the last meeting someone asked I thi~ one of ~ese bo~d m~bers asked "would you be p!~fing ~ass there"? ~d we s~d "ne, ~e ~een be~t". We have the abSl~ty to r~ove maderbmsh, but we weuld pl~t it Mth vicm~inor, berber, ferns. R's a ~een belt. And the reason the house has been moved to one ~ea as much as i~ is allowing that ~een belt, was not to impede ~yone's view. So ~ey*ve got clemn view. The deck is there. ~ fact, t th~ you for pointing ~ut the deck. The deck ~s probably ~e enly p~: of the house you c~ go outside. Again, ~e house ~d d~s~rbed lmnd ~nly represents 19% of these 3 lots. I'd a~so like to co--end the bo~d. I looked ar t~s to~t with my w~fe, ~d I sa~d I felt comfo~able. Probably the most env~m~tally ~Smdly hCuse ~n k~at nei~borhood. ~e ne~borhood ~s predom~nately ~ oMer nei~berhood. ~ere ~e a lot ~f iong, n~ow ~ots where ~t*s a~i ~ass mud the house is put v~y ~n the water. You have ~e prop~ setbacks we brou~t it back 35' ~d wifiin~y pro,de for 1/3 of that area to be p~n~dy ~nto a ~eenbe~t. Page 7 of 37 ~ 4~ Page 8 May 1, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ Meeting Public Hearing CHARWOMAN: The foo¢fint on the new pl~ 1st ~oor foo¢fint shows ~ ~ea of 751 sq. fl. That's a~er you took back 3'. That's the same foo¢fint you were showing on the last pl~ we looked at. MR. MCFARLANE: I apologize for that. The area is I600, and I have drawings t~at show that old info~afion was Ie~ on the pl~ inadve~ently. CHARWOMAN: We seem to have misplaced the - this is the new one? MEMBER GOEHR~GER: We build upon th~s ~n other words t~s is not the bo~d ~s so inclined to ~t this. Th~s is ~e final p~ that we will deliberate on. We build upon th~s for all ~e ~eas that have si~fic~t envirom~tal concerns. I can r~ember back in the mid 80% where we did a dye study on a pond, a brackish pond, in Ma~imck. And the s~dy was so involved that we had to have severa~ engineers inteCret the s~dy. ~d we, of co~se, had to ~olate some C&R's within a subdivision at 50' because of enviromenti reasons, ~d because of the DEC we fi~led Jt 30'. We had no oth~ choice. The house is only 22' wide, so ~t's a building lot. CHAIRWOMAN: On the p]~ you ~e showing the d~th setback from the house. On ~e su~ey you ~e showing ~t flush ~th the house. MR. MCFARLANE: We have ~t shoMng back a li~le bit on the pi~s just to keep it off the comer. I thJ~ it would look better, but basicalIy the deck is as sho~ on the plus. CHAIRWOMAN: The setback on the deck is what ~n footage? MR. MCF~L~E: ~e deck is setback ~ additional 3' from the front of the house. CHARWOMAN: So the deck is setback 38', is that co~ect? MR. ~CFA~ANE: Yes. CHAIRWO~N: I was re~eMng ~1 ~e T~stee files and looking tkou~ this to ~ to kind of see a ~sto~ of it ~d app~enfly you ofiCna]ly c~e Jn with a 30x60' house. Does that so~d fi~t? 30' wide- MR. MCF~LANE: It's possible. I thi~ ~e ofig~n~ house had a nmb~ of pieces jutting out. ~ thi~ it was you that mentioned could you cut thhs back, ~d I said s~e. CHARWOMAN: According to their minutes, ~d I have no idea it was 30x60 which would have been a 1~00 sq. ~. foo¢fint. ~d ~en ~ey s~d we'll approve ~s as long as ~t's no bigger th~ 40x50 or m~der 2000 sq. ~. Here we ~e. ~d now we have a ~3' long house. MR. MCF~LANE: Wkh ~e g~age, ~d it's 26~ wide with ~o 13' wide rooms. Page 8 of 37 ~ay ~, 20'03 $outho~d Town Board of Appea~s Spacia~ Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMr~AN: Actually, it's almost 28' wide. MR. MCFARLANE: 26' inside. CHAIRWOMAN: We're not in a good position here because the Trustees have pushed you all the way forward. I recognize that in order to build a house you need the minimum width and if you can't meet the 50' setback unless you're going to have an 8' wide house. On the other hand it is a 63' long house, which is a substantial structure. You have made some concessions here I just want you to know, fight off the back, that the front stoop, if that exceeds the 36 sq. ft., it is not included anywhere in this variance. That's one comment. The next comment is that I don't see that's it's necessary, the deck, to be that close. I think you can get at lease 43' back on the deck. That's a large deck. MR. MCFARLANE: I'm sorry, 43' back from the road? CHAIRWOMAN: Correct. I scaled it this afternoon. That will leave you a decent deck. And when you consider the house is 63' and you add on another t8' in decking, and it is going to be a raised deck correct? Then I think we have to get that deck back. And we also have to provide screening in front of the deck. MR. MCFARLANE: The landscaping plan submitted, in fact we brought a landscape architect here this evening in case there were some questions as to the kinds of materials used. I'm sorry, can I go back to the deck? You're asking that the deck be 43' back from the road. Is that what I ,anderstand? And the width of the deck, I think there was a recommendation there. CHAIRWOMAN: We had wanted to scale it back, You've got it at 18' now. grhat I'm really concerned about is the magnitude of the structure at 63' long. MR. MCFARLANE: What would make the boss happy? CHAIRWOMAN: Me? MR. MCFARLANE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: 25x60, no more. MR. MCFARLANE: The exterior dimensions of the house 25'x60'. What is it now? MR. TAST: 63.9x27.10' MR. MCFARLANE: And the width of the deck? CHAIRWOMAN: We'd like to see the deck cut back to no more than 12' in width. Page 9 of 37 ~ay 1, 2093 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Spec~a~ ~eet~ng Public Headng MR. MCFARLANE: I would beseech you for 13'. I find 11 gets tight, 13 ~ves you room to put a 48" round table ~d some chairs ~d spread it out a bit. CHARWOMAN: What we are talking about, and th~s is me, you may be able to do a better sell job with somebody else. I'm saying m~imum 25' Mde deep, maximum 60' deep. The deck has to be setback at least 43' ~om the road. That w~ll give you a setback on the phncipai structure of a minimum of 3T. So that's that. Let% go to the height. Th~s structure you have 30' to the top of ~Ae ~dge as measured ~om the lowest point of the eves at the ~ont of the bu~]d~ tfe prope~ going to be raised above ~ade? MR. TAST: You']i see the contour elevation 10 ~s approx, throu~ the middle of the front y~d. CHAIRWO~N: We t~ked about that the last t~me. MR. TAST: We ~e proposing a 32" above ~ade. CHAIRWOMAN: So ~e total height of the s~c~e Mll be about 32'. Is that co~ect? MR. TAST: CHARWOMAN: And then 2' above ~hat. So if we're ]oo~ng at the scram xray we ~e going to see 32', MR. TAST: ~en it is complete~ it Mll be 30'. We ~e prodding fill, but that's the ~ront of the house because we h~ve to get to ~e g~age. MEMBER GOEH~GER: So you're going to retai~ that in some way. Cheung the subject again, M~. McF~l~.e when we discuss sw~ing pools ~e only thing we didn't discuss was retaining walls. So you're going to have some minor retaining walls on ~e driveway side. ~d the rest of the house w~ll be out of~e existing ~ade. We'll ass~e the ex~sdng ~ade at least around the re~ of~e house ~ay. MR. MCFARLANE: It could be veu indigenous to the ~ea. ~e 25x60 is approp~ate. doesn't, is it a hRle ti~t? S~e but k's appropriate. ~e 37' setback is appropriate. The 13~ Mde deck ~s fine. ~en I was here a few t~es ago, people had looked up a comply website, pulled info~ation on the comply. I~they d~d, it was c~ear that o:e of the tA~ngs as a comply that we do is we ~e involved ~ sensitive si~ts in the c~ty centers, historic v~llages one of~ in fact about to become ~d nation~ p~k ~d ~b~ national p~k. So we, and ~ ~ p~cul~ly sensitive to envko~ent~ issues. I don't w~t Jt if it doesn't look good. I dofft w~t ~ng that doesn't fit ~e ne~borhood. ~d I ~ you ve~ much. t thi~ the plus you h~ve in ~ont of you p~cul~ly ~e s~te pi~ is a vast improvem~t then what ~t was a long time ago. Maybe I shoul~'t say t~s. It wo~d be ~ce ~f ev~ prope~ had ~t l~e ~at ~n the nei~borhood but 25x60 again, a 3T setback ~d a 13~ wide deck that would be acc~table to the bo~d, I wo~d appreciate Page 10 of 37 Page 11 ~ay ~, 2003 Sou~ho~d Tow~ Board of Appea~s Specia~ ~eeti~g Public Nearing CHAiRWOMAN: That would be 1500 sq. ~. footprint. 25' is the minimum you can build a house. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ: I'm here on behalf of the Fleets Neck property association (FNPA}. which if you recall, felt very strongly that this is really mot a buildable lot because without the substantial variance occasion by the Trustee decision, a house carmot be built within a reasonable envelope. However, given the boards inquiry of the applicant's alternate plan, and we do appreciate the attempt to reduce what was clearly an oversized building, I'd like to address a few items as to the specifics you have just discussed. The FN?A feels very strongly that a setback of tess than 43~ from the front yard street line is not necessary in order to build an adequate sized house h~re. That is the setback that is in effect on Mr. LoGrandes lot, 2 lots to tI~e north. The lot immediately to the north is vacant so any setback you impose will be a precedent for that lot. Ail of the lots to the south have a setback of considerably more than 50'. And in any event there are other lots in the neighborhood that are also going to be effected by ti~Js dec/sion. The lots across the street have setbacks in keeping with the 43'. Mr. Ball, I believe_ has a vacant lot across the street from his house where this decision will have a precedent. Axtd there is a lot on the west side of Fleet's Neck, which the owner, it's a vacant on the creek, which the owner has attempted to either secure permits or obtain purchase by the town tax map 110-1-7.1, which has a marsh fringe on a vew small buildable area that this can precedent. So, I really, we appreciate the board's attempt to rest. ct the size t~ere but we want to ghve you that information to consider what the precedent will be. CHAIRWOMAN: It is a difficult situation as we ail know. The real problc~m here that in our experience the known width of house that can be built is 25~ wide. You cannot really buiJd a house less than 25' wide, and heat it properly, and cool it properly, and live in it property. And in order to meet a 43' setback, this house would have to be 19' wide. MS. WIC~ZkrAM: I understand that. But if you look at the plan, the actual 50' line of the Trustees is several feet away from the proposed front of the house because ora bay window and other setback issues so there is some frontage, some ~botage there that could be employed. I'd also like to point to the board that there is sufficient buildable area to build a small house and that is not going to be a problem in terms of value or practical dif~culty. There's a piece of property again in Fieets Neck that recently changed hands. It is on the west side o£Fteets Neck tax map 103-13-d. I'd like to give you the Assessors card. That is a piece of property containing a 1 stow 1600 sq. ft. house. It recently is on a 6.5 acre piece of property. There is no bulkheading. The water depth, at low tide, is about 3". It sold for $775K in December. So you can build a small house on this property with a reduced sufficient front yard, and a single stow, and not lose value even if you took several hundred thousand off that price because the view is different and that property, when it changed, did not have ti'As type of restriction. You still have huge value there, and I tl~Jnk that's important. I'd like to give the board this property card, which shows the deed information. CHAIRWOMAN: The house you're showing us, though, is 33' wide. Page 11 of 37 Pa~e ~2 ~a¥ ~, 2003 So~ho~d TowR Board of Appea~s Specia~ ~[in~ Public Hearing MS. WICKHAM: In that area, yes, I think it could be more than 35'. MEMBER ORLANDO: He's going to chop off3' so it will be up to 38. MS. WICKHAM: 3' offthe last plan? The plan he has in front of you is for 35' setback. CHAIRWOMAN: He's got 27.8. And we told him the maximum width of 25' and as I say 25 is the minimum width that even NYS building will not really allow you. So it will be very close to 38. [ don't know how to push it any further, or it's no longer a house. MS. WICKHAM: Or he could go up to the 50' line. CHAIRWOMAN: Right now we've got him at a footphnt of a 1500 sq. MS. WICKHAM: With another 1500 on top of that, it*s a big house. CHA_IRWOMAN: That's including the garage on the 1st floor. MS. WICKHAM: But even that plan, wh/ch he submitted, that you've since cut down, he mentioned 1684 which is now down to 1500. That 1684 included 1665 on the 2nd floor SO he's planning a full 2 story house, and that's a big house. If I could address a couple of other concerns you've mentim~ed tl~e fill on the elevation. We'd like the board to consider what trees will be r~aoved from the property. We'd like the board to consider a limitation on front yard accessory structures. You mentioned certain structures, but being a waterfront lat you would be entitled ro cerrmn possibly, certain street side accessory structures. I want to be sure your structures include- CHA~YRWOMAN: Even if he wanted to put up he'd stiI1 have to reach a principal setback. MS. WlCIr~HAM: And we'd be concerned about future coverage of the deck in terms of a roof er walls and what specific greenbelt reshSctions would be applied. MEMBER GOEHR~rNGER: I don't know if we're in the position of what future plans the greenSelt- MS. WICKHAM: You're in the position of granting a variance from the code and ~[ believe again, ?m not your council, that there could be conditions on it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you gSve us a for instance? MS. WlCKHAM: First of all, some of the tlSngs he was willing to do, it would not be grassed. asked that removal of trees be addressed. Crrom~d cover- Page 12 of 37 Page ~ 3 May 1, 2003 SouthoM Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Give us __ and we'll submit it to the applicant. And we'll close the hearirzg to oral testimony, and so we know what you're referring to. Is that alright? CHAIRWOMAN: We've come a long way from where we started. And it's a very difScult situation, as you know Mrs. Wickham. The grant to the variance goes to criteria in the code and the criteria in the code is detriment benefit. Is there an alternate way? MS. WlCKHAM: I don't think there's a detriment to not being able to build a 2-story, 3000 sq. ~t. home. That's our position that it doesn't have to be that big. CHAIRWOMAN: We'd have a tough time limiting h/m to one story when the code allows 2 and a half. MS. WICKHAM: The code requires 50' though, and that's my position that if you're going to allow certain things, I thi~'~k there can be restrictions. Some of which you have done and we very much appreciate that. CHAIRWOMAN: We have tried to do the best we can. MS. WtCKHAM: He certainly has designed a nice looking house. That is certainly not the objection, it's the size. CHAIRWOMAN: It would be good you have concerns about he greenbelt and the landscaping. You co*~ld write those concerns to us and cc him, or even talk to him about it, and come to a meeting oftt~e minds so your needs are addressed, and we don't have to come back here and go t~ou~ that again. MEMBER GO~HRING]~R: And you can k/ndly give council a copy of- MS. WICKHAM: I wSll send it to him f~rst, get his comments and- CHAIRWOMAN: Is there someone else who would like to speak in favor or against the application? CARL VALE: We have a letter from the Trustees stating that any additional fill to this property would necessitate an amendment to the current Trustee permit. CHAIRWOMAN: When did this happan? MR. VALE: It was sent to you earlier from Mr. Krupski. So it may be premature to approve this application until they've amended this application before the Trustees. CHAIRWOMAN: Did the Trustees look at these issues? Because the origSnal map submitted to them showed the 300 cubic yards of fill on it. Page 13 of 37 Page 14 May 1, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ ~eting Public Hearir~g MR. VALE: I don't know Mrs. Tortora. I just have that letter that was addressed to Mr. WetzeI by Mr. Krupski, and that's what he states. CHAIRWOMAN: That's one of the first things I noted in the plans. And I assumed the Trustees had been well aware of it since it's been in all of the plans. But apparently, no? MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: You're raising the question of any fill. Is that correct? MR. OLSEN: We are here for a setback variance. The reason we are here is because we need less than 50' from the property. That's the point of the ZBA to grant relief in cases where it's needed or else we wouldn't be here. We will also have to meet all the requirements, which have been laid out by the Trustees as well as the DEC, and the Heath Dept. We will also have to get a building permit so everything will have to be met. We understand that. Ms. Wickham was talking about setting precedent. The ZBA set a precedent already of 35' variance for the house next door, She mentioned that the lot next door to this lot is vacant. That's also owned by LoGrande. Ifs a different family member, but it's also owned by LoCrrande. Ms. Wickham is fairly new to this application. We've been doing this for well over 3 years. What I would like to achieve tonight is to find out exactly what needs to be done so we can wrap this up in a fairly shorter time frame. I don't want to come back here every time, and have another complaint, and something else added to the list. And then we have to wait another month or 2 to get back on the calendar. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The suggestion is very simple. I have to read the letter and it's subject to and that is you may require a re-application, or a re-definition of the application. And if we make a decision that there is no filling unless the Trustees approve it then that's basically the situation. On the applicants display it shows the LoGrande's property 40' setback, and we just now refer to LoC~rande having a 35' setback. Am I missing something? CHAIRWOMAN: Apparently what happened was the ZBA granted Mr. LoGrande a setback of 35' a number of years ago hut he did not build a house 35'. He built it at whatever it is, 43'. So that's what happened. So we're not talking about an actual building that's 35' from the road. We are talking about a building that's 40' from the road. So a precedcmt is not 35' les 40' fight next door to the applicants plan to build. MR. OLSEN: I disagree. I believe the precedcmt is 35', which the ZBA approved a setback of 35'. We're not even asking for that anymore. We've already agreed to make it 38'. However the idea here isn't to build the smallest house possible, which is essentially not livable in. Again we've merged 3 lots here. We've done everything that every jurisdiation has asked us to do and we're just asking for some reason. Page 14 of 37 Pags 15 ~ 1~ 2003 So~ho~d Tow~ ~oard of Appea~s Specia~ ~e~i~g Public HeeH~ I live in ~e nei~borhood. As I said before the bo~d, all the houses south of this have 100' setbacks. Ev~ one of them down the road has 100' setbacks. Now ifLoGr~de is 43' where does the 45' come in? I assumed the town, when they s~d there should be a 50' setback, went into the whole hg~amole of why 35' wasn't good. It should be changed. MEMBER GOEH~GER: We underst~d what you ~e sa~ng. But I think, ~d I'm not, Mr, Olsen is here, and what he is sa~ng is that when the ZBA m~es a decision, reg~dless of what the house is at this point, ~at p~icular decision of 35' goes with the land. Reg~dless if it's Mr. LoGr~de or ~fit's somebody else. And I'm not speaking for Mr. Olsen. But we're telling you that if the board ganled 35~ there is a 35' setback precedence or'at p~icul~ piece ofprope~y. ~at occurs ~n the next LoGr~de propeXy is exactly what's up to the board, and what the pleadings are, and what's decided on. If that fmily member intends to build, but what we ~e sa~ng is ve~ simply ~ere is a precedent at ~at 35' m~k, reg~dless of how he built the house. That's what we ~e sa~ng, not to con,se you. You oust to consider what the effect is on the neighborhood. If you have a 40' setback, in actuality, where the house begins at 43'. Now you be~n with 35'. It's different, ~d the size of the house itself. CHARWOMAN: First of ail, we ~e talking about 38L Second, les physically ~possible for him to have a 50* setback because he wou~d have a 12' wide house. No~ing shoed be bulk in the wefl~ds at all. That's how I feel. That l~d is so valuable to ~e to~.. That's my position. CHARWOMAN: We ~derstand what you ~e saying. MR. OLSEN: ~ hear ~ents. And I move it closer to the wat~, ~d ~er from ~e s~eet. The s~e nei~bors were sa~ng "push it tow~ds me meet" at the Tmstee's being. And now we ~e back h~e ag~n. ~is is privately owned prope~y, not a co~i~ p~k. This is v~uab~e lmnd. You could build a house, ~d it could be soId for who ~ows what. ~d it's also v~uable to the town because it and I'm not h~e to ~e. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there ~yone else in ~e au~ence who would like to spe~ for or against the application? ~Y H~T~GTON: ~ thi~ o~ a~omey addressed m~y ofo~ points. I thou~t I mi~t reinforce wi~ t~s little overlay where you c~ see this is the e~Iier p]~, ~d this is the foo~fint of the cu~ent pl~, w~ch you have new drawings on where ~e sq. fig. was ch~ged. But town code allows house witch ~at shaded ~ea. Now the house we have proposed is more outside hkat s~aded ~ea ~d we have been sa~ng that t~s is not buildab~e. And when you see the ext~t ora v~ce in this way ~ thi~ one would have to a~ee it's not bui~dab~e. So the 25' ~vide Page 15 of 37 Page 18 May t, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Special Meetin9 Public ~earing house may be in practical in dimension, but it's inappropriate because this property shouldn't have any house on it. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? MRS. MCFARLANE: I want to thank the board and community and everybody who's worked on this project for 3 years. And I want to tell everybody I'm at fault. Three years ago I fell in love with Cutchogue, with this piece of property, and never in farthest dreams thought it would take this long to build a house. And I can assure you my husband, and my question is, had we been told what was needed to build a house that would satisfy the community, the board, everyone, and it's taken 3 years, I can assure you that my husband would build a house the neighborhood would be proud of. That the environment, the gardening, excuse me, my native language is Italian. And I get a little emotional because d'tis house would mean a lot to me. And I was actually looking forward to inviting evc:wbody to a nice Italian meal. And I would like to ask everybody to help me decorate since they now see the plans. Anyway it's been hard for me to sit here after 3 years and hear people so strongly against the building of this house. We want to build a house that will be the pride of the neighborhood. That if anything, would make the entire neighborhood happy to come by. And it would raise everybody's property values. But we plan to live there, and build a house the community can be proud of. I thank you very much and I hope whatever deliberation is made is the right one for everyone involved. CHAIRWOMAN: We are going to close it but I think we'd like to, Ms. Wickham, you were going to outline your concerns to us and copy them to Mr. McFarlane. And Mr. McFarlane you're going to see if you can address those concerns. MR. MCFARLANE: Just be mindful, if you would, when we filed the alphabet soup, some of the DEC change in the community, t think it was the DEC that we said to them. And it's part of the filing that the I/3 buffer would be agreed on. They allow saplings and underbrush. There was not to be grass. There was to be a forever green. And what I would suggest to Robert is we lif~ that and be very specific if we are saying f~rn do we meau ostrich fern? Whatever the specific fern is, whatever the ground cover is, we spell it out. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you know what that is why don't you give a copy to Ms. Wicldaam so she can react to that and we are not going back and forth. CHAIRWOMAN: Any action we will take will be of course as far as I'm talking about the th Trustees. I guess they are going to reopen that question. The next meeting is June 5 ' Is that sufficient time? We will close the hearing to oral testimony and written until Jm~e 5th' We would appreciate if they were handed in prior to that date as possible so we have ample time to review it. MR. MCFARLANE: What we are going to be writing to and corresponding to, how the property and the greenbelt is going to be used and described. What I'm concerned about is do we start a whole new bunch of paperwork where we get a letter saying it should be, and I get another letter- Page 16 of 37 Pa[~e ~ 7 ~a¥ '~, 2003 Sou~ho~d Tow~ Board of Appea~s Specia~ ~Jee~ing Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: No, Ms. Wickham has concerns. She is going to give you a list of those concerns or a letter of those concerns. You have already agreed to do certain things according to the DEC. You're going to provide her with that information, correct? That's the first thing. So she c~2 take a look at that, assess that, and then determine if her clients needs are met. She then send you a letter and say this is okay, this isn't, etc. And try to work out as much o£an agreement as possible. What you don't work out, the board will. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 17 of 37 May 1, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ Meeting Public 8:00 p.m. New Suffolk Shi¢¥ard #51149 - (continued from 3/20/03) Applica*rt requests a Variance under Section 100-121C1, based on the Building Department's March 27, 2002, Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes two sets of accessory boat rack structures in this M-i 1 Zone District, in a side yard and at a height over the code's 18ft. limitation, at 5775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk; 1000-117-5-29.1 CHAIRWOMAN: The NOD is for height in excess of 18' and less than 25' from any lot line. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: We~d be okay on that side if they measure from the lot line because we have 20' from the schoolhouse creek the only issue is whether or not they'd consider the bulkhead a setback that we'd have to come to this board for. We own up to where the property line tie line is. CHAIRWOMAN: The tie line is that jagged line there. That would be okay the 2 outstanding issues would be whether the bulkhead is going to fall under that. Maybe can finish this up today with respect that those applications will go back we'll trust the board wall have a menn_ory of our alternati plan for the 3 t~er since we have DEC and we have Trustees we can go to the ?B talk to them conceptually about this location while we have to back to the DEC and ask their permission to put this alternative rack here and also deal with the issue with BD so we think it might go faster and simpler if we just come back to you with whatever variance because if the DEC says we don't like it here and we want it someplace else maybe iOs not here so well go with we withdraw our application for the variance for rack a for the height variance so the only issue you have to deal w/th is the setback to the property line and ad&ess whether or not that condition is even applicable in either location. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Rack a will only be 2 tiers high in either location. MS. MOORE: E~ther location will be either the property line for sure and not to exceed the 18' is our accessory structure height so we wouldn't he back here on that. CHAIRWOMAN: A you're going to with&aw the height variance request- MS. MOORE: The orig/nal rack that runs along the north property line adjacent to Withers. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Notwithstanding what youYe just said you are going to go to the BD and ask if the alternate rack a at the schoolhouse creek portion where you own to the tie line wtfich is underwater land is w/thin the 75* restriction and therefore are they going to cite you for that? MS. MOORE: ~ think the question I'm going to ask the BD is whether the bulkhead that is landward of that tie l~nc whether it's considered the bulkhead that provision of the code the 75' setback from a bulkhead whether it applies in this instance and so if they say yes ][ will be before this board requesting a variance for a setback presumably if the DEC says I think strategically I have to make sure the DEC is going to allow us to put it here. If they say yes or if they move us Page 18 of 37 ~ay ~, 2003 Sou~hoM Tow~ Board of Appea~s Specia~ ~ee~i~g PuNic ~earing around we'll come back if we need to come back whatever the ~nal location of the 3~ tier where iCs being relocated because we are really talking about those boats we've lost by reducing the height along the north property line. MEMBER ORLANDO: How manyhoats are you going to lose by 1 tier? 5 or 6 boats. MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that worth it to go through all the gyration to wouldn't it be more logical to go with original a 14' and then b at 26' and then eliminate 2nd day. We'd like to get approval on the 2 tiers and then 3 tiers by the building. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason I ask that question is ~[ don't want to come back to you at another hearing withom the issue of setbacks on the schoolhouse creek side within their opinion. MS. MOORE: What I'~n trying to avoid is a continuation of this hearing because it's not so much you guys because it more site plan issues location setback to the bulkhead is mostly applicable in residential structures and setbacks for warehouses and sanitary systems and that are going to go. When you are talking about a marina which is all surrounded by water and bulkheading presumably you're going to have accessory structures closer because that's the nature of a marina so it may or may not be applicable to get that answer from the BD that could take some time but more importantly the DEC has looked at the rack a location the original rack a they like that location it is not doesn't effect there's no drainage issues nothing because there's a structure on both sides of it and as far as the DEC is concerned it's really not an environmental it doesn't effect the enviroum~nt here we try to relocate it in another location they might have other issues they'll be looking at drainage and those type of things. The relocation may or may not be worth his time money wise to go through the process and the DEC may say you know we don't like it here we recommend you put it on the other side or they say how about relocating it more here in the center than where you proposed it and that meas-arement is going to change so they're really going to be the lead I think because of enviromnental issues they are the stop and go of where t2hhs would go and then after that the BD will determine whether or not we have to come back to you or not for setbacks. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high is the building under the eaves on the side you are putting the rack7 You don't have to answer me now, just before the end of the meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there an_yone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application7 ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ: i've listened with great interest to the presentation this evening as i'm sure you did. It seems to have taken on a chmneleon like nature tonight it looks like we are dealing with something more than just slightly different here. The notion that ra:k a can somehow be bifurcated creating a substantially different plan with respect to this marina is a very Page 19 of 37 Pa~e 20 1, 2003 Sou~ho~d Tow~ Board of Appea~s Speci~ ~eeting Public Headng ~te~csti~ o~c. O~e wo~d t~]~ ]~ t~e ~rst ~st~ce that ]~em were co~ce~ ~bo~t nei~bors ~d the neighborhood that a suggestion such as moving rack a would naturally come to m/nd and indeed when we look at the proposed pl~ we see ~ alternative site for rack a down by the bulkhead that looks just like rack a up by W~thers all ~e way down to the 26' height it looks the same so file 5rst question that comes to m~nd is if we are embm'king on a project that involves removing a tier of rack a why don't we do what the plus suggests and look into moving rack a if we ~e going to require or seek the approval of the dept. of environmental conse~afion ~d the Trustees for the placement of what must have been descsbed somewhat ton~e and cheek as a tempora~ structure I thi~ these th~ngs ~e far 2om tempor~ if you are going to look into pu~ing the s~c~re there then why don't we look into putting ~e s~c~re there ~n ~t's entirety that relieves the necessiW for ~y so~ ofa v~ce with respect to s~de yard up by Mr. Withers thaCs now gone. ~at else is gone is the noise ~e forkli~ actiGty ~d all of the a~end~t d~gers that go along with ~t over by that line. ~ey ~e now moved to ~ area where they are minimized. Now why do I say that well for 2 reasons first of~l it's away ~om ~y of ~e nei~bors so in te~s of noise ~d other aspects the effect ~s geatly attenuated and secondly in tooMng at this pl~ it appears as thou~ ~e r~p to put these boats ~n is ve~ close to the alternative location for r~p a ~s to me seems like a logical place to want to keep your boats n~ce and close a lot less forkH~ ~d it looks l~ke a good place to be ~d indeed ffthere's go~ng to be an inqu~ made, lees make the appropr/ate inqui~. The o~ thing that sthkes me about this p~cui~ aspect of the application ~s it somewhat c~ ~d horse. You were told the DEC is somewhat driving this application ~d the DEC had no problem with that. Well if we ~e going to go back to the DEC then go back to the DEC and ask th~ about ~is. If they ~e going to do the driving ~d they 5nd that to be satisfacto~ you don't need v~m~ce rehef ~d of co~se one of the chtefia is there some oth~ way to accomplish this well ~ere maybe. I ~i~ put ~other way then to come before this bo~d well ~aCs what DEC has approved doesn't ~swer ~e question. That m~t be one ~ng the DEC approved it may not be the only thing they approve ~d we've ~1 been ~ound long enou~ to ~ow Cat sometimes you go to somebody first ~d you get ~ m~swer ~d it's not really ~e h~t ~sw~ ~d sometimes you have to go back a~er coming to the second or third bo~d ~d circie the wagons again so it seems to me that ~most all of the objections that we have rare going to be diminished or muted by an application that moves ~is to ~o~er Iocation. ~o~er benefit ~om that ~s that now al1 the boats ~e ~n one place instead ofkav~ng th~ in 3 s~arate locations about the prope~ so it seems to me in iook~ng at t~s thing as a whole that there's no reason why th~s ~temafive site should not be considered as it shows h~t here on ~e pl~ as a tree alternative site. CHARWOMAN: Mr. Bressler I just w~ted to one thing Ijust thi~ it's going to ~d up one way or mother if it's move because you asked about the NOD you're talking about accesso~ stmc~es ~om 131 such b~ldings shall not exceed 18' ~n he~t in lots cont~ning in excess of 79,99~' such bu~ld~ngs sh~l be setback no less th~ 20' ~om ~y lot l~ne so ~t's not just the re~ y~d iCs a question of being ~e s~de ymrd iCs ~e lot l~ne. ~. BRESSLER: ~d what l'm sa~ng is by m~ng the suggestion not only do you have a 20' issue h~e you w~ll have ~other 20' issue down there ~d you may get hd ofyo~ 18' ~ssue or you may not I don't tbJ~ the bo~d ~d ce~nly I don t have a cle~ ~derst~ding of wha~ the total height of 2 tiers Mth 2 boats o~ top is going to be but what I'm sa~ng is you don't get a net Psge 20 of 37 P~g~ 21 [~ay 1, 2003 Southo~d Town Hoard of Appeals Specia~ [~eeting Public Hearing gain in terms of required variances when yon consider what you just mentioned and the height requirement. CHAIRWOMAN: The only thing you may get is if they back the plans for where the particular set of storage racks now if they put all of those down on Schoolhouse Creek that would definitely by 3 tiers so you would be in for a height variance. MR. BRESSLER: So if you split it now you have one height or~ rack B and two 20' variances if on the other hand you don't split it and you move it, you're back to the same height and 20' so what l'm saying is there isn't really a net gain maybe you change the character of the application that's before you and in addition now you spread out the boats and you leave some ali the way across the property away from the entrance ramp and all those things all I'm suggesting is that we don't have enough gain. CHAIRWOMAN: The only thing I'm concerned about it is I was looking through the file trying to remc~nber yes this would be less of an impact to the neighbors but if you place a 3 tier storage rack right on Schoolhouse Creek as you're entering Schoolhouse Creek I think if we had that plan reviewed by the Planning Board I think they would be dead against MR. BRESSLER: When you say' entering Schoolhouse Creek 'this is actually at the deadend of the creek. You really don't see that as a practical matter until you come around and what you'd see would be these racks which apparently with respect to certain of the buildings are not going to be any larger and the metal storage building we are told is 35' high and there's another boat storage building down there. I'm not saying that other boards may not have input what suggesting by malting ali these comments is I don"t think we've had a full and thorough examination between all of the different jur/sdictions to consider all of the different alternatives and thcre ace alternatives here which in many ways may be superior and I tl~nk I may be guilty of this sometimes representing applicants you get set going down one road and you make your application and you keep going mid at some later stage you find out that there are other avenues that need to be explored and I think that's the general thrust of my comments in that regard. CHA1}~WOMAN: What I'm concerned about at this juncture and sometimes t~s happens when you get into altenaafive plans. The neighbors that are here are concerned because of the noise and the visual impact where it's located on Fl~e north side of the property. This is the plan they have reviewed and looked at and anyone who's been interested in this plan has seen. What I'm concerned about is if we start to focus on a new location on Schoolhouse Creek that perhaps people who had come in before mid said ~ don't have a problem with it now have not had an opportunity to see this. The reason ~ say that is that happened to us recently very recently and found it disturbing so I'm not sure everybody may say that's wonderful let's put it on Schoolhouse Creek that's everybody in this room. MR. BRESSLER: I don't disagree w~th you and ~ think contrary to the suggestions that have been made I don't think th~s is the end of it tonight for that very reason I don't thLnk that people should be deprived of the opportunity that you just eluded to I think tiffs an important issue I think based on the numbers the capacity of the marina is being expanded by 50% I take note of Page 21 of 37 Pa~s 22 May 1, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ Meeting Public Hssring the fact that agencies have considered this to be environmentally super/or to other altematives ~ note in the same breath however ti~at it's slipped up so you're really not comparing a boat rack system to a docking system unless of course the applicant is suggesting there will be a removal of those structures from the creek in preference to these boat rack structures but of course that isn't the proposal of the applicant it's quite simply to expand the marina by 50% and that's what it is and regardless of who the neighbors are or what they do or however much finger]pointing there may be in that regard nothing changes the underlying fact that this is a simple application to increase the capacity of the marina by more than 50% thaCs what it is and I think like I said before I think given the location of the ramp and all of the other things it bears a sligl]dy more thorough exam/nation the last thing I think I'd like to say is having some involvement with the prev4ous matter involving this property I respectfully disagree with the characterization and I think those members of the board who were part of the board at the time can withhold their recollections to see whether the ruling in that case was so limited in it's scope regardless of how it arose it seems to me that the ruling is what it is and that the reason for it was sound at the time notwithstanding the fact we were on the other side but it was sound at the time and it's sound today and nothing changes the fact that we are still dealing with 20' today so my suggestion is that if there's going to be an effort by the applicant to reasonably meet what we consider to be legitimate concerns that there be a full court press in that regard and you look at ali the alteruatives and then come back an.d give everyhody a full and fair oppofamity I think then the boa.rd can make a fully informed decision. And I know other people would like to speak who are not here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Irving could you come up and look at the survey? Could you describe the metal storage building? And tell me where the doors are on the building. The question I have is how come and this is not sarcastic, you really didn't attempt to put racks in front of 79, 78~ 76, and so on? MR. IRVING: Because this area is narrower than what it looks like and you can understand you are going to make a swing with the machine this here is a service shop so often on the cement the boats are being worked on so this would be a dangerous area to put racks on. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So this portion we refer to as the lazy L in a swimming pool, what is th~s part of the building.'? MR. IRVING: There is a very sinai1 garage here, there's just general storage this is a boiler room and you'll see there's a wall that comes here over in this comer is a RPZ valve for the water system and over in here is also the access to the water. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there's no way ofrurmthg that rack system through the building in any way. MR. IRVING: No I don't think it would be feasible. I will say originally from the old drawings and permits I've seen there is or/ginal wood s~-ucture which they had a permit that was approved for- Page 22 of 37 Pa~e 23 ~ay ~, 2003 Sou~ho~d Tow~ Board of Appe~s Specia~ ~ee~ing P~b~ic Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Even if you got 2&3 to raise it above? MR, IRVING: It would be too high. This drops down considerably from the main building. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know what I'm saying, you couldn't put rack 2&3 above this? MR. IRVING: ~t would be constantly smashing the building and pulling boats in. This is an alternative area here but I will take you that I work often with the DEC on a board I sit on and from an environmental standpnint this is not as attractive as this. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that the DEC may not have such an objection to one rack as they would to a 3 rack system the environmental effects are the boats and that's their concern. MEMBER G©EHRINGER: The only concern about the Schoolhouse Creek side is the obvious look, visual impairment. MS. MOORE: The reason we suggested there's going to be need for variances because o£the way the code is written and you are at a martha that takes from end to end some form of storage- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler just asked the question how high I think you really have to go down to Strongs Marina and look at them because they are there and that will give you an example of how high they are because it has to be a maximum of height to accommodate a speciSc kind of boat. CHAIRWOMAN: It depends how deep the drop is outside the boats are. t figured they could go up about 34-36'. That's what 1 5gured. MR. IRVING: That's what preceded to take off the top rack I'm not trying to start a war with the neighbors, but that's one of the requirements MEMBER GOEHPdNGER: That was why I wanted to know how high the side of the building was that the racks are definitely going to go under the side of the building on rack B. MR. IRV~G: Yes they vdtl. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you have to go down to Strong's les a prime example of it and I think you wSll see there is substantial strengthening in these things because there*s a phenomenal amount of weig~,t. There*s also a wind factor so both of the ones both at Port of Egypt which are enclosed but there are some outside ones and Strong*s are p:dme examples of what we have. MS. MOORE: From a visual, it's much better. CHAIRWOMAN: There's no question about it. The minute you get into a 3 fie:: go to Strongs go anywhere you want you have a potential for a Page 23 of 37 PaGe 24 May 1, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: And we are sensitive to that and that's why we and no offense- CHAIRWOMAN: I understand the DEC is not going to look or may not look favorably on the Schoolhouse Creek location but quite frankly I think a 3 tiered rack on the creek 36' high would be a visual blight. MS. MOORE: It's not appropriate and Eric is correct, putting them on both ends is a difficult it will create more work for them and to the extent that Michael has agreed to split the job up this way ~ give him credit because he's trying to address the concerns and the primary concern is as to the 2 types of variances the side yard variance verses a height variance we ail can agree that a height variance is certainly more intrusive than a setback variance particularly when you own a marina where again you have storage and dockage you have activity from end to end. CHAIRWOMAN: Let me ask what to me seems like an obvious question but I'~'n sure there's a really good answer I~m missing. Why can't you put the boat storage rack where you have the parking and put the parking where you have the boat storage? MICHAEL IRVING: Where, on the north property line. Because the easiest way to think of it is if you have a tractor in front of you and you have to come in here and maneuver and make the swing you wouldn't be able to do it unless you keep this as close to that property line unfortunately as possible that leaves you enough room here to come in with yom- vehicle and safely swing and set the boat in. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the width of the section? MR. IRVING: The way to visualize it you can raise and lower the bar heights so if you have a bJgher boat in the bottom you can raise the bar and put a smaller boat on top CHAIRWOMAN: And the 76 width is an add on? MR. IRVING: There's separate sections here and I'll look back in the notes there are 2 28' sections and a 25' section. CHAIRWOMAN: The width of this is two 28~ sections, the depth is 14. MR. IRVING: The 28~ sections will allow you if you have the appropriate width boats to put 3 boats in that section and the 20~ could allow a maximum of 2. That doesn't mean that you would have these full because you may have a wider boat in the 28* section and you might have- CHAIRWOMAN: I guess there's no way to stack them back to back because of the overhang. MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Irving youYe putting in boats about 22' long what's an average beam of 22? MR. IRVING: Page 24 of 37 Page25 May 1, 2003 Southold Town Board ofAppea~s Specia~Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: For a stall you could put 3 boals on there comfortably. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you the real question. These boats you are racking may or may not have trailers so you will probably get a winter storage out of those so therefore there will be no relief in reference to the ground storage with the rack system. MR. IRVING: If you put in a permanent system you'd have to utilize the square footage or you'd be losing money. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thank you for that. That's a fair answer and I appreciate that. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? FRED ENDEMAN: I'm a part owner of the property across from Mike Withers on Schoolhouse Creek I've been sort of hanging around the shipyard all my life almost 53 years so I know it very well I know Mike, I do business there ~ know it's tough to make business in a small boat yard up to now they've done wonderful improvements the gravel parking the new storage shed really top notch good looking yard and they've kept the old buildings up nicely too. Visually these boat storage racks are I think just atrocious as you know from Port of Egypt the boats are this size and the racks with the overhangs are quite a bit bigger. In terms of parking I think there will be a crowding problem I think boats will be getting launched early in the morning and coming in later at night and it will be the worst time of day for the extra noise and traffic. There's a limited space in the yard and the rack B is the one that really makes sense it's right up against the building and there's a notch in it but anywhere else in the yard would be a visual problem I think. Along the creek there's a very nice view from the road and they'd be very evident. Even though it's the end ora creek it's a nice little venue to look down into the east and this would block the view from almost everywhere. I know you have to make money in a shipyard, I think there's berter ways to get bigger boats in or to make it more of a full service yard I just hate to see the move to the boat rack system, i don't have a home nearby but the property I own we loan to the Civic Assoc. for picnics and there's even been a wedding there and it's an awful nice view and I hate to see it destroyed by the boat rack system and I wasn't able to make the first meeting when ~ found out it was too late so t sent a letter to the Town Board I don't know if you got it. It was written by myself and the oth~ owners of the property. But if you can dig it up it will basically it's a visual and crowding problem. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application7 CORIN DOUBLEDAY: Hi I'm Corin Doubleday and my husband Jake Doubleday and I just want to point out even though Mike Withers property adjoins Lhe shipyard our house is actually tke closest house to the shipyard and we've on the north side where the A rack will be. About 75' from that property and I also agree with Mr. Endc~men I don't like the racks in general. This one definitely is going to effect us the most but 3 tiers high, it's just enormous and I also have Page 25 of 37 PaG~ 2~ ~ay ~, 2003 $outho~d Tow~ Board of Appea~s Speciat ~eeting Public Hearing concerns about putting 36 boats in that creek which is ~]I you can't get a slip ~ere in the creek, it's always been ~11 ~d adding ~at ~ount of boats ~d people ~d cars ljust cm~'t see how you c~ do it without impacting ~e whole nei~borhood and of course especiai~y us we l~ve ri~t next door. MR. IRV~G: Const~tly eye,body refers to ~e Po~ of E~t racks. ~ese racks ~e nothing ~n comparison to these racks ~d the board can ce~ainly go down ~d take a loek at them. They are a 4 tier enclosed system, they ~e a monstrous rack system. The intent here is to provide to the comm~ity reasonable dockage in ~at 13-~9' size range. We have ~ active waiting list for 60-70 people looking for dockage not all of those ~e in that size range, but there's a good 20-30 people a lot of them ~e loc~ people that would 5t into ~at rack system. CHARWOMAN: Rack A what is the heist of the 2nd tier? MR. IRV~G: It would be 13.4 you'd have T at the bosom before yo~ 1st ~g yo~ b~b for your first set of boats ~d then the top b~ would be at 13.2 there wo~ld be 11.4 inbe~een. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: So the boat on the 2~ rack would be at I3.4 to the keel of the boat. CHAIRWOMAN: C~ we have a copy oft~s for o~ records? MS. MOORE: You have it, it's been submitted a couple of times. Does that answ~ yom' question? MEMBER GOEH~GER: Yes, I just Msh you co~d cut into the o~ ~ea. CHARWOMAN: I personMly would hope that you could stick to 2 tiers. I reco~ze all the enviromental reasons why you ~e ~ng to keep boats out of~e water, I've read it, l've seen ~t I've seen ~] the pros and cons but ~ess they ~e rocked away t~eyYe visually v~ outst~ding ~d ~ey do have ~ ~mpact. MS. MOORE: I thi~ we a~ee if we do stick to rack B that is the lo~cal place for ~e 3 ti~ because it's already touching the building ~d so f~ eye,body's been in a~eement Mth that location. I'm not s~e ~e we in a~ement? CHAIRWOMAN: If you ~e sa~ng you rare going to limit to 2- MS. MOORE: But you're not including rack B in that because that one has to be 3. We c~'t reduce down that much. CHA~WO~N: As Mr. Bressler said th~e's a lot of ifs we have to go down roads for. One of ~em is- MS. MOORE: We've already a~eed ~at rack A we've Mthdrawn o~ request for the 3i'd tier but I w~t you to rem~ber in good faith, weYe reduced it to ~ to locate it to t~e the same amber Page 26 of 37 P~ge 27 May l, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appeals Specia~ Meeting Pubaic Nearing o£boats assuming it's financially feasible for them but to find an alternative location so when weYe back to you possibly on setback variances that you recognize that's in an effort to address the neighbors concerns. CHAIRWOMAN: What would be the number of boats that you would place or~ the 2 tier rack, rack A? MS. MOORE: Keep in mind it depends on the size of the boats because you could take 3 small boats or 2 big ones. CHAIRWOMAN: But t though you had initially talked about one tier holding 5 or 6 boats. MS. MOORE: My concern is if you write it into the decision you lose a lot of fiexibility. We can give you a max number but you may have a demand for it by his customers for 20' size boats or you may have a demand for the 13' size boats so the number there that area is going to have the boats and the demand that the supply demand is going to dictate how it's going to be filled so I'm concerned. MR. IRVING: I see what you are getting at you just want to see what the volume of boats is in there. We've gone aronnd so many times I'm not sure if there's 2 28' sections or 3 28' sections, but basically you would have maximum 12 there and an additional 4 on the 20' section. MR. BRESSLER: ~'d still like to know how high it's going to be when the boats are on top to say we*re going down to 2 tiers and we don't need a variance I respectfi_dly disagree. CHAI~RWOMAN: The tst tier would start at 13'. MR. BRESSLER: But then you'd have a boat on top of that. CHAIRWOMAN: I know but the BD won't consider that a structure. If that's the result that comes out of this let me just say we're not content with that finding we think if there's going to be storage there over the winter that's not a proper interpretation. That may not be before you now, it may be before you at some other time. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler, can we just clear this one thing up - the ladies and gentlemen that you represent, are they opposed to rack B against the building? MR. BRESSJ, ER: No, we're not objecting to rack B. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't we just deal with rack B and let you go back and deal with the DEC? Then we will be able to go back through a period of time and see how this rack syst~ works so we can deal with other aspects of it. MS. MOORE: Because you are asking an enormous expense of the client. We have DEC and we have Trustee and our only once we are done with you we are nearly done with the site plan Psge 27 o}~ 37 Page 28 May 1, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appeals Specia~ Meeting Public Hearing process because we'have a pre-existing marina and the fact th.at we are there for site p]an is minimal at best because we don't have a parking issue we don't have anything here. We don't have drainage. If these are truly little metal boxes for the storage of the boats they are already stored on the property so we are not changing anything other than the configuration of the storage of the boats. We've already conceded and given up a great deal by moving the structure away addressing the issues that came up last time we gave more of a setback from the Wither's property line we still are going to do the landscaping the vegetation there so that area is going to be on our side, we'll be vegetated I do want to put on the record the issue of the Wither's property that I want to make sure youYe aware of it so again going back to that 15' setback they were trying to Mr. BressIer was trying to apply it to the Wither's property and I want you to see I have 2 site plans here coming from the Planning Board office. Wither's had come in they have the house that's all the way to the north they have 5 or 6 docks that are shown here that is certainly not the number of docks that are presently there. What they had to do was in '97 they got site plan approval for the reconfiguradon ofth&r parking lot and they changed the access to go closer to NS Shipyard, they reconfigured the parking lot provided parking for the marina and the BD interpreted as far as the building permit went they were able to renovate the house because as a residence it didn't require site plan however when they realigned the parking area they had to come in for site plan approval and the docks they did some construction and renovations to some dock maybe add a dock and they reconfigured the parking so I have some site plans here and you can see that the property line between WitheFs and New Suffblk is a parking lot is an access point it's a gravel ingress egress to the parldng lot. The commercial parking that goes along with commercial boat slips is adjacent to the NS Shipyard so as far as a res/dent/al use which with that condition imposed again it goes along with the reasoning in the '80's for the MiEer Roake controversy it did not appiy then to WitheFs and certainly would not apply to Wither's now because it's the residential use and the residential use is all the way at the north. The commercial use which was site plarmed and recogaized as a commercial use is the area adjacent to NS Shipyard so I do want to put that on the record and I have the PB site plan resolution. CHAIRWOMAN: I do think we have the photos of the driveway. MS. MOORE: Do you want a copy of the records from the PB for your file? CHAIRWOMAN: ~s that an extra set? MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: The other thing is could we get a copy on the prior on the decision on the other piece on Alexander. MS. MOORE: The Roake decision is 8-17-83 the transcript is appeal # 3148 and it is 7-28-83 the transcript is from your own file. Paula copied it for me. If you like I can give you this so you can read it I can always get it back from Panla after you've copied it. CHAIRWOMAN: I just want to say one thing with the withdrawal of the plan for the 3rd tier the height variance issue on Raffe is gone so we're down to a height variance on B rack which there Page 28 of 37 2003 Sou~hoM Tow~ ~oard of Appea~s Spec~a~ ~eed~g Public Head~g is no objection to ~d we're down to a setback v~ce on the north side ~d those are the only remaining issue at this point. Let's talk about the landscaping plan, has evewone reviewed that? MS. MOORE: The plantings me the s~e that was presented to the PB. CHAIRWOMAN: I have a copy here ~d some questions about it. You're proposing to plant eastern red ced~ I0-12' hi~ with a chain li~ ~nce. ~at's the distance they'd be set ap~? MR. IRV~G: ~e rotund circles shaded in are existing trees so the conc~t behind them was to set those inbe~een the ~ess to alleviate ~y looking at bows of boats ~d that kind of thing because your screening is up hi~ the existing trees that ~e there so you'd have to try to Nde the bottom half of the racks. CHAIRWOMAN: And this is the plm~ the PB approved? MS. MOORE: We haven't yet approved it but they've reviewed it. MEMBER ORLANDO: According to the scale it looks like they ~e 10' on c~ter approximately. MS. MOORE: Ye~ they ~e gong to go inbe~een the other kees so it's just approximately. MR. ~V~G: The concept is to screen so they won't be- MR. B~SSLER: ~e plan as proposed is going to ~eate the screen that 1 thi~ is contemplated by the bo~d I he~d there w~ a concur ofa c~opy ~at so,ds to me like it mi~t be deciduous tree which provides screet6ng ~d all exc~t during the ~es when ~e leaves ~e out how big ~e ~ese ced~s going to be when t~ey ~e plated? MS. MOORE: 10-12' and Lhe s~c~e is 13. MR. BRESSLER: ~e vis~aI impact of~is stmc~e is going to be calc~a/ed by ~e bo~d ~e last time at least 82 tNrds of the heigh~ calculation at least 22/23' if you fi~e 30 some~ing. CHARWOMAN: No, if you stm at i3 let's go back what's the maximum heist? MS. MOORE: They ~e siaing in cradles. CHALRWOMAN: TNs is what I'd tike comments ~om the nei~bors on. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: My 23' boat in there st~ding next to it Mth it on ~e ~ound so ~e boat is 6' ~. ~e ba is str~.t ~d the cradle is in but when he's saying 13.4 he's talking to h5e ba not the cradle so it's above ~at. Thi~ ora 12' C~s~as tree. ~is is recommended to go under a c~opy of locust. Page 29 of 37 Pa~e 30 ~ay 1~, 2003 Southo~d Tow~ Board of Appea~s Specia~ ~ee~ing Public Hleari~ MR. BRESSLER: What I'm suggesting is slightly larger trees because you're going to have on the onset 19-20' when you start putting boats there. MR. IRVING: V~rhat kind of trees, what height, let's go. MR. BRESSLER: I'm not a landscape expert- MR. IRVING: I'm shocked. MR. BRESSLER: I want trees that are going to screen 19-20'. Basically you're going to have a tier of boats exposed. That's what youYe going to have. MR. IRVING: But you already have boats there. MR. BRESSLER: Not where they are now. MR. ~RV/NG: Sure there are. MR. BRESSLER: You have boats 13' in the air? MR. IRVING: I have sailboats with keels easily 13'. MEMBER ORLANDO: Pat maybe when you speak to the landscaper find out the growth rate per year, 1' or 6" per year. So if you put a 14' tree in, in 2 years it will be- MR. IRVING: I think the real gist of the thing is the boats are higher than the racks what are we talking about, would you rather look at trees or some boats? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only difference is the boats leave and then come back again in the fall. MR. IRVING: No they don't because I use the lot area there and I try to open up the marina for the dock people. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's get everythhng on the record. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're still trying to measure additional traffic not only internally within the marina but as the neighbors have mentioned on the creek itself and that's the situation so I'm still trying to determine that. I have to tell you we have a gentleman here ~om the east end of LI named Frank Flynn who came before us innumerable amounts of times he would tell you this is an increase in use and he would tell you that you need more of thJs and more of that and more parldng and this and that and he would go on and on. We understand it is an existing marina and we understand there is a maxim that you can deal with an existing marina. I am still trying to understand this impact and I'm a boater. I love boating. I am try/ng and none of my Page 30 of 37 Pa~e 3~ ~ay ~, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ Meeting Public Hearing statements are meant to be derogatory toward you or your marina because it is a beautifui marina and I just I'm still try/ng to measure this impact and it's very difficult for me to understand. MS. MOORE: Jerry if it will help you what did the DEC tell you because I thlrX it's an interesting point he made. MR. IRVING: The DEC that was there was very cooperative to us more than I thought and I indicated boats handled by an independent mahna then to have them in people's yards and houses and is there going to be an increase in traffic, yes there is, there's going to be more boats up and down the creek. Is that detrimental? No because it provides vitality to the existing marina and that's what that marina needs creating 100 slip spaces g/ve or take a conple as it exists now it doesn't and as is mentioned here in the article of service we are full service. ][ have 3 mechanics. I have a re-Snisher. I have a zSggero I have 3 yard gays and that's what that marina needs but it makes no sense m~til we have ail the numbers together and the dockage is a very important number. Without those extra dockage then you look at the numbers and you look at what you have to put out on the npkeep and cost of the mmSna and it's not worth it. MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: This is not a use variance, but are you making money? MR. IRVEqG: Yes but you need those to make it reasonable. But without those extra boats in the marina the service for new boat sales without the extra dockage then it doesn't make much sense. As far as the neighbors and everybody who is concerned quite fran~y anybody else that comes in knows marina management looks at the facility look at the docks that are available, look at the growth extension that is available there and they'll go __ CHArRWOMAN: I'm going to inten~apt you a lot of times what happens especially when with the ?B they will approve your landscaping plan, correct Mrs. Moore? MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: In this case if we approve it if we approve a variance what we would actually say is it would be subject you won't get a CO until the landscaping plan is in. You won't have a rack. You won't have anything there until the landscaping plan is complete. The reason why is sometimes that gets delayed so it would be contingent. The CO would be contingent on the landscaping plan being submitted. MR. IRVING: The landscaping and setup has to go in ~/rst once the racks go in you can't go back there to landscape so I don't mind that but what I would mind is doing the landscaping wh{ch I personally might feel is more than adequate and then having the board tell me okay this is what we want 15' redwood trees and Duncan spurs- CHAIRWOMAN: No we would approve a plan and it would say- Page 31 of 37 Pegs 32 ~a~ ~, 2003 Sou~ho~d Tow~ Board of Appea~s Spec~a~ ~e~g Public Head~ MR. IRV~G: I would submit a plan to you and if you would approve it ~d I xvould put ]t in ~d you would come down and say okay you d~d what you sa~d you were going to do I'd have no problem with that at all. CHAIRWOMAN: This proposed plan that I assume the PB has reviewed it? MS. MOO~: Yes, they reviewed it. ~at they d~d Mth it I don't ~ow. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you wm~t to improve on this plan at ~17 MR. IRV~G: ~e placement of those tress as you see in the pl~ m'e not necess~ly as ~ ~chitect desi~s them w~th 10~ centers they may be staggered you may have 2 ~ees close together to cover a valve ~n the ~ea and then another space because you have re~lar h~d wood ~ee there ~d then a couple more close together. CHARWOMAN: ~at we are really looMng at is a nice visual s~een. MR. ~V~G: The re~iW is I don't need Mr. Withers calling evew 2 days and complaining about the boats, t'm going to put th~ in as best as ~ can wi~x the most acc~ate screening. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: ~e question Madm Chai~ is where do we go from h~e? MR. BRESSLER: I w~t to comment on one ~r:g Mr. Goe~nger was questio~ng about ~d that was ~ issue I raised the last time ~d it's ¢~e end of the record ~d ~at was the characterization of~e ofv~ce this is. Nonetheless I ff~ ~e issues ~at were r~sed ~e relev~t ~d I they& a total failure of proof in that regard is mend ~he application on that t~e of issue. MR. ~V~G: I d~dn't follow that. MR. BRESSLER: I raised ~is the last fime~ Mr. Goehfinger raised it to~t about the doll,s ~d cents ~d Ms. Moore has stated you don't have to do ~at you don't have to m~e ~y showing I respe~lly d~sa~ee with respect to that. MEMBER GOEH~GER: Did you ~ve us ~y case law on that? MR. BRESSLER: I would be pleased to submit some~ng on hhat p~c~ly based on response to your questions. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: As you ~ow my si~adon I'd like to ~ ~d get evew rock in place before a fin~ det~ination of closing the being occurs. That's what I'm concerned about here I still see umrest ~d we have t~s issue of what, IIi ~swer the question for you Lydia, what's going to happen with this other rack '&at's over on Schoolhouse Creek side ~d if it's go~ng to be den~ed or disapproved ]f it ~s. Page 32 of 37 Pa~e 33 ~a¥ ~, 2003 · Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ ~eeting Public Hearing C~A[RWOMA~: ~t's not before us, thcrds ~o ~pphcation or ~0~. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: But ~t w~ll be before us. MS. MOORE: Only when I ~ow it's been approved by other agencies because it may not be this location ~t maybe 10' back or- MEMBER GOEHR~GER: I ~derstand that so you're just dealing with rack A ~n ifs original position now as applied before us. CHARWOMAN: There is no ~temate, no~ing is properly before us, nothing's been properly noticed the whole 9 yards. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: ~erefore we ~e only going on rack A ~d it's ofi~n~ position. MS. MOORE: Ofi~nal position but reduced in heist because ~is no long~ needs a heist vafi~ce. That po~on has been removed ~om your consideration. CHAIRWOMAN: If it's a 10' setback ~e's no heist v~m~ce on that. Rack B there's ch~ge because there's no objection on rack B~ so that's what's before us, there's nothing else befere us~ MR. BRESSLER: Let me just say ~at Mth respect to ~e he~t there's the question that's been put to me ~d my client ~at there's no objection on B with respect to the he~t of my client to say there's no objection to rack B may overstate t~e case because there were other people here w~o spoke who had objections to ~e dens]~ ~d the additional tra~c ~d ~1 the otSer issues that were created so I didn't me~ to create a false ~mpress]on by sa~ng with respect to ~at p~l~ n~ow issue ~d my cI~ent that there was not objection on the record from people or to o~er ~ssues that they be created by the entire pl~ so I just w~t to m~e s~e that eveuone cons~d~s the ~1t record with respect tv- MEMBER GOEHR~GER: That's why I asked the question. CHAIRWOMAN: I had t~en yo~ cogent ~om before if you remember ~d since it was stated again I w~ted to m~e cIe~ just what the extent of~at p~icul~ comment me~t ~d hope I clmfied ~at. MS. MOORE: We ~derst~d t~ere ~s general objections to racks ~d to additional boats. MEMBER GOEH~GER: There is one more p~cul~ issue ~d that ~s the &one of ~e motor, at what time ~e ~e racks going to be utilized ~d so ~d so. We have res~denti~ prope~y ~o~d t~s ~d ~at is what the concern is. Ln other words, I w~t to make sure no stone un--ed. Page 33 of 37 Pags 34 ~sy ~, 2003 Sou~hold Tow~ Board of Appea~s Specia~ ~ee~i~ Public ~S. ~OORg: ~ u~de~st~d tAat bu~ w~t you¥c almost to thc po~t ~ll-se~ice m~na here that is a pe~iAed use. I understand you w~t to t~ to address eve~ single possible concern- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me explain why that's a possibility because they ~e not using those ~nctions ordinarily on a daily basis at this present time. MS. MOORE: Yes they ~e. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: But not in ~e location you are proposing. MS. MOORE: Yes in the exact location. MEMBER GOEHR~GER: That is the reason Mike, I asked you to tell me where the doors were amd so on ~d so fo~h. MR. BRESSLER: The issue is volume, Mr. Goehfinger, you will increase by 50% the vol~e so even if he says well there's a boat there or even if he says we have a forkli~ now it's increasing by 50% ~d I thi~ the point is well t~en you cmn't ~e with that. That has to be addressed. MS. MOORE: I Mll respect~lly disagee with that point, but it's his opiMon ~d we'll allow Nm to express it. CHAIRWOMAN: ~ere does the 50% come ~om? MS. MOORE: I don't ~ow. MR. BRESSLER: Based upon the number of slips they have ~d the n~ber of racks they are adding it's actually more th~ 50, but I discounted it because ~ey have some sin~e storage. MRS. DO~LEDAY: R's not in use the way ~_ey say nothing's cheung. These boats go in ~e wat~ in ~e morning come out of the wat~. ~aCs 2 ~ps eve~day. None of the boats now do · at. ~ey go in in the Spring they stay in the water. You're not having a forkli~ ~ing aro~d. Now they t~e them out ~ey work on ~em and put them back in. But you ~e talking about 36 boats moving in ~d out of~e water with a forkliR co~d possibly be eve~ day. ~ow it's going to be Sat. ~d Sun. so you're increasNg ~e use a lot. Yes they use ~e forkli~ now but these boats c~ only be moved with the for~i~. Eve~ one that's there now stays in the water ~d doesn't get touched by the forkli2 ~til it comes out N October. MS. MOORE: I underst~d her point but we se~ to be mo~ng this hemdng into a use v~ce criteria as if~is was not a pe~itted use. ME~ER GOEHR~GER: No we're not doing ~at. Page 34 of 37 Page 35 N~ay 4, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ ~eeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: But in a sense you are because this is MI, MH all the uses we are talking about the intensity of the use is not an issue when you have a permitted use at the property. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I could not agree with you more Pat if we were talking about the Port of Egypt because the it's surrounded by commercial property except on the Willow Point side. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry I still disagree that Michael Withers is a commercial property. It is MIT zoned and it operates a commercial use by the BD's determination by the site plan it is a commercial use. MR. BRESSLER: There seems to be a misunderstanding as to whether or not the use is regulated and I only suggest to the board that it ciearly is not so. There are heig~at limitations as slructures on the property. This clearIy has an impact on intensity of use. There are setback limitations. This clearly has a consequential limitation on intensity of use necessarily so you can't l~e within so many feet therefore you can't use it for that. You can't be more than this number of feet high therefore you can't have a building or structure and use it which would create greater intensity for the record here that there is not such a clear demarcation between the use and the area variances. Area variances by their nature impact usage and how do we know that's true? Because if it weren't true they wouldn't be seeking to increase by such a great percentage and have to come before you for area variances trying to use parts of the property and their air which they were not allowed to use because if they didn't request those variances the use would be down. t 'd~ink that's the last thing I want to say about that. MS. MOORE: I won't teach you the law, I thirLk you know it already. MEMBER GOEHRI'NGER: So you're going to give us some case law on this and you're going to give council case law and us? MR. BRESSLER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: WeYe going to close this to oral testimony. Does this board have jurisdiction over the aesthetics of the racks? CHAIRWOMAN: Generally that's something the PB handles. If we handle it, we're pretty tough and we usually do screerAng. If there's site plan involved, usually the PB does screening. If we have shall we say very particular concerns and it involves a variance then we will- The context of my question is it se~s to me was dimensions and I'm very interested in the aesthetic aspect of this and they are effected by the design of the racks, the positioning, but also the operation of the racks has an aesthetic impact on the balance of the shipyard, the motion and the summer parking of cars and winter parking of boats, are ali of those things w/thin tt}e jurisdiction of tt,Js board? Page 35 of 37 Pa[je 36 May 1, 2003 SouthoM Town Board of' Appeals Specia~ ~eeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: P~zking is not within the jurisdiction of this board on this a~d the only reason that I have expressed a lot of concern about this landscaping is because I'm concerned about a really sufficient buffer on anything we approve and the neighbors. Normally the PB would handle that though. I think Mrs. Moore would tell you that our buffering is generally a lot tougher than PB's which is why we usually take it if we feel it's necessary. We are going to close this to oral, you are going to submit case law' regarding intensity of use- MS. MOORE: Dollars and cents eriteda. MR. BRESSLER: As to dollars and cents on tl~s particular case gSven the nature of the case and the testimony. CHAIRWOMAN: Dollars and cents in terms of town law 267B as amended to- MR. BRESSLER: Just how it has impact to the answers g/yen here tonight. MEMBER GOEHRTNGER: Just remember that when that happens we go back to council so it takes a little bit longer when we deal with these aspects. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the deadline for written? Er/c, how long? Our next regular meeting is May 15th. MS. MOORE: Can you have it a little sooner so we can respond? MR. BRESSLER: No absolutely not. CHAIRWOMAN: But you will have it to us the Friday before the 15tl~. MR. BRESSLER: I don't know ifI can do that. CHAIRWOMAN: Monday before the 1 MR. BRESSLER: I was counting on 2 weeks. CHAIRWOMAN: Well the 15th iS our meeting so we would like to- MR. BRESSLER: I~ll get it to you as quickly as I can before then. I've got a thai scheduled before there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we'll move it to June 5th. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind this is really an irrelevant point and we all know it. There is no dollars and cents criteria with respect to area variances. It's practical difSc~lty. We all know that the treatises are complete with respect that the law change the state law. He's just blowkng Page 36 of 37 Page 37 May 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appea~s Specia~ Meeting Public Hearing you know what up my you know what. I just think it's a tactic to delay. We need a variance from you and then we have to go to the PB for site plans. MR. BRESSLER: __ you see what the standards are and you look at the various factors- CHAIRWOMAN: Just give us the case law, give us the memorandum by the 15th. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION End of Public Heatings. Page 37 of 37