HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/21/1984 Southold Town Board of Appeals
HAIN RDAD-STATE Rr'IAD 25 SI-IUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI M ! N U T E S
REGULAR NEETTNG
OUNE 21, 1984
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held on Thursday, June 21, 1984 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the
Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen;
Charles Grigonis; Joseph H. Sawicki; Robert J. Douglass (arr.
8:26 p.m.). Also present were Victor Lessard, Building Depart-
ment Administrator and approximately 35 persons in the audience.
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: Appeal No. 3173. Matter of MIRIAM
BATSON by David Kapell as agent concerning the Decision rendered
by this Board July 8, 1982. Premises at East Marion, New York.
David Kapell met with the board briefly, requesting an
adjustment to the variance conditionally granted for a deck.
The problem revolved around an inaccuracy in the original
sketch provided by the builder in the application. The dimen-
sions on the side of the deck are different on the second floor
than they a~e on the first floor by l0 feet in length. The 42'
deck that was approved would not allow access to the main door
which provides access into the house, said Mr. Kapell. Request
a 10' extension of the length for the second floor for access by
the existing stairs. No widening of the deck is proposed, nor
any other structural alteration. The original deck granted was
7' widelby 42' in length.
The Chairman said that the board will discuss this matter
and will notify Mr. Kapell of its decision.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal-.No. 3244. Application for JOHN DENNY,
333 Warwi~ck .Avenue.~ Tea' Neck,.'NJ 03666 for a Va.r~ance t~
Zoning Ordinance, ~Article I!!~ Section 10~32 for pe'~mission to
construct accessory ga~ge"'b~i'lding in the frontyard area at
premises, 1255 Private Road #1'~(Goose C~'ee~ L~n~.),'~'~out'hotd, NY~
County Tax Map parcel No. 1000~078-08~009~
The Chairman opened t~e h~a'ring ~t 7:36 p.m. and re.ad the
legal notice of this hearing in'its en, tirety.a~d appeal apptication~
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey pro~-ced by~-R~derick
Va~Tuyl May 15; 1965 and ~ have .copy of. the _~u~folk Coun~%y. Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding pr~.per~.ies in _~he area. Mr
Stoutenburg, Would'you like'to, b~ ~ard in behalf of this'applica-
tion?
P.ETER STOUTENBURG: Members of the. board, I'd like Sou to be
aware Father seht ap.ologies, but he had previous e~qagements due
to hi~.position in _~ew ~erseyo H~s planni~n§ on r.e~.~iring into
this area and has lived her..~or many~ears on a seasonal..basis
and was trying to establish what he_ngeded, in thi's are~., for full
time retire.ment, a garage was somethi'n'g'that he played with an
awful lot. Origin~].ly, they'were going to try to locate their
ga~age__closer to the....~ater~ We moved it now as far from that
as we possibly can, and he's just look'~'~ng for the same thing that
his neighbors.have. I assum~.yo'u~Qeo.Ple..have inspected the site
and you noticed all the other garages,._for the m~$t part right up
on the road, 'and b.e held it back as far as he could, He doesn't
want to affect anyone's ¥iew let alQ.~g ~i's own. .-
MR. ~HAIRMAN: All right~ ca~'yo~ give me some dimensions?
The original s~rvey submitted sketc~b~d~.~t 95' from the road. Is
that the approximate~]distance?
MR. S~OUTENBURG~: He's~moved it in more._
MR. CHAIRMAN: He moved it farther. Ok.' How .far would you~say?
M'R. STOUTENBURGH: At least 100, perhaps lO0~' Mos~'of the -
houses in here ar~ even closer. We had not re6taked it. We moved
it into the parkfng area~ It'~ a good'~lO'O.
MR. CHA~RMAN:'Ok. On the size of-~he garage?
MR. STOUTENBUGH: It's 24~ 'by 2~' '
MR. CHAIRMAN: One-story?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes.- The interior will be completely open~
MR. CHAIRMAN: 'No O~jection with the normal restri'ction' that
it not be added to the house ~n any way and that it remain as a
storage building?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal' No. 3244 - JOHN DENNY, continued:)
MR. STDUTENBURGH: Yes (agreeing).
MR. CHAIRMAN: And what about closeness to the property line.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: We're hoping to get the three feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The normal three feet. Ok. Thank you very much.
Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this
applicat~on~ Anybo'dy like to speak against the application? (None)
Questions from board members? (.None) Hearing no further questions,
I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until
later.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of the applisation of JOHN DENNY, Appeal No. 3244.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent at this time).
This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of tBe members present.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 322D, Application of GEORGE R.
TUTHIL , Box 719, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance,. Article III, Section 100'31 for approval of insufficient
area and width of parcels located at the north_side of Bay Avenue,
Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Farms Subdivision, part of Lot 140; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-104-04-33.
The Chairman opened~'the hearing at 7:43 p.m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey produced by VanTuyl
dated February 15, 1984 indicating the house lot, which is not the
nature of the set-off of 43,847 sq. ft. and the lot in question
(to be set-off) which is the nature of this application, which is
24,020 sq. ft. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would
anybody like to be heard in behalf of this application? Would you
like to say something, Mr. Tuthill?
GEORGE R. TUTHILL: Is that against it, do you mean?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. In favor of it.
MR. TUTHILL: I~m in favor of it, of course. It's a case of
giving this lot off and giving it to our daughter, which she is
renting now and we would.~like her to build a little house. That's
all I have to say.
MR. CHAIRMAn: Thank you.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- June 21,~984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3220 GEORGE R. TUTHILL, continue~:)'~
MR. TUTHILL: We have a map here and so forth.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have a copy of that. Is that the one that's
February 15, 19847
MR. TUTHILL: Yes, yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have a copy of that, thank you. Is there
anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of the application?
Yes, ma'am. Could you state your name, please?
MRS. E. BARNES: ( ) Barnes and my property adjoins the property.
The back of my property joins the back of their property. And every-
body told me what a big place I have, and that one is supposed to be
even bigger than mine. So why can't they build?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We didn't turn them down. It was the building
department that turned them down. That's the reason why they're here.
Because there is two-acre zoning now.
MRS. BARNES: It'll be just like every other house around.
MR. TUTHILL: All the adjoining lots are just about the same as
that one.
MRS. BARNES: Most of them are a IO0. This is 117.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very mu~h. Is there anybody else that
would like to speak in behalf of the application? Anybody like to
speak against the application? Questions from board .members? (None)
The board members briefly reviewed the file.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
granting this as applied for.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
(Continued on page 5)
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5~ June 21, 1~984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3220 - GEORGE R. TUTH.IL~, continued:)
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this appeal, applicant seeks a variance to the provisions of
Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code, for
approval of the proposed reduced lot area and width requirements, to
wit: Parcel A wilt contain a lot area of 43,847 sq. ft. and a lot
width of approximately 220 feet; Parcel B, the westerly lot, will
contain a lot area of 24,020 sq. ft. and a lot width along Bay
Avenue of 125 feet and along Lilac Lane of 193.01 feet. Parcel A
is improved with a one=family, 1½-story frame dwelling, an accessory
garage and small shed. Parcel B is vacant. For the record it is
noted that the entire premises is part of "Plot B" as shown on the
March 28, 1935 Subdivision Map of "Nassau Farms," Map No. 1179.
The board members have visited the premises in question and
are familiar with the neighborhood. The board has found that a
majority of the parcels in the immediate vicinity of these premises
are similar in size or smaller than that proposed by this applica-
tion. Also, in considering this appeal, the board determines:
(a) that the relief requested is not substantial; (b) that by
the granting of the relief requested, no substantial change will
be produced i~ the character of the neighborhood or a substantial
detriment to adjoining properties; (c) that the difficulty cannot
be obviated by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue
other than a variance; (d) that no adverse effects will be
produced on available governmental facilities of any increased
population if the variance is allowed; (e) that the interests of
justice will be served by allowing the variance.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr.
Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, that the application of GEORGE R. TUTHILL for
approval of insufficient area and width of parcels, to wit:
432847 sq. ft. area and 220 lot width, and 24,020 sq. ft. and
193.01 feet (125 along Bay Avenue), BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED
AS APPLIED IN APPEAL NO. 2220.
Location of Property: North Side of Bay Avenue; Nassau
Farms Subdivision, Part of Plot 140; Cutcho§ue, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel NO. 1000-140-04'33.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted.
. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- June 21, 1~4 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3245. Application for DAVID AND
JEANNE BRAWNER, Main Road, ~rient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section lO0-~l for approval of insufficient
area of parcel to be set-off from an 4.066-acre parcel at the South
Side of Main Road, Orient; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-20-3-28
and part of 11.2.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 p.m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a map ~'~o~'Ro'~'erick VanTuyl
and Son drawn,'prepared December ~6, 1983 indicating the nature of
the two particular parcels to be set off, With an area of 54,000
sq. ft~ I also have a ~Copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
this property and the surrounding pro~rti, es. Would you like to be
heard, Mr. Price?
IRVING L. PRICE, JR., ESQ.: This was originally one parcel,
and had some. 560 feet of road.frontage. Mr. ~nd M.r.s.~. Brawler set
off some time prior to 1977, 214.23 ~.eet and gave it t'o their
daughter and son-in-law on whi.~h to build a house. The original
house was there had.a C.'O~ The new house built prior to 1977 had
a C.O. and as the application states it~was landscaped, they were
landscaped as such. ~wo resulting parcels had a frontage then of
302' and 214', and ha~e an area of which to set it off of 2.345
acres for the large parcel and 1.121 for the sm~ll parcel. The
reason the lines have been projgcted as they are_.is because
there's landscape. I understand the board has reviewed it and
there are lines of trees and a farm road on the southerly. When
the daughter and son-in-law moved away, they conveyed it back to
their father and mother,_ and then when the zoning 9rdin~nce was
changed to the two acres, it became a merger of the two legally
existing parcels. They applied for a vacant land CoO. interp?eta-
tion for the small par~el_.~nd am correctly told by the building
department that ~ey have to get a set-o~f ann then apply to the
Planning Board for a set-off, and they ~ere told that the Planning
._~oard had no approval and I believe there's s~h a letter or deci-
Sion in your file; but t'hat it would require a variance.
MR. CHAIRMAN- Do you want me to read it?
MR. PRICE: Well, I just wanted to be sure it was part of
the file. The Planning Board is in favor of this. Tha%'s our
case ~Dless you~_.had any questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, is there anyparticular reason why they
chose to add this additional little parcel in the rear?
MR. PRICE: That's because there's a farm road that has been
used i.~ time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The farm road is here?
MR. PRICE: It's here.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- June 21,~-~984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3245 DAVID AND JEANNE BRAWNER, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I couldn't determine where it was when we went
~ut there.
MR. PRICE: It can't be added-that's the reason it can't be
added to it because it's a farm road there. And they don't want
a separate farm road.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I see.
MR. PRICE: And they don't want it to run through a lot owned by
some third party.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I see. So in other words, what are they--they
are attempting to convey part of this property now?
MR. PRICE: The small ~ar~l.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The ~'ma~l parcel.
MR~ PRICE: This is the-~e. Which is a legitimate house with
a C.O.
'MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes~ So. they want this parcel to be as one unit
with the faYm ro~d?
MR. '~RICE: Yes. Yes.
MR. ~HAIRMAN: Who has access to the farm road, they do?
MR. PRICE: It's very informal. A lot of people use it and go
to adjoining lands as I understand it. And bein§_.~ighbor'ly, they
wouldn't cut it off to prevent something that's been going on for
years.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How big is that farm road exactly?
MR. PRICE: How wide is that farm road, Mr. Brawner?
MR~.-~'RAWNER: What we're talking about, I think, is access to
the farm._ The farmers immediately behind Mrs. Brawner and my house.
The farm area is here. There's an irrigation pond here. And if we
went all the way down to the irrigation pond, we couldn't come in to
the right=of-way.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I see.
MR. BRAWNER: My own personal driveway is quote narrow before
~ put one in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So in other words, they come like this.
MR. BRAWNER: Right. And then we extend do~n there to about 10
acres' YOU have Christmas %rees in there, about 4,000 Christmas trees.
Southold Town Board O~ Appeals -8- June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3245 - DAVID AND JEANNE BRAWNER, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN:~ Oko That answers the question. Thank you very
much.
MR. PRICE: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to be heard
in behalf of this application? .Anybody like to speak against the
application? Questions from board members? Hea~.ing no further ques-
tions, I'll make a motion closing the ~hearing and [eserv~ng decision
until later.
On motions]by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing ~nd reserve decision in the
matter of the appl~ of DAVID AND JEANNE BRAW.NER, Appeal No.
3245.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, and Sawicki.. Member Douglass was absent during ~his time.
This resolution was unanimously__adopted by all the members present.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3247. Application of ERNEST AND
JEAN STUMPF, 207 Roxbury Road South, Garden City, NY 11530, for a
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32
(and/or Section 100-31) for permission to construc~""raised deck
with an insufficient setback in the side and rear yards at'the
West Side of S. Oakwood Drive, Laurel; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-145-03-005.
The~Chairman opened the hearing at 7:56 p.m. and read the legal
notice of this hearing in its entirety and a~.~ea! application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: we have a copy of rendition produced by Ed
Tobia and Sons, dated 4/10/84 indica.ting a proposed deck a variation
of 10'. by 26' elongating it to 4, an additional four feet in the
sideyard area. And]I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would
somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application?
JOHN STUMPF: Yes, and I have a set of plans for the board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good, thank you.
MR. STUMPF: It has the elevation. (Mr. Stumpf gave each of
the four b~ard, members one copy of the 4/10/84 plan..) I'd also
like to submit some pictorial data for you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have your name please?
MR. STUMPF: I'm John St.umpf~ acti~ng as agent for Mr. Stumpf.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3247 - ERNEST AND JEAN STUMPF, continued:)
MR. STUMPF: As was stated a bit i'n the original application,
the main premises are the natural'.l~ght"&'~ventilation has been
restricted due to some growth very. close to our property. We'd
also like to at this time make the deck as a protective barrier
against some barren trees Which are existing on the property
adjacent. During recent storms, I'll show you some pictures,
some limbs have fallen very close to the ho_use almost breaking
windows. The deck might help. as a protective barrier against
that.
Also, the lack of the rearyard. We only have 11 feet, so we
really don't have a rear yard. And the encroachment of those
hedges on our rear yard really cuts down on Our rearyard. We
have no backyard. ._Jo 'by rai.~s~ing it, We're hoping tQ. add to that.
I'd li~6 to submit some pi-~tu~es as to how we had purchased
the house and some of the co~.ditions that exist now. I'll start
at this end. '(Se~er.~l photographs' were submitted~) That was six
years ago that we had ~urchased the house'"as is;" .~At ~'~at time,
the old donors had installed some be'a~ti.f.~]' bay w~ndows in the
area which are no use tO.~..~s now, which"y9~'ll see in some of the
other pictures.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there an actual covering over the-- oh, this
is the awning.
MR. STUM.PF: That's an awning right there. That was ruined
during that storm due to some limbs falling through it of which
our insurance will not cover the cost.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok.
MR. STUMPF: Can I entertain any questions from you?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's very rare, Mr. Stumpf'that we allow
any construction that close to the property line. We have not
discussed this because.~e had not had the he~rin.g. What you're
in effect telling us that due to the rise or th~ growth Qf the
hedg~ to the rear of your property, or your mother's p~operty,
it has limited you both air-w.~se and view-wise, and use-wise, is
that what you're s~ing?
MR. STUMPF: Exactly. It has been six years since it's been
maintained, and I don't feel it's at all right to maintain them,
so you really have an al_ret.Dative that defeats this special request
from you t'h~t you coul~.~possibly offer any suggestions. It would
be helpful.
~R~ CHAIRMAN: Well, you're talking about a deck that's
approximately a foot (~').of~ the line, is that correct?
MR. S~UMPF: That's correct. Yes. A non-permanent deck, of
course. I m~n it could be taken down. You k~ow it's not a
structural, not a habitable thing. Nobody is going to live on it,
sort of speak. It's j~st seasonal use.
Southold Town Board of Appeals ~10- June 21,'~984 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3247 ~ ERNEST AND JEAN STUMPF, continued':)
M~. CHAIRMANi What's the actual elevation of the deck?
MR. STUMPF: Well, there's a rear elevation, which is here. And
then that's the side elevation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, well, what's the actual height of it?
MR. STUMPF: Oh, I'm sorry. Height-wise. It would be close to
7'6" where the top sill plate w~uld b~ o.~n the existing~ house. About
7'6" What I'm trying to do is tie it right 'into that somehow with
two connectors which I had talked to Mr. Hindermann about which he
accepted and recommended.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would assume if you made this deck smaller it
would not serve any practical purpose.
MR. STUMPF: No, sir. I studied five years as an architect and
that's already pushing it as far as usable ~pace. I would like to go
out, you know, at least 12 feet but the 10 feet would be. sufficient
to our needs.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let us just give you the philosophy that we use.
If a person does not have an adequate area to get to the rearyard of
his property or her property, that presents a problem. I am aware
of the fact that this particular addition, sort of speak, will be a
permanent part of the actual plan or the house as it stands,~which
would then basically mean ~hat. it is an attachment,~.ok. It is not
an accessory structure.
MR. STUMPF: No.
MR. CHAI'~RMAN: Which then limits you to the actual use of the
rear of the property fQr the pu~rposes..of'any maintenance.
MR. STUMPF: Not reaTly.' W'~ haveYull access underneath the
deck. It's a matter of four ....... columns, I believe. ~Four by four posts
which I don t see a rear hinderance as to maintenance o~..any of that.
My mother right now has plenty of flowers w~ich will remain rig'ht
along the edge of the pr.~perty. I..don't see any p.~.oblem wi'th her
getting to it, if that's what you mean by maintenance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I meant the possibility of getting machinery
back there if they required it. Are ther~ any cesspool areas --
MR. STUMPF: Not whatsoever. It's only '~1 lee't, '~ I don't really
think you could get any machinery back there _if you wanted to.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You could certainly back a car back there if you
had to, presently over the top of that slab?
MR. STUMPF':'~ For what purpose though? I mean you can go
through the'~nt.door, just'as easy as you would be able to go
thro~.gh the back. And we have a ri_ght-Q.f-way to the le.~t of the
property which would be perfect for access, th.a~cann.ot be touched
Southold Town Board o-~ Appeals -11- June 21~1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal.No. 3247 - ERNEST AND JEAN STUMPF, CONTINUED:)
MR. ST~MPF continued:
by anybody.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well the only thing we %hou§ht~w'he~'we,went~down
there, that maybe we should entertain into the existing roof line,
and putting a flat roof on the rear part of the house.
MR. STUMPF: Uhm, yeah, I thought of that too, but that's some
nice storms that come Q~f of the bay that way. And we have no leaks
now, and flashing and what not don'~ always work, and if that water
got in there with the sea air and everything, you know,.why create
a problem if there's no need to.
~. CHAIRMAN: There would be no roof on this?
MR, STUMPF: No, no. I{-~s strictly-~peno Simple post and beam
construction.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I mean it wouldn't serve as a roof on the lower
part of the cemented area.
MR. STUMPF: Not a ~of, for a protective covering it would be
like a terrace almost.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Open, slatted.
MR. STUMPF: Open, slatted.~with the joints, yes. It wouldn't--
no rolled roofing or anything of that sort on to~.~of it.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Ok. Wel~, we haven't discusse~'it,'~]so we'll
discuss it after the hearing.s, and thank you very much for your
presentation and copies.
MR. STUMPF: Thank you.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to speak in b~half of
the application? Anybo.dy like to ~peak against the application?
Mr. Stumpf, who owns. the hedge?
MRS. M. BURNS: We do.
MR. CHAIRMAN- Could I ask you to use the mike, ma'am?
I realize that this gentleman didn't but it makes it a little bit
easier when we record it.
MRS. MARGARET BURNS: Well, my name is Margaret Burn. 'We are
the owners of the property to the.west of the property of Mr. Stumpf.
I would like to point out that we did receive the notice, and on
the basis of the notice, we did check out the material here at the
Town Hall. There is according to the drawing that I received a
discre~a.ncy. It's incomplete. To the north side there already is
Southold Town Board ~_. Appeals -12- June 21,~,984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3247 - ERNEST AND JEAN STUMPF, continued:)
MRS. BURNS (continued):
a structure that is on the property line, not now shown, and this
structure was not part O'f the original building, tn addition to
that, we object to structures of any kind on the property line, and
according to a notation on the plot plan that we received, Mr.
Stumpf has said that the property that the deck would go to the
property line, and the date on that nota%ion is May the 15th. The
deck as is planned has 14 steps of approximately 7¼" apart, and if
you take 14 steps with that measurement, you're coming to 8' or
more, so that the floor of the deck would be 8' high. Now this
would constitute an invasion of privacy., n'ow, and it would be an
increased invasion of privacy when we~build in that area. And
this is a consideration. Now thP6y talk about the hedges. The
hedges are on.our proper'ty, and th'ey.have been in existence for
over 50 years~ Now, we had the property for approximately 20 years.
And we did come to a hear'ing in connection With the heigh% of.the
hedges in May of last year,~.and'~h~'-case was dismissed.
Now if this appli-~ation should be granted, we question
whether or not it ~uld establish...a precedent for others in the
area which would include us. On the basis of~.~he property line
alone, I respectfully request the ap.plication of the waiver be
denied. -" -
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mrs. Burns. Is there anybody else
that would like to speak against the application? Questions from
board members? (Non.e) Only one otheE.{uestion, is there any
reason, Mr. Stumpf, why yqB selected that height as opposed to
the normal height a p~rson wou_]d build a deck, two, three feet
off the g.round?
MR. STUMPF: Yes, we have_a rear door there which you had
said correct, accessibility to the back yard. Next to that
window is the door of w.hiq.h you get out into the rearyard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Which?
MR. STUMPF: Next to the picture window.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not shown in this drawing.
MR. STUMPF: No, I'm sorry, it isn't. I'll get you a copy.
But, you know, it's a hazard just to trip over a two-foot step..
MR. CHAIRMAN: How far does that sill go down from that door?
Are there steps coming out of that door?
MR. STUMPF: Oh, there's just, you know, one step.
- MR. CHAIRMAN: One step, about 8" or something like that?
MR. STUMPF: Yes. But, no, not even 8" because when they
Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- June 21,'~'~984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3247 - ERNEST AND JEAN STUMPF, continued:)
MR. STDMPF:
poured the slab to the concrete, they came up instead of digging down.
So it's only about 4".to tell you the truth.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would anybody else tike to be heard
i~ behalf of this hearing? Sir?
ERNEST STUMPF: My name is Ernest Stumpf. In answer to the
question of adjacent structure on there, when we purchased the home
six years ago, we~pu~¢based this with a Certificate of Occupancy,
~he structures as they are. _~_
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would assume you're referring to the storage
building, is that correct?
~OHN STUMPF: The only reason it's not on the drawing is it
was not on the survey tha~. I had worked off of, so I didn't know.
MRS. BURNS: May I comment on that? "As~far as I know, that is
not a~storage structure. That structure which was put up by the
previous owner is an outside shower and I would say that the width
of it is approximately five feet and the height of it is eight feet
or more; and although I don't like to say this, I_question whether
or not a waiver was ever requested for the building of that structure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you know the approximate size of that storage
shower, whatever?
JOHN STUMPF: Four and one-half feet by seven, then it goes up
to no more t~an seven feet~
MR. CHAIRMAN: How far off the rear line would you say that
exists?
JO~ STUMPF: It sits right on the rear line.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right on the rear line i~tself. Ok.
MRS. BURNS: Right on the side li'~e as well.
JOHN STUMPF: Side and rear lines.
MRS. BURNS: Property lines.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else like to be heard in behalf
of this application? Hearin.g no further questions, I'll make a
motion clo~.ng the hearing and ~ese~v~Dg decision.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Second.
-- MR. STUMPF: (When will we know?)
MR. CHAIRMAN: What I ask you to do is to give us a call in
a week or so and ask us if we made a decision. Call us next Friday
and find out when the next Special Meeting is and we'll deliberate
on this when at the next Special Meeting. Thank you for coming in.
Southold Town Board-of Appeals -14- June 21~.~984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 324.7 ERNEST AND JEAN STUMPF, continued:)
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the
matter of the application of ERNEST AND JEAN STUMPF, Appeal No. 3247.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~Goehrin§er, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki.
Member Douglass was absent at this point in,time. This resolution was adopted.
PUBL'I'C HEARING: Appeal No. '3227. Application for EUSTACE C.
ERIKSEN, 1085 Westview Drive, Mattit~k, NY. for a Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, appealing the December 12, 1983 decision
of the building inspector in order to permit the conversion and
renovation of a "guest cottage" or second dwelling structure at
premises known as 1085 West View Drive, Mattituck; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-139-1-3.
The Cha~eman.~opened the..beaming at 8:17 p.m. and read the
legal notice of hearing in its enti~e~y and appeal application.
M~o CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I~a~e~ copy of ~e Suffolk County
Tax Map showing this and surrounding properties. Mr. Bruer.
RUDOLPH BRUER, ESQ.: Rudolph Bruer in behalf of the
applicant. Chairman and members of the board, the situation
arose back in May of 1983. An application was made to make an
addition and alter the existing accessory building. That
building permit was issued and the work in connection therewith
has been completed. Thereafter on December 12, 1983, a Notice
of Disapproval was issued by the Building Inspector stating
that the applicant was converting the building, the accessory
building to a guest cottage conversion, With.reference to the
application--going back to the reference of the May 13, 1983
application. I make again specific reference to the Certificate
of Occupancy that was issued on October 3, 1975. It was issued
October 3, 1975 and it says:
"...The occupancy for which this certificate is issued
~s private one-family dwelling with accessory building
(can be guest cottage with no cooking facilities .... "
I would li~e the board to take notice of a housing code inspection
dated October 3, 1975~I don't know if it's part of your file--
MR. CHAIRMANi' Yes, it is.
MR. BRUER: Made by Mr. Hindermann at that time, and on
paragraph three of that report it says:
"...An informal discussion with..the Board of Appeals and
present owner was held some time in 1969 with rega~.d to
making living ~nit in this building... The Board's recom-
mendations were that living rooms would be permiss~ble.~but
- kitchen facilities wo~ld not be permitted...
And with this, it is obvious that after that inspection and with
this in mind, Mr. Terry isSued a Certificate of Occupancy Stating
that the accessory-build~ng could be used as a guest cottage, and
with that in mind, it was so used. It was sold by the then owner,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- June 21~1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeai No. 3227 - EUSTACE C. ERIKSEN, continued:)
MR. BROER (continued):
I believe, Mr. Gildersleeve, to another party-s.who then sold it to
my client in 1977.
MR. ~H~R~AN: Was there anything done in between that, to your
knowledge, to~ the structure?
MR. BRUER: Not to my knowledge. I know nothing that was done.
Mr. Erikse~ is here. Mr. and Mrs..Eriksen are here, and IKd like
to ask them one~part, ic~lar question. Mr. Eriksen, would you have
bought these premises in 1977 if you could not have uEed this
building as a guest cottage?
MR. ERIKSEN: I don't think we would, because we wanted ~t
(for that use.)
MR. BRUER: Is it true that you're using it primarily for your
mother and son and daughter and grandchildren?
MR. ERIKSEN: That's correct.
MRS. ERIKSEN: The main house is too small, we. don't have
enough sleeping arrangements.
MR. BRUER: And I believe isn't it true that with respect
to the conversion that was done, two bedrooms were eliminated
and with the intent of converting it into a garage?
MR. ERIKSEN: Right.
MR. BRUER: And that the living space has been there for
living in?
MR. ERIKSEN: Right.
MRS. ERIKSEN: T~at's right.
MR. BRUER: And isn't it"tr~e that there' are no cooking
facilities on the premises?
MR. ERtKSEN: None.
MR. BRUER: Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I don't
know ~hy th~ December Notice of Disapproval was issued. And
that's ~hy we're here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: In other words, you applied for a C/O at
that time~
MR. BRUER: I don't think he applied for a C/O. I think--
MRS. ERIKSEN: We had the C/O.
MR. BRUER: No,. you had the C/O for the house but on this
particular structure?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- June 21~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3227 - EUSTACE C ERIKSEN, continued:)
MR. BRDER: And the building permit was issued. Obviously the
building department was aware of the use of the building based
upon the inspection of Mr. Hindermann of that stating that they
were for living quarters, that it was used for the purposes
thereof. That he contacted somebody and ~here was discussions
with the Board of Appeals. I don't know if the hearing was
held.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm not aware of any.
MR. BRUER: But in that event, and"I certainly point to the
board's attention that my clients have expended a_great deal of
money in reliance upon the documents that w~re issued by the
Building Inspector stating the parti'cular use of the proper~y,
which is-now being denied.
MR, CHAIRMAN: In other words, what you're saying that--
MR. BRUER: And that denial was done without a hearing.
MR, CHAIRMAN: In other words, what you're saying is that
this building,'the actual conformity of the building has not
changed.since the time tb.ey ~ve pu~ch~se'~ th~s property, that
they.very simply eliminat~, two b~drooms to construct this
garage?
MR. BRUER: I think there's been addition to the building.
MR, ERIKSEN: Twenty feet was added Onto the bedroom.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Coming forward 20 feet from your house.
MR. ERIKSEN: Right.~
MR, BRUER: But ~hat's not the problem. The problem is that
a building permit was issued for tha~. There's nothin, g wrong
with the ~struction.
MR, CiHAIRMAN: Right~ I'm no~ saying that.
MR~ BRUER: For the addi.tion. I'm talking about use.
MR. CHAIRMAN'i Yes. I understand. I'm j~st t'rying to find
out what was added a~_so during that particular period of time.
MR. BRUER: I d~ have a diagram of the pre~'ent par~~ of it;
I don't know if that's Part of y.~ur file. We can submit it.
See where the garage is.,. there were ~w~ b. edr~ms th~e~ And if
I may point he~e, I guess th'ey'il have roll out beds for up here
in ~.bat area. And i~s~strictl_y for fami]..9 use, g~es~ or.~riends.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have any idea~ when this building, was
origin.ally erected?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- June 21~1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3227 - EUSTACE C~ ERIKSEN, continued:)
MR. BRUER: No. I don't have any information.
[It is noted for the record that Member Douglass arrived at this
point, approximately 8:26 p.m.]
MR,~CHAIRMAN: It's also our in.tention that the ~itcben
cabinets that exist in there are very simply just cabinets. There
will be no stove associated along with that.
MR. BRUER: No. Whoever lives there, it's family, and they're
going to eat with the family.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I see. So although it appears to be a kitchen,
it's not really a kitchen.
MR. BRUER: No. (Not a kitchen) It's basically convenience.
Does the board have any questions, of myself, my clients?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's see what develops here ~d we'll get
back to you. Thank you very much.
MR. BRUER: Ok.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else to be heard in behalf of
this application? Is there any~ody_that would like to speak
against the ap.plication? (No one)? Questions from any board
members? (None) Mr. Bruer, if the.board desires to grant this
application~ or in effect, reverse the decision of the building
i~spector, do you have any objections to restrictions on this
particular piece of property as to size, no further addition?
To the size of the building, further reinforcing the fact that
there be no cooking facility, which of course was originally
stated in the--
MR. BRUERi I could have no objection to the cooking facilities.
I haven't discussed the other thing with my clients, but_it wQ~ld
seem to me what we're really talkiD§ abou~ is, '"Was Howard Terry's
act as a Building InspectQ~ in 1975 legitimate?~'
MR. CHAIRMAN: I Understand.
MR. BRUER: And by buying a piece of property, relying on
that, Why should we lose o~r ~ights if w.~ .~a~en't?
MR, ~HAIRMAN: No, I understand. I'm asking you this question
because this is what comes'up in deliberations.
MR~ BRUER: I don't know what you could mean by additional
structure'
MR. ~CHAIRMAN: No, no. Any further addition to this structure~
Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- Junei21~'1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3227 - EUSTACE C] ERIKSEN, continued':)
MR. BRUER: We would only be allowed to do that if it was proper.
I mean, they would be denied if we weren't allowed to do it as a
matter of right, I don't know why we should be restricted in that.
MR- CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you.
MR. BRUER: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak in
behalf of against'this applicati.on? INone) .Hearing no further
questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing a~d reserving
decision.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, t6 Cl'~e'the'h~.a~i~g and reserve decision in the
matter of the ap.plication of EUSTACE CJ: ERIKSEN,'A~peal No. 3227.
vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs."Goehringer,'Gri'gonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawi'cki. This resol_gtion was unanimously
adopted by~_all the members~
At this point in time, Member G~igonis left the meeting room
for the next hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING': Appeal No. 3248. Application of JOHN GRIGONIS,
950 Bayv!ew Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance,.Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of the construction
of new dwelling with reduction of sideyaKd setback, at premises
located at 860 Main Bayview Road, Southold; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-070~07=016.2.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:33 p.m. and read the legal
notice of hearing concerning this application in its entire~y and
appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the M'ay 12, 1983 survey
ilnd~ca~inglth~s~tb~ck in questi..~ ~.hich is _niDe feet three inches,
and I have a copy of the Suffolk Coun'ty Tax Map indicating this
and surroanding.properties in the area. Is Mr. G.rigonis here?
Would you'like to be heard in behalf of.your'application, sir?
JOHN'~RIGONIS: The home that i~m i-n is to'o"big. It's getting
to be quit.~ a.n expense and a hardship. I'm not a chicken any more
and i~ has~steep]i..~ta~s, and downstairs, and I'd like to get over
into the other place, and it's there. Nine inches out of the.way.
It was a mistak.~ in the first'place where the lot'angles off where
we put the house in line with ~_he ~lements and that's where the
problem came in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have not d~scussed this entire application
with all the board members, imm. :D'eyen"]has just flown in.,__from
Fishers Island, so I can't guarantee you that we.!]l have the
determi'n~tion'tonight. I know that ~Ou"re building and you've been
Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- June 21, ~1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3248 - JOHN GRIGONIS, continued:)
MR CHAIRMAN( continued):
holding off on it. We will attempt to give you a determination,
however, in a very short period of time in the next few days. So
I hope you can bear with us at least until such time as he has
been over to look at the building and so on and so forth. Ok?
Thank you very much for coming in.
Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of
this application? Against the application or in behalf?
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: Against.
MR. C'HAIRMAN: Ok. DO you want to use the mike?
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: I h~ve a loud enough voice.
MR. C'HAIRMAN: Ok~ Go ahead. Could I-~'ave your name?
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: My name is Sophie Furmankewicz, and I~m
a next door neighbor to Grigonis. And in 1965, I bought the
property from Benedict Mana~ek. I bring them and I have the
papers,~ that nobody be divided the lot that was in between us,
and for that reason, nobody going to build in the middle between
Mr. Grigonis and me. And all of a sudden this year, the house
came up after 20 years. I want to know how Mr. Grigonis got
away w~th_buildin§ the house.
MR, CHAI'RMAN: How do you pronounce your last name?
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: F~rman~ewicz.
MR. ~AIRMAN: We had an appeal, Mro Grigonis had filed an
appeal with this'board and we had granted.Rim the'division of
his ~.roperty, approximately a year or so ago,~with a provision
that the p~per]ty no long~ be business, that it be used for
residenti~,al purposes~_and that the fuel oil tanks that are placed
in the re~ of the property be either removed or filled with
sand, and that he not be able to operate a fuel oil busine's~
from that particular piece of proper'ty agai.~. .AnCot'hat was
the provision that we had give~ h~m and atl6wed him to--
MRS.FURMANKEWICZ: But what, how bi~'-~s his prope~'~.y to
put a house on, wh~re the back yard is ~acticall_~ no room for
~nybody to move around?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't read the-- oh, the actual size here
is, appears to be 65'.~'by]]180', ~hich allows him app~oximately
almost 17 feet on ~he side where his existing residence is ~Dd
an averag~..of about te~"f~et on your si~e.
MR'S~ ~FURMANKEWICZ: But it's not ten feet on my side.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -20-June 21, 19-~4 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3248 - JO~N GRIGONIS, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: 'Have you seen a copy of the survey?
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to see it? Come on up and we'll
show it to you'
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: Because 20 years ago, we agreed nobody
going to build in the middle,
MR. CHAIRMAN: I donBt know if you can see it from there.
Here's your proper~ty. Here's the 9.3" we're talking about. The
average of the house is ~ little over l'O'~ 11.1. There's the
area thatChers-here appeal]lng._ ......
MRS, FURMANKEWICZ: And all of a sudden, his house is ahead
of my proper~ty. My house is i_n the bac'kyard.
MR~ CHAIRMAN: I understand that. But"~e is allowed to go
as close as 35' He chose to go, t]5"~ back'farther than the 35'.
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: I don~'t think there's 35 because--
M'R, CHAIRMAN: Nos 'they reduced it back down to 35, or
whatever the existing setba~.k--
MRS. FURMANKE.WI'CZ: You See, with me was the agreement. Now
I'm paying for half the l_ot that' was going to be no use to me,
MR. CHAIRMAN: But you don't own thi~ property.
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: I own this part of the property.
MR. ~HAIRMAN: Yes, '
MRS, FURMAN,KEWi~'Z: So when Mr. Manasek was selling that lot
supposed to"be divided by; never to be used as a building lot.
And I build before Mr, Grigonis. I would,ilike to see his part,
deed of where the property,~when h~ bought, the other half.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not going to read this, can we copy this
and give it back to you right now?
MRS, FURMANKEWICZ: I have a copy of it home. (Mrs. Furman-
kewicz handed~the Chairman the original ...deed from Manasek ~to
Furmankewicz for photocopying and return by mail.)'
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we keep this and send it back to you?
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -210- June 21-~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3248 - JOHN GRIGONIS, continued:)
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: To me it's just, I bought a half a lot and
now all of a sudden somebody builds a house, without surveyors,
without nothing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. We'll take a copy of this and send it back
to you, ok? Thank you very much. Is there anything else you
wanted to say?
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: No, I don't want that house to be there.
It's as simple as that. Because I'm paying for half a lot of the
property which is no use to me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else
that would like to speak against the application? Yes, ma'am?
MRS. RADE: A question. Is it permissible to build
with the 65' of width on my property?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If the lot has been divided or has been preexist-
ing, yes.
SECRETARY: I didn't get her name.
MR. CHAIRMAN: May I have your name, Miss, for the record?
SANDRA RADE: Sandra Rade. R-A-D-E.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak
against, sir? Would you state your name please?
FRANK TARULLI: My name is Frank Tarulli and I live at 1540
North B'ayview Road in ~outhold. Mr. Chairman and board mem~rs,
I am curious on the parcel itself; I gathe'~d from this evening
which I didn't know,_ that it was considered a building lot, whi.ch
is fine. That settles one question. The only thing I don't
understand now is I ride by there every day,~ and as far as saying
for example he had, was there a variance issued befQre he got a
buildingpermit?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. TARULLI: Once.the house b~ilt, and now we're applying
for a varianc~.~ was there approval of his building permit? In
other words, he had his septic tank and ~ell setbacks all approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. TARULLI: And I don't understand how the house is 9" on
the la'dy's pnpperty or at this time with the house b~ing thr~e-
quarters built that now we're applying for a variance. I mean,
.just as a point o~information I__~ant to know. Because when I
b~ilt,'everything had to be before I dug the hole~ I put a garden
shed in the back, and everythi~ng had to be approved before that.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- June 21~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3248 - JOHN GRIGONIS, continued:)
(Member Grigonis returned t.o the board room approximately 8:40 p.m.)
MR. TARULLI: So 611 I'm curious is, as far as the rules, I just
want to know where I'm going if I want to do something else, if
I want to build another house. So as I say, it's only a point of
information. It seems that it's built, and yet now we're asking
for a variance. I don't understand that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tarulli--
MR. TARULLI: I thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll answer the ques.tiono Do you want the
questions answered?
MR. TARULLI: Yes, please.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On A~ril 12,.1983,~ we had a hearing of which
I had eluded to before, whi_ch divided this property with the
provision that it not be used for business again. Again with the
provision that the existing tanks be, Mr. Grigonis, I assume had
an oil business or somethi. Dg of that natur~ Qn this property.
And with the provision that the oil tanks either be removed or
filled with sand, and that no business be used there~ That this
not be a s~te for business again, ok? What I assumed happened,
and this is only my opinion, ok, is that when they actually
constructed the foundation, the foundation attempted--they
filed the application and the building permit was granted. I
have no idea what occurred with the Suffolk County Health Depart-
ment in general~ All I can tell you is a buildinq permit was
granted by the build.lng department, and when the ~oundation was
put in, and actually when the foundation was approved and some
time thereafter, when they started framing, they had found out
that the foundation itself was some 9" closer to the sideyard.
So'it's 9'3" rather than approximately 10'. And this is the
nature of the application. They're talking about a eight or
nine inch variance on the sideyard area~ And this can be done
very, very easily by just moving the foundation one way or
another, and that's exactly what the nature of this application
is at this time. Sophie's situation is entirely a different
view of it, and I~woul. d rather not expound on that at'this
particular time. '
MR. TARULLI: That's all right. I think you've answered
part of it. _As I said, the only thing that was getting me a
little confused is seeing what happened and wh~t took place,
and what I've seen is that we 'just passed from the Master Plan
one-acre zoning to two-acre zoning,, and then we approve from
'my knowledge, looking at the place, I coul'~n't say. But it
looked like th~ house was on _40' by 50' or something like that.
Because there's a garage in the back of it. I assumed the
proper'ty goes all the way back.then.
MR. CHAIRMA-N: Yes, it does. I think I have a copy-- I
was incorrect, by the way, because I was reading off the
Suffolk County ~.ax Map. But the property is apprQ~_imately 69
by..180 on one side and 175 on the other side. And it's in
two pieces, so I had to add both of them toge{h~r. I was just
taking a fast figure. I would assume it's about 50 feet past
the rear of the garage.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- June 21~-1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3248 JOHNi~G~IGONIS, continued:)
MR. TARULLI: ~did'not know the dimensions of the lot, assuming
that the house, and the garage in the back, I assumed it was 40 by
50 or whatever. And that was it at mostly. As far as saying that
he's applying for a variance now, after the house was up, I didn't
think that should have been done.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Occasionally, this happens. The best example
of this is when a person has a one-car garage attached to an
existing, one-story house, and they attempt to put a second garage
on. When they pour the foundation, instead of making the garage
ll then make it 12 because they want to be able to fit a lawnmower
in, and they find out there's no longer a sideyard now at 10 feet,
and now it's nine feet, which requires them to come befor'e this
board. The building could be completely constructed, and they
have gone to the buildin.§ department for.~_ an updated C.O., that
already has a C.O. but a C.O. now on that part of the garage that
you added, and now they have to come before this board for the
purpose of reducing that sideyard back down a foot. And it's a
prime example of what happens sometimes. Sometimes you can have
the best surveyors, best masons, and people still make mistakes.
MR. TARULLI: All right. Thank you very m~h.
MR, CHAIRMAN: You're very welcome. Sir, would you like to
be heard?
MR. JERRY GRASECK: If that's going to be the case, a 9'3"
setback, does this set apr. ecedent for eyeryone else in the a~e~?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, absolutely not. Y~u'll still be required
to have l0 feet.
MR. GRASECK: Then I feel it should be denied.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Can I have your name?
MR. GRASECK: Jerry Graseck.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Tha-nk you. Yes, ma'am?
MRS. RADE: When you'-change-the building on a piece of property,
would'the adjacent prQperty'owners be nQ~ified of your decision.
W~ld those folks be notified about it at all?
MR, CHAIRMAN: No. Yes. Knowing tha~ there was an application
before the board, it's b~.sically the same question that I had
referred to Mrs Burns, and that was to call the board in a week
or two weeks and so on and so~forth.
MRS. RADE: For the original application would the adjacent
proper'ty owners be notified?
M~, CHAIRMAN: No.
Southold Town Boar~-of Appeals -24- June 21-~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3248 - JOHN GRIGONIS, continued:)
MRS. RADE: Notified for that the same?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. She was notified of the hearing, which I
have no idea if she came or did not come. I'd have to read the
minutes at that particular time. Does that answer your question?
MRS. RADE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, ma'am. Could we have your name?
KATHLEEN GRASECK: Yes. Kathlee~ Graseck. I'm just wondering
how a man could have clear title 'when in f~ct she 'has a deed to
this'property.~ _._
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we have not had a chance to go over this,
with the Town Attorney, or anything at this particular time, so
that's Why I'm saying, I said to M?, Tarulli I really don't want
to get into this because I would have'to_~it down here and
decipher this before, you know--I'm happy she presen'{ed this
to us so that we're aware of what the situation is here.
Sophie, could' you possibly give us a survey of your property so
we might be able to follQ.W_~he lines that are mentioned in here. in
this deed--
MRS. FURMANKEWICZ: Everything is mentioned on it, and I
bought the property before and it states that too, before Mr.
Grigonis with the _understanding that nobody gonna build in'the
.~iddle. I don't need that piece of.proper'~y and Gri~onis didn't
want to buy the property because he didn't want to ~.ay fer it.
So this way, he divided the lot, I paid for it wi~h the under-
standing that nobody is going to be building in the middle.
That we going to have privacy and they would have privacy. Now
I'm ~paying tax on that piece of land for 20.years. Now he
builds the house, and I mean all of a sudden over the line.
So if he is entitled to do that, I'm goi'ng to put another one
right next to i.t,. and we're going to have five cesspools in
the backyard, four-car garage, gas tank, fuel tank, and all
that. Let's have a fun! I thought there was a law. Whe_~.. I
put up a sign for pizza, they wrote me a note to take it off.
Now .a.ll of a sudden, a man b~ild's a house on a hal{ a lot, and
everxbody...Says it's fine because he's an old man.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anybody else li~e to be heard in
behalf of this-application? (No one). _.Hearing no further
questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserv-
ing decision_until later.
On motion by M~. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, tO Cl'o~ the heari'ng.and'reserve deCi'si'on in the
matter of the applTcation i~f~O-~R~e~i ~24'8~
Southold Town Board-of Appeals -25- June 21~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3248 JOHN 'GRIGONIS, continued:)
Vote of the Board': ~Ay~S': Messrs. Goehringer, Doy~n~Dou§lass
and Sawicki. Member Grigonis abstained from vote. This resolution
was adopted by majority vote of all the members presenT.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3246. Application for PATRICK
CARRIG ~nd MARK S. MCDONALD (Owners: Eric and Nancy Malm), Richmond
Road, Southold, NY for a V~riance for approval of access, New York
Town Law, Section 280-~A, dver a p~vate righ.t-o~way located at the
north side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck, to pre~.ises i_dentified as
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-112-1=18, containing approximately
3.9 acres.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:51 p.m, and read the legal
notice of this heating in its entirety and appeal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: W~ have a copy of a survey date'~ ~anuary 31,
1964 indicating the nature of the~ri._ght-of-wa.y, which_is according
to Mr. Davis' report some 3450 lineal feet long, and I have a copy
of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating-~his and surrounding
Properties in the area' Mr. Bruer, would you like to b~ heard in
behalf of this application?
RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board:
Very simply, we would like you-to grant the application because
that's t.he only way_this p~per'ty can be used for residential use.
Without that~._it's limited to being a garden.~"i~ Very simply. And
it's beautiful soundfront property, a~d it should be ut~lize~.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Are you aware of the ~'~gineer's report?
MR. BRUER: Yes, I am.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to say
concerning that?
MR. BRUER: I ha~e nothing to say. Mr. Carrig, do you have
anything yo~' would like to say?
MR. CARRIG: (Nodded no.)
MR. BRUER: No? You've seen it. You've been aware of it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: So you would like us to make our determination
based upon the'engineer's report ~On what type of material we ~hould
use in .dealing with it.
MR. BRUER: I don't have anything else to submit for the
board as an alternative. I would like to add though, I know the
board does not usually make determinations o~ the date of the
hearing, I would ask_._%hat you make an exception here. ~his is
based .~pon an early February contract with a June 30th closing date
Southold Town Boar,~'~f Appeals -26- June 21~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3246 - CARRIG & McDONALD, continued:)
MR. BR'UER (continued):
and that has been extended to this month, and we are in some what a
jeopardy with respect to this matter.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll make every attempt. I think
we're going to go until 2:00 o'clock in the morning, to be honest
with you. But I would make every attempt to resolve this, and in
some way, a determination by the end of next week, and that's the
best I can do for you.
MR. BRUER: I woul'd appreciate that, and I don't very often ask
that request.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll we ap.preciate you.r--
MR. BRUER: Th~nk you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak
in behalf of the application? A'ny~d~_l'ike to speak against the
application? Questions from board m~m~ers?
GAIL 'WI'CKHAM, 'ES'Q,: My name is Gall Wickham, and I represent
Mr. Waha'~, %he adjoi, n~ng ow~:er. I was just contacted tonight. I
would just to see the m~.p of the rig~'-..9~.w'ay an~the engineer's
re~grt. I~m not sure yet the objec%i.Q.~_~_~ ~hat until I look at
the file.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bruer, it's my opinion that this right-of-way
is 15 feet wide?
MR. BRUER: One rod.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What?
MR. BRUER: One rod.
MR. CHAIRMAN: One rod.
MRS. WICKHAM: Sixteen and a~half feet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: During the entire length?
MR..BRUER:] Y~s.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Do you have a copy of the original survey.
We just have a'cOpy of it.
MRS. WICKHAM: Which is the property?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not the proper survey. This is an
existing house~
MRS. WICKHAM: Ok. (Mr. Bruer showed Mr's. 'Wickh.am the map
and o~tl.ined the area of the right-of=way'for .her perusal.)
Southold Town Boar~d~of Appeals -27- June 21'¥ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3246 - CARRIG & McDONALD, continued:)
MRS. WICKHAM: Ok. As I said, I was just contacted, so I haven't
had a chance to speak to Mr. Carrig, My client's only concern if
there is any soil removed from the property, it be retained on the
property, and I see they do recommend some topsoil be removed, so
we would like to discuss that with you people before it's done.
And he also indicated there were a~couple 6f drainages', pipes under
the road that he would like retained. I'm sure they can work that
Out.
MR. BRUER: We're only going to do what they make us do.
MRS. WICKNAM: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like us to recess this for a few
minutes so that you can rqvf'e~ th.at'with Mr. Bruer?
MRS. WICKHAM: Those are the only two things. I don't have
any objection to'the application.
MR. BRUER: I don't th~nk there would be a problem.
MRS. WICKHAM: That's really between the owner'of the fee
and the people that have the r!ght-of-way, It doesn'~t affect
the board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, Just quickly, any soil removed you want
retained on site?
MRS,'~W.CCKHAM: That was what he said tonight, 6ut I think
we'll'have to see the extent ofYthe ~emoval and work it out
between us. That's not a concern of the board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objections?
MR. BRUER: No. we're going ~o work it out ourselves, but
I don't think it should be .part of the board's decision.
MR. C~RRIG.~ The removal is only on the existing roadway,
the topsoil, And there are.Mo drai~Qage pipes that I know of,
MRS. WICKHAM: He seemed to think there were a couple.
MR. CARRIG: For the mos%,.part, we would attempt to put a
drainage pipe in, for all of thq. water on one side to the other,
but there's no pipe there now.
MRS, WICKHAM: He's just obviously concerned about farm
drainage not being affected, so. As I said, that will be
worked out between the two. I just wanted to look at the
application.
MR~ BRUER: Thank you very much,
Southold Town Boar~f Appeals -28- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appe~ No. 3246 CA'RRIG &MCDONALD, continu"~d:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like
to speak against the application? Questions from anyone? Board
members? Hearing no fur%her questions, I'll make a motion closing
the hearing and reserving decision.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded 'by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the hearihg ~and'reserVe decision in the
matter of the appl'icatio~ Of P~T~I~-~-ARRIG and MARK S.. McDONALD,
Appeal No. 3246.
Vote of the Board: 'Ay.es: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Dou.g]ass and Sawicki~ T. his re$_ol.ution was un_animously
adopted by .all the members.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3206. Application of HENRY ~P.
SMITH.., Hpbart Road~, Sou~hold, 'NY for a V~nce to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article VII, Section lO0-71, Bulk Schedule, for
approval of two parcels with insuff.~..Ci~ent area and width in 'this
B-1 Business District, located at...the West Side of Peconic Lane,
on the south side of the L.I.R.R., Peconic; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000~74-5-2 and ~.~(9.2).
~he Chairman opened the hea~ing at 9:01 p'?m. 'and read the legal
notice of this hearing_in its entirety and ap_~e.al ap~plication, ~i_th
affidavit Of Henry P. Smith.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy o~ a survey p~ep~red November 9,
1983 by VanTuyl & S~n, and we have a copy of the Suffolk Coun'ty
Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area.
Would you like to be heard in behalf of this matter?
PHILIP J. OFRIAS, JR., ESQ.: The application is pretty well
as stated in Mr~ Sm~h~a~fida~t.~ What~e proposes to d~_, the
main building there ~hat h.~ses the post office and grocery stor'e
and the laundromat, is in need of extensive repair. Mr. Smith's
father was not interested or undertaking the task and Mr. Smith
is now ~he owner, he's not either, but he does require'the southerly
building which they use for equipment storage in adjunct to their
business on the Main Road. They have trucks and equipment that
they keep there.' The application if grante~ would cause no change
whatsoever in ~ither 6f.%he b~ildings. There will be no changes
made, no fences, no construction, no physical changes whatsoever,
to someone driving by, to someone drivi.~g down the road, there
would not appear to_have been any change at all. What it is, Mr.
Smith has ~o. pnd someone willing to purchase the bu}lding and
expend wh~ we would estimate to be in the vicinity_of $60,000
$70~000 to make extensive repairs that are necessary We'd like
to sell that building to that man because he would like to have
- it anat..also Mr. Smith would like to not own it a~nym~re.
Because of the fact~t is a small lot, the overall parcel
is approximately one-half acre, this_would create two pa~rcels.,
each being approximately a quarter acre, one will be a little
over, one would'be 1-it~6 ~nder. But I-~hink the primarY ~hrust
Southold Town Boar~-~of Appeals -29- June 21~-1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3206 - HENRY ?. SMITH, continued:)
MR. OF~IAS (continued):
of our application to this board is that the granting of the applica-
tion would cause no physical change whatsoever to the physical
plan that's there or to the uses that are going on. The present
uses that have been there for years and years would continue
without change.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you would like to say,
Mr. Ofrias?
MR. OFRIAS: I don't believe there's anything else.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok.
MR. OFRIAS: We're having some trouble with the Planning Board,
as far as the parking. They want-=
MR. CHAIRMAN: That w~ my question. How do you intend to
come wp with the 24 parking s~aces?
MR. OFRIAS: There's no way to come up with 24 parking spaces,
just on a square fOotage basis,, it's not there. I just got this
letter from the Planning Board yesterday, and starting at noon
yes.terday, we've been doing an hourly count of the number of cars
there, and from noon till 5:00 o'clock yesterday, and then starting
at 7:00 o'clock this morning until 5:00 o'clock tonight, the most
cars that were ever there at any one time ~ere~ilght, and most of
them were parked on the roadway. I shouldn't say most of the eight
were parked on the roadway, but there are always cars on the
roadway. And then if there are three or four cars there, then
somebody pulls into the lot onto the side. The Planning Board
~f. th'ey stay with th~ 2~_parking places, ~ don't see any way we
can c~ply .... Now it has been sugge, sted that maybe we ~llow some
parking on in front of the garage that Mr. Smith intends to keep,
but we can't even put_lO cars--we have a plan for 14 p~rking
spaces. They want'ilO mo~e. We can't even put these lO more
parking spaces in front of the garage, we'd block the entrance
way to th.e garage substantially. I think that in my speaking
with the Planning Board~ the secretary of the Planning Board,
it's my understa~din'g that they imposed a req~.~rement of one
parking space for every 100 sq.. ft. based on the section of the
ordinance which refers to shoppi~§ centers. I attempted on
numerous occasions to get ahold of David Emilita about this.
I've been unsuccessful in getting ahold of him to speak with him.
I think th'ey're in error. I had submitted my Proposall to the
Planning Board for 14 parking spaces based on my understanding
that we. needed one .~pace for every 200 sq~ ft., which we can
comply with, and which our proposal does. So we have a parking
plan_~.with 14 spaces. If they want one ~arking for every 100
~.~. ft. and if they stand by that, we cannot comply with that.
Southold Town Boar~Jof Appeals -30- June 2T-~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3206 - HENRY P. SMITH, continued:)
MR. oFRIAS (continued):
I'd l~ke to think that when I get ah~ld of somebody and sit down
and talk to over there, and particularly if we run this count
on the parking for a period of weeks, which we're going to do,
I think that it w. ill show there's no way you need 24-- I don't
think they put 24 cars there at the same time forever.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What do you suggest that we do, Mr. Ofrias?
Recess this hearing until the July meeting?
MR. OFRIAS: What's the date of your July meeting?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would probably be the early part of July,
the second week, third'
MR. OFRIAS: I think so. That might give me the opportunity
to get ahold of the' Planning Board and, you see, I just received
the letter yesterdaz, and didn't have any._oppOrtunity to speak
with them about
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that would be the most equitable
thing here 'because I think if. we clo.se the hearing on the basis
of the fact that we're deali~ng with 24 cars, then~we're definite-
ly goin.g to have a problem..:i'n del~iberating upon'this particular
application. So I think that-iriS the mQ~t viable thing to do
would be to recess the hearing until the next board bearings,
and hopefully you'll have th~.$ resol.ved and then we'll know
exactly _hlow. many w~..have to deal with at that partiq~lar time.
Ok?
MR. OFRIAS: Ok. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Woui~ anybody else like to be
heard~in behalf of this application? AnybOdy like to be heard
against the application? (No one)~ Que.stions from board
members? (Noue) Hearing no further questions,...I'll make a
motion recessing this hearing until the next Regul..~riMeeting,
which will--give us a call some time after the 4~h o~f July,
and we'll give you a date on it, sir.
MR OFRIAS: Fine. Thank you very much.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you very much for coming in.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Domglass, it was
RESOLVED, tO recess Appeal No. 3206, hea~ing of HENRY P.
SMITH until the next Regular Meeting of this board in JU~Y 1984,
(tentatively July 26th)._.
Vote of-th~ Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resol_ution was uqani, mously
Southold Town Boar~-~f Appeals -31- June 21S-q984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3206 HENRY P. SMITH, continued:)
adopted by all the members.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3231~ Ap.plication for DOUGLAS
MILLER, Montauk Hi.ghwa~, Quogue, ~NY~for a Variance ~or approval
of accesses, New York Tow~n Law, S~c~ion 2~O~A over_two pr. ivate
rights-of-way, one known as. "Kirkup Lane" and one as "Laurel Way"
located at the south side or'Sound Avenue', Mattituck,-.(Near
Laurel), to premises identi~fied as County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-t21-~-10 containing approximately 7.2 acres.
Th'e Chairman opened the hearing at 9:09 p.m. and read the legal
notice of this hear.ing in its entirety and ap~peal application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey dated February 25,
1984 and then ~pdated April 10, 1984. indicati.ng the n.ature of
these rights-of=way and a ~copy of the Suffolk..County Tax Map
indicating this and surroundingproperties in th~ area. Mr.
Guldi, would ~'Q~'I~E~ to be heard in behalf of this application?
GEORGE G~LDI, ESQ.: Yes, I would. The application lies on--
this ~is essent~ially a bifurcated application, ~n~it~ati~he.re are
two rights-of-way? We really only. need one means of access to
the parcel. The two rightsr~f~way are existing roadwaYs, although
there's a_complication with r~spect to the Kirkup Lane right-of-way.
The Laure~ Way right=of-way is described as such in the'deed.
The Kirkup Road right=of-way is not a deeded right~of-way.,obut is
one that we submit_was acquired through adverse, user by %he belief
of the prior owner, Mulvihill, for 22 years. This was. his deeded
r~§ht-oy-way. A belief tha% we could ~ee was mistaken We've
submi%ted ~ affidavit of M~lvihill to that affect ~n~t~at it
only came to h~s attention.that hi~ deeded right-of-way was off--
adjacent, was p~ratlel to, along side of Kirkup R~d and not
across Kirkup Road._ When our surveyor prepared this survey, he
brought it tp our attention, then w~ brought it to his, bs~bis,
I mean Joseph Mulvihill, the prior, owner's son. I've submitted
his affidavit ~i~th r~6pect tQ_the use of Kirkup Road. As the
engineer's report indicates, and as we believe the condition and
use of Kirku~ Road as an access was far more desirable then the
use of Laurel Way because of the condition of the ro~ and the
direct~ss of the route. The board has a letter from A~gail
Wickham, the counsel for Peconic Homes'that the n~w owner of. the
adjacent land over ~hich Kirkup Road runs, she has stated that
it's her.~pinion that we have not acquired a right-of-way by
adverse user. We have, I think it's fair to say, we. are gQing
-to attempt to discuss with Peconic Homes the pQSsibility of
some licensing arrangement_~here we negotiated the determination
Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- June 2~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appe~i No.3231~ - ~DOUGLA~ MILLER., continued:)
MR. GULDI (continued): ...........
of that question, although we have not had an opportunity to do that~
Meanwhile, unfortunately, while we are also an applicant who
signed a January contract and have a seller that's ve~ ~n~'~6'~s
that we close. At the moment while we have an application pending
with the Planning Board, well, at the moment we don't even have
access tO the land and as su. ch it's unbuildable and cannot close.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Mr. Guldi, we in our engineer's report do not
have any problem with Ki~rkup Way, We think that the major brunt
of that road is in reasonably g~od condition, regardless -- it's
a.moot point at this particKlar time if you had a ri.§~t-of-way
over it or not. The issue h.ere is when ~e went and ins~pected --
apart from the eDgineer's report-- the Laurel Way righ~-of-w~'y
we found that the lake has currently cut in 9nd.h.as barred y~
from the actual r~ght of using tha~ right-of-way. ~
MR, GULDI': Could you sh~w me on th~ survey where you mean
that?' I saw it in the engineer's report and did not un.derstand it.
MR, CHAIRMAN: It do~s not show on this survey.
MR, GULDI: Ok. Could' you show me where on ~he survey where
the wate~ was observed?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right°here~
MR. GULDI: If you could mark this copy. All right, The
current, the existin~g right-of-way for Kir_kKp R~ad, e~cuse me,
for Laurel Way does not exten_d ali the way t_o the property, That
e~sement is an easement from the_deed tha_t was in ~Mac_ari's
chain of title, so basically~ my easement is a right to go
from my pro~9.rty~line to La_u~e~,~Way']across his ladd, at least
~s I ~,~.d~erEtand i~ Laurel W~Y dQgs not reach the Miller parcel
at th~ present time, _and that road would have to be extended to
the parcel if it we_re to be considered_ as an access road.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Can you give us a copy of that?
MR. GULDI: The dee'd I believe it's in the file.
MR, CHAIRMAN: The copy o~ Macari's deed indicating this?
MR-, GULDI: Macari's ~deed-, no, Macari's chain of title is
from Jarzombek. My deed to M~lvihill is from Jarzombek...So my
deed is in his cha.in of title even ~f it's not referred to i~
his deed.
MR, CHAIRMAN.: What you're saying is that in Macar~'s chain
of title it indicates --
Southold Town Board of Appeals -83- June 21~-1984 Regular Meeting
(Appe~]. No. 3231 DOUGLAS M'ILLE~, continued:) '- ~
-- MR. GULDI: Wel'¥'~a'rz~mbe'k 'Was the prior owner of the Macari
property..~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. GULDI: Jarzombek, the deed from Jarzombek, Mulvihill, is
in the file and i~ grants me a right-of-way across Laurel Way.. Ok?
Inheritance--in right-of-way across Laurel Way is the right-.of-way
to the end of Laurel Way.
MRs, CHAIRMAN: And we have that in the deed that you-
MR. GULDI: The deed that you have in the file, ~he right-of-way
is described. Across Laurel Way.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in behalf of this application? (No one) Mr. Guldi, before
we get past and get into anybody else, what's going to be the nature
of the situation here. If we grant the right-pr-way over Laurel Way,
are you going to entertain the improvements that we_are going to
require?
MR. GULDI: Of Laurel Way?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. GULDI: I don't know what improvements--I saw the survey--
I've been across Laurel Way. I don't, know that it could be done,
MR. CHAIRMAN~ That was my question.
MR. GULDI: I've seen it tooe I agree. I can't imagine the
existing laDdowners consenting to such improvements. I really
don't know what to do about the use of Laurel Way. Obviously, we
would prefer to work out an arrangement for the use of Kirkup Road
since it's more direct and it's in bette~ condition, and centainly
makes more sense considering the character of the area.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So why don't we recess this hearing until the
next Regular Meeting so that you can deal with Miss Wickham.
MR. GULDI: And her client. The only problem I have with that
is is dealing with my seller.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I see.
MR. GULDI: From January until July he's beginning to get a
little jittery. I had. conve~rsatioDs.Wi.~h him today, and he is
anxious to close.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're o~ly talking two or three weeks though.
MR' GULDI: The next regularly scheduled meeting, is that
July 14th?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Some time around' mid-July.
Southold Town Boar~of Appeals -34- June 21~1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3231 - DOUGLAS M~LLER, continued:)
MR. GULDI: I don'it know that we'd be able necessarily to
accomplish anything in that period of time any way. Given the
recent acquisition of the parcel, the Kirkup Road, lies across
the lot's current owner.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I thank you, Is there anybody else that
would like to speak against the application--is there ~nybody
that would lik to speak against this application? Do you have
any othe~ questions?
MRS. WICKHAM: I'd just like to reiterate that Peconic Homes
now has acquired'the property,~that is a corporation.owned by
David and Jerry Horror, who are willing to t~lk to these people
but I don't see how they have any ~laim of right whatsoever to
that roadway. They do have from th~ deed I saw a right-of-way
along Kirkup Lane from Sound Avenue that they ~:may want to
consider. But at this point, we don't have an agreement
whatsoever.
MR. GULDI: That is the third possibility and that would
require bulldozing a substantial amount of the wood land at
the tail end of the road, It is a possibility that is not
certainl~y desirable. We would be more interested in exploring
the others. As is my opinion that we do have and have acquired
a right-of-way by adverse user across Kir~up Road not albng, not
along it for the reason set forth in the affidavit of Joseph
Mulvihill that's been submitted to this board and is in your file,
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. But we are dealing specifically with
Kirkup Lane as'the nature of this particular 280-A as the
alternate--or the primary--
MR. GULDI: As the primary. You know, if--frankly if this
board were to deny the application on Kirkup Way, then the
secondary choice would be along Laurel Way rather than bulldozing
a new road parallel through~.the Ki~kup Lane for the full length.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank you. Any questions from board members?
(None) Hearing no further queStions, I"ll make a motion closing
the hearing and reserving decision ~ntil .later.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr, Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to cl'o~ t~e ~eari~]~g and reserve deCiS'ion ~n the
matter of the ap.plication of DOUGLAS MILLER,. Appeal No, 3231.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: -~ssrs. 'Goehringe~ Grigoni"s,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki~ This resolution was unanimously
adgpted 'by_.~ll the members.
A five-minutes recess was taken at 9:'26 p.m. after motion was made
by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and duly carried
unanimously.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -~35.- June 21, 19-84 Regular Meeting
The meeting reconvened at approximately 9:41 p.m. after motion by Mr.
Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Doyen, and unanimously carried. RECESSED PUBLIC H~AR~N§~~ Appeal No. 3232.
Application for BERTRAM~AND MARGERY WALKER, by R.T. Haefeli, Esq.,
Box 757, RIverhead, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article
III, Section 100-31, for: (a) an interpretation that the existing
cottage and garage are valid preexisting, nonconforming uses and
structures; (b) approval of a wooden deck as an accessory structure
in the sideyard; (c) approval of a reduction of livable floor area
of a proposed dwelling conversion to 500 sq. ft. and approval of
i. nsufficient sideyards. Premises located at Edgemere Park, MacDonald's
Path off Peconic B'a~ ~Boul. evard, Laurel; Coun't~ Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-145~4-014.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Haefeli.
RICHARD T. HAEFELI, ESQ.': I thi.nk you asked for a copy of the
subdivi'sion map as fil~ed i~ the Suffo. lk.County Clerk's Offi. ce. I've
obtained a copy of that for you. (Mrs. Haefeli handed ~be chairman
a copy of th~.Edgeme~e Park subdivision maR as filed under File No. 742.
on July.2~ 1931~ Abstract No. 1067~for thq r~cqrd.)
~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you'very'~uch.
MR. HAEFELI: I'd. l~ke Mrs. Beatrice Wasson to come ~p. She
was the lad~ I wanted t~ bring the last time and' who was not available
at the l_ast time, and she can give_a history as to her k~'owl.edge of
the cottage.
MR, CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Wasson, can I ask you to raise your right hand
please? ('Mr~.'Wasson ~aised her right hand..)~ Do' you solemnly swear
that everything you're going to say ~n this testimony i's. fact?
MRS. wAssoN: True°
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MRS. WASSON: I was asked to come here tonight and before, to speak
about'an attached cottage which belo'nged to Mrs. MacDonald. when I knew
her in 1948 or '49. It was in that a~ea. And ~OW there!S a question as
to Mr. and Mrs. Walker mother being sent out of the house that ~s now
being made livable. She is 84 years-old. And this is something I can't
understand where neighbors can do this to one another. However, that's
neither here nor there. What I'd like to say is that I knew that to be
a livable cottage.~n 1949, ~er sister Molley lived in it when they
didn".t~get along. M~s. MacDonald, her name was Bertha but she was
called Bea, and we were ~ery good friends, and I knew Mr. MacDonald--
hi9 name was Stuart C. MacDonald', and once in awhile her sister and she
wouldn't get along, so she would go over and live in the cottage. And
then she had a maid. She was a black girl who wore a black uniform.
My children all knew her, My nephew, Roger Fleshutes (spelling?) was
the chauffeur.for Mr's, MacDOnald. Took Mrs. MacDonald and.the maid back
and forth to New Yo.rk,~ but {'he maid lived i.n that cottage. There was he~
Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- June 21, 1~4 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No, 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MRS. WASSON (continued):
There was light. There was water. There was a stove. There was
sleeping facilities. There was everything there available. So I'm
sure nothing was done after that. Then it was sold to Mr. Fulcher.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you give us some time period when that might
have been, Mrs~ Wasson?
MRC-CHA~RMAN: When the MacDonalds had owned this premises?
MRS. WASSON: Sure. Between-- I built my home in 1950. 'My
brother built in 19~9~ And that house was built the year 1948,'1949
before that~
MR. c~AIRMAN: T. hank you .very much.
JAMES CRON, ES'Q.: M~ Chairman, Since it is a sworn witness--
may I ask the witness a few que.stioQs?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you use that mike. Do you have any objection,
Mr. Haefeli?
MR. HAEFELI: No, I don't. I was under the impression that ques-
tions came through the attorney--
MR. CHAIRMAN: I was jus{ going to say that-- you're welcome to
use the mike, but you're going.to have to.address, the quest.ions to
the board.
MR. CRON: Y~s, Mr. Chairman. I would request that the board ask
Mrs. Wasson if in fact the MasDonalds used the property more than on
a seasona~ basis?
MRS. WASS.ON: No. They didn"t live there all winter.
MR. CRON: ~nd di-- excuse me.
MRs. WASSON: No.' They didn't live there in the winter. It was
in the summer, and fall, a~d spring. It was probably six months out
of the year.
MR. CRON: Mr. Chairman, in particular, was the dwelling--excuse
me, the structure which is the su.bject matter in this ap,p]ication ~sed
during that six month period that they were there?
MRS. WASSON: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And for six months it was not used?
_ MRS~ WASSON: Well '~ didn't go over to check on it.
Southold Town Board of~Appeals -37- June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY wALKER, continued:)'
MR. CRON: Well you checked on it for the six| ~onths it was used.
MRS. WASSON: Please, sir, I knew them very well| and we were very
friendly. They came weekends, and what they did all the time I wouldn't
know. But I know it was available.
MR. CRDN: Mr. Chairman, would you ask the witness if in fact the
two structures on the property were winterized and ~losed for the winter.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What do you mean by that?
MR. CRON: That the buildings were not used fo~ six months out of
the year. That the people who lived there during the seasonal use
the buildi'ngs packed' uR ~nd~'~ived elsewhere.
MRS. W~SSON: I ~an't answer that truthfully because they came
weekends.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Weekends all yearround, Mrs. Wasson, do you know?
MRS. WASSON: Not during"~he winter.
MR. CRON: Thank you, M~. Chairman and Mrs. Wasson.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again, Mrs. Wasson. Mr. Haefeli, do you
have any oth~r'witnesses?
MR. HAEFELI: Yes. I'd like Mr. Walker to come up so he can testify
please?
MR. CHIARMAN: Mr. WAlker, would you raise your right hand please?
(Mr. Walker raised .hi~ .right hand..). Do you solemnly s~ear that ~he
teatime'ny that you're about to give is the tr~th, ~he whole truth and
nothing but the truth?
MR. WALKER: I do.
MR. HAEFELI: J~st give them the history.
MR. WAE-KER: We mo~d into the house ~ the cottages on the property
in 1976. ~.nd we used he cottage, the children used the cottage. My one
son lived there during the winter, and in the Year 1980, my mother came
out and we remodeled and made a beautiful studio apartment out of it,
which it was before, but we remodeled it, and she's living there full
time, yearround, as we are. Now what I want to say is that the house
and cQ.ttage both weren't;a~year~ound~es~'dence, It was a summer resi-
dence. We made a full year residence out of the house and we did the
cottage. Oh, and I'd like to show you the picture of the cottage before
we did the remodeling. (The picture was passed to the board members
through the Chairman?)
MR. HAEFELI: Would you tell them about when that picture was taken?
M~. WALKER: Around the 19'76~7~., soon after we moved in.
MR'. CH'~IRMAN: Mr. Haefeii?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. HAEFELI: I have only one other thing, gentlemen, and that is
that the deed from Virginia Fulcher to John Kelly. I believe last time
when Mrs. Kelly testified that she at one point tried to obtain or put
additional buildings on the property that she owned, which I believe
Mr. Ziedler owns now, and I think you will see in that deed there's a
covenant restricting the ability to construct so that you could--a person
could not construct on the Kelly property to block the view from the
Fulchers' house. Maybe that was the reason why she could not do any
additional expansion on her piece of property. Other than that I have
nothing further. (Mr. Haefeli handed the Chairman a five-page deed
recorded at Liber 6994 page 127 dated August 20, 1971, for the record.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Cron?
MR. CRON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I would like to
hand up a certified copy of the decision of Justice Tedeschi on
October ll, 1983. I wQuld also like to hand up the affidavits of
Ann L. Kelly, Mabel and John Costanza, who were the prior owners
before the Careys., (Letter dated December 5, 1981 signed by Ann L.
Kelly and witnessed by Joan A. Jacobs,'~and~t~o~separate affidavits
notarized DecemberlO~ 1981 of John S. Costanza and Mabel Costanza,
were all submitted, and made part of the record.)
MR". CRON: Gentlemen, in particular, I draw your attention to
page two of the deci_sion of Justice Tedeschi. Th_~ last paragraph
specifically refers to an.accessory structure on the prQper't]y. _.
Obviously there would have to be a merger of use for an accessory
structure to be on the property. In other words,_~ it has to be
accessory to something-that would be the dwelling that is on the
property.
On page three of Justice Tedeschi's decision, he mentions that
the second dwelling on the premises was illegal. Obviously, the
entire four building lots would have to be._co~.~idered one ~remises
to have two dwellin~on it, and therefore be illegal. Gentlemen,
the legalities .~9 this par~icular case have been established. This
matter has been litigated, all_~pertinent witnesses Were ~all-~d at
the time of trial and subject to cross-examination by defense
counsel, who is in the exact same law fi. rm that is ~epr~.~enting
the applicant t~ight. What I'm ~.~yin§ to you is that this bQ.ard
should not determine legalities. The legal..ities have been estab-
lished. Do not sit as aR_ Appeals Board._ Do not review what
jomebody has already been CQ_Dvi_~cted of.
Also, gentlemen, I'd like to direct your attention to the
purpose of building permits and certificates of occupancy. Ma~ny
times in the paper transit that goes on, We fail to realize ~hat
the purpose is. The purpose is to insure that the dwellings
involved are safe and that the health of the n~'ighbor~]are_insured.
These individuals de~ided that their neighbors' welfare was not
of paramount concern and that their own particular individual
_ interests were of paramount concern. Therefore, they took themselves
Southold Town Board of~-Appeals -39- June 21, 1~9~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. CRON (continued):
both above the neighbors who reside in that subdivision with them,
the laws of the State of New York, and are open tonight to come
before this board tonight, and say, "Gentlemen, sanction what we
did wrong. Allow us to keep what is illegal. Allow us to break
the law. And allow us to step on the neighbors." I think,
gentlemen, in some summation, this board can plainly see this
application is devoid of any merit. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN- Would anybody else like to speak against the
application? Mr. Ziedler.
RICHARD ZIEDLER: I have just handed the board a map of Edge-
mere Park, that I got yesterday at the County Clerk's Office. It's
dated July 2, 1931. If you look at the little subdivision that
it is, if you look at Lot 19. Lot 19 is a rather large lot, but it
has two buildings on it. One where a man lives in it. Number two,
a cottage. Or a playhouse. Or a tool shed. Whatever it is, it's
there. If you look at lot 137, 159, ~149, there's a man who has a
house, he has a tw~-car garage, separate from the house. They too
have had people sleep in it at various times. But you go down to
the Lot #8, ~8 has a house; it has a separate two-car garage that
can be used for any of the things you're being asked to use. Lot
#9 and #10 have a house and a separate garage. Lot #11 not only
has a house, it has a'garage, and it has beds in it w.here the kids
sleep, I don't kn~w whether they've had chauffeurs or not. But
it's there, ii own Lot 12, 13 and 14. I have a house. Lot 14
has an easement view. And I would think that if you passed some-
thing like being asked to be passed here tonight, some place you
could s~eak a~,little something in there for me. I say to you
that this little subdivision can't stand six or seven more little
dwellings. Drive down the road--it's full of holes. The water
comes from out on the street 900 feet away--that's where the wells
are because you could not get a well ( ) for our homes. Sewage --
let"s~not even talk about that. That~has become such a tremendous
~problem. I think most of us that live there don't want to hurt
anybody. But we don't want to see any profit here. We don't want
to see land split. We just think this is wrong. A lot of us have
a big investment. A lot of us would like to live yearround, and
it just upsets to have to stand in front of Sou and plead. If you
grant this, you got to grant the neighbor, You got to grant the
next one. let's not mess up this little place. It's nice. Thank you.
MR~ CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like
to speak against the application? Anything you would like to say in
rebuttal, Mr. Haefeli?
MR. HAEFELI: This board's purpose is to grant variances, This
board's purpose is also to interpret this code. I'm not disputing
what Judge Tedeschi said. I'm not disputing what Judge Tedeschi did.
But if you take the logic of Mr. Cron,. it means that if a person goes
Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- June 21, T984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 - BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
MR. HA'EFEL~ (continued):
out, does something without a building permit, and is found guilty
of that, they can never under any circumstances come to this board
to ask for relief. I admit we built the extension or we expanded
that room--that area without a building permit. We're here tonight
to correct the situation. And the fact that there was a prior
decision in the Justice Court should not have bearing on this board
tonight or take away from this board's right, obligations and duties
to pass upon the application. You have the jurisdiction. The
Justice Court made a determination in a criminal nature. Yours
is the jurisdiction as to what the code says, what the code means,
and what relief you can give to this applicant and to every other
applicant in this town. This was a summer cottage back in 1948.
It was a summer cottage up until 1980. It's the same as many other
summer cottages in this town, that at some pointiin time they went
from being a-- from a seasonal nature to a yearround nature. And
many other people have converted homes that have initially started
out for summer use only, winterized them, and have been using them
on a yearround basis. This particular cottage is being used by the
mother of Mr. Walker. He's providing a place for her to live.
There are too few people today that are providing for their parents.
This is a way that it can be done. We have a 500 sq. ft.--approxi-
mately 500 sq. ft~ apartment with two small bedrooms. You people
have been in it. A living room and a kitchen. On a lot that unoer
your code -= that's a single and separate lot. All of the testimony--
there isn't a person that came in here tonight Or at%he la,tS
hearing, that said that that structure was not there prior to the
effective date of the zoning code of this town. So at the very
least, we have a summer cottage with an attached garage going back
to 1948. iThat structure has remained in the same location from 48
to today. And if this board makes that interpretation, this board
would then find that no variances would be needed as far as the
location of the structure, and that the only variances that would
be needed would be as to the size of the residence itself. But if
this board finds that it was a residence in '48 and continued until
the present time, then that interpretation would eliminate the need
for the granting of any variances. We would then come down to one
final ting--and that is the deck. And I don't think that deck really
affects anybody. We're asking for a variance because it was put in
the sideyard, because that's where the main door in and out is, and
it just makes it convenient to use it.
So in conclusion, gentlemen, the lot is a legal single and
separate lot, has been used for residential purposes since prior
to the effective date of the zoning code in this town, and I believe
my clients are ~ntitled to an interpretation to that effect, and
that they are entitled to maintain that cottage and the garage as
it is, or_at least in the alternative, that they're entitled to
the necessar~ variances that they've requested so that it can remain.
And that's all I have.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- dune 21, I984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER, continued:)
(At this time Mr. and Mrs. Walkers consulted with their attorney, Mr.
Haefeli, for a few moments.)
MR. CRON: In the interim, may I re pond ;o that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. CRON: There are a few points which I would like to take issue.
Counsel has mentioned that many of the residen'~s in the Town of
Southold have converted what once might have b~en garages and cottages
~nto livable dwellings. Granted, gentlemen. But what did they do to
convert them? They became before this board it necessary. They
definitely obtain'ed building~,pe~mits,'which are necessany. And they
obtained Certificates of Occupancy, which are ~ecessary before someone
can live in the building. Secondly, as concerhs Justice Tedeschi's
decision which convicted the petitioners in th~s particular case,
Justice Tedeschi in his decision interprets the zoning ordinances.
It is a criminal conviCtion based on reasonable doubt. A conviction
which bore a burden of proof beyond a reasonab'e doubt, something
which you gentlemen are not being asked to confider, therefore, a
higher burden of proof. Finally, gentlemen, t~ere's one other issue
which I would like to take point with.
The petitioner is not asking that his parent remain in this
building. The petitioner is asking for this b(ard to determine
that that particular lot could be sold to a th rd party. That is
quite a distinction between the emotion heard onight. He is saying
that this is a separate building lot with a se arate structure on it
which I can legally sell to a third party, tha is a far cry from
his 84-year-old mother living in the garage, hank you, gentlemen.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as~,'we don't get in o personalities, Mr.
Haefeli--
MR, HAEFELI: I really don't want to bela or the point. I'm
going to doubly emphasize the fact that th~s b(ard has jurisdiction
over the zonin~ code, irrespective of what Jud(e Tedes~hi said.
But number two, Judge Tedeschi also gave hem a conditional
discharge, the dondition being that t~hey come efore this board and
request the relief that we're requesting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comm nts? Questions from
board members? (None) Hearing.no further questions, I'll make a
motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by essrs. Douglass and
Grigonis, the h~aring was declared closed and ecision reserved
until later in the matter of BERTRAM ANDMARGE ~ WALKER, Appeal
No. 3232.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehri let, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawi.cki. This resolution was adopted by unani, mous vote~
Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- June 21, T984 Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No, 3234,
Application ~f ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT~,' et'al_~, Private Road,
Orient, NY for a reversal' of the'interpretation of the building
inspector concerning a Certificate of_Occupancy No, Z11736 issued
June 21, 1983 to E. Loucopoulos and H. Damianos f~r ~.~.on~Zfam-ily
dwelling ~and four accessory .cottage structures at Private Road
No. 7 (a/k/a Diedericks Road), Orient; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000z18-03-005. [Current Owners: D.I. Abbo~ and J.,_~.~Swanson.]
'The Chairman~]opened the hearing at approximatel~y. 10:09 p,m.
an~ read the~legal not~ce of hearin_g in i~ entire~ .~
MR. CHAiR~-AN~i I will ask you to allow me to d-'~spense with
read everything here', ~h9 board has red this and I want to
briefly sketch Exhibit B so that everybody is aware 0'{ what is
gQ_ing_on 'here, but ~ wo~ld rather not read every bit or piece
that's here,
HO.WARD E. PACHMAN, ESQ,: We'll expedite it as long as your
record i~'appropri'ate~ 'I W~.I1 hav~..~o R~jection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. ~(The Chairman read Exhibit B of
the application,)' I have~a ~opy'Of the Sur'vey map indicating
the ~a~ure and placement of th~._.CQ~tages'in question dated Qcto-
bet 31, 1983; and I have a copy of the Suff~lk County Tax'Map
indicating this and surroundi~.g propertied_in the area~ Mr~
Pachman,
HOWARD 'E. PACHMAN, ESQ.: Mr~ 'Chairman. I hope I can bring
this close engugh and I ho~e I speak loudly eno'ugh that I don't
need ~py'micro.~hone and yo~ ~e'~.le to he~ me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If ~ybo'd~"-~h~s problems hearing in the back
of the room, please let us know.
MR. PACHMAN: A~ the outse'{=-my name is Howard Pachman. I'm
an att~rn'ey, "My office is at 26~_~eterans Memorial ..~ighway,
Commack, New YOrk; ..and I represent Mr. Truckenbrodt and the adja-
cent owners of all the properties abutting the Abbott and Swanson,
say for one or teO which I will explain in a second. Befowe I
start, I think it's tair {'or %he record t'~at I indicate that I
have been in the pas% been consulted by a Mr. Burke Liburt, who
is a neighbor to one of the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
I think I want that t~.~be on the record. I'm not asking nor my
clients asking for that member, Mr. Douglass, to disqualify himsel"f
Southold Town Board of~ppeals -43- June 21, ~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
from this board. ~Thati'.sla~Jchoice that he would want to make. I'm not
asking him to do it, but for the record, I want it to be understood
that I have been in consultation with Mr. Liburt about the problem
with the two neighbors, and I want the rec.ord to show this statement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready to take the oath?
MR. PACHMAN: Yes, I'm ready to take the oath.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your right hand?
MR. PACHMAN raised his right hand.
MR. 'CHAIRMAN: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, t~e whole truth, and nothing but the
truth?
MR. PACHMAN: I do.
MR.'~'CH.AIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. PACHMAN: That's the first time I've been sworn in as an
attorney.~ I would also like to take somet, hing out of order. I
subpoenaed the Long Island Lighting Company,.~he record--he has
appeared with the recQrd~'would you mind ~ I take ~'~m out Of
order so he wouldn't have to st'~y? Would the gentleman from the
Lighting Compan.y please stand~ u~. and state your name, and if the
Chairman would li..ke ~ou to be sworn in--
MR. CHAIRMAN: ~'Use the mike, if you would, Sir, please.
JOHN WAHLERS: My name is John ~hlers, 'W-A-H-'[~'E-R-S.
MR. PACHMAN: M~'. Wahlers, are you an emplo~e'e"of ~he Long Island
Lighting ~ompany?
MR'~.WA~LERS: I am,
MR~'PACHMAN: And was the Long Island Lighti~g.~Compa'ny served
with a subpoena by my office?
MR~ WAHLERS:~ ~'t was delivered to Mineola. Yes.
MR. P.AC'HMAN: And was it so ordered subpoena b~ the Honorable
Justice DeLuca of the S'upreme Court of the S~ate of New York. A. nd
did it ask. you to bring tonight before this board certai_p books,
statements, a. nd.~re¢ords that you have relating to premises sometimes
known as Green Ac~es, Tax Ma~_Number 10~, Section 081, BlOck 03,
Lot 005, located in Private Ro~d, Diedericks Road, East Marion, N~w
York, in the name o~_Dorothy I. Abbott and Janet T. Swanson, or, _and
Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
M'R. PACHMAN (continued):
I hope I pronounce this name correctly, and if I don't, please forgive
me, Eurydice Loucopoulos, L-O-U-L-O=P-O-U-L-O-S, or Herodotos Dam~anos.
Did you bring those records, Sir? _~
MR. WAHLERS: I believe I have those records.
MR. PACHMAN: Do those records indicate when electrical service
serviced that particular parcel of property?
MR. WAHLERS: In what name, Si'r?
MR. PACHMAN: In the name of Loucopoulos and Damianos.
MR. WAHLERS: Service was in that name between May the 10th, 1974
and August 28, 1978.
MR. PACHMAN: Do you have any record on those premises--is'~that
for the main house?
MR. WAHLERS: It's for the main house.
MR. PACHMAN: What about the cottages?
MR. -WAHLERS: The cottages have the same, so the record is the
same for the cottages.
MR. PACHMAN: All right. You may have some new service in the
name of Swanson and Abbott, do you?
MR. WAHLERS: We do.
MR. PACHMAN: And when was that service applied for?
MR. WAHLERS: I have two applications dated February 13, 1984.
One application dated March 27, 1984~in the name .of AbbQtt and Swanson.
MR'. PACHMAN: Are they for the main house and the cottages?
MR. WAH[ERS: These applications are not complete. One is
Cottage Two. Another for Cottage Two. Cottage One. Cottage Three.
Cottage Four. Those are just applications.
MR. PACHMAN: Has service b'e~n installed in those cottages yet?
MR, WAHLERS: No meters have been set in these two that we--the
four that I.just referred to.
MR. PACHMAN: So, Sir, do I understand your testimony, between
1978 and %he new applications, there was no electrical service
.servicing the main building or the cottages on this parti-cular loca-
tion?
MR. WAHLERS: After 1978, the services were abandoned, removed.
MR. PACHMAN: I have no further questions.
Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -45- June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R.' TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to permit the other side to--
MR. PACHMAN: It.'s up to you. You run the show here, Sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to ask Mr. Esseks, do you have any
questions of this--
MR. ESSEKS: Over~berei~ I don't.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh,~I d~dn'~ see you over there, Sir. I thought
you were hiding on the other side of the--
MR. ESSEKS: I couldn't see the easel.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I see. Thank you very much, Sr.
MR. WAHLERS: May I be excused?
MR. PACHMAN: Ye's. I have the--he doesn't have cop~es of those~
recOrds, .but I think hi.s.~testimony would suffice in lieu of supplying--
MR. CHAIRMAN: How would we get copies"of those?
MR. ~A~EERS: I can supply them if you need them.
MR. PACHMAN: Would you ~end copi'es to the Board of Appeal.s?
MR. WAHLERS: Board of,Appeals~
MR. PACHMAN: Right. And send a copy to me please? Howard Pachman.
MR. WAHLERS: All right.
MR. PACHMAN: M~. Essek's, would you like to sit a little closer
so that you could see the easel? I'~ no~ trying to block ~ur_view.
The parcel of property of Abbott and Swanson consists of some 12
acres in Orient, New York, and it fronts about 435 feet on Long Island
Sound. Access to that property is off the Main Road on a right-ofgway
which traverses land of Lyons on two sides who is also one of the ..
object~nts and one of my clients, it passes through~ land of Rose
Ohaniah (~p~il~l~g?), Smith, Chouinard, and Caufield and then passes
through Leslie, ahothe~client, p~Sses Singerman~ Hess, Gullackson
and Mearns. Gullackson is the predecessor in title to Truckenbrodt.
Mr. Truckenbrodt is the ~ecent purchaser of that .property. On the
easterly side, or northerly side really, is Dr. Pung, Bayles, Bayles,
Kulpa,_Gold. (Mr. Pachman referred to map on easel which was placed
in the fro~t portion of the audience.~
The people who are concerned and who are objecting are Mr. Lyons,
who is at thc_foot of the right-of-way--you have Leslie, Singerm.~n,
Hess, Tr~ckenbrodt, Mearns, Pun§, Bayles, Bayles~ K~!pa. Now you have
Southold Town Board o~Appeals '46- June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
some statements from some of these owners indicating during the years
that they have been in ownership of this property during the time that
Damianos--we'll use that name for sake of ease rather than repeating
both namesm-were in possession of that property which I think wa~
19~6. During that time the cottages were used as indicated by the
Lighting Company for some period of time in 1975 and 1976, and then
was abandoned and the service was cut off in '78. Your letters, which
you already have in the file which I will not repeat, indicating the
people who testified or sent statements as to the use of the property
would be redundant to restate them at this time.
I have witnesses present--some people who have testified as to
the actual use of theproperty duriQg this period of time. But as a
predicate, before I in%rQduce said testimony, I think it behooves me
not to remind you but to once again draw your attention to your
ordinance, which, obviously sets forth the purposes Of the health,
welfare and safety, and also requires that the residences be pre-
served.
One of the the most important statements in your ordinance,
100-10, which sets forth purposes says that it should be,'under "F,"
the gradual elimination of nonconforming uses. And this a stated
purpose in your ordinance.
It is clearly without a doubt that today the use of cottages,
motels, tourist camps, are not proper uses i_n the zoning as it
presently exists on that particular property. And if that
property is to' be used in the fashion that Swanson and Abbott
intend to use, ~'t would have to be based upon the fact that they've
had a continuing nonconforming use.
We next look to the statement as to definition of cottages
and motels=-I won't repeat them to you at this time, but if you're
going to operate today a tourist ca~p or a tourist cottage under
Article X, you must make application to get permits to do that.
I've checked with the Building Department, and the Clerk's Office,
and there is no record, to the best of my ability to find any
application on file dr any applications be filed to operate under
Article X as a tQurist colony or a camp.
Now we get to the issue Of wh~t is a nonconforming use. A
nonconforming use is defined specifically in the Ordinance as
what it is. And it says that a nonconforming use is any use
whether of a building or a tract of land, or both, existing on
the effective date of this chapter ~hich does no~ conform to the
use regulations of the district for which it is located. That
clearly is the case now. The district does not permit that kind
of use.
The ordinance under Section 100-118 talks about nonconforming
Southold Town Board of-~ppeals -47- June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R.-TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT SWANSON, 'continued )
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
uses and makes a statement. The statement is, "nless authorized as
a Special Exception by the Board of Appeals," which is not the case
here, "as hereinafter provided, the following provisions shall apply
to nonconforming uses." Obviously "A" says, and I'll just summarize
that, if the building ~ontinues to be used for that purpose, it can
remain as a nonconforming use.
" .... A nonconforming use of a building or premises may be changed
to a use .... or higher classification according to...this chapter~.~:
provided you go for the necessary variances.
"Whenever~" and this is "D",-this is what we're talking about
for the interpretation why we b~]ieve the building inspector erred
in not, although based on the affidavit which he did issue the
Certificate, when he was put on notice--put on notice that the
information contained in that affidavit which supported that Certi-
ficate was inaccurate or in doubt, he should have put a Stop Order
or revoke that Certificate and directed the applicant, or the then
owner, because the applicants were Damianos at the time and then
Swanson and Abbott took title; to Section D, which says:
",e.Whenever a nonconforming use of a building or premises has
been discontinued for a period of more than two years or has
been changed to a higher classi~fication...~',~.~w~ich is not
applicable here, "...the nonconforming use'of such building or
premises shall no'longer be permitted unless a variance
therefor shall have been granted by the Board of Appeals a~
hereinafter provided ....
And there's no record in your office where anyone moved.
(At this point in time, Bernice Gerardi, Stenographer for Mr. Pachman,
interrupted to s~op~'the ~ear}ng so that ~he s~eno machine could be
unjammed, etc.)
MS. GERARDI: ...Unless a variance shall thereafter be granted
by the Board of Appeals as hereinafter--
MR. PACHMAN:[...As hereinafter provided. And Section E, which is
also somewhat interesting. A. nonconforming building may not be
reconstructed or structurally altered during its life to an extent
exceeding in aggregate cost._.50%, of the fair value of the building
unless the use of such building is changed to a conforming use...,"
and I think the building inspector's records will reveal that there
is work being done in and about the premises, and I would believe
that after Sou hear the testimony as to the condition of the build-
ings, the cabins:~ that more than 50% of the value has been con-
structed, it would be installed in and about the premises. I find
it somewhat also, startling, and I'm somewhat concerned about the
Southold Town Board of~ppeals -48- June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
fact that the ordinance also calls for, that any reconstruction,
restoration, alteration, or structurally altered building, requires
that a permit be obtained from the Building Inspector; and although
roof work and'interiOr ~oom work was done, and siding work was per-
formed, and exterior structure landing, and various other things
and plumbing, and new Sewer.~wor~k was being performed, or cesspool
work was being performed, there has been no permit issued by the
building department. When I asked the building inspector as to
why no permits were issued, he says, that's the way we did it when
I came, and I'm just doing it the same way. I trust that was the
proper?~uote.
So we have work that's being performed. In violations of
building permits, Section under 100-1.41, which presumably would not
then be the basis for someone getti~§ a Certificate of Occupancy
which is a prerequisite for occupyin.g a dwelling, whether it be
a nonconforming use or a conforming use, and we don't have that.
And one of the reasons I do also believe that one is required
to have a building permit because ~that gives the Assessors Office
the key to know that some construction is going on, that some
buildings are being improved, and presumably the assessed value
which is coupled with the improvement of those buildings would be
shown on'the assessment role, therefore.~ ~'he Assessment-s would
change, and presumably the tax computed based u~on that piece of
property would also be the case.
So I'm asking for an interpretation as to why or if the
building inspector does not feel that the erection, reconstruction
and restoration for structu~all~y altered building.s required build-
ing permits. A simple lookin.g at any dictionary=-
(At this point in time,-'Mr. P'achman s stenographer interrupted t~
stop]the hearing due to problems with the steno machine. There was
another brief pause..)
MR. PACHMAN continued: If we look in the regular paperback dictionary
rather %hah the Funk and Wagnalls, we find that the word "alter" ~s
to make or become different or change in character, so the mere
applying of anything different is an alteration that would require the
issuance of a permit under your ordinance. If you look at the word
"reconstruct,' to build against, create', to e.nact, to renew; and we
can go through each one of those words and those words are clearly
defined and clearly set forth that under the very ordinance, a per-
mit was required and hasn't been done. So we need an interpretation
from this board as to why there has been no permit granted.
But let's get to the issue of nonconforming use and why there
hasn't been a stop order or some kind of action taken to abrogate
~the permit which was given in June of 1983 to Mr. Damianos and his
co-owner. And understandably and I'm not saying that Abbott and
Swanson didn't rely on it--I'm not blaming them. They bought the
premises I assume with the understanding that they had a valid permit.
I'm not suggesting that they did anything other than rely on the
Southold Town Board o~ppeals -49- June 21, T984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN continued:
person they bought the property from.
I have a statement here--he couldn't be present--from Dr. Pung,
who's the adjacent owner right there and it's in the affidavit form
and says:
"...To Whom It May Concern: June 7, 1984.
I have owned a summer home and waterfront lot-by Edwards Lane
in Orient since 1980. I have had in the ~ast negotiated to
purchase the adjoining property west of us belonging to Dr.
Damianoso I have inspected 3 cottages and 1 house in that
property and came with a builder who advised me that those
structures were beyond repair and should be torn down com~
pletely. It was on account of the conditions of those ~_
buildings that I decided not to go ahead with the purchase.
I also know positively that those buildings have been
abandoned at least since 1980 until re.cently.
I have been'involved in several building constructions and
I know those cottages and the house were total wrecks.
Thank yQU. "
Sworn to. Signed Dr. Pung.
MR. PACHMAN: I would like to submit that for the board. (The
document read above was submitted for the record and marked such.)
MR. PACHMAN: How we doing?
MS. GERARDI: Good.
MR. PACHMAN: I have another statement from Mrs. Mearns. Mrs. Mearns
is a homeowner right on the Long Island Sound adjacent .to the
property. As a resident immedi.ately adjacent to the newly acquired
pro. perty owned by Ms. Abbott and Ms. Swanson, I have been advised to
be in touch with you, as our attorney, to give you some details as
to the deplorable condition of the cottages on said property;
~' Several years ago, these cottages were offered to the employees
of Mr. Damianos and their families for vacation at the rate of $50
~er week. 'ALthough we wene not given the lady's name, one mother
told my husband ~hat with God's help, I will never come back to this
place~.again." She explained s~e had to s~_end the entre week doing
nothing but scrub and clean in an effort to make the place even
slightly livable. There was no place allocated for the disposal of
rubbish or.ganbage. The people just piled it behind one of the
bungalows that were unoccupied,"(pause for other stenographer).
J'..thus inviting rats to feed on the above. This was reported to the
former owner and it was corrected."
Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appe~ No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR'.' PACHMAN continued:
"...Occasionally we would look around the cottage as we were aware
of young peopl~ hanging~ou% in them. They surely made a shambles
of the place. The roof of one of the buildings, had a leak and
the rain gaining entrance~ thus _causing mildew actually climbing
the wall i,n the bathroom. We know the. lad~es are in possession of
an affidavit issued by Damianos, stating that these buildings have
been in continuous occupancy. The families of Hess~-Gullackson
(former owners of the T~uckenbrodt residence)~, and we, %he Mearnses
are related and at no time were all thr.ee homes left unattended
even over one might. I add this %o say, people ~ould not be
occupying the cottages at any time without someone ~f us observing
their p~.~sence. It is quite obvious that these ladies have pur-
chased the property under~ fraudulent circumstances. Submitted,_
,.~Mrs. Har~y ~earns .... "
~nd I think it's in affidavit form also. (Mr. Pachman submitted
the document of Mrs. ~rry Mearns which was marked received today's
date by the Chairman, for the record~)
As I i"~dicated to you the Truckenbrodt's predecessor in title is
Gullackson ~
~.'~-.]M'ay 21, 1984. To Whom It May Concern:
This is to advise you that--i resided in Orient from June 1971
~ntil June 1983 _~y house was located on a pr.iyate _?oad on
the_Dorth q~de of R~ute 25 and.bordered on the north 'by
property owned by Mearns, on the south by property owned
by Hess, and on the east 'by proper'ty owned 'by Dam~anos.
The cabins on the Damianos' ~pr~perty were visible from
· y property. These cabins were vacant, open an~d i..n total
di~?e~.sir._ The grounds surrounding the cabins were all
unke~.@t. For many years these cabins were unoccupied .... "
Signed,..Donald L. ~ullacks.on and it's witnesses by t~o
si.§natures ..... _
(Mr. Pa~hman submitted the May 21, 1984 one,page letter for the
record, which the Chairman marked '[~6/21/~4 ~eceiv~d, H.'~.~.)
On February 28, Mr. Lessard received a letter from IrenJ Singerman,
I think that shows in your file () who is the other owner
adj-acent ~0 this property.
"...Dear Mr. Lessa~d... I am writing you about a situation
that's just recently come to my attention. My husband and
I have been proper~y owners in Orient on a pr.irate road
known locall_y as Kierdricks Road, and have resided here
since June 1.979. A parcel of land on the Sound was recently
purcha~ed"f~m a pa~'%y name Damianos, containing several
_abaddoned ~-abins which formerly enjoyed protected statqs,
Southold Town Boar~of Appeals -51- Ju6e 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234~ ~. - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR~ PAcHMAN (con~-nued):
...even.though they did not conform to the local zoning laws.
Over the years, and certainly since we have lived there, the
cabins, to my knowledge, have never been inhabited, although
they have been vandalized repeatedly, and have been the
habitat of many animals. Their det~erioration has certainly
made them a hazard to all.
I understand that the present owners intend to and are
restoring them for rental use. Since these structures have
been abandoned for so many years, it seems to me that this
would be contrary to the zoning laws established by the Town
of Southold .... Sincerely Irene Singerman.
The original letter has been handed to me by the Building Inspector,
and I will hand that to this board for their information. (Letter
dated February 28, 1984 addressed to Victor Lessard, signed by
Mrs. Singerman was submitted for the record and marked received
today's date H.P..)
Thank you, Sir. At this time I would like to ask Mr. Hale to
please stand. One of the affidavits attached to the appl.ication
is from Mr. Hal6, who is present here. Mr. Hale, would you tell
me where'you own property with relation to the Damiano:~ property?
MR. HALE: My property is 300 feet east of the Damianos property~
Those'300 intervening feet being owned by Dr. Pung.
MR. PACHMAN: And'-hav'e you had occasion--how long have you
been living at that location?
MR. HALE: We've been living at that location yearround since
August of 1980. The buildi.ng was started under construction in
January of. 1980, and we had a cottage which was made a part of
the permanent building which has been in my wife's family since-
MR. PACHMAN: Approximately,
MR. "~ALE: Well, let's see. I've gone with my wife for 50
years and it was befor9 that. So I can't tell you what date.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Hale, I'm going to have to interrupt you,
sir. I think'I usurped the Chairman's charge of having ~u sworn in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: '~ould you raise your right hand please.
MR. HALE raised his right hand.
MR~ cHAIRMAN: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that
you are abO~t to give is the ~u.~ the whole truth and nothing
but the truth?
Southold Town Board ~of Appeals -52- JQSe 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. HALE: I do.
MR. PACHMAN: What you said before was under oath also?
MR. HALE: Yes, it was.
MR. PACHMAN: In about 1978 you retired, Sir?
MR. HALE: Yes, Sir.
MR. PACHMAN: All right. And could you tell this board since
1978 what you observed in and about these premises known as the
Damianos~ property a~d the cottages and the cabins and the ho~se?
MR. HALE: Well in the Summer of 1979, my wife and I spent
the entire summer in our cottage although we had a ~earround resi-
dence on Village Lane. We did thi. s in order to re61~y determine
whether or not we wanted to build a permanent residence there. So
we were there from May to October. And we have always had animals;
we would walk on the beach; we walked on the beach ourselves; our
children and our grandchildren used the beach and go up and down
the. beach, and we have never seen those cottages occupied. We
moved into our houses that I said in August of 1980, and until
construction was started, we saw nobody in those, in or around
those cottages other than once in awhile we would hear the~'dog~b~k.
We have a very large dog whose mission in life ~s to guard and we
have a saying in our house, "When the dog..barks, look." So we
looked, and once in awhile w~ would see somebody down Tn the beach.
_~t could be El.lie and Dick Leslie taking a swim. But still we were
alerted'to t~ fact that they were there. And those cottaqes were
unoccupied at ~b.at time and to the best of my knowledge h~e not
been ~ccupied since we~ve been permanent.yearround..re~side~ts at
that loc~tiOn.
~R. P.ACHMAN: And that would be 1.978, Sir?
MR. HALE: We moved in in 1980.
MR. PA-~HMAN: Ok. Between 1980 and today--
MR. HALE: Yes. And the Summer of 1979 ~fore we started to
build~
MR. PACHMAN: Can you give me some idea or can you tell this
board's_ome ~dea~of the ~ond. ition of those cot~.ges. Let the board
understand.ome thing, we are not making any objection to the house
being reconstructed or any work th~t's bei_ng done on ~he house.
Our own focus and d'irection is upon the cabins and cottages. The
house has got a building permit for the work that's beinq done there.
My clients are not 9bjecti'ng to ]~he work that's being performed on
- the_.house; and anyth!~g th.~ we're talking about now is not talking
Southold Town Boar~-of Appeals -53- J~e 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea'l No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
about the house. The house has a building permit and work is being
performed under that building permit, I presume, conforming to
the building code. And when this is completed, I assume that a
Certificate of Occupancy will be granted. Our focus, our attention,
and our own direction is to the cottages. Now, get back to those
cottages, Mr. Hale. Can you give me some idea as to the--did you--
what did you see in and,]about the windows?
MR. HALE: Well, in my letter to you I stated that they were
at various times, they were, windows were boarded up; the windows
seemed to be broken out. Only the frames being there; and they
were in an abandoned state.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you notice whether the doors were operating
or whether the landings were usable or anything like that?
MR. HALE: I can't testify ~'o that.
MR. PACHMAN: You don't recollect that. Do you have any
recollection of walking your dog across that property at any
'~MR.~ HALE: Well 'all the old Orienters will vouch for the fact ~hat
in the, I'll c~]l if off season, we take strolls and so forth and
it was our habit for a long period or'time to w~lk our dogs and
one of the places that we would go would be to go from our
property down to what we,.~call the farmland and across and]~ove~,
there--Ellie and Dick Leslie's, and cut through Damianos' property
and g.o down to the beach and go back to our cottage that w~ay. And
over time it got to the point that we each could no lon§er do that
because the roadway was completely overgrown. The tree limbs had
fallen off and there was just so_point in working yo'uf way through
~.~_ So my observations from that time were o~'l's~'~rom the beach.
MR. PACHMAN: But you could see that the area was basically
abandoned and not being used?
MR. HALE: Yes, Sir.
MR. PACHMAN: I'll show you these pictures~wh~cb~.'show the four
houses fr~m the beach area and ask you i'~ that a reasonable repre-
sentation of the condition of the houses that you recollect.
MR. HALE: Yes, it is.
MR. PACHMAN: During the time that they were abandoned and not
used.
MR. HALE: Yes.
MR, PA~HMA~"i -And those, the ones with the boards on the windows
and thi~n~ li~e that. (Mr, Hale nodded yes.) Thank you,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -54- June 2~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCK~.N.B~.O. DT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: Ok, Mr. Hale, the other statements ~re~ basically
in your letter which is part of the record, and I will thank you
very much for testifying. I know your wife is here--
MR. HALE: No, she's not.
MR. PACHMAN: Oh, she didn't show up. Ok. All right. Mrs.
Mearns? Mr. Mearns. Can you hear me?
MR. MEARNS: Sure.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Do you want to use that microphone please.
Mr. Mear~s, you're the house right on the sound right next to those
caB~s, correct Sir?
MR. MEARNS: That's right.
MR. PACHMAN: How long have you lived there?
MR. MEARNS: Pretty close t~ ll years. Ten and some odd months.
MR. PACHMAN: Can you see the cottages from your house, Sir?
MR. MEARNS: Yes. The closest one, it's right near the property
line,'is about lOQ feet from.our house. It's about a 100o
~The stenographer a~ked Mr. Mearns his full name and i~s spe.lling.
MR,-~A~HMAN: ~.Harry Mearns. M-e-Z-gO-n-s. - ....
MR. '~HAIRMAN: Could you raise your right hand please?
Mr, Mearns raised his right hand'~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you solemnly swear that everything you are
about-to say"is the tr~%h, the w~ole truth and nothing bu~ the
truth?
MR. MEA.RNS: Outstandingly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir.
(Mr, Mearns ga~e a s~atement that was not audibles.)
MR. P.ACHMAN: Would' you repeat that for the re~ord please?
MR, MEARNS: I s~id that the distanc'e from my house to the
nearest cottage is just~about llO feet.
MR, PACH~AN: Then he didntt'iose his stroke, ok~(jokingly).
All right, In your seeing thOse houses during that ti.me, 1. et'~s
~ring it back to the last three or four year~. Can you gl. we me
some description as to the condition ~f those, ho~se.s?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -55- June 2~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. MEARNS: Well, the condition was in a state flux, on account
of the weather, a lot of wind, a certain amount of vandalism, and
very poor effort made to try to board it up. Some of the boarding
'~hat was~put up was rip~ed down. There we.re young kids around, that
didn't have anything to_ do so the cottages were v.ery accessible.
Nobody to take care of them. So they deteriorated, I would s.ay
starting in the Year 1978 regularly all different things in the
hosues, things were destroyed,and ~damaged, thrown out, and the
windows broken, and there were some efforts made to sort of close
it up; but they weren't very good. S~ by the time it got to '83
I wouldn't ha~e thought that you could fix them. You ~know, I said
somebody would take a lot of money to straighten these things out.
But that's the way it _was. I kn~w I wouldn't have tried it, and I
agree with Dr. ~P~g. I f.elt the same way that he feels on what to
do ~tb them~ _Either fQ.r ~ire wood or take them ~wa~. But evidently
they're going to fix them up now. 'That's about it.
MR. PACHMAN: During that time of disrepair, did you see anyone
living i~ those ho~ses?
MR. MEARNS: No. Another t~iDg about seeing anybody living--
either I ~ould say a very dim light in any one of the ~ott~ages I
could see~ ~I could spot even wi_th trees, you know, with the foliage,
you can spot a light yery easily at~.night. So if a~b~dy was t.here,
they never had ..any lights on. ~But t ~on't know how they. could have
the~ on with the..elgc.tric turned o~f. They must have bought a
generator° So they--if they came ~here, they had candleli§h~ with
a shade over it a~ I ~don't know what else.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Mearns, I'll show you this picture. Do you
recognize~ which cabin that is?
MR. MEARNS viewed the picture.:. Isn't that the second one. It
looks like th~ second one ~om mine.
MR. PAC,MAN: Ok. An~ is that a fair and accurate representa-
tion of t~e condition of those cabins during the time they were
abandoned and in disrepair?
MR. MEARNS: That's pretty accurate.
MR. PACHMAN: And what does that show, Sir?
MR. MEARNS: Nobody paid any attention to them,
MR. PACHMAN: Well,~ mean--
MR. MEARNS: Well there was no one living there. They weren't
being used.
~"MR. PiACHMAN: Does it show the door hanging off?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -55- June 21~-1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. MEARNS: Oh, yeah. (Mr. Esseks viewed pictures.)
MR. PACHMAN: Thank you. Yes, you're right, Mr. Esseks, it
shows a screen door hangi.ng off and it shows no door. Thank you
for deawing that to my .attention. Mrs. Mearns? Do you have
anything to add or to say. I don't want to say anything unless
you have something to say.
MRS. MEARNS: I don't think so. I think that covers it all.
MR. PACHMAN: All right, you heard your husband. If you
testified, would your testimony be substantially similar to his
testimony? E~.~.n..~f you were 6worn?
MRS, MEARNS:'"Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Reverend Hess?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you solemn]YLswear that everything that you
are about to say at this hearing i.~ the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing bu~ the truth?
REVEREND HESS: Yes, so help me God' (after raising his right hand).
MS. GERARDI (stenographer~: May I have your full name?
REVEREND HESS: Bradford N. Hess. H-e-s-s-.
MR.~PACHMAN: Reverend Hess lives ~ight there.
MR._PACHMAN: Reverend Hess, how long have you been living at
that lOcal, iOn?
REV. HESS: We've been living there since I retired three years
ago. Before that we were there every weekend for about nine years.
Because my work took me out here weekends.
MR. PACHMAN: Can you describe to this board and tell this board
~f durin~ the time you were there on weekends, and during the time
you were there full time for the last three years, do you know or
had you seen anyQQe residing or using those cabins or cottages in
any fashion?
REV. HESS: No, not at all.
MR. PACHMAN: During that time, did you see the condition of
those'cottages, Sir?
REV. HESSZ Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Can you describe to this board the condition of
those'co~tages?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -56- June 2i, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
REV. HESS: They were deteriorating regularly. I remember when
Doctor Damianos first had the property and he rented the cottages, he
was very meticulous during the wintertime to make sure that they were
boarded up, and he hired somebody to come in and put, I guess you
call them shutters or something, plywood over the doors and windows
to.protect them. And the same fell~.ow would come back in the Spring
and take it off because he was.goi~ng to Tent them again. This
happened for about two or m~ybe]%hree years, back in the late '7Os,
and but then since that time, one of ~hose'.years through there, he
must have discontinued that practice so I d~dn't see anybody around
putting boards up or protecting the place.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you see any broken windows?
REV. HESS: Yes, I' saw some-broken windows.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you see any holes in the roof?
REV.- HESS: I didn~t see any holes in the roo~, but I was sure
that the roofs must leak becaus~_th~ walls inside the cottages were
mildew and the mattresses tha~ were there were badly stained from
mildew and rain.
MR. P~CHMAN: In your opinion were those houses occupied for the
last three years during the~time=-
REV. HESS: No, no way. No way, not possible.
MR. PACHMAN: I'll s~w you th~s picture of another one of the
buildings, and this o~e is wi. th the s~reen door. open but the door
of~.,, an~d'ask you if that is a reasonable depictin.g of the way the
cpndition of.one Q? those houses are.
MR~ PACHMAN: I have no further questions.
(~he picture was given to Mr. E~seks for viewing.,)
MR. CHAIRMAN: E~cuse, you must dire~ the questions this way.
WILLIAM ESSEKS, ESQ.: Can the witness tell us the year this
photog~ph'~as taken?
-R.E~, HESS: I don't, know when it was taken,
MR. ESSEKS: Does the witness know which Cabin it is?
REV. HESS: I'm not sure seeing just that much of it. I know
which o~es-~ I kn.ow one that it isn."~ I know it isn't the first
one closest to us.
Southold Town Board~f Appeals -57- June 21~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: When was the last time before 1984 that the witness
was in any of the cottages?
REV. HESS: Before 1984. I would think probably '83 or '82.
MR. ESSEKS: Which cottage?
REV. HESSE All of them.
MR. ESSEKS: What time of year?
REV. HESS: Tha~ would p¥obably be the summer time.
MR. ESSEKS: Will the w'itness tell the board whethe~the.~doors
had springs on them?
REV. HESS: I know there was at least one, because I remember it
was loose from the hinges and it matched the state disrepair of the
rest. of them.
MR. ESSEKS: Will the witness state whether there were screens
on the windows?
REV. HESS: I don't remember. I didn't notice any. I wasn't
looking fo~ them.
MR. ESSEKS: Was the witness in the house and any of the cottages
in 19797
REV. HESS: I was in two of them around 19-- it might have been
'78 or '79 or '77, but it was when Mr. Damian~s was ren~ing them.
MR. ESSEKS: When was the last year that the witness recollects
that any of the cottages were rented?
RE'v. HESS: Either in 1977 or '78.
MR. ESSEKS: Each cottage or which cottages?
REV. HESS: I don't kn~w, you know, if we start from the Truck-
~nbrodt's house and call the first cottage Number One,~.the second on.e
Number Two, i~ was Cottages Number One ~d Two were the only ones
'tha~ I ~n.ew tha~ were rented.
MR. ESSEKS: In those cottages ~n the last year that the wi%ness
recollects they were occupied, were there b~ds i.5 the cottages?
REV. HESS: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Were there kitchen tables in the cottages?
REV, HESS: Yes.
Southold Town Board~f Appeals -58- June 2~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3234 - ARTHUR R.'TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: Were there]chairs in the cottages?
REV. HESS: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Were there crockery and kitchen utensils?
REV. HESS: Yes. Pots and pans.
MR. ESSEKS: 'Is it the witne~s's testimony that he was only in
two out of the four cottages in the last year. of rental?
REV. HESS: Yes. An~ the reason is ~ had a little fault to
find with the fellow because he was shouting fireworks off at
1:30 in the morni_ng, so the following day !_went in to ask him
if he would refrain fr~m that ~ecause tb.~s was not a carnival, it
was a res~dent_~al ar~a.
MR. ESSEKS: Does the witness recollect whether there was
electric power then?
REV, HESS: I don't recollect~that. I'm sure they must have
had lights on. But I don't s~cifically remember seeiDg electric
lights on.
MR. ESSEKS: Does the witness recollect whethe~.the.~]people~were
cooking or not?
REv. HESS: No. I don't know that,
MR. ESSEKS: Does the witness recollect whether there was pots
and pans of the type that you use for co~king?
REV. HESSZ Yes. I'm'~quite sure there was. I don't recall
specifically seeing them
MR, E~EKS: ~ere there toilet facilities in the cottages?
REV. HESS: As far as I know there were, yes. I don't remember
seeing any. I know .~here'was a shower in Cottage Number Two because
we had an altercation over that too,
MR. ESSEKS: Does the witness recollec't whether in the last year
of rental whether the shower was operating?
RE'V~ HESS: Yes, it was opera~le.~
MR. ESSEKS: Operable?
R~EV. HESS: Yes~?.~']was operable.
MR. ESSEKS: One of the ~ttages, two cottage~?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -59- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3234 AR~HUR'R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON~'continued:)
REV. HESS: All I know ab6ut'is Cottage Number Two.
MR, ESSEKS: Did the four cottages in the last year of rental appear
to be approximately in the same condition?
REV, HESS: I don't remember that last year being in Cottages 3
and 4, but 1 and 2 I would say were abou~ equ_al.
(Mr. Pachman submi-tted picture #3 for the record.)
MR, C'HAIRMAN to RICHARD E. LESLIE: Do you solemnly swear that
the testimony that you are about to give is the whole t~uth and nothing
but the truth?
RICHARD E~ LESLIE: I do.
MS. GERARDI-~Can ~,have your full name?
MR. LESLIE: Richard E. LeSlie.
MR, PACH~AN:~ Mr. 'Leslie, do you own p~operty south and west of
the Damiano~!-property? .....
MR. LESLIE: My wife and I own that property.
MR. PACHMAN: Excuse me, sir. Yes."~'O~] How long have you and
your wife owned that property? ....
MR. LESLIE: For 11 years, We moved there in 1973.
MR. PACHMAN: And during the course of your living there, did
you come a time when you saw ~r. Damianos and others using the
property of the main ~house and the cottages?
MR. LESLIE: Yes,
MR. PACHMAN: And did there also come a time when there was a
discontinuance of use of the main house and the cottages?
MR. LESLIE: Yes, there did.
MR. PACHMAN: And can you tell this board when you~-recollect
there was a discontinuance of use of the cottages?
MR. LESLIE: I would~ to the best of my recollection, after ~976
the cottages and the house, '76, '77, along in there some time were
no longer in use.
MR. PACHMAN: And did you have occasion to look at those cabins
during the y~ars'that they were in disuse?
MR. LESLIE: Yes, we did.
Southold Town Board of ~ppeals -60- June 21, 1-~84 Regular Meeting
(Appea'~ No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON~ ~ontinued:)
MR. PACHMAN: Can you tell this board what you observed when you
looked at those cottages?
MR. LESLIE: Well, my wife and I walked that property many, many
times throughout the year. As a matter of fact, we, in order to get to
the beach, we passed through cabins we've now come to describe as
Cabins 3 and 4 within three or four feet of either cabin, so we did
have occasion to observe them on numerous times during those years.
MR. PACHMAN: And can you tell this board what you observed at
those occasions?
MR. LESLIE: Well, we observed that the houses obviously were
unoccupied, repeatedl.y over the years, or gradually over the years,
they became more and more vandalized by, I would a_ss~me children and
animals. The stairs were falling off ~everal of them. The windows
what screens there were~ there were only remnants left. We observed
snow in the wintertime in these cabins that passed through, and rain
in the other seasons of the year.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you observe some furniture in these houses?
MR. LESLIE: Well, I don't know if you would call it furniture.
Over the course of time, I think I recall seeing a small kitchen table
in one of them and a couple of iron pots and a mattress that was too
far gone to be called a mattress, a stove, refrigerator, but I don't
think that--if you call that furniture, then I guess it was furniture.
MR. PACHMAN: And from your viewpoint in the vantage of your
house, did you'see any 1. ights between '78 and to date?
MR. LESLIE: Well we cannot observe these cottages from our house.
MR PACHMAN: So you would not be able to see whether-- did you
ever take walks along the beach and along the paths during the night?
MR LESLIE: We walked along the beach at night. We didn't go
through the path at night.
MR PACHMAN: And when you walked along the beach during that
time, did you observe any lights in those buildings?
MR LESLIE: Not in the intervening years, somewhere around '76
!77~
MR PACHMAN: Do people have to pass by your house to get access
through that property?
MR LESLIE: Yes, they do.
MR. PACHMAN: Does that right-of-way go right across a good portion
of your property?
Southold Town Board of~Appeals -61- June 21, 198~ Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. LESLIE: It goes within--yes, a good portion of my property.
MR. PACHMAN: And from your house, can you hea.r and can you see
if cars are going up and down that road?
MR. LESLIE: Yes, we can.
MR. PACHMAN: And during that time when the houses were abandoned
and disused, did you see many cars going up there?
MR. LESLIE: To use that--that specific property? Well, as a
matter of fact, when we would see a ca~, w.hen I observed a car coming
up the drive, it was not th~ car that I knew to be either the Singer-
mans, the Mearns, Hess, Gullackson, I would go out and see who they
were and where they were go_lng because we were always concerned about
vandals in the area. So any cars that I saw going to that area immedi-
ately turned around and left.
MR. PACHMAN: And you saw no one who was using your--the area in
front of you, or the right~of-way, to get access to those cabins?
MR. LESLIE: I saw no one.
MR. PACHMAN: And that was during the last three years at least
and possibly longer since those cabins have been abandoned and in disuse?
MR. LESLIE: That is correct.
MR~ PACHMAN: All right. I have no further questions.
MR. LESLIE: Tha'nk you.
(Mr. Pachman asked Mrs. Leslie a question.that was inaudible.)
MRS~ ~LESLIE: We have hand occasion to go in--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Use the mike, if you would please.
MR. PACHMAN: And get sworn in please. (Mrs. Leslie raised her right hand.)
MR. ~HAIRMAN: Do you solemnly swear that everything that you
are about to tell us is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
MRS. LESLIE: I do.
MS. GERARDI: Can I have your name?
MRS. LESLIE: Eleanor Leslie. And I would like to say, that we
had in the last three years, particularly occasion to go inside the
cabins quite often~ I' recall, that my husband often said, "And don't
go inside the cabin because the stairs have fallen down so'badly they
Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -62- June 21, 19~'~ Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MRS. LESLIE (continued):
may break and you'll hurt yourself." But the reason we had occasions
to go inside is that we have had several robberies, I wouldn't call
them robberies--but what seemed to be teenagers breaking into our
house toltake~an odd bottle of wine, scotch., or whatever, glassware,
and we kn~w because we had to get inside the garage on the property
to the main house that there were kids using that garage as a
camping out spots if you will. They have written on walls and all
of the furniture was broken up in that garage, so when we were missing
a substantial amount of liquor and then later it was a television set
and a bicycle and so forth, we'dZcheck out all of the buildings on
the property to see if perhaps those kids had, left them there and were
then using that as th~ campi~ng out place, and .to see if we could catch
them.
MR. PACHMAN: And now that you went into those buildings and had
close observation of those buildi, ngs within the last years or more,
can you tell this board what'yeu observed in those buildings? Were
they occupied?
MRS. LESLIE: Obviously not.
MR. PACHMAN: Were they in a state of disrepair?
MRS. LESLIE: State of total disrepair. Milde'w as everyone has
mentioned plus the inside of. the showers were so rusty that you would
never have gotten into one; and while there was crockery and pots and
pans, I mean if you call two dishes., some broken, one odd glass, you
know--it's the sort of crockery that you'd find in any abandoned place.
MR. PACHMAN: I have no further questions. Mr. Lyons.
PATRICK E. LYONS raised his right hand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your right hand, Mr. Lyons. Do
you solemnly swear that _the testimon~ that you are abo~t to give is
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
MR. LYONS: 'I do.
MS. GERARDI: Your full name?
RATRICK E. LYONS: Patrick E. Lyons.
MS. GERARDI: U~y.?
MR. LYONS: L-y-o-'n-s.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Lyons, you :;are at the front of the entrance
of that right-of-way where all these other neighbors live. That's on
Main Road and the right~of-w~y commences at that loca%ion, east of
your house?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -63- June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. LYONS: Yes, it's a 16-foot w~de easement over our property,
which is the sole ingress and egress of all those lots including the
former Damianos' property.
MR. PACHMAN: How long have you owned that property?
MR. LYONS: Since '77.
MR. PACHMAN: And since the time you've owned the property, have
you had occasion to use that right-of-Way and go down to the Damianos'
property, the Leslie property, the Singe?man. Property, the Hess, Gullack-
son, and Mearns~ property?
MR. LYONS: Yes. My wife and I are residents mainly on the
weekends, yearround, and~very much fulltime in the summer. We used
to go to the beach because i:t~was more, closer to the house and a
very attractive beach down there, and there was a little worn path
that Dick Leslie had eluded to between Cabin 3 and 4. And we have to,
we know that area on the way to the beach.
MR. PACHMAN: And in the course of your traversing and traveling
over the ~roperty and observing those cabins, can you tell this board
what you've seen and heard?
MR. LYONS: When we had first walked down there was to some
timidity seeing cottages. I'll back u.p a bit. When we bought our
house on Main Road, it had been abandoned for about 20 years and it
was.~in'~a severe state of delapidation. The cabins when we first
looked at them, I guess in '78 we were fairly busy in the first couple
of years when W~ bought the house and didn't 'have much time to go to
the beach. It seemed to be in a state of disuse, and over the years
it continued to get worse. Vines would crawl up through the windows,
higher every year. There was no evidence that the lawns were ever
mowed° Windows were broken out Ofo Doors torn off.._ ~art of the
cottages had been boarded up it seemed, but then some_of those have
been torn off, and we did upon occasion go into one cottage. This
would probably be around '81, '82 I guess. We saw bits and pieces
of ~rockery_and mildew and it's something that brought back horrible
memories of our hQuse before the renovations, so I _got out of there.
MR, PACHMAN: Ok. Did other than the normal neighbors and the
normal prQ..perty owners that had access and right_to use that right-of-way
during .the time that you were there, during the intervening years where
we, testimony has indicated there's been an abandonment of the property,
did you see cars go in there other than the normal homeowners that would
be using that road?
MR, LYONS: Yes. Occasionally I would get very brave and stop
somebody that would use it, and in fact one time I think Rev. Hess had
a Sund'ay School ~.~cnic and it was q~ite embarrassing to stop several
people. We did_get to note fairly much who owns the property back
there and what the cars were.
Southotd Town Board of Appeals -64- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: And you saw no cars going to the D&mianos' property?
MR. LYONS: As far as I know. I said the road that went to the
main house by this time, by '82, was totally unpassable, in fact I
didn't even realize there was a house up t. here until someone pointed
it out about '82. The weight of the cottages, too, the one road
curved around and the washout had been so tremendous that there's no
way that short of a four=wheel heavy=duty vehicle could even have
gotten down to that road ~the parking area. I think there was a
gas t~uck that got I ) down there trying to move the gas tanks
w~s'some'%hing someone did recently.
MR. PACHMAN: All right. "~i' have no further questions.
MR. PACHMAN: If the board pleases, I su. bpoenaed the Conservative
Gas Company who serviced the bungalows and received in lieu of their
appearance a letter from them, two letters--one says, "Annexed to
your subpoenae dated June 4th, 1984, Mr~ Steven A.._ Kin~ is District
Manager Df our Riverhead Office. After making diligent search of our
records, .we have the dates and amounts on our computer listed below.
Damianos Account, 9/7/75 8'.2 gallons, $7.37. May 5, 1975, 23.5
gallons, $20~32~ June 8, 1975 service work order 9/2-30; $40.13. A
copy of the computer run-off of Mr. Damianos' account is enclosed
showing the two deliveries of 'service and the work order." Signed
by Conservative Gas. I~ve then received another letter dated the
same date, "Dear Mr. Pachman: Enclosed plea'se find copy of work
order 40144'for the pick-up of all equipment at the Damianos'
residence, Orient Point. We failed to include this with our other
informa%ion. We are sorry for any inconveniences this might have
caused you," And apparently that indicates that the equipment was
taken out in February 29, 1984. So ~f there has been no use of gas
on that premises from '75 %hr~ugh '84--
MR. ESSEKS: Mr. Chairman, I object to the counsel testifying.
He hasn't shown that he had personal knowledge of what happened on
that proper'ry. U~less he's willing to show ~hat.
M'R'~ PACHMAN: I was sworn.
MR. -'ESSEKS: You've shown no background by your visit to the
property--
MR. PACHMAN: ~l~!..~I~sa~d is.what that report says.
MR.~-ESSEKS: T~at isn!.t what it says at all. It says gas was
delivered in '75 and the equipment was taken out in February of 1984.
MR~ PACHMAN: The board w~ll make whatever conclusions they can.
from that.
MR. ESSEKS: It should, 'but not from your testimony.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -65- June 21,'~984 Regular Meeting
,~Appeal .No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTTjSWANSON, -continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: I also subpoenaed the Department of Health records
and asked them if they had any e~dence of any work being done in and
about the premises~,for the installation of septic systems, et cetera.
I have a certification from Robert A. Villa, Chief LEngineer, Division
of Environmental Health, County of Depar~ment~of.~ealth Services. I
think it indica.tes the application for this was submitted some time
in -- it doesn't seem to be dated, but I'll give it to the board--
the whole sheet of papers and they can read it as they will. I think
it's somewhat .signi_ficant to note that on the applicant which is
signed by Janet 'Swanson, the utility 'type code circled "cabin and
bungalow colo'ny." I have a paper clip ~ttached to it. "I won't
comment on it. T'll let it sp_eak f'~r itself. I also subpoenaed
the Wetmore Realty ~Co~panyo I don't know if they're here. Did'you
bring some records?
BONNIE ROSE: I have no record~this date. The only thing I
have on my record and I am Bonnie Rose, licensed ~'n~eal..eS%ate, is
what Lew Edson had sent to us. He concluded the deal. We were the
co-broker in that deal.
MR. PACHMAN: ~S that the listing?
MS. 'ROSE: ( ) of sale. Memorandum of sale. (The brief
statement of Ms. Rose was not audible.) R-O-S-E.
MR. PACHMAN: All right. Wil'~ you swear this witness please?
MR. ~HAIRMAN: Surely° (Mrs. Rose raised her right hand.) Do
you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give is
the .~ruth,~_tbe whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
MS. ROSE: Yes. I do. And legally I am Lillian not Bonnie,
if you have to have it legal.
MR~ PACHMAN: I'd like you to look at the last page of that
memorandum of sale, and if you'll pl..~ase read to the board the last
sentence on that memorandum of sale.
MS. ROSE: Seller shall give'Purchasers an affidavit that the
house and cottages have bee_p ~ed ~.~thin the last ~hree years, closing
as soon as possible. That's Lew Edson's signature.
MR, PACHMAN: Thank you~ I have no further questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thane you.
MR. PACHMAN: I also subpoenaed the Department of Environmental
Conservation of the State of New York to see if any permits were
obtained to p~ in a s~ptic system and to reuse th~ property~ with
reference ~o it's. being adjacgnt to tidal wetlands. Ap. parently they
have not responded to the subpoena.~ and_.~ have'no know]edge of whether
any application was filed ore, what their records reveal other than the
fact that I did serve them with a subpoena. I have here a memorandum
o~ law which I have for each member of the board which I think will
e.x~]ain my arguments with reference to the use of no~conformin§ uses
an.d_ the stric_t compliance, how they are to be interpreted under the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -66- June 21,"~984 Regular Meeting
(Appea'l No. 3234 - ARTHUR R." TRUCKENBRODT/ABBO'TT/SWANSON, Continued:)
MR. PACHMAN Icontinued):
code. I also have one for my adversary, Mr. Esseks. I also have one
for your Town Attorney, Mr. Tasker, so that he can have one also. I
think in essence what that says, and I'll summarize it and then sit
down and rest and to give you a rest, t.~e, where an ordinance calls
for a set elimination of a nonconforming use for a period of two.years,
the testimony that my clients gave showing vacancy and abandonment
is of no great consequence~ That is some evidence of an abandonment
of a nonconforming use. But' where the ordinance specifically ~sets a
time frame of two years, as the absol, ute bar, if it is not used and
you can't go back beyond and say, it could have been used or should
have been used. I w.ill not go .in d~'tail to that. I think it's my
memorandum and I think it goes to that. I think the issuance and
the continuance of a nonconforming use is to be constrictly construed.
your own ordinance says where there are conflicts between varying
sections of the ordinance, particularly Section 100-11, where
"provisions of this chapter conflict or impose with a different
requirement from any other provi.gion of this chapter, the provision
or requirement which is more restrictive or which establishes a
higher standard shall govern." So therefore, the standard of
strict construction is the on~ that must be applied against the
continued use of a nonconforming existence, or nonconforming use.
And the burden should not have fallen on the adjacent neighbors to
prove before this board that this was a continuing nonconforming use
for that. The burden should have been on the owners of the property
who should have come before this board when the building inspector
was put on not.ice that this certificate that he issued ~pparen~}S
was based upon information that was not totally accurate and he should
have put a stop order on the worE' that was being performed and not
let these people spend a lot of money to repair and add to these
houses when thgy vagu.ely violating the ordinance and violating other
codes for which they ~.bouldn~t have been put to that task because
they didn't get a stop order from the building department. And they
should have then come before thi's board and asked for a variance if
they wanted continuation of this nonconforming use. As set forth
in the ordinance. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks, we have one member of the board that
came o~t of the hospital bed tonight to make this hearing, and I
would like to take a three-miDute recess to allow--
MR~ ESSEKS: I believe this proceeding ~,s~br~ught against the
building inspector, so, I don'~t know how you do it here in Southold,
but it would appear to me as though he would go next.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that who you would like?
MR. ESSEKS: I'm going to do what you decide, but it would
appear'to me as though he's the respondent and--
Southold Town Board of Appeals -67- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not to my knowledge.
MR. PACHMAN: I would respectfully differ with you.
MR. ESSEKS: My clients are not a part of these proceedings.
MR. PACHMAN: I understand that. They were put on notice
because they're an adjacent owner and they're the ones who are the
recipients unfortu'nately of an affidavit which they relied on,
rightly or wrongly so.
MR. ESSEKS: Howard,he asked me whether I agree. I think a
break is a wonderful idea. But implicit in that is that you'd be
expecting more testimony from me. I'm going to call at least one
witness tonight, but I believe that it is appropriate if the
building inspector is ready to proceed for him to offer whatever
proof he has. I believe the proceeding is an im rem proceeding
brought against the town questioning whether the town was correct
in the' decision, and I intend to support the position of the
town or at least until a conclusion, but I will proceed as you direct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks, I don't think specifically the
building inspector is ready to testify.
MR. ESSEKS: I now understand what you're saying. After
the break, we'll go on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I have a motion please?
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED to recess temporarily.for ~pproximately five minutes,
at which time the hearing will be reconvened.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous
vote of all the members.
The board left the meeting hall, and returned at approximately
11:35 p.m.
On motion by Mr. Saw~ck~ seconded,~by Mr. Douglass~ it was
RESOLVED, to reconvene the public hearing in the matter of
Appeal No. 3234, TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass~and-Sawicki~ This~resolution was unanimously adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -68- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No, 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABB~.OTT~L_SWANSON,..cont~nued:)
J. ROBERT PETERS was the next witness.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you solemnly swear that the test±mony that you
are about to give is t'he truth., the whole truth and nothing but the
truth?
MR. PETERS: I do~ Initial, J. Robert Peters.
MR. ESSEKS: Where do you live, Sir?
MR. PETERS: I live in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
MR, ESSEKS: And have you been here tonight and heard about this
property?
MR. PETERS: Yes, Sir.
MR. ESSEKS: And when did you first visit it?-
MR. PETERS: In 1952,
MR. 'ESSEKS: What relationship were you or are you to the former
owner?
MR. PETERS: My mother married Raymond Diedrick who owned the
property.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you spend summers at the property?.
MR, PETERS: Yes, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: Did there come a time when the cottages were built?
MR, PETERS: Yes, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: Were you present at that time?
MR. PETERS: Yes, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: When were they built?
MR. PETERS: The first cottage that was started to be built ~ns
1953, and the second ~ne was built the following year which would be
54. Third and fourth were started to be built in 1956.
MR. ESSEKS: When were they completed?
MR, PETERS: Completed in the Spring of 1957.
MR. ESSEKS: I'll show you this photograph and I'll ask you what
it reflects,
MR, PETERS: It reflects the four cottages as I know them.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -69- June 21, t984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT~ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: I offer that.
(Mr. Esseks submitted the Photog~aph'~tb the words "June, 1958,
Sent by Mrs. Raymond Diedrick, Green Acres, Orient," for the d6cord,)
MR. ESSEKS: Is that a fai~ and reasonable portrayal of those
photographs in the Year 1957 and '58?
MR PETERS: Yes, Sir.
MR ESSEKS: I offer it.
PACHMAN: Bill, may I see it?
MR ESSEKS: Of course. (The photograph was shown to Mr. Pachman.)
MR PACHMAN: Did you take that picture?
MR PETERS: No, sir.
MR PACHMAN: I wanted~to know when it was taken.
MR. PETERS: It was taken in 1958.
MR. PACHMAN: How do you know?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, would you direct that--
MR. PACHMAN: I'm sorry. I asked him if he took the picture. He
said, "No." And I asked him when it was taken, and .he said in 1958.
And I asked him how he knew it was taken in 1958.
MR. PETERS: It was taken by friends of myself and my mother.
They were there visiting them in 1958.
MR. PACHMAN: And you saw them take the picture?
MR. PETERS: I didn't see them.
MR. PACHMAN: No objection.
MR, ESSEKS: I have no other questions. Oh, yes I do. In what,
were the units rented, leased?
MR. PETERS: Yes. Number one and number two were rented at the
time when I was there.
MR. ESSEKS: Thereafter, did you know whether 3 and 4 were leased?
- MR. PETERS: Yes, sir.
Southold Town Board Of Appeals -70- June 21,~984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R~ TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: No other questions.
MR. PACHMAN: No questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: I would like to read certain~affidavits into
the recoed and make them part of the record, and if that is necessary
for me to be sworn to do that, I'll be sworn. Do I have to be sworn
to read?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you reading from some text, sir?
MR. ESSEKS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. It's not necessary.
MR. ESSEKS: If I have to be sworn, you'll warn me?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MRs ESSEKS: "...County of Lancaster, COmmonwealth of
Pennsylvania: Before me, a Notary Public, in and for the County and
Commonwealth afforesaid personally appeared Raymond H. Diedrick who
being duly affirmed according to law deposes and says that to the
best of his knowledge, information and belief the structures and
improvements located on the premises in the Hamlet of Orient, Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New York, which he sold to "I can't
pronounce ~be name," .on November 1, 1983, are valid''' lega
.. and 1
nonconforming uses, said structures having been erected in about 1955 .... "
I offer this affidavit for his name, his address, history, and the
fact that he said it was constructed, I mean erected, in about 1955.
I don't offer it for his conclusion.
(Photocopy of affidavit of Raymond H. Diedrick was marked
"E-2 6/21" and made a p.art of the file.)
MR. ESSEKS: M'ay I start the next one?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: "...State of New York, County of Suffol~k:
Gary Tabor,'being duly sworn, deposes an~says: 1. I reside on
Navy Street, Orient, New York. I am forty years of age and have
been a resident of Orient all my life. 2. I am familiar with the
property owned by Janet Swanson and Dorot~hy Abbott as I irregularly
pass by the property and nave done so since 1950. 3. I ma~ke this
affidavit to state that ~o my knowledge the cottages in question on
their property has been there since before the 1957 hurricane
May I continue? "...Elga Deidrick, being duly sworn, deposes
says: l. That my husband, Raymond H. Deidrick and I own property
Southold Town Board of Appeals -71- June 21~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR'. ESSEKS (continued):
that we acquired from Dr. Harry C. Greene in Orient consisting of
approximately 12+ acres and described upon a survey, a copy of which
is annexed hereto. To my knowledge we acquired the property in 1947
and sold it in 1973. 2. A house and four cottages are shown on the
annexed survey. The four cottages were all constructed prior to
April, 1957. Two of the cottages were ~onstructed in 1953. 3. While
we used the cottages, they were only used for residential purposes.
The two cottages erected in 1953 did not have electricity until 1954 .... "
"...June 11, 1984. To Whom It May Concern: I Lawrence Bruno rented
Cottage number 4 from Raymond Diedrick in the summer of 1957. The
cottages at that time were named after the Diedrick children instead
of having numbers. I also stayed in Number 1 in 1955 and Number 2 in
1956. Sincerely, Lawrence Bruno .... " Sworn to before a notary in
the State of Florida.
MR, ESSEKS: You can swear the witness.
(Mr. Esseks submitted an original affidavit of Ela M. Deidrick
for the record which was mar'ked "E-4, 6/21." and document signed by
Lawrence Bruno June 11, 1986, marked "E-5, 6/21" for the record.)
Janet T. Swanson was the next witness.
MR. CHAIRMAN to JANET T. SWANSON: Do you solemnly swear
that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, ~he whole
truth and nothing but the truth? (The witness raised her right hand.)
JANET T. SWANSON: I do. Janet Swanson. Janet T. Swanson.
MR. ESSEKS: Are you one of the owners of the property in
question?
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: When did you first see the cottages that have
been described this evening?
MS. SWANSON: Summer of 1983.
MR. ESSEKS: Would you describe their appearance in the
Summer of 19837
MS. SWANSON: They were boarded up. They --
MR. ESSEKS: Keep your voice up.
MS. SWANSON: Some of the windows were boarded up. The
screened porches were boarded. The doors to the cottages were there.
- And they were furnished and looked to me to be redeemable.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -72- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSDN, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: Now, was there furniture inside each cottage?
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Describe the furniture that was there.
MS. SWANSON: The furniture in Cabin 4, which is the easterly
cottage, was very wet and awful because of the leak in the roof..The
other cabins, there were no leaks in the roof and it looked grungy
but it did not look ( ) (inaudible).
MR. ESSEKS: Describe'what kind of furniture.
MS. SWANSON: There were maple chairs. There were maple beds.
There were dressers, no mirrors. There were dishes stacked up and
quite an abundance of them, boxes of them as a matter of fact, and
cups, saucers, glasses.
MR. ESSEKS: Who did you buy the property from?
MS. SWANSON: Eurydice Loucoupolous and Herodotos Damianos.
MS. GERARDI: Could you say that once more?
MS. SWANSON': ~Eu~ydice Loucopoulos an'd Herodotos, H-E-R-O-T~O-S
Damianos, D-A-M-I-A-N-O-S. The monthly payments make that easy.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you have conversations with them concerning the
prior use of the cottages before you signed the contract to buy the
property?
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: What did they say to you about the prior use by them
of the premises?
MS. SWANSON: They said that they have been used consistently
through the years.
MR. ESSEKS: For what purposes?
MS. SWANSON: Rental, and for income producing.
MR. ESSEKS: By whom?
MS. SWANSON: A lot of employees, I believe they were employees,
of their businesses, but I don't know.
MR. ESSEKS: I'll show you this photograph and I'll ask you what
it reflects.
_ MS. SWANSON: That's Cabin I kitchen. It's numbered Number Four~
but it's Number One.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -73- June 21,-1'984 Regular eeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSDN, cont nued:)
MR. ESSEKS' And when you first saw the cottages in the Summer of 1983,
did the inside, is that how the cottage looked as shown in the photograph?
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: I .offer it.
MS. SWANSON: Nos we took some curtains down. Sorry. There w~re curtains
up here and we took curtains down.
MR. ESSEKS: Were there curtains in the windows of these cotta¢ ~s?
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Were there curtains ir the windows of any Other c ~tages?
MS. SWANSON: Yes, but I can't tell you which ones. I believe they were
but I can't --
MR. ESSEKS: Besides curtains, crockery, beds, were there any appliances
in these cottages?
MS. SWANSON: Yes, there were. They were stoves and refrigerators, you
could not test the stove--I mean you could not test~ the refrigerator
since there was no electricity, but the stoves were working.
MR. ESSEKS: What kind of stoves?
MS. SWANSON: Gas. Conservative Gas.
MR~ ESSEKS: Did you turn them on?
MS. SWANSON; Yes. We turned them on in 3 and 4; I don't remember if
we turned them on in 1 and 2.
MR. ESSEKS: Were there screens in the windows?
MS. SWANSON: Not all of them, no.
MR. ESSEKS: I offer that photograph. (Photograph was marked as E-6, 6/21)
MR. ESSEKS: Questions?
MR. PACHMAN: This is Cabin 1 or 4?
MS. SWANSON: Is that the one I just looked at?
MR. PACHMAN: Yes, ma'am.
MS. SWANSON: It's Number 1. That Number 4 I think Mr. Lessard put on
it. It's the westerly cabin.
MR. PACHMAN: It is the one closest to Truckenbrodt?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -74- June 21~ 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Is that 'the one that had the curtains on the window an'd
the lamp in the window?
MS. SWANSON: In the living room?
MR. PACHMAN: Yes. The one facing the Truckenbrodt and the. Mearns
and the .Hess,
MS. SWANSON: There was curtains in the--
MR. PACHMAN: Is that the one where the one wall was ( ) on th~outside?
(~ord'~wa~ unclear due to noise in background.)
MS. SWANSON: I don't know about painting of the walls. Somebody ~ol'd
me that they had painted a wall on that side toward Mr. Truckenbrodt,
but I don't know--
MR. PACHMAN: Did they indicate to you why? Did they indicate to you
why.~hey put curtains up in the house?
MS. SWANSDN: I_d~dn't know they put them up.
MR. PACHMAN: They didn't tell you that they put the curtains up?
MS. SWANSON: No. They--
MR. ESSEKS: Howard, I'm offering a photograph.
MR. PACHMAN: I'm just asking her because she, the identification of
this particular phptograph was confusing between 1 and 4. I'm trying
to ascertain its ident'ity.
MR, ESSEKS: That's Number 1.
MR, PACHMAN: It's Number 1, the one closest to Truckbrodt, Thank you
~ery much~
MR, ESSEKS: I have no o.ther questions.
MR. PACHMAN: No questions.
MR. 'ESSEKS: Mr. Beebe?
William M. Beebe was~the~next witness.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear
that the testimon~ that you are about to give is the tr~th, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth?
WILLIAM BEEBE: ~ do,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -75- June 21, ]~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRDDT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: Excuse me. I do respectfully request to call Mrs. Swanson
back again,
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right now?
MR. PACHMAN: Well, it can wait.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok.
MR. ESSEKS: Are you going to question Mr. Beebe?
MR. PACHMAN: I do not know what he has to say.
MS. GERARDI: Can I have your full name please?
WILLIAM Bo BEEBE: William M. Beebe.
MS. GERARDI: Spell it.
MR. BEEBE: B-E-E-B-E.
MR. ESSEKS: What is your tr6de or profession?
MR. BEEBE: Building contractor.
MR. ESSEKS: When was the first time that you saw the cottages in
question?
MR. BEEBE: I guess it was January '84.
MR. ESSEKS: Do you know whether anyone had done any work on the cottages
six months prior to January of 19847
MR. BEEBE: I don't think they have, no.
MR. ESSEKS: How much do you weigh, Mr. Beebe?
MR. BEEBE: Two=hundred sixty lbs, Thank you,
MR. ESSEKS: Did you walk up and down other stairs--were there stairs
in January of 1984 on each of the cottages?
MR. BEEBE: Yes there was.
MR, ESSEKS: Did you-walk up and down them?
MR. BEEBE: Yes, I did.
MR'. ESSEKS: Did they break?
MR. BEEBE: No.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you, have you done some carpentry work on the cottages?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -76- June 21, =1-984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SNANSON, continued:)
MR. BEEBE: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Will you describe to the board in your opinion as a?builder
whether the building was structurally sound or not prior to your work on
them?
MR. BEEBE: Well, structurally sound they were. There were no sags in
the roofs. There were no holes in the roofs. Number 4, I guess ~t is,
· to the east, had leaks in the roof. The other, Number 3 might have had
a couple of leaks, but Number 1 and 2 were, they were both good roofs.
MR. ESSEKS: Did they have doors on them?
MR. BEEBE: They had doors on them$ in fact they were there, tight,
and the man I had with me and I had to pry them open with bars to get
into them.
MR. ESSEKS: Did they have windows?
MR. BEEBE: Most of them had windows. There were a few broken glass.
The porches, most of them, had shutters, ( ) up and down, they were
closed, and the screens were pretty well shot in there.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you recollect--
MR. PACHMAN: I didn't hear that, again. What was that?
MR. BEEBE: The screens on the porches were pretty well shot, done by
vandals ~-must have happened.
MR. ESSEKS: Was there furniture in the cottages?
MR. BEEBE: Yes, there was.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you enter into a contract wi~h SWanson and Abbott
to do work?
MR. BEEBE: It wasn't a written contract.
MR. PACHMAN: What was the amount of the contract for the work that
you're performing?
MR. BEEBE: Well it wasn't a contract.
MR, PACHMAN: Well, how much--
MR. BEEBE: I'm doing it time and material.
MR. PACHMAN: Are you being paid for your work?
MR, BEEBE: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: And you are being paid to do the work that you are doing?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -77- June 21,~1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/-SWANSON, continued:)
MR. BEEBE: Right.
MR. PACHMAN: And that's why you're here today, sir, right?
MR. BEEBE: Right.
MR. PACHMAN: Thank you. No further questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Swanson--
MR. ESSEKS: I don't want her. He wants her.
MR. CHAIRMAN: He wants her back. Do you want to wait till later?
MR. ESSEKS: Let him wait till later. May I inquire of the building
inspector, sir?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks, I will not speak for the bu~l!ding inspector.
If the building inspector wishes, it's entirely up to him.
MR. ESSEKS: I would like the record to reflect, if I may, that the
property in question is now zoned for' residential purposes, and has
been so zoned continually since the advent of zoning ink. the Town of
Southold, is that correct? Can we take that as a (), otherwise
I'll call the building inspector and ask him is that true.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't answer that. I won't answer that because I
don't know if the map was changed or not.
MR. ESSEKS: Mr. building inspector, would you come up? Mr. Chairman,
instead of asking the building inspector., who may be as reticent as
you, I believe that your counsel will advise the board, the board
takes judicial notice of the zoning ordinances of the towns since
they're in such--and if for such period of time in there this property
was zoned for motion picture theaters or something like that, I'll
stand correct; but I believe that it was-always been zoned one-family
residential.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would assume that..
MR. ESSEKS: I don't need the building inspector.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lessard, would you raise your right hand please?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give
is the truth, the whble truth, and nothing but the truth?
VICTOR LESSARD: I do.
· MS. GERARDI: Full name?
VICTOR LESSARD: Victor G. Lessard. L-E-S-S-A-R-D.
Southold Town Beard of Appeals -78- June 2l, ]984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBROD~/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: I will show you these seven photographs, Mr. Lessard. Did
you take them?
MR. LESSARD: No, sir, Mr. Curtis Horton took them when I was with him.
MR. ESSEKS: Are they pictures of the cottages that have been the subject
of so much discussion tonight?
MR. LESSARD: Yes, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: When were they taken?
MR. LESSARD: When were they taken?
MR, ESSEKS: Yes.
MR. LESSARD: They were taken the 10th 63 February.
MR. ESSEKS: Of this year?
MR. LESSARD: Of this year, yes, sir. 1984.
MR. ESSEKS: And are they a fair and accurate representation of the
state of facts that existed on February 10th of this year?
MR. LESSARD: Yes~ sir.
MR. ESSEKS: I offer them.
MR. LESSARD: I would like to clarify the numbers on this so the
board won't get cenfused, ok? When these photos were taken, we
had come down from the main house and as we took them we numbered
them one, two, three, four; and now I find out I'm in complete
reverse from everyone else, but that's why they're numbered this way.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you saying that east is Number 17
MR. LESSARD: That's right, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pachman wants to look at them.
MR. PACHMAN: May ~ ask him some questions?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you direct them toward the Board please.
MR. PACHMAN: This is the state of the buildings as you found them
when you came in since there were complaints made by the adjacent
neighbors, is that correct, sir?~
MR. LESSARD: That's right.
MR. PACHMAN: Wasnit there work being performed in and about the
premises at that time?
MR. LESSARD: Yes, there was.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -Zg- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: So that you don't know if this was the actual s%ate of
these buildings before work was constructed, do you?
MR. ESSEKS: Witness suggests that it was.
MR. PACHMAN: Well t would like him to say it for the record--
MR. LESSARD: Being in the campe~ter business for 40 years, I know
new work from existing, sir.
MR. PACHMAN: I didn't ask you that, sir.
MR. LESSARD: That's what you }nferred.
MR. PACHMAN: This is what you saw on the date that you saw it. You
do not know what it was two days before, a week before, o.r a month
before?
MR. LESSARD: That's true.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. And do you know of your own knowledge if they
were occupied for two months, three months, one year, two years or
three years prior to that time?
MR. LESSARD: No, sir, I don't.
MR. PACHMAN: No further questions. I don't object to the photographs
at all.
MR~ ESSEKS: I'd like to bring Janet Swanson back.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lessard. Could you just give me a
minute to'number these please? (The C~airman was handed the seven
photographs, which were marked E.-6 through E-12 for the record.)
MR. ESSEKS: Had any work been done on the cottages between the time
that you bought them and the time the picture, the pictures were taken
in February of '84?
JANET SWANSON: To the roofs, a no.
MR. ESSEKS: Anyth.ing~'else?
MS. SWANSON: I think we did some cutting around in that time. I
think some of the growth was cut back.
MR. ESSEKS: The buildings themselves.
MS. SWANSON: No.
MRo ESSEKS: I have no other questions. Howard?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -80- June 21, i984 Regular Meeting
(Appea~ No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: Pror to the time ( ) back to the property and during the
t~me that you owned the property, do you know of your own knowledge
whether any houses were occupied, the cabins? Do you know of anybody?
MS. SWANSON: No.
MR. PACHMAN: You have no knowledge. You relied purely on the affidavit
as you received from the former owner. So the last three (), you had
no knowledge that those buildings were occupied by anybody?
MS. SWANSON: I wasn't acquainted with the property then.
MR. PACHMAN: No questions.
MR. ESSEKS: Mr. Chairman, we have asked the owners who sold the
property to the present owners and who made the affidavit to the
building inspector to appear and testify~ and they have not responded
to our strong request, they indicated a misunderstanding and therefore
I'm going to ask for a continuance for some period of time to bring
them in because I would think their testimony would not only be
relevant but of interest to the town's board of appeals based upon
the fact that the building inspector is an officer of the town, and
I have considerable summary and argument to make, but if I'm going
to be granted my continuance, I would like to make it afterwards.
If I'm not going to be granted my continuance, I would make it tonight.
Seeing that it's midnight, I don't really see how my request is
terribly out of line. I hope it will be granted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As I have told the public in the past, we usually
grant one recess. The recess is usually until the next regularly
scheduled meeting. If not, then we have to readvertise.
MR. ESSEKS: I understand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And I would like you to bear the cost of the advertising
if it is not at the nex~ regularly scheduled meeting.
MR. ESSEKS: I have no troubl-e w~th the next regularly scheduled
meeting unless something happens to my witness. I will bear the costs.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you don't have to bear the costs because we don'.t
have to readvertise if it's the next regularly scheduled meeting.
MR, ESSEKS: If there has to be a readve~tising, I'll bear the costs~
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, members of the board. ~ respectfully
disa.greeaand heartily object to'the requirement that this hearing
be adjourned. I think that Mr. Esseks had three or four weeks'
notice, maybe more, that this hearing was scheduled for the 21st.
If he did not~ hav~ the opportunity to have a voluntary appearance
on the part of Damianos and the co-owners, he had the same right and
obligation to subpoenae those witnesses to come before this meeting
Southold Town Board of Appeals -81- June 21~-1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
tonight the same way I did. I don't see why it was necessary for me
to be prepared to meet the burden of my proof tonight, and he was not
necessarily required to meet the burden of his opposition to my proof.
I think he had every opportuni~ty to subpoena those witnesses. I
think those witnesses are hostile to him. He knew they were hostile
to him. They indicated a reluctance to testi%y based upon his
statements, I do not want this board to work beyond midnight, and
I'm really very sorry that one of the members i~ not well, but I
think this meeting was to be held a month ago, work is continuing
unabated, contrary to the o~dinance and if the owners would stipulate
nos to do any further work on the premises pending a determination
of this board, I think I will consult with my clients and see if ~hat
would be accepted.
MR. ESSEKS: I'm not going to make that offer to stipulate. I've never
heard of that being required of the board. The board, they know it,
even the secretary knows, that I have been out of the Country for
almost two weeks and I requested that it not be heard tonight so I
could have some control over whether witnesses would appear or not,
and despite my request and with Mr. Pachman's insistence, this matter
was held tonight. And you have the absolute right to hold things
when you want to, but I think my request is not cruelly brought, it's
not in bad faith, it's after midnight. I think the board ought to
hear the testimony of the people who sold the property to my clients.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This determination is not mine. It's the determination
of the board.
MR. ESSEKS: I understand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And at this particular time, unless Mr. Pachman has
anything else to say we will go into a caucus for a short period of
time, and come back with a decision.
MR. ESSEKS: .All right. But if in fact you don't grant my application,
I'm not through. But to repeat myself, I would like not to sum up
and give my arguments until after_ m~ case is inlit. So if you grant
my application for an adjournment, I'll go away. If you don't grant
my application for an adjournment, I will then go into my .arguments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr Pachman, I would assume then you have ~othing further
to present to this board?
MR. PACHMAN: Based upon the information that has been supplied
tonight and what I've given, I think this board has adequate informa-
tion to make the determination, t do feel that if Mr. Esseks is
going to make some eloquent statements to thsi board, I would be
given the opportunity of a reply. Other than that, I think the matter
should be continueL~onight and come to its conclusion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll take a five-minute recess for the purpose of
discussing this issue.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
Southold Town Board of Appeals -82- June 21~i984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/A~BOT~/SWANSON, continued:)
RESOLVED, to recess temporarily for five minutes.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
RECONVENING'~OF REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Sawicki,
seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to reconvene the Regular Meeting of this board.
Vote of the BOard: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
The meeting reconvened at approximately 12:12 o'clock a.m.
DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Goehringer,
seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the next Regular Meeting of this board is
THURSDAY, JULY .26, 1984 commencing a-t 7:30 o'clock p.m., to be
held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adppted by all the members.
~ECONVENING OF TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON: Appeal No. 3234:
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks and Mr. Pachman, we have discussed
the extension that you have request; and the board is in agreement
to grant the extension for the purpose of what I mentioned before,
I prefaced to--I said that we normally grant one extension. And
we'll vote on that now. The meeting will be held, will continue
on July 26, 1984 at 8:30 p.m., and we'll vote on that now. Do
you have any.thing further before we close this--I mean recess this
hearing?
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, just so I understand the rules, if
I may. He's just going to bring in Damianos at that time, am I
correct? And then h'e is going to make a summary of his arguments
and I will have a chance to reply, is that what we're doing?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I assume.
Southotd Town Board of Appeals -83- June 21~1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON~'_ ~ntinued:)
M~. PACHMAN: We're not expecting anybody else?
-MR. ESSEKS: I don't know that.
MR. PACHMAN: I want to knoW that now.
MR. ESSEKS: I don"t know, but if I hear of any, I'll let you
know so you can prepare yours~.!f to o.pp~'se it..~But I do~!~ know of
any other tonight=-
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Then we're just talking about the two
Damianos, or each one of'those,~-.right? Either one of them or both?
MR. ESSEKS: That'~ all I-ca~'~think of right now, Howard, to
be candid wi.th you.
MR. PACHMAN: You're always candid with me.
MR. ESSEKS: If t can think of any others in between, I'll let
you know and the board know, and y~ou and the board can take whatever
position--
MR. PACHMAN: At least lO days' notice?
Mr~ ~Esseks nodded'~affir~ati~ely.
MR. PACHMAN: Thank you very much.
MR, CHAIRMAN- Hearing no ~urther questions, I'll make a motion
recessi~ng this'hearing until 8:30 p,mo _gn July 26th.
On motion 'by Mr. Goehr~nger, seconded~ by'-Mm. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to recess-Appeal No. 3234, application in the matter of
A. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON until th~ next Regular Meeting of
July4, at-8:30.o'c~l-'oC~p.m.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Dou.g]ass and Sawi.cki. This resolution ~.as~un.sni_~ous'ly
adppted 'by~all the m~mbers.
MR. CH~RM.AN: Thak ~u vers much everybody for coming in.
MR~ PACHMAN: Thank'You. ~ -'
NEW APPLICATION REV~IEW: Appeal No. 3257 - A.M. AND E.F. STOLL~
MEYER. Insufficient area'in this ~?oposed se~Fof~.o.~ a p~r~el of.
land at $o~u'vi'ew'Avende, ~Sout~ld,
Southold Town Board ~ Appeals -84- June 21, ¥984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3257 - STOLLMEYER review, continued:)
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3257, application for A.M. AND E.F.
STOLLMEYER, for permission to set off lot containing insu--~-~cient
area i'n this pro.posed subdivision, .be held in ABEYANCE PENDING an
application to and receipt of comments or action from the Planning
Board,
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was u~animously
adopted by all the members.
NEW APPLICATION REVIEW: Appeal No. 3254: EUGENE DAVISON.
Proposed set'off of substandard parcel out of 12.6 acres. ~
was the consensus of the board that since th.e application ~nvolved
jurisdiction of the Planning Board, ~'hat this matter be held in
abeyance pending app.lication to, and comments from, the Planning
Board.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,. it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3257, application of EUGENE DAVISON
for permission to set-off lot containin§ insufficient area in this
proposed division of land, containi~.g an acre~.ge of 12.6, be held
in ..... ABEYANCE__. PENDING an application to and receipt of comments or
action from the Planning Board.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
~oyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
aoopted by all the members.
Following the resolution, i~was brought to the board's
attention that another application of the same premises has been
pending ~vol~ving 6dditional living quarters in the second floor
of the existing horse stable. The Planning Board is to be
reminded of this request of February 24, 1984.
SCHEDULING OF~NEW HEARINGS: On motion by Mr. Douglass,
secon~-~ by Mr. ~wick.i, it was
RESOLVED, that the secretary is hereby authorized and directed
to advertise the following matters ~ursuan~ to law for public
hearings to be he]d.~t the next Regptar Meeting of this board, to
wit: July 26, 1984:
(a) Appeal No. 3217 - JOSEPH A. WANAT;
Southold Town Board 6'f Appeals -85- June 21,'1984 Regular Meeting
~Hearings for next meeting, continued:)
(b) Appeal No. 3252 - JOHN CHARLES AND M. SLEDJESKI;
(c) Appeal No. 3255 - THOMAS HIGGINS;
(d) Appeal Noo 3256 - SOUTHOLD EQUITIE~:
(e) Appeal No. 3258 - VINCENT GRIFFO;
(f) Appeal No. 3259 - NICHOLAS ALIANO:
(g) Appeal No. 3260 - JOHN GIANNARIS (Hellenic Cabins)~
(h) Appeal No. 3261 JOHN SIMI£ICH.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This reso~lution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
REFERRALS TO SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: On motion
by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr, Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to refer the following matters to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission in accordance with Sections 1323, et
seq. of the Suffolk County Charter; with copies of entire files;
(a) Appeal No. 3244 - FATHER JOHN DENNY;
(b) Appeal No. 3245 - DAVID AND JEANNE BRAWNER:
(c) Appeal No. 3247 - ERNEST AND JEAN STUMPF;
(d) Appeal No. 3227 EUSTACE C. ERIKSEN:
(e) Appeal No. 3248 JOHN GRIGONIS;
(f) Appeal No. 3232 BERTRAM AND MARGERY WALKER:
(g) Appeal No. 3222 JOHN WICKHAM, ET AL~
(h) Appeal No. 3118 KATHRINE FARR;
(i) Appeal No. 3117 KATHRINE FARR.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
~Southold Town Board of~ppeals -86- June 21 1~ Regular Meeting
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded
by Mr. S~wicki,~it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following ~ironmental Declara-
tions Pursuant to the N.Y.S. Envi.ronmenta~'eview Act of the --
Environmental Conservation Laws and Local Law #44~4 of the Town of
Southold, for the following as individually noted-below:
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATI%rE ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLAP~TION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPF~AL NO.: 3217
PROJECT NAME: JOSEPH WANAT
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.YoS. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type ii [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for insufficient width.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly kno~ as: ~er~en Ave.~ ~attituck~ ~
County Tax ~ap ~arcel ~o. 1000-112-1-16
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETE~P}MINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) Approval has been received from the N.Y.S. Department of
viro~a!~ Conservation concerning thi~ projea~ under ~ermit No. 10-8~-0138.
%D) The property in quesvion is at an~ele~ation of 10 or more £ee~
above mean sea level.
FOR FURTHER INFOPJ~ATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowals~i, Secretary,
Southold Town Board of Appeal~.~.~Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516-
765-1809 or 1802.
Copies~of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted
on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board.
, Southold Town Board of Appeals -87- June 21, 19~4 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3256
PROJECT NAME: SOU~tOLD E~UIT~ES
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cann adverse effect on the environment for the 'reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or simithr
project,
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ~ Type II ~] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for insufficient area of lots
in this proposed division of property.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: ~ain Rd.~ Traveler St.: Southold: NY
County Tax Hap Parcel No. ~000-61-1-15.!
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessmen~ in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda KowalsRi, Secretary,
Southold Town Board of Appeals~Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516-
765-1809 or 1802.
Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted
on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board.
Southold Town Board of'-~ppeals -88- June 21, 198~ Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL N0.:3255
PROJECT NAME: THOMAS HiGGINS
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the ~easons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or simil&r
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [~ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for insufficient frontyard
setback of deck addition.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk~ more
particularly known as: Cedar Point Dr.: Southold~. NY
County Tax Map Parcel NO. 1000-90-3-14
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted ~hich indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as p~anned;
(2) A road or structure exists between the activity, proposed
and tidal Wetlands (or other critical environmental area).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda KowalsRi, Secretary,
Southold Town Board of Appeals~' Town Halt~ Southotd, NY 11971; tel. 516-
765-1809 or 1802.
Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted
on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board°
Southold Town Board of Appeals -89- June 21,~'l~ Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 5258
PROJECT NAME: VINCENT GR/PPO
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
projectt
TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for accessory tennis court~
£encing~ pavillion in an area other than
the required rearyard.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Robinson Rd.~ Paradise Point~ Southold~ NY
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-81-1-16.1
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form 'has been
submitted w~ich indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the enviro~aent are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda KowalsRi, Secretary,
Southold Town Board of Appealsz. Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516-
765-1809 or 1802.
Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted
on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board.
. Southold Town Board of Appeals -90- June 21, ]984 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3259
PROJECT NAME: NICHOLAS ALIAI~0
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons ~ndicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II ~ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception for motel unit and office
building.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: S/S Front St., Greenport: NY
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-46-1-2.1
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) Tke property in question is not located within 300 feet of
tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda KowalsRi, Secretary,
Southold Town Board of Appealed. Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516-
765-1809 or 1802.
Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted
on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board.
~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -9~- June 21, ]984 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3260
PROJECT NAME: J0~N GIANNARIS (Hellenic Cabins)
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law %44-4 of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project..
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance~£or accessory off-street parking
facilities.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: E/S "Hellenic Cabins"~ ~in Rd.~ East ~arion~ MY
County Ta~ ~ap Parcel No. 1000-35-2-15.1
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the envirom~ent are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal
wetlands or other critical environmental area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowalski, Secretary,
Southold Town Board of Appeals~.Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516-
765-1809 or 1802.
Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted
on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board.
~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -92- June 21, ]984 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3261
PROJECT NAME: JOHN SII~ICICH
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental
Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local
Law #44-4' of the Town of Southold.
This board determines the within project not to have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project~
TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [ ~ Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: ./dasu££i~ient area & width variance~ and
request for updated approval o£ access.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: W/S Camp Mineola Rd.~ ~att.~tuck~ I~Y
County Tax Map ?arcel No. 1000-122-5-5.5
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the envirom~ent are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) ~he property in question is not located within 500 ~eet o£ tidal
wetlands or other critical environmental area.
(3) ~he property in question is at an elevation of 10 or more feet
above mean sea level.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowals~i, Secretary,
Southold Town Board of.Appeal~x. Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516-
765-1809 or 1802.
Copies'of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted
on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board.
Southold Town Board~6~f Appeals -93- June 21,'~984 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations - continued):
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
NEW APPEAL REVIEW~ Appeal No. 3253 ELVIRA MORGENSTERN. On
May 23, 1984, Mrs. Morganstern filed an app~T for a variance
pursuant to the May 23, 1984 Notice of Disapproval of the Building
Inspector in order to change lot lines. On June 5, 1984, the
Planning Board suggested that since the conveyance of 5,022 sq.
ft. from the larger parcel to the smaller parcel would increase
the substandard lot, and would not create an un.dersized area
of the larger lot, that the matter would not appear to need a
variance. The Planning Board will be requesting covenants and
restrictions similar to the following:
1. Lot to be transferred to the house lot of Elvira Morgen-
stern as a nonbuildable lot;
2. No further subdivision of either lot in the future.
On June 20, 1984, the. Z.B.A. submitted that~June 5, 1984
letter to the bui~lding inspecto.r for his final determination and
further clarification. Mr. Lessard indicated to the board that
Mrs. Morgenstern will not require action Of the Board of Appeals
under the circumstances of this unique situation and will be
sending a memorandum to that effect tomorrow.
Being there was no other business properly coming before the
board at this time, and in light of the lateness of the hour,
the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned.
The meeting adjourned, at approximately 12:45 o'clock a.m.
June 22, 1984.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
- ~ G~eh~~~-~an