Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/13/1984 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 2,m, SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11c~'71 TELEPHONE (516] 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICK[ M T N U T E S REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1984 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on ~hursd~y, December 13, 1984 at 7:130 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigqnis, Jr., Member; Serge Doyen, Jr., Member; Robert J. Doug- lass, Member; and Joseph H.. Sawicki, Member. Also present were Victor Lessard, Building-Department Administrator, Mrs. Barbara Strang, part-time stenographer of the public hearings, and approximately 12 persons in the audience at the commencement of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with the public hearings, as follow: 7:35 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of K.& L PROPERTIES, INC. (G. DUCHOW). Rudolph Bruer, Esq. appeared in behalf of the applicant; and the statements of the public hear- ing have been recorded electronically by Mrs. Strang and have been prepared under separate cover, to be filed simultaneously herewith at the Office of the Town Clerk. Following the public hearing, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and reserve decision in the Matter of Appeal No. 3292, K & L PROPERTIES, INC. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- December 13, 1984 Regular Meeting 7:45 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of JOSEPH and ARLENE LESTINGI. Mr. Kapel~l, agent for the appl'icants, requested a recess of this matter since he was not able to attend~ The Chair- man opened the hearing to receive testim~ny~ however, no one 'spoke concerning this particular application. Since it is the board's normal policy to grant one recess, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, ~hat Appeal No. 3296, Matter of JOSEPH AND'ARLENE LESTINGI be and hereby is RECE_S~ED as-requested unti'l ~our J~nua~y 1'~ 1985, Regular Meeting ..... Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all ~he members. 7:49 pom. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of DESPINA and PETE MARKOPOULOS, Appeal No. 3297. The statements, pro and-con, were recorded electronically and prepared under separate cover by Mrs. Strang, the original pf which is to be filed simultaneously herewith ~t %he Town Clerk's Office. Following the public hearing, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to Clo~e the ~e~ring ~nd reserve decision in the Matter of Appeal N~-~. ~"~IN~ ~N~ ~-~-~-~ M~OS. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. (See Conditional Action, infra.) 8~00 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of JOHN'BERTANI (and A1 Koke) by Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. Appeal No. 3300. The statements of this hearing have been ~repared unde.r separate cover by Mrs. Strang and filed simultaneously herewith at the O~fice of the Town Clerk for reference. Following the hearing, the following action was t~ken: On motion by Mro Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Grigonis and Sawicki, it was Southold Town Board of.,A'ppea.~s -3- December 13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3300 - JOHN BERTANI ~nd AL KOK~, co~in~d:) RESOLVED, to close the he~ring and reserve decision, pending deliberations, int he Matter of JOHN'BERT~ Appeal ~ 3200. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. APPEAL NO. 3304 - MARGARETHE D. CLEMPNER. On December 6, 1984, Environment East, Inc., agent for the appl.icant~ submitted a wr~itten request withdrawing the ~bject applica~j.~on, which' was filed with the Town Clerk on October 29, 1984~ Accordi'ngly~ the fol]omi"ng action was taken: On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3304, application made for MARGARETHE CLEMPNER by Environment East, Inc.,'BE AND HEREBY IS WITHDR--~-~-~WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS REQUESTED. Location of Property: Inlet Lane Extension, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000.~36-2=24. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen~~ Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. 8:13 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of ARNOLD AND MARY BEHRER by William Jacobs, as agent, in Appeal No. 3301. ~-~he statements of this hearing have been recorded electronically and prepared under separate cover by Mrs. Strang, to be filed simul- taneously herewith at the Office of the Town Clerk for reference. Following the hearing, the following action was taken: The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-32 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires all accessory structures to be located in the rearyard area. Applicants have requested the placement of a 22' by 28~ accessory garage structure to be located in the easterly frontyard area, located approximately 185 feet from Nassau Point Road and not less than four feet from the northerly side property line. The premises in question consists of an area of 69,400± sq. ft. Southold Town Board ~6~ Appeals -4- December l~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3301, ARNOLD AND MARY BEHRER, continued:) with 150-foot lot width and an average depth of 462.50± feet. Exist- ing ont he premises is a one-family dwelling centered thereon. Due to the unique character of this lot, having frontage on both the west and east sections along streets, there are technically two "front" yards. The board agrees with applicants' reasoning. In considering this appeal, the board has also determined: (1) that by allowing the variance, no detriment would be created affecting adjoining properties; (2) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (3) the variance will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; (4) the circumstances of this appeal are unique~ (5) the relief requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of the zoning ordinance; (6) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Messrs. Sawicki and Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3301, in the application made by ARNOLD AND MARY BEHRER to locate accessory garage structure of a size 22' by 28r in the frontyard area with a minimum four-foot sideyard setback, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUB- JECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That it be used for storage purposes accessory and incidental only to residence (and not for living or sleeping quarters); 2. That it be not closer than four feet to the side property Location of Property: 5730 Nassau Point Road, Nassau Point Subdivision Lot 141 and Part of 142, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Vote of the Board: Ayes~ Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. 8:20 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of FRANK A. FIELD REALTY, INC., Appeal No. 3303. (Statements of this public hearing have been recorded electronically and prepared under separate cover by Mrs. Strang, to be filed simultaneously herewith at the Office of the Town Clerk for reference. Following the public hearing, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, as follows: Southold Town Board 6f Appeals -5- December 13-~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3303 FRANK FIELD REALTY, cont'inued:) BE IT RESOLVED, that Appeal No, 3303, public hearing in the Matter of FRANK A. FIELD REAL'TY, INC. be and hereby is RECESSED until THURSDAY, JANUARY 12,, 1985, pending further research as to the history of the parcels and improvements existing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. 8:40 p.mo Public Hearing was held in the Matter of ANTHONY AND SALLY PIRRERA, by Ira Haspel as agent, Appeal No. 3306. (Statements of this public hearing have been recorded electronically and prepared under sepa.rate cover by Mrs. Strang, to be filed simutalenously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office and attached for reference.) Following the public hearing, the board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-32, which requires all accessory buildings to be located in the rearyard area. Applicants have requested the placement of a proposed 8' by 24' shed attached to a 24' by 24' carport in the front, southerly yard area of the premises in question. These premises is located on the north side of C.R. 48, and is improved with a one-family, two-story dweiing and accessory swimmingpool (in the northerly rearyard). The proposed shed-carport structure is to be located 160± feet from CiR. 48 with a minimum set- back from the westerly side property line at five feet. It is the opinion of the board in considering this appeal: (1) that ~he relief requested is not unreasonable since the rearyard is limited for construction due to its characteristics (bulkheading, elevations, etc.); (2) that the circumstances are unique; (3) that the variance will not adversely affect adjoining properties since there are structures existing at setbacks similar to that proposed in this immediate vicinity; (4) the variance will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zing; (5) that the relief requested will be within the best interests of justice particularly in view of the fact there has been no opposition. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3306 for ANTHONY AND SALLY PIRRERA by I. Haspel, for permission to place accessory shed-carport structure of 24' by 32' in size in the frontyard area with a minimum five-foot westerly sideyard setback and 160± feet north of the C,R. 48, BE'AND HEREBY IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Southold Town Board 6f Appeals -6- December l~, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3306 ANTHONY AND SALLY PIRRERA, continued:) 1. That this accessory building be used only for storage purposes (as permitted by Section 100-32); 2. That the carport section remain "open," as applied. Location of Property: 57305 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-044-02-003. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. 8:45 p.m. Public Hearings'~ereheld in the Matter of Appeal Nos. 3286 and FL. 15 for JOSEPH GRASSO, by Donald Denis, RoA. (The Statements of this public hearing have been recorded electroni- cally and prepared under separate cover by Mrs. Strang, to be filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office, and attached hereto for reference.) After~-rece~in§ all testimony concerning these applications, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to declare the hearings Closed for Appeals No. 3286 and FL. #15, in the Matters of JOSEPH GRASSO. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. TEMPORARY RECESS: On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to recess for ten minutes, at which time the meeting will reconvene. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrin§er, Doyen, Gri§onis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RECONVENE: At 9:05 p.m., on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the Regular Meeting reconvene. This resolution was unanimously carried. Southold' Town Board. of~.'Ap,p.e'als_. -7- December 13, 1984 Regular Meeting 9:05 p.m. RESERVED .DECISION: Appeal No. 3297: Upon application of DESPINA'AND P.ETE MARKOPOULOS, 222-08 43d Avenue, Bayside, NY 1136'1', for a Variance'to t-~ing Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to locate new dwelling with insufficient sideyard setbacks at premises, Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, NY; Cpt. Kidd Estates Map 1672, Lot ~6; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-99-01-24. The public hearing was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal f~om Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Ordinan.ce which requires a minimum of 10 and 15-foot setbacks, for a minimum of 25-foot total sideyards for new one-family dwellings in the A-Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. It is applicants' request to construct a new one-family dwelling of a size 28' wide by 42' deep, leaving a 12' setback from the westerly side line and 10' setback from the easterly side line, for a total of 22 feet for both sideyards. The premises in question fronts along Sound Beach Drive 50 feet in length and has a depth of 150 feet. This parcel is known and identified as Lot 16 of Captain Kidd Estates Subdivision established January 19, 1949. It is the opinion of the board in considering this appeal that: (1) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirements, being 11% of a variance; (2) that this request is not unreasonable under the circumstances; (3) the circumstances are unique particularly in light of the dimensions of this parcel; (4) the variance will not adversely affect adjoining properties since the request is minimal; (5) the variance will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; (6) and in light of the fact that no one appeared testifying that it was important for the health, safety and welfare of this area that the relief be denied, it is determined to be within the best interests of justice to allow the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, o~ motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was S'outhold Town Board~-~f Appeals -8- December l~C<, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3297 Pete and Despina Markopoulos, continued:) RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3297 concerning premises Known as Lot 16, Map of Captain Kidd Estates, County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-99-01-24, for PETE AND DESPINA MARKOPOULOS, for permission to construct one-family ~Welli.ng with insufficient Sideyards of 10 feet and 12 feet, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the sideyards not be reduced to less tha~ 10 feet on the easterly side and 12 feet on the westerly side; 2. That the stairwell not be wider than three feet into the sideyard area. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrin§er, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3292: Application of K & L PROPERTIES, INC., c/o R.H. Bruer, Esq., Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance for approval of access, New York Town Law, Section 280~A over a private right-of-way located at the east side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, NY, to premises known as County Tax Map Parcel No~ 1000-86-05-11. The public hearing on this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following fin~ngs and determination: This is an application for approval of access over a private right-of-way locate.d on the east side of Indian Neck Lane approximately 958.82 feet south from the Main Road (S.R~ 25). The right-of-way in question has a legal width of 15 feet, a traveled width of 10± feet, and a length of 643.96 feet to premises having receiving conditional subdivision approval, #221, on 4/27/81 by the Planning Board. The portion of the right-of-way outside of the subdivision ~s under con- sideration by this board. A copy of deed recorded at Liber 9610 cp 313 dated 7/12/84 has been submitted for the record indicating conveyance by Herodotus Damianos to K & L Properties of the rights-of-way to the 5.3± acres in question. The right-of~way is in fair condition and consists of hard packed ~an~ and g~avel. There are a few small pot holes and depres- sions throughout. Test hOles indicate 5"± of sand and gravel. It Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- December 13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3292 K~ ['~'~R~ER~ES, continued:) is the opinion of this board that certain improvements be made for suitable accessibility by emergency vehicles. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3292, application for K & L PROPERTIES, INC. be and hereby is GRANTED approval of access in_accordance with New York Town Law, Section 280~A, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1o The right-of-way be widened and improved a minimum width of 12 feet; 2. The potholes and depressions be filled with bankrun sand and gravel; 3. A compacted 3" top course of 3/4" stone blend be placed on the corrected surface; 4. This approval is granted only for the existing five parcels having legal access over same; and any. further new subdivision(s) will require new application(s) for consider_ation accordingly. Location of Property to Which Access is Requested: County Tax Map District 1000, Section 86, Block 5, Lot ll~ Minor Subdivision #221 of 4/27/81; E/s Indian Neck Lane, PecQ~c, NY. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded' 'by Mr~-Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations indicating negative effects on the 9nvironment for the reasons as indicated in accordance with Article 8, of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4: Southold Town Board of Appeals -]0- December 13, 1984 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3313 PROJECT NAME: SERGE J. DOYEN, JR. - - 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 LocaI 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 simil~r~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Lot set-off with insufficient area" LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Fox Ave., Fishers.I~land, N~ County Tax Map Parcel ~1000-006-06-001 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) 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~ Sou~hold~ 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 -ll- December 13, 1984 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMJ~NTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3311 PROJECT NAME: CELIC REALTORS 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 Envirorn~ental 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: To construct additi, sn with insuffJcient side and rear yard setbacks. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Tow~ of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: S/s Main R0ad,.S0uth0]d~ NY; 1000-]43-03-00l. P~EASON(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) The property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wet]ands or other critical envir0nmenta] area. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowals~i, 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 App,eals -12-December 13, 1984 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONblENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3307 PROJECT N~ZE: ADELE V. DECKINGER 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 Enviror~nental Conservation Law and Local Law 444-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifim 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: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval of ingr0und p001 and accessory building in fr0ntyard. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Sou~hold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: S0undview Ave, Mattituck, NY; 1000-94-0]-20. P~EASON~S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (1) ~ Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted W~ich indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The premises in question is at an elevation oflO or more feet above mean sea level. FOR FURTHER INFORM3kTION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowalski, Secretary~ Southold Town Board of Appeal~,..Town Ha!l~ Southo!d~ 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 -13- December ]3, 1984 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3308 PROJECT NAME: LAUREN ~RUG This notice is issued pursuan~ 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: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: To construct addition with insufficient rearyard setback LOCATION OP PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~Suffolk, more particularly known as: 200 Horton Rd., So~thold,_NY County Tax Map Parcel ~1000-104-01-012 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form hasbeen 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 Appeal~,..Town Hall, Southoldt 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 -14- Decembe~13, 1984 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR JANUARY 24, 1985: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the following matters be and hereby are scheduled for public hearings to be held THURSDAY, JANUAR~-~24, 1985, at a Regu~ar~Meeting commencing at 7:30 p~m., and the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of same pursuant to law in the local and official newspapers, The Suffolk Weekly Times and The Long Island Traveler-Watchman, Inc.: Appeal No 3296 Joseph Lestingi; Appeal No 3307 Adele Deckinger; Appeal No 3309 - Henry Smith and Son, by R. Bruer; Appeal No 3308 - Lauren Krug; Appeal No 3310 Gary Doroski; Appeal No 3311 Celic Realtors; Appeal No Serge Doyen (if P.B. received by 1/7/85). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. APPRDVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the November 29, 1984. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the m~mbers. $outhold Town Board of Appeals -15- Decembe~13, 1984 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS JANUARY 10, 1985: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the following matters be and hereby are scheduled for public hearings to be held at the January 10, 1985 Regular Meeting of this board commencing at 7:30 p.m. to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY; and that the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of same pursuant to law in the Suffok Times and the L.I. Traveler-Watchman: Appeal No. 3295 Fleet's Neck Property Owners/Wade; Appeal No. 3302 - Gus Wade. Vote~of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. It was noted that Marie Patterson's hearing is to be reconvened same date of 1/10/85 withou~ re-~otic~.in the newspapers since it was recessed with a date. MISCELLANEOUS: The board' noted the status of the following matters, and fur~ direction,'_.~.if any, was noted for each: Appeal No. 3214 - Hanuaer and Ba§lez - Receipt of correspondence from Trustees indicating their jurisdiction. Copy of same to be forwarded to A. Wickham, Esq. as attorney for the applicants. Appeal No. 3206 Henry P. Smith, W/s Peconic Lane, Peconic. Await further instructions from attorney Ofrias. Letter to Mr. Ofrias as to status of same. Appeal No. 3294 - Peter and Margaret Troyano. Await certifica- tion and additional maps before scheduling for hearing. Appeal No. 3251 Renate Riedel. Await DEC amendments and amended survey plans. Appeal No. 3216 Eugene Davison. Await amended proposal. Appeal No. 3274 Best, Schmitt, Syverson. Division at R-O-W off E/s Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. Pending DEC & Co. Health. Appeal No. 3205 John DiVello. Await R-O-W easement agreement as amended. Appeal No. 3183 - Mary N. Code. Await applicant's response. Appeal No. 3196 = Walter ~airston. Await response. Letter to the Estate advis~ing them of this pending file. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- December 13, 1984 Regular Meeting Appeal No. 3191 Herbert Mandel. Request whether applicant wishes to proceed as filed or withdraw. Appeal No. 3249 - Donald Brickley. Await DEC and Co. Health. Appeal No. 3252 John Charles and M. Sledjeski. Await DEC and Co. Health responses. Appeal No. 3033 B. Crystal. Await requested ~urvey plan. Appeal No. 3268 Await DEC response. Appeal No. 3035 C. Georgiopoulos. Await status update from applicant's attorney, A. Wickham. Appeal No. 3215 Helen and William Coster. Await status update from applicants. Appeal No. 3259 - Nicholas Aliano~ Await Village Contract. Appeal No. 3305 - Robert and Aldona Norkus. Await DEC per Part 661, Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regs. Appeal No. 3298 - Port of Egypt Enterprises. Await additional documentation; also await Co. Health, DEC and Flood Law requirements or proposal thereunder. Appeal No. 3299 - Douglass Miller. Await Co. Health and DEC responses before hearing. It was further noted that upon receipt of the above informa- tion, public hearings will be required accordingly pursuant to law. PENDING CLOSE O~ HEARING: Appeal No. 3234 Ar%~ur Tru~ken- brodt, et al.~A~--~-~-~-t~t' and Swanson proper'ty, Orient. On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the hearing in the Matter of Appeal No. 3234, RTHUR.TRUCKENBRODT, ET AL be and hereby'is~ DECLARED OFFICIALLY CLOSE~, pe~iberati~ons and further rest. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- December 13, 1984 Regular Meeting OTHER MATTERS FOR HEARINGS: The board reviewed each of the following new files and it was the consensus of the board to field inspect each one prior to determining SEQRA status and advertising for public hearings: ('It was tentatively agreedlthat the hearings on these matters would be expected for Thursday, February 7, 1985.) Appeal No. 3312 - Louise Wilson Estate - (Await Planning Board action and SEQRA); Appeal No. 3314 - Joseph and Patricia Stiefer; Appeal No. 3315 - Cutchogue Free Library (variance); Appeal No. 3316 - Cutchogue Free Library (special exception); Appeal No. 3317 = Thomas Perillo; Appeal No. 3291 Anthony-Pagoto; Appeal No. 3294 - Peter Troyano (if documentation received by 1/7). DATE FOR SPECIAL MEETING: The board tentatively agreed to meet December 18, 1984 at approximately 6:00 p.m. for a Special Meeting concerning pending deliberations and other transactions. There being no other business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.mo Respectfully submitted, Linda Kowalski, Secretary ///~' /~~/~ ~//~Z~----/~--~z'~-L.~-~/' / ~-~ South old Town Board of Appeals Ap~roved - J~nuary 1~ 1985 Gerard P. Goehrin~', Chairman *The verbatim minutes of the public hearings only ~re prepared under separate cover by Mrs. Barbara Strang ~~~ Clerk accordingly. ~ CE VED AND iLED THE SOU~Tq'OLD__ TOWN ~.~,~'~' Town ~erk, Town ~f o ...... ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Thursday, December 13, 1984 ~3292 At 7:35 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the matter of K & L PROPERTIES for approval of an access, Suffolk County Tax Map ~i0b0-86-05-811. RUDOLPH BRUER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, actually there is a c/o for the existing house based on pre-existing use. The right of way serves this existing house and Mr. Pontino's property. The right of way when it is improved, will actually service an additional three more plots and I think the application is well worth the merits and should be granted. The applicant bought the property knowing that it was an improved, minor subdivision by the Southold Town Planning Board; he knows that he has to meet the requirements of the Planning Board with respect to the roadway inside the subdivision, and he knows that he will have to meet the standards that this Board sets to build the road. I understand that your engineer has already been out there, and has made certain recommendations. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have a copy of that? RUDOLPH BRUER: Yes I do. Our clients are aware of it and we request that this application be granted as asked for. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. I have no questions. I am aware of the property. I will see if the Board does. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Do you have any idea how long the Duchow house has been theze, Mr. Bruer? I am sorry to make you get up again. RUDOLPH BRUER: The present covenants with respect to the pro- perty state that for instance, that the one furthest away from the house that one can only be built on in 1985 and there would be another year before another could and another year before the one next to the house. Mrs. Duchow lives in the main house and does have a life estate there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's in lot ~1. RUDOLPH BRUER: Yes, the house there. Ofcourse, the improvements, whatever we do~would help her; access for emergency vehicles to her and Mr. Pontino's house. ZBA- 12/13/84 Page Two K & L Properties Hearing Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is your timing on this~ application? Are you contract vendee? Are you purchasing thisi property... RUDOLPH BRUER: We have closed on it and are the owners. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have not discussed the m~rits of the engineer's report at all. RUDOLPH BRUER: And they paid a substantial price for it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What I am saying is that I, please do not exuect a decision tonight. It will be in the near future. RUDOLPH BRUER: That's fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Would anybody like to be heard on behalf of the application before I close the hearing? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing ~he hearing, reserving decision until later. ~3296 - At 7:45 Public Hearing was~_held~in£thefmatter of JOSEPH AND ARLENE LESTINGI for a variance to place a garage in frontyard area, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-33 -04-01. Hearing was recessed until January 17, 1985. ........................... #3297 - At 7:50 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the matter of DESP!NA and PETE MARKQP©ULOS for a variance for a dwelling with insufficient sideyards, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-99-1-24. MRS MARKOPOULOS: We would like to have that. My English is not very good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason you have a house 28' in width, rather than a house that would conform to p~esent zoning requirements? MRS. MARKOPOULOS: We have a large family and something less is too small. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am correct in that you are proposing 10' on the east si~e and 12' on the west side as sideyards, is that correct? MRS. MARKOPOULOS: Yes. ZBA - 12/13/84 Page Three MARKOPOULOS Hearing - Continued CHAIRMAN ~OEHRINGER: So, basically 22' instead of 25', so it's a 3' variance, right? MRS. MARKOPOULOS: Right. CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: There won't be any changes on this? MRS. MARKOPOULOS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Would you state your name please? WILLIAM HOLDEN: My name is W£11iam Holden, and I am an attorney from Huntington and I represent my sister-in-law, Agnes Holden. who has the property on the west side. Our presence here is not to object to the request, I don't wish to have a misunderstanding. It's more of an inquiry as to the plans, which we were unable to make out. The west side indicates a staircase, leading to a patio or sundeck and we couldn't make out the width of the outside staircase, which would be an additional encroachment beyond 3'. I believe it's indicated on the papers submitted. Canlt tell if it's 3' or 5'. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It appears to be 3 on my papers, but I will ask the BuildiJg Inspector. Victor, did you want to take a look at that? What did you say your name was? WILLIAM HOLDEN: Holden, William Holden. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It has Wen our interpretation and the interpretation of the Building Inspector that stairwells are not a part, since they are a necessity, are not a part of side- yards. There is a difference between a stairwell and a deck or a deck area. WILLIAM HOLDEN: You mean the question whether the steps are in the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board, is that what you are saying? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They are not within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board, they are in the jurisdiction of the Building Depart- ment, to be honest with you. They are required access, I assume. Victor, did you want to answer that question? ZBA - 12/13/84 Page Four MARKOPOULOS HEARING - Continued VICTOR LESSARD: WILLIAM HOLDEN: Well, we have this understanding Lhat the additional space to ~e house is perfectly, there are no ob- jections. The only inquiry was is there ~ny limitation that would be placed upon the Steps leading up to the patio, could it be 12', the whole width of the sideyar~? Is that what the Board is saying? Does the Building Department have a restric- tion as to,the width of this outside staircase? VICTOR LESSARD: No, there is nothing in ~he construction laws that indicate how wide you can make them, after you reach a certain point. They have tO be at ~east ~' wide. It could be wider, of course. WILLIAM H©LDEN: So at t~is moment, there is no protection on the width of the staircase, on the outside staircase, which is proposed in this application? VICTOR LESSARD: I don't know about..by 1Poking at this, the indication is that they are going to be p~tting a 3' one£in and that's the normal practice. Anything more than that would require a handrail up the center, it doesn't pay to go any wider, but there's no law that restricts ~hat. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just say thi to you, Mr. Holden. If ... WILIIAM HOLDEN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I don't want Mrs. Markopoulos, who will be a neighbor to be disturbed by the fact that we are here to hamper her application. It is just that we couldn't make it out and we would like tolknow and it would in- volve the side area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this, since it is the side of the variance we are dealing with, we could put a restriction that the stairwell not be wider than 3'. WILLIAM HOLDEN: Well, that would be the ~nly asking, 3' seems to be a reasonable area, and we are dealing with a limited area, that's the only concern of my sister-in-law and I certainly don't want Mrs. Markopoulos to think that we are here to object to her premises. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we are very interested in access to the rear yard on all properties, so it is to our benefit also. ZBA - 12/13/84 Page Eive MARKOPOULOS HEARING - Continued. WILLIAM HOLDEN: Thank you very kindly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you have anything to say further? MRS: MARKOPOULOS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against this application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further question~ , I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision unt~.l later. #3300- At 8:00 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the matter of JOHN BERTANI for a variance to establish building containing more than one retail store, etc., Suffolk C(~unty Tax Map ~1000- 55-52-20. RUDOLPH BRUER: Just to complete t~e Boar~'~ file, they have received from the County, the permit to hav~ the curb cuts pur- suant to those plans. Gentlemen, Mr. Berta~.i and Mr. K0ke both bought this property last February. In April they submitted their plan to the Planning Board for the pulposes of site plan approval, pursuant to the Code. Mr. BertanJ. tells me that when he purchased the property he was under the impression that under B-1 Zoning that he could have retail stor~s_ The ordinance for general business says th'at what you can h~v~ under light business 100-60 and that says, if you.read it, tha~ ~ou can have retail stores (plural). Based u~on that an~ a l~y~an's interpretation he didn't realize that this would be interpreted by the Building Inspector as a shopping center. From April up until this date, he went through-the Planning Board, revisin¢ the plans many, many times. They complied with the requirements of the Planni~ Board, made many revisions and finally th~o~gh everything was completed and it was then sent to the Building Department, pur- suant to the rules for certification. It w~.s then denied on the basis that this was a shopping center. Apparently, this is a fairly new interpretation because we a~e appealing from one of the requirements of 100-62 in that a shopping center has to have 40,000 sq. ft. We have 31,000 ~nd change, okay. In all other respects this proposal other t~an the square footage meets with all the requirements o~ ~he code of bulk and parking schedule and therefore, if it wasn'~ for this, it would be an automatic certification, I assume. N¢~w Section 100-62, says."...~notwith~tanding any other provi~i~ n of this Article, a building or combination or buildings cont~ ining retail stores mercantile establishments, offices, officDs, banks, financial institutions, commonly known as shopping ~enters may be erected according to the following requirements .... ". Now ~s far as the hardship goes, I think you can realize that a layman reading the code looking to see what he can do with property he is buying, can very honestl~ look around the Town and say well look, other people haven't had to go through this in terms of it being deemed a shopping center. Look around under the recent buildings ZBA- 12/13/84 Page. Six JOHN BERTANI HEARING - Continued RUDOLPH BRUER - Continued: we have East End. Insurance with his building which is on property 50 x 150; this is a com- mercial office building, it is an office building, but as I read to you offices are ...come under that 100-62. This was not considered a shopping center by the Planning Board. There is the Becker property in Mattituck, which was an existing building with an alteration. If you recall the section of the code talks about alterations, too, by the Way. This was considered a shopping center by the Planning Board, but was never referred to this Board and here you have a beauty parlor and two retail stores. I hate to pick on a colleague of mine, but Mr. Olsen's building is a building that is de- signed for more than one office amd this was not considered a shopping center. So, what I am really trying to get at is that a layman could come and look around and say I can have four stores as lo~_as I comply with the buik. and parking schedule and meet the site plan approval of the Planning Board and I can have whatever stores meet the required amount of parking pursuant to the Planning Board. I know that there was some, that this Board is very familiar with Mr. Camminiti's building. The Code the way I read it, does not make any distinction be- tween existing buildings ~nd vacant land with new buildings coming up. I think maybe that the weakness here is that the Code should be redefined, because there is no definition in the Code as to what is a shopping cen~er. The only definition is what is commonly known as shopping centers and I believe that if you follow along with the reasoning of the applicant pursuant to the application here, we do have practical dif- ficulties and undue hardship based upon the fact that we honestly thought we could have four stores if we met the bulk requirements, based upon an honest interpretation, our interpretation, of the Code. I believe it is unique according to the applicant, in that it is a new interpretation. I am not denying that it is a shopuing cen~er or not, I don't think it is. I don't think my client actually believed that a four- store, four stores constitutes a shopping center in this par- ticular instance. Again, there is nothing in the Code that defines what is a shopping center. It is not going to change the character of the neighborhood, in that it is already zoned for business; it is anticipated that businesses will go there and that's why it is business zoned this way; there are other business zoned properties with structures on them nearby, across the street and again there are a number of existing buildings that have been converted to 2 different uses that have not been deemed shopping centers and compelled to come here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think the only one area that this Board is concerned with is, and I do agree with you that there is some weakness in the area of the Code, i~ the differentiation between types of businesses and I will give you an example.. ZBA- 12/13/84 Page Seven JOHN BERTANI HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: - cpnti~ued...an ice cream store certainly draws more than a chiropractor, so this is the type of situation that this Board is concerned with. Mr. Bertani did call me, and I did ask him, what kind of stores are you talking about? He did tell me he had no plans for any specific types of stores at this particular time. RUDOLPH BRUER: That's true. I would like to point out that although we say that there will be four stores, four stores in and of themselves they meet the parking requirements, which is supposed to cut down the density of the people going to the stores, could possibly not equal What one very popular store could generate, if you limited this to just one store. I mean I don't know what type it would be, maybe a 7-11 could draw a huge amount of cars, whereas four small stores that we have there will just have int'ermitent~traffic there; we don't know what's going to be there. We are doing this as an investment and I think you have the plans there; I think you will see that the building will be a credit to the community, not something that's a sloppy mess and it's been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed by the Planning Board and as I said, we thought this was the last step, and we were very surpriSed when the denial came down from the Building Inspector. My clients are here if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will see what develops. Thank you very much, Mr. Bruer. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Anybody like to speak again~ the application? Questions from Board Members? Let me just reiterate that we are aware of the Weakness in the Code that you mentioned, Mr. Bruer, and the Board has not met, we all went out separately and looked at this piece of property and we do not discuss this applicaticn until after we have had the Public Hearing and I have no idea on how the Board feels on this application at a~l. Uniquely, we have not had a lot of these, and you are perfectly correct. I have no idea if there was a change interpretation, or if the term "shopping c'enter" has a direct significance on this appli- cation or applications of this nature. RUDOLPH BRUER: I would just like to say again that there is no definition of what is a shopping ceRter. I just ask the Board again to read the lead paragraph of Section 100-62 and ask your- selves do you each have at this moment, this same definition of what a shopping center is in your minds. I betcha you don't, I maybe wrong. I betcha you all have different ones or whatever. I don't think two uses on a particular property should constitute a shopping center. Again, a perfect example is the Camminiti building. You got four or five in there and it has nothing to do with existing structures the way the Code reads. Thank you very much. ZBA- 12/13/84 Page Eight JOHN BERTANI HEARING - Continued CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in. ~3301 - at ~p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of ARNOLD and MARY BEHRER for a variance to place a garage in fr~n~yard area, Suffolk County Tax Map ~t000- ]]]-]2-2.]. WILLIAM J. JACOBS: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is William J. Jacobs of Cutchogue and I represent Arnold and Mary Behrer of Nassau Pofnt. As you see, since the property is set back so deep it would not be a detriment ~o the community to have a garage out in front. Also, if architecturally it wouldn't do anything good to it, the grading is up higher on the one side of the garage it woUld also mean a lot of excavation and tree removal~and that would be expensive to the homeowner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You do not object to any restrictions on this garage that since it is going to be built only 4' from the property line that it only be used for storage purposes and never be added to the existing h~use attached to...How high is the garage going to be Mr. Jacobs? WILLIAM JACOBS: The garage will be about 13' or 14' high. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it a on~ or two story garage? WILLIAM JACOBS: It is a one story garage. Two car garage witk storage area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the application? VICTOR LESSARD: This application has no backyard, I want you to be aware of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I realize that, after spending ten minutes riding up and down Wunnewetta Road and attempting to figure out how to enter this property. Bearing ~n mind that the winter is setting ~n and I am sure you want to start this in the very near future, I will make a motion approving this as applied for with the following restrictions: 1. That the garage be used only for storage purposes and 2. That it not be.placed any closer than 4' to the north property line. (Findings and determination in official minutes filed with'Town Clerk). ZBA-12/13/84 Page Nine 93304 - At 8:20 Application of MARGARETHE D. CLEMPNER was withdrawn at her request. 93303 - At 8:15 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of FRANK A. FIELD REAL.~Y..!~ INC. for a variance to construct a two family house in lieu of two existing structures, Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-48-3-20,19,8,9. FRANK FIELD: Gentlemen, my name is Frank Field and I am the one that's proposing this. I have a letter I sent to the Board dated October 26th, which I think sums it up, but I am here to answer any questions or whatever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We-are somewhat, I am somewhat, let me say this, what can you tell me, Mr. Field, what is legal there and what is not legal? What do you have c/o's for on the houses in there? FRANK FIELD: Well those houses were built many, many years ago before there were c/o's. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have certificates of use on any of those houses, on the trailer, on the two story frame house? FRANK FIELD: The trailer has a trailer permit from the Town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which is renewable? FRANK FIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, assuming the two story frame house on Linden Street, is that being occupied by one family now? FRANK FIELD: Yes, it's just one family. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, we assume there is somebody in there now, so a certificate of use could be gotten? FRANK FIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What about the other two houses, are they livable? FRANK FIELD: One house had a fire, which precipitated this proposal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. ZBA- 12/13/.84 Page Ten FRANK FIELD REALTY, INC. HEARING - Continued. FRANK FIELD: The other house has a tenant there and has been continuously rented for over ten years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does the house that burned or is burned is that the one to the east? FRANK FIELD: That-~s correct.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And it straddles both property lines? FRANK FIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically you would be taking that house down, plus the house next 'to it, which has been rented for ten years. FRANK FIELD: It h. as-b~H rented for ten years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And then placing this two family dwelling on the south property? FRANK FIELD: Right, facing Brown Street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any specific reason why you don't want to rehabilitate the house that was destroyed? FRANK FIELD: Those houses, one house is on locust posts and the other house is partially on locust posts and par- tially on a foundation, to rehabilitate, I would like to do it right. It would be very expensive to rehabilitate the one that had the fire. And the thought was instead of putting money into something that was half on lucust posts and half on a foundation, why not make a proposal to the Town and the Zoning Board and say, hey we get rid of two old houses and get one nice one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Has the house that had the fire been destroyed more than 50%? FRANK FIELD: I would say no, but this could be argued. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Have you ever entertained the thought of moving just those two structures over onto the separate lot? and rehabilitating those? FRANK FIELD: No I haven't looked into that. I just thought new construction would be better because you have proper insulation, latest wiring code, right number of outlets. ZBA - 12/13/84 Page Eleven FRANK FIELD REALTY, INC. HEARING - continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Let's see what develops throughout the h~aring. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? In favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the ap- plication? Kindly state your name. PAUL DINIZIO: My name is Paul Dinizio, residing at 637 Brown Street, Greenport, New York. I just have a few questions for the'Board. Was there a special exception granted in this application? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The question is should be, and I am not correcting you, the question should be was there a special ex- ception applied for, No. PAUL DINIZI©: Okay. Has the site plan been approved by the Planning Board? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would say that's up to the Building Inspector to make that determination. PAUL DINIZIO: That was my next question, has the Building Permit been granted or approved? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, definitely not, it had to be brought before this Board first. The only thing I can ~ead to you is a disapproval, part of the legal notice which I read, if I can find it here in a second. It says "Please take notice that your application dated October 17, 1984..'~nd refers to the permit number and so on and so fortH'~as herewith been dis- approved on the following grounds, 'Article 3, Section 100-30A-1 and 131 bulk and parking variances required by the ZBA to allow a two family dwelling on undersized lot." Now that's the only thing that precipitated this particular application. I will ask the Building Inspector why a special exception is not required in this particular case? VICTOR LESSARD: A two family house is permitted in an A-zone provided you meet the criteria set down by the code book. There's no special exception required for that. A special exception is to allow something in an area that's not allowed to be there. We are talking about a house in an A zone that is permitted, Now, the catch is a requirement set down by the Code require a variance which can be met. That's why you are here. PAUL DINIZIO: I ask you, Mr. Lessard, why Appeal ~3198 was denied by %he Building Department? I am speaking on behalf of my wife. ZBA-12/13/84 Page Twelve FRANK FIELD REALTY, INC. HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: YOU are referring to the application around the corner where the buildings were moved on Ho that property and... PAUL DINIZIO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. C~AIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He's referring to the buildings that.. VICTOR LESSARD: This Board acted on it. I certainly haven't got the right to tell this Board what to do, sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: NO, no, he's saying, I believe he's saying that .... PAUL DINIZIO: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, can I read this.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me clear this so he understands. When Second Street Corporation was given those.buildings, and I believe the Community Development Director in Green- port was involved or our Community Development Director was involved. They were moved on'to the property, I assume, of your wife? Is that what you are referring to? He is saying that a special exception was then applied for and .denied for a two-family use on the... VICTOR LESSARD: I believe the area that the house was put was a business zone. Again, I don't know, I have gone through a thousand cases. But I am pretty sure it was in a business area and it didn't belong in there, that's why the special exception. PAUL DINIZIO: Well, anyhow, in the actions of the Board that my wife had received ...it states here that the Building Depart- ment disapproved the application. Okay., there's a couple more things, too. Why myself and my wife and I speak on behalf of my parents, my grandmother and my brother also, that there is not enough lot area for a two family house. I don'%t know of any other two family houses in the area, from the tracks to the bay. I might be corrected on that, but I don't know of any. And another reason is that my brother and I have spent thousands of dollars trying to solve a drainage problem on that street. All the water from Linden Street, Brown Street comes through either Mr. Field's property or down Seventh Street and ends up lying between both of our properties, which sometimes floods my brother's basement out. So I think that this ~s a consideration that the Board should solve before letting something like this g© through. I mean, we spent thousands of dollar's building a house. We have spent thousands of dollars trying to prevent the problem of flooding basement, of our own money. The Town has helped by putting some drains in, but it is just not enough; it just doesn't handle the water. That's about it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak against the application? Mr. Field, when I was down to the property, I did not attempt to gain access to any ~ of these structures ZBA - 12/13/84 Page Thirteen FRANE FIELD REALTY, INC. HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:- Continued because I assumed that the ~'~ ~and the two 'story'frame house in the front were in- habited. I did not know that the other two houses, one of which is and one of which is not, and in the house that was burned, is entry able to be gotten in that particular dwelling? FRANK FIELD: Yes, we have a-padlock on it, and we have it all sealed up. We can make arrangements. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Supply us with a key to that or make arrangements to meet us there sometime, so we may go back and reinspect that? FRANK FIELD: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't tell you with the holidays right now, but it will probably be sometime in the latter part of December right after Christmas. Maybe that Saturday after Christmas week or the following Saturday after New Year's, but we will get back and inspect that. FRANK FIELD: Do you have my phone number? It's 477-2433 and I have a recording there so if there's no answer, just let it ring and leave a message. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good. Thank you. Yes, sir. JOHN DINIZIO: On the building he was talking to Mr. Field about, the burned out one, after the fire I believe my father came up here spoke to the Building Inspector and he promised my father that the building would be torn down in thirtY (30) days and we are now talking nine months ago. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am aware of what you are referring to in reference to the difference to the special exception that you had mentioned and this particular application. I believe and I am not speaking for the Building Inspector and what he is in fact interpreting as being almost trade between the two dwellings into one dwelling, as opposed to the actual special exception. Remember the minute the building on Second Street Corporation severed from the land, it became personal property, so that when it was moved, even though it was a two family structure, and when it was moved onto your wife's property, it then went back to a one family structure, and because of our specific requirements, whcih are extremely, extremely stringent in this Town on two family dwellings, they~require 160,000 sq. ft. or four acres and there is no varying of that. That is a special exception and you cannot vary that. Probably the reason the Building Inspector had'interpreted it in that manner, }st so you understand that situation. I hope you do. ZBA - 12/13/84 Page Fourteen FRANK FIELD REALTY, INC. HEARING -'Continued PAUL DINIZIO: Is it all one piece of property right now? Such as my wife's property, I looked into the probability of building three houses, which because there were three lots and I was told that since it was owned by the same person for so long, that it became by the Town, which department I don't know, it became one parcel of land, because it was owned by the same party. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think to a~swer your first question, that's the reason we are going back to do the inspection. If the building is destroyed more than 50% of the aggregate value of the structure itself and I am not referring to it as a dwelling, I am referring to it as a structure, because we assume it is not a dwelling until the Building Inspector so indicates that it is, and that it hasn't been burned more than 50%, then basically he only has 3 dwellings on this particular piece of property or two dwellings and a trailer. To answer your other questions, I assume that the entire four parcels of 26, 28,50 and 59 are all in one name, is that correct? So they are in effect, one lot. PAUL DINIZIO: SO, in other words, according to Town zoning if the lot was vacant, all four lots were vacant and owned by the same person only one dwelling could go on that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. Is there anything that you would like to add, Mr. Field? FRNAK FIELD: The only other thing there is another two family dwelling in the area. Just one that I know of, which I own, which is 621 Linden Street, which is right around the corner and I purchased it as a two family house way back about 7 or 8 years ago. CHAIRMAN GEOHRINGER: Before you sit down, this possibly could require a special exception. I will have to see how the inter- pretation goes after we do the~ inspeCtion. I am rather con- cerned however, with the fact that we are getting to the holi- days~ I don't want to turn this application down, we are running out of time, so I am going to ask,with ~he Board's indulgence that we recess this hearing until the second meeting in January, which is the January 17th meeting, so that if we have further input you fellows can come back and give us additional input, so we are fully aware of everything that goes on here. If I close the hearing, I can't take any more input and that's the reason I would like the recess. So, I will make that motion to the Board. Thank you gentlemen. ZBA- 12/13/84 Page Fifteen ~3306 At 8:40 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of A~THONY and SALLY PIRRERA for a variance to erect accessory storage'~uildi~g ~carport in frontyard area, Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-44-2-3. IRA HASPEL: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is Ira Haspel and I am here to represent Mr. and Mrs. Pirrera. The 24 x 32 does include the shed and I can answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, let me say this. Over the years in granting these applications, we have run into tremendous problems with carports. They start out as carports and they end up as cottages. So I am going to ask you the same question as I asked Mr. Jacobs. I understand the nature of the application where the the house is so positioned that to put something in the front yard of this house in lieu of the rear yard would be absolutely ludicrous and I can understand the purpose of the application. How large, will the shed be as part of the structure? IRA HASPEL: The shed is an 8 x 24 section as indicated on the plan, with the carport area being 24 x 24 and it will be on the north section. CHAIRMAN G©EHRINGER: Will any of the sides other than the shed side be enclosed? IRA HASPEL: We propose'to enclose the south side, which will be facing the road, and leave the east and west open. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like' to speak against the application? I apologize, it has not been a good night. Anybody like ~o speak in favor of this application? Anybody against the application? Hearing no further comments and with winter coming, I make a motion granting this subject.to the following two r~estrictions: 1. That the east/west side of the carport always remain open; 2. That the shed area only be used for storage purposes~ Thank you very much for coming in. (Findings and determination in official minutes filed with TOwn Clerk.) FL #15 and ~3286 - At 8:45 p.m. - Public Hearing-S - held in the matterS JOSEPH GRASSO for a variance to construct new dwelling with insUfficient frontyard and variance for lowest floor elevation below minimum required elevat~ion above MSL, Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-59-06-003 (Owner: Milne). ZBA - 12/13/84 Page Sixteen GRASSO HEARING CONTINUED D. DENIS: In order to reduce the effects for frontyard requests we moved the house as suggested, as far to the left as possible to the largest building envelope that was available. Our request now is to modify the frontyard from 35' to 18'. What we did was put the garage over here and filled ~p the who~ envelope. Having the garage on this end, the garage was wider than the 16 x 16 bedroom. The other thing I would say, and I don't know if I mentioned it the last time, in a normal situation, we could have asked for a compromise on the backyard, but we are restricted by the DEC, so we really couldn't have compro- mised on that one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is your setback by DEC? D. DENIS: 35'. It coincides with the rear yard requirements but if there hadn't been that restriction, I think we would have asked for a compromise on both of them. I would also say that the topography of that area was a little bit lower than the property and there is a natural berm from the road up and the right of way is 56' so, the property line is probably back another 10 to 12 feet til you get to actual paved area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the proposed setback from the rear property line? D. DENIS: The proposed setback is 35' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you for this drawing and we will certainly ta~ it into consideration. Let me talk briefly about the flood plain variance for a moment. Not looking at this file since the last available meeting, we were at that particular time indicating a crawl space basement, is tha~ correct? D. DENIS: No, we wanted to put a full basement, but we want to put a mechanical system in that basement. Again, we are restricted by the size of the house because of the size of the lot, so we really can't put the mechanical space on the first floor and that's why we are asking for a variance on that. The other thing I would say on behalf of that is, if the site were larger, wercould raise the house and perhaps grade around it, so we are restricted again by the size of the lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How deep a basement are you entertaining? D. DENIS: We would go eight feet, a foot for the floor, we may be able to go up to three fee~ 3½', I think I mentioned in the application 2' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I am looking at elevation 3.5' Do DENIS: I think it's also possible to elevate the mechanical system to again above that floor, ma~ybe raise it on a platform ZBA-12/13/84 Page Seventeen GRASSO HEARING - Continued D. DENIS - Continued: or something. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the house will have an entire basement underneath it? D. DENIS: Yes, except for the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is one question I wanted to ask you. W~ have in the past, and I can think of one application by the name of Seeman on Peconic Bay that had utilities hung from the ceiling. In your particular case, you are talking about it as elevated from the floor, it's basically the same situation. I have not discussed this with the Board in any way so I have no idea of what they thinking about in reference to obtaining this variance. The hardships were somewhat similar, except that was an existing house, so I will have to deal with that when we go into deliberation. Are you entertaing the con- struction of this house as soon as possible? Or will it be done next Spring? D. DENIS: As soon as possible. CHAIRMAN GEOHRINGER: I cannot guarantee that we will get you a decision with a week, but we will do the best we can. D. DENIS: Will it be necessary to attend another meeting? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no. Once I close this hearing, I can't take any more. D. DENIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. ~nybody else like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody against the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for your change of plan and we will do the best we possibly can. Good night. Meeting concluded at 8:50 p.m. RECEIVED _AND FILED BY ****** T~ SOUTHOLD TOW~ CL~2~ Respectfully submitted, DATE/-/~ ~ HOUR~ ~} ..... ~ -~ ~arbara A. Strang Town Clerk To~¢n p~ ~ouil~c] ] Pp. 1-18 *These minutes were transcribed from tapes as recorded.