Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/15/1984 $outhold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD ~-5 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N,Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (5'16) 755-"1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRI NGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI M T N U T E S REGULAR 'MEETING THURSDAY,-NOVEMBER 15, 1'984 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, NovemJ~er 1'5~, 1984 at 7:30 o'clock p~m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, SoUthold, New York. P~esent were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen, Member; Charles Grigonis, Jr., Member; Robert J. Douglas~, Member; Joseph H. Sawicki, Member. Also present were Victor Lessard, Building Department Administrator, and approximately 25 persons in the audience at the opening of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.mo A public hearing was held at 7:34 p.m. in the matter of Appeal No. 3257, ALEXANDER AND ELIZABETH STOLLMEYER by Richard J. Cron, Esq. After receiving testimony, the'hearing 'was officially closed by unanimous vote of all the members. The minutes of same will be filed with the Town Clerk as prepared subsequentliy~by Mrs. Barbara Strang, and under separate cover. A public hearing was held at 7:45 p.m. in the matter of Appeal No. 3288, JOHN'WICKHAM (ROBERT MELROSE)'. After receiving testimony, the hearing was officially' c~by unanimous vote of all the members. The minute.~ of same will be filed with the Town Clerk as prepared subsequently .by Mrs. Barbara Strang, under separate cover. A public hearing was held in the matter of Appeal No. 3250, JAMES AND BEU_ ~AH RICKETTS. After receiving testimony, the hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals -2= November 15, 1984 Regular Meeting was official declared closed by unanimous vote of all the members. The minutes of same will be filed with the Town Clerk as prepared by Mrs. Strang~ under separate cover. The recessed hearing was reconvened in the matter of JOSEPH A. WANAT, Appeal No. 3217. After receiving testimony, the board declared the hearing officially closed by unanimous vote of all the members~ The minutes will be ~p~red and filed under separate cover. A public hearing was held in the Matter of ANTONE AND JEaN MILESKA, Appeal No. 3266. After receiving testimony, the board declared the hearing officially closed by unanimous vote of all the members. The minutes will be prepared and filed under separate cover° A public hearing was held in the Matter of WINDSWAY BUILDING CORP. (~VANTE JOHNSON)~ Appeal No. 3207. After receiving testimony, the board declared the hearing officially closed by unanimous vote of all the members. The minutes will be prepared and filed under separate cover. A public hea~ing was held in the Matter of MARIE J. P~TTERSON, Appeal No. 3277. The hearing was left in open recess, to be reconvened tentatively at our January 10, 1985 Regular Meeting for additional information concerning the claims over a strip of land between the neighbor and the applicant. The following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it wa RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3277, Matter of MARIE J. PATTERSON, be and hereby is recessed under the JanuanyTR~gul2m~Meeting of this board, tentatively set for January'l'O, 1985. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Do~glass, Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. A temporary recess was taken ~ug:~3~p.m., after motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and unanimously, carried. The meeting reconvened at 9:11 p.m., after motion by Mr. Goeh- ringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and unanimously carried. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- November 15, 1984 Regular Meeting MATTER OF SOUTHLAND CORP. (7-11 Store), Southold. This matter was advertised for a continued hearing to be reconvened this evening from the October 25th Regular Meeting. William W. Esseks, Esq., attorney for the applicant indicated that the site plan as amended and furnished to the board yesterday would meet the 25-foot minimum sideyard setback. The following action was taken; WHEREAS, on November 14, 1984, this board received the site plans as amended relocating the subject 10' by 12' storage building with a 27-foot setback from the easterly property line (rather than a 20-foot setback as originally applied); and WHEREAS, the applicant by his attorney requests that the variance application be withdrawn since it is the determination of the building inspector that the new location would be in compliance with the bulk schedule requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, that the application of SOUTHLAND CORP., Appeal No. 3275, BE AND HEREBY IS WITHDRAWN, WITHOUT PREJUDICe, as requested. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. A~public hearing was held in the Matter of .COLGATE'DES~.GN CORP., Appeal No. 3275, whicb~recon~e~ed:.~rom the last ~' Meeting-of this board, to wit:_ October 25, will be prepared and filed with the'Town*Clerk under-separate cover.) At'.theiegdL~f the puOlic hearing, the board ~ook the'~Q]lowilng ~ction: Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- November 15, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3276 - Colgate Desi'gn'CO~_]g_=., continued:) The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from a Notice of Disapproval dated April 5, 1984 of the Building Inspector for which a permit to construct accessory building was disapproved under Article VII, Section lOD-71, Bulk and Parking Schedule, due to an insufficient 7' sideyard setback from the easterly property line. The building is proposed to be 10' by 12' in size for storage of bottles and cans, necessary since the N.Y.S. "bottle" law became effective. The premises in question is located in the "B=I" General Business District and contains an area of 26,117 sq. ft. 'The'premises is improved with one, one-story masonry ~uilding set b~ck approximately 90 feet from the front property line, from the westerly side property line 18½' (exclusive of fence enclosure), 17' from the easterly side propert~ line (exclusive of dumpster), and 130' from the rear property line. Abutting the premises on the east is "Kull's Gas Service Station," on the west, a law office, and on the north, Cutchogue East School. In viewing the premises and the surrounding properties, it is the opinion of the board that the 120 sq. ft. storage building could be placed in an area that would not block the only accessible side yard. The fencing constructed at both side yard areas limits the access for emergency vehicles; and this safety factor is one of the major con- cerns of the board. In considering this appeal, the board has also determined: (1) that by allowing the variance as applied, a detriment may be caused to adjoining properties~ (2) that the relief as applied would not be in harmony with or promote the general purposes of zoning since the minimum side yards required are 25 feet on one side, total of 50 feet on both sides; (3) the circumstances are not unique and the practical difficulties claimed are not sufficient to warrant granting of the relief as requested; (4) the interests of justice would be served by denying this application, as requested, for the reasons noted above. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3276 for permission to construct building with an insufficient sideyard setback from the easterly property line, BE AND HEREBY'IS DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Location of Property: North Side of Main Road (7-11)3 Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No, 1000-I02-05-24. 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 -5- November 15, 1984 Regular Meeting A public hearing was held and ~losed in the Matter of ROBERT DETREY, No. 3280. The minutes of same will be prepared and filed under separate cover~ At approximately 9:45 p.m., the board commenced deliberations. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3273: Upon application of AC-ADEMY PRINTING SERVICES, Horton's Lane, Southold, NY (by M. Hall, Esq.} fgr a Variance~to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, for approval of insufficient area a'nd width of parcels in this proposed division of land located at the South S~de of Traveler Street, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No.-1000-61-01-002. The public hearing on this matter was held on October 25, 1984, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations. The board made the following findings and determination: By this appeal, applicant seeks a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71, Bulk Schedule: (a) for approval of insufficient area of %wo parcel~, 19~675 sq. ft. and 19,595 sq. ft. and (b) for approval of insufficient lot width along Traveler Street of 156.88 feet and 160.25 feet, Parcels 1 a~d 2, respectively. The premises in question i~ located in the "B-I" General Business District. Article VII, Section 100-71, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code requires a_minimum lot area of 90,000 sq. ft. Each of the parcels will meet the minimum lot width requirement of 150 feet along Traveler Street. Parcel "1" is improved with a 1½-stony frame building used as a printing services establishment. Parcel "2"~ is shown to be vacant. Adjoining Parcel "2" on the east is a paper right-of-way of the Town of Soutbold and further east the prQposed new location of the Southold Post Office. Adjoining Parcel "1" on the south are premises of Sisu Development, Inc. All of the parcels on this block are in the "B-I" Business District. Each of the board members ~s familiar with the site in question, and in viewing the character of this district, the board finds a majority of the existing parcels to be similar in size to that- proposed by this application. The board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. In considering this appeal, it is the opinion of the board: (1) that the relief requested is not substantial, being approximately two-thirds of that required under the bulk schedule; (2) that by allowing the variance, no substantial detriment would be created affecting adjoining properties; (3) that no adverse effects w.i.l~t~ be~roduced on ~vailable governmental facilities of any in¢~eas6d population; (~) ~hat the variance will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; (5) the cir- cumstances are unique; (6) that no adverse effects will be produced Southold Town Board o~ Appeals -6- November 15-~ 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3273 ACADEMY PRINTING SERVICES, continued:) on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (7) that the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3273, in the Matter of ACADEMY PRINTING SERVICES for approval of insufficient area, of 19,675 sq. ft. and 19,595 sq. ft., Parcels 1 and 2, BE AND HEREBY~IS APPROVED, as applied. Location of Property: South Side of Traveler Street, Southold, NY; County Tax M~p Parcel No. 1000-61-01-002. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrso Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3266: Upon application for ANTONE AND JEAN MILESKA, 16045 Main Road, Matti- tuck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area and width of two parcels in this proposed division of land located on the east side of Marratooka Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-.115- 04-009. 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 findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code for approval of: (a) insufficient lot area of 32,600± sq. ft. and 34,100± sq. ft., and (b) insufficient lot width of 110.00 feet and 123.68 feet along Marratooka Lane, the northerly and southerly parcels, respectively, as shown on survey most recently amended Novem- ber 22, 1983, prepared by R. VanTuyl and Son. The southerly parcel is being improved with a one-family dwelling structure pursuant to a building permit issued 11/15/84 under Permit No. 13539Z, with a 65' frontyard setback and 22' southerly sideyard setback, all in conformance with the requirements of the zoning code. The northerly parcel is vacant. The board members are familiar with the site in question, as well as the surrounding neighborhood. In viewing the character of the area along the east side of Marratooka Lane, the board finds a majority to Southold Town Board Appeals -7- November 1~, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3266 - ANTONE AND JEAN MILESKA, continued:) be of similar size, or smaller, than that proposed, and that the premises in question is the largest parcel, and that a precedent would not be set. In considering this appeal, it is the opinion of the board that: (1) the relief requested is not substantial, (2) that by allowing the variance, no substantial detriment would be created affecting adjoining properties; (3) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (4) that the variance will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning; (5) the circumstances are unique; (6) that no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increased population; (7) that the ~nterests of justice will be served by allowing, the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3266, in the Matter of ANTONE AND JEAN MILESKA for approval o'f insufficient area of 32,600± sq. ft. and 34,100± sq. ft., and for approval of insufficient lot width of llO feet and 123± feet along Marratooka Lane, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That there be no further lot area reductions, nor front, rear or sideyard setbacks reduction to less than that permitted under the zoning ordinance (to require building of a house to conform to the lot and the neighborhood). Location of Property: East Side of Marratooka Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-115-4-9. 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 ~8- November 15, 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3257: Application for ALEXANDER AND ELIZABETH STOLLMEYER, by R. Cron, Esq., Main Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, (Al06) for approval of insufficient area of a parcel to be set-ff in this division of land .identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-054-05-45.8 and 45.9 (45.7), and located on the South Side of North Sea Drive and the North Side of Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY. 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 findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article I. II, Section 100-31, Bulk and Parking Schedule of the Zoning Code for approval of 57,113 sq. ft. in area of a proposed parcel to be set-off from an 89,127 sq. ft. parcel, both totaling 3.3572 acres. The northerly parcel is vacant at the present time, and the southerly parcel is improved with one, one-story, one-family dwelling with attached garage, having a setback from the northerly (rear) lot line of 52± feet. For the record, it is noted that the premises adjoining on the east have been granted a conditional variance on May 23, 1974 under Appeal No. 1907 for Mary and John Capelluto for two lots, one of 41,316± sq. ft. and the other of 1.5± acres. It is further noted for the record the survey as amended May 31, 1984 depicts a "one-story frame cottage" in the frontyard area, which does not exist at this time and is not under consideration in this application. The board members have viewed the premises in question and are familiar with the neighborhood. It is the opinion of the board that the relief requested is not substantial being approximately 70% of that required by the zoning ordinance, and that the area of this parcel as proposed will be of a size and character similar to those existing in this area. The board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. -- :In considering this appeal, it is the opinion of the board that: (i) by allowing the variance, no substantial 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 are unique; (5) no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increase population; (6) the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- November ~5, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3257 Stoll~eyer, continoed:!) it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3257 for approval of insufficient area of 57,113± sq. ft., BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That there be no further lot area reductions (no further subdivi- sion). Location of Property: South Side of North Sea Drive, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-0'54-05-45.8 and 45.9 (45.7). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3207: Upon application for WtNDSWAY BUILDING CORP., c/o Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq., Main Road, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient area (and width) of two parcels in this proposed division of land located along Cedar Point Drive East, Southold; Cedar Beach Park Filed Map No. 90, Lots 82, 83, 84~(85, 86, 87); County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-90-03-18. 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 findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, of the zoning ordinance for approval of insufficient area of two parcels in this proposed division of land, Parcel 1 of 1.7± acres and Parcel 2 of 1.3± acres. The premises in question is located at the north s~de of Cedar Point Drive East, and access into Pm cel 2 is shown by a private right-of-way 20' in width, 56' feet in length from Cedar Point Drive East. The premises in question are part of a previous subdivision filed with the Suffolk. County Clerk December 1927 as Map No. 90, and Parcel 1 would consist of the lots referred to as "82~ 83, and 84." Parcel 2 would consist of the lots referred to as "85, 86, and 87." The board members have viewed the premises in question and are familiar with the neighborhood. It is the opinion of the board that the relief requested is not substantial since Parcel 1 would contain approximatel 74,052 sq. ft., or 92.5% of the current requirements, and Parcel 2 would contain approximately 56,628 sq. ft., or 70% of the Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- November 15, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3207 - WI-NDsW~Y-~UILDING CORP./S. J-OHNSON, continued:) current requirements. In viewing the area, the board finds a majority of the parcels to be of similar size and character, or smaller, than that proposed by this application. The board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. In considering this appeal, it is the opinion of the board that: (1) by allowing the variance, no substantial 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 are unique; (5) no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities of any increase population; (6) the interests of justice will be served by allowing the variance, as indicated below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3207, for approval of insufficient area of 74,000± and 56,600± sq. ft., BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The area approved shall be for not more than two lots; 2. No future re-arrangement of lot lines. Location of Property: North Side of Cedar Point Drive East, Southold, NY; 1000-90-3-18 and 1000-92-01-1, 2. 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 -ll- November 1~ 1984 Regular Meeting RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3280: Upon application for ROBERT DETREY, by P~ Muller, Meetinghouse Lane, Southampton' NY for a Variance to t e~'6~-~oning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with insufficient sideyards; premises known as 62825 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. lO00-40-Ol-lO and ll. The public hearing concerning this matter was held earlier this evening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending delibera- tions. The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code which requires minimum sideyards of 15 feet and 20 feet, for a total sid'eya_~d of not less than 35 fee~. The premises in question is located at the no~th side of County Road 48, Greenport, and contains an area of 1.320 acres, with 80' road frontage. The premises as shown on the August 9, 1984 amended survey prepared by R. Van Tuyl, P.C. is a one-story, one-family frame dwelling, and an accessory garage building in the frogtyard area. The property is shown to comprise two deeded parcels identified as District 1000, Section 40, Block O1, Parcels 10 and 11, and it is the understanding of this board that these two ~arcels will by this proposal become one single buildable lot. Applicants propose a 1½-story addition to the existing dwelling which would leave an easterly sideyard setback of 15 feet, for a variance of five feet. Since the existing setback from the westerly side property line is 13 feet, the total side yards requested would be 28 feet, for a variance of seven feet. In considering this appeal, it is the opinion of the board that: (1) by allowing the variance, no substantial detriment would be created af~fecting adjoining p~roperties; (2) that no adverse effects will be produced on available g. overnmental facilities of any increased population; _(3).the variance will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes of zoning;.~ (4') the relief requested is not substantial, bein_§ 20% and 25% of a variance from the requirements; (5).~ no adverse effects will be produced on available governmental facilities Of any increase population; (6) the interests of justi~ce will be' served by alloying the variance, as indicated below. Accordingl'~, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 328D in the Matter of ROBERT DETREY for permission to construct addi- tion to dwelling with an easterly sideyard setback at 15 feet, 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- November'-SS, 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3280 ROBERT DeTREY, continued:) BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLDWING CONDITION: There be no further sideyard reductions (on either side). Location of Property: North Side of C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000-040-01-10 and 11. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 3217: Application for JOSEP.H'~-. WANAT, c/o A. Wickham, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article'III, Section 100,31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient, width of parcel to be set-off located on a private right-of-w~ay at the north side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 112-01-016. The public hearings concerning this application were held on July 26, 1984 and eart~r~-t~.s 6vening, at which time the hearing was declared closed pending del~berations~ The board made the following findings and determination: This is an appeal from Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code for approval of a lot width of 156.60 feet along a private right-of-way in this proposed set-off (division) .pf land, which will contain 2.74± acres. Parcel 1 will cQmprise of the remaining 107~6± acres (inclusive of the right-of-way which i~ also owned by the applicant). The board members are familiar with the premises in question as well as the general neighboring parcels. It is the opinion of the board that the relief ~equested is not substantial, being 15±% of the 175-foot width requirement, This parcel as proposed will conform with the lot area and lot depth requirements of the code. The right-of-way in question is pending acceptance as to anticipated improvements in accordance with the July 3, 1984 decision of this board, Appeal No. 3246, pursuant to New Yo_~k Town Law, Section 280~A. 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 · Southold Town Board - Appeals -13- November .... 1984 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3217 JOSEPH A. WANAT, continued:) 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. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED~ that the relief requested in Appeal No. 3217 for JDSEPH A. WANAT for approval of insufficient lot width of proposed parcel 2, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. That there be no further lot width reduction, or lot area, front, side, rear yard setback reductions, to less than that required by the zoning code; 2. New York Town Law, Section 280-A, and conditions as imposed by this board concerning this right-of-way extending from the north side of Bergen Avenue to proposed Parcel 2, as follows: (a) The subject right-of-way must be improved and cleared of all brush or other obstruction a minimum width of twelve feet in the following manner: [1] Remove topsoil and loam for a depth of one foot; [2] Replace topsoil and loam with a good grade of clean fill; [3] Place a six-inch base course of bankrun with 20% of gravel and 15% loam content, or equal, on the replacement material; [4] Place a two-inch top course of 3/4" stone blend on the bankrun; -' [5] Low areas must be raised to level of adjacent properties and culvert pipe inst~alled at two low areas; (b) Right-of-way must be continuously maintained in good, satisfactory condition for access by emergency and other vehicles; (c) All right-of-way improvements shall be made within the _ perimeter of the legal right-of-way; (d) Any and all other set-offs or sub~'ivisions which will require u~se of this private right-of-way will also be subject to approval of access, or an application for same under ~New York Town Law, Section 280-A in the event this right-of-way has not been accepted as stipulated above. Southold Town Board of Appeals =14- November 15, 1984 Regular ....... Meeting (Appeal No~ 3217 = JOSEPH A. WANAT, continued:) Location of Property: At the north side of a private right-of= way, north of Bergen Aven_ue~ Mattituck, 'NY; 1000-112-01-16. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawic~i. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. PENDING DEC: After reviewing the following applications, the following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3305~ application for ROBERT G. and ALDONE NORKUS for an area variance in this proposed division of land located at Cedar Beach Harbor, off Orchard Lane, Southold, New York, BE AND HEREBY IS TEMPORARILY HELD IN ABEYANCE pending receipt oK comments or approval from the N.Y.S. Department Of Environmental Conservation in accordance with Part 661 of the Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis~ Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. PENDING DEC: After discussing the recent correspondence from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation which was in response to our inquiry, the following action was taken~ On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the application under Appeal No. 3268 for JZ]KAT~RINE TUTHILL be held temporarily in abeyance pending approval from th~ N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conserva~tion in accordance with Part 661, Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~ G~ehringer, Grigonis, 'Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted b~_ u~animo~s vote of all the members. ~'~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- November 15, 1984 Regular Meeting FINAL INSPECTION: Appeal No. 2524 - MR. AND MRS. RICHARD A. SCHLU,MPF, c/o Raymond Nine. The board members reviewed R~port No~ 407 dated NQvember 10, 1984 from John W. Davis concerning the improvements recently made on this right-of-way located at the east side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. The following action was taken: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED to accept the improvements as inspected by the town road engineer, Mre John W~ Davis, Report No. 407 of November 10, 1984, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that said night-of-way be continually main- tained in good condition. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution w~$ adopted by Knanimous vote of all the members. PENDING CO. HEALTH, ETC.: Appeal No. 3214 i HANAUER AND BAGLEY. The board reviewed the corresponden.ce _received tonight from Abiga~. Wickham, Esq., attorney for the applicants, requesting a hearing date prior to receiving final action from the Co~ Health Department. It was the consensus of the board to refer this matter to the Southold Town Trustees for their inspection and opinion and as to fresh water wetlands which appear to be present at the site. The Secretary was instructed to send letters to the Town Trustees and the Count~ Health Department for ~heir action, or recommendations, and to send a letter to the appl. icants' attorney advising them of same and requesting six copies of a survey plan delineating the square footage of the land u~derwater and the upland under consideration in this application. This matter is to be held in abeyance pending recei'pt of all of the'above. CORRESPONDENCE: Appeal No. 3291 ANTHONY PAGDTO. Correspondence ~oeived No~.~mber 13th wa~ ~viewed 'by .%he board w~-~-requested a postponement of the hearing on the subject appli~cation from the November 29th meeting until the late January 1985 Regular Meeting. Notice of hearing has been advertised this date for a ~o~ember 29th hearing, and it was the consensus of the board to open the hearing at that time, and recess same until the latter January Regular Meet- ing for their presence, The agent for the applicant ~s Swim King Pools, Inc. of Roc~ky Point. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~16-~ November 15, 1984 Regular Meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the following Meetings: October 25, 1984 Regular Meeting, September 20, 1984 Spec~a} Meeting, September 13, 1984 Regular Meeting ~ahd~hea~i~gs under separate cover) August 14, 1984 Special Meeting May 2, 1984 Special Meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~ Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. DECEMBER 13TH P.UBLIC HEARINGS: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doug.lass, it was RESOLVED, that the following matters''BE AND.HEREBY'ARE.'SCHEDULED for public hearings to be held at the Decembe~ 13, ~-~-~~~g of this board, commencing at 7~.30 p.m~, and that the S~cretary is hereby authorized and directed to advertise same pursuant to law in both the local and official newspapers of the town, to wit: Suffolk Times, Inc. and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc.: 7:30 p.m. K &'L PROPERTIES; 280-A, Indian Neck Lane~ Peconic; 7:35 pom. JOSEPH AND ARLENE LESTINGI, Garage in fron~yard, Sound Drive, Greenp~.rt;.. 7:40 p.m. DESPINA AND PETE MARKOPOULOS, Dwelling with insuffi= cient side~ards, Sound Beach ~r~-T~e~ Mattituck; 7:50~p.m. JOHN BERTANI, to establish building containing more than one retail store, offices, or similar est~.bli~ments in this "B-l" General Business Zoning Distr~ct, N/S C.R.. 48, Southold; 7:55 p.m. ARNOLD AND MARY BEHRE~, garage in frontya~d, Nassau Point Road and Wunneweta Road, CutChogue~ 8:00 p.m. 'MARGARETHE'D. CLEMPNE~, garage in sideyard, Inlet Lane EXtension, Gree~port; 8:10 p.m. ~RANK A. F~ELD'REALT¥, INC. to establish two-fa~'y dwelling, and retrain one trailer and one, o--~-e-family dwelling on Lots 26, 28,~60 and 59, Greenport Driving Park Subdivision [and to ..... remove two existing, one-family dwellings). ' .... Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- November 15, 1984 Regular Meeting Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. OTHER CORRESPONDENCE: The board members also acknowledged receipt of the following recent correspondence: Letter received October 31, 1984 from Caroline McConnell in objection to the Harold and Josephine DeNeen application. The letter was placed in the DeNee~ file as part of the record. Letter dated October 29, 1984 from Norma E. Schmi~t~_con- cerning her position as an owner of premises Under the Appeal of Best, Schmitt and Syverson. This letter was placed in the file as part of the record under the Best, Schmitt and Syverson matter. Letter received October 31, 1984 from Michael J. Hall, Esq. concerning the recent Public Hearing held in the Matter of Jean C. Holland. The board has not rendered a decision as of this date, and Said they would keep Mr. Hall advised accordingly. There being no other business properly coming bef6re the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. Mo~io,, was made by Member Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, and Unanimous- ly carried, the meeting adjourned, at 10:45 p.m. The minutes of the public hearings held this evening have been taken and transcribed under separate cover by Mrs. Barbara Strang, pp. 1-21. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary /~///z~ipf~' _ South old Town Board of Appeals /~/pproved - 'f1~29/84 Gerard P. Goehringer~/Chairman RECEIVED AND FILED BY T~E SOD"fi{OLD TOWN C~P2~ Town Cle~l~, THURSDAY November 15, 1984 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS At 7:30 p.m. - Public hearing was held in the matter of ALEXANDER AND ELIZABETH STOLLMEYER, Application 93257, for approval of insufficient area of a parcel to be set off. County Tax Map 1000-054-05-45.8.~ Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. RICHARD CRON, ESQ.: Yes, thank you. If it pleases the board, I represent Mr. and Mrs. Stollmeyer with respect to this ap- plication. As the board can see, this is an application brought pursuant to Article 3, Section A10~-i of the zoning ordinance to set off~a lot of a size, a total lot size of approximately 3.3 acres. The board is I am sure aware of the surrounding properties in the area of this particular parcel, most of which, on the other side of North Sea Drive, consist of lot areas of about 20,000 s.f., with hundred foot frontages. Some of the other lots on the other side of North Sea Drive have about 33,000 s.f. The lot that we seek to set off, would in all respects meet the bulk schedule requirements of the zoning ordinance in terms of side yard, rear yard and front yard requirements, because the lot itself has approximately 260' on North Sea Drive and I believe on the one side has 220' in depth'and 240 on the other and approximately 240' in the rear. So, the lot is of a sufficient size to meet all side, front and rear yard requirements. The only thing lacking in the lot in terms of the present zoning requirements, of course, is an area of 80,000 s.f., but if one looks at that one lot that we wish to set off, it's 57,000 s.f., and probably just as important is that on the remaining lot on which Mr. and Mrs. Stollmeyer have their residence consists of an area in excess slightly of two acres or certainly greater than the 80,000 s.f. requirement of the ordinance. That lot, too, in all respects meets side yard, front yard and rear yard re- quirements. I think it's equally clear that certainly that the character of the neighborhood isn't going to be changed by granting the setoff. The lot size is substantially greater than those in the surrounding area. So, for that, I would re- spectfully request that the board grant this application as applied for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cron did you approach the SC Health Dep~rtment concerning this setoff? MR. CRON: No, not as yet, no. But their requirements, of course, deal with acre lots and we are 57,000 s.f. and I guess the time to really go into that would be when we are making an application for a building permit, if that were ever forth- coming. It meets their requirements in terms of area. ZBA P.2 November 15, 1984 - (Stollmeyer Hearing - continued) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? Let the record indicate that there is a letter in the file ob- jecting to this application. Have you reviewed the file, Mr. Cron? Are you aware of this letter? MR. CRON: If you are speaking of the letter of the Planning Board, yes, I am aware of that. If it's any other letter, I'm not aware of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you like to look at it? MR. CRON: Yes, if I may. I assume the parcel to the west, that being the Shareman parcel, is that 100' frontage on North Sea Drive consisting of a total area of 1.8 acres. I assume that's the parcel that they are referring to. First of all, the letter is incorrect in that it states we seek a variance as a hardship. That is~not so. The area variance is one of practical difficulty, rather than hardship and certainly it's not going to set a precedent for that area when it greatly exceeds all of the. lot sizes in that area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The board is referring now to the cottage that was once affixed to the survey, which has now been removed? MR. CRON: I guess that was removed a long time ago and unfor- tunately, when Mr. Van Tuyt did the map, I assume he did not make a physical inspection, he just took it fr~om documents in his office. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There being no further questions, I wi~ make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in. At 7:45 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the matter of JOHN WICKHAM, Application ~3288, for a Variance to Amend Con- .dition 3,7 and 8 of decision of June 28, 1984. Suffolk County Tax Map 1000-052-05-058. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Wickham, would you like to he heard on behalf of this application? JOHN WICKHAM: Thank you for this opportunity. I feel that a slight review might be in order. This is the last piece of my grandfather's estate. He died over a hundred years ago and if it goes unsettled very much longer, the number of heirs could multiply very rapidly. We have a practical problem in that although the appeal was granted, the variance was granted in June, the conditions as laid down seem to be somewhat contra- dictory. I would like to speak in particular about Items 7 and 8. ZBA November 15, 1984 -- P.3 (Wickham Hearing - Continued~ I want to say that I talked with some members of the board, talked with the Town Attorney, talked with the adjacent property owners and there seems to be unanimity in that the board thought that they were meeting our needs, butaas it turns out, I would like to show that the Conditions are, in fact, contradictory. Item 7..."Vehicles, vehicle lifts or pits...vehicles dismantled or otherwise and all parts or supplies shall be located within a building." In a previous section, your board speaks of drive- way, but under a section just read, vehicles must be located within a building, so vehicles cannot even be in the driveway in front of the building. I think this is unreasonable and not the intent of the board. The next item..."all service or repair of vehicles, equipment of the contractor shall be con- ducted within the building." This is also unreasonable, as I will attempt to show in a minute, but I would like to point out that Number 10 provides for gasoline pumps, and pumping gasoline is service and Number 8 says it must be in the building, so again it is directly contradictory. Our problem is that this is an office and really, yard, for a marine contractor and as we said there will be cranes, or a crane and it is unreasonable to put a truck crane or any kind of a crane in a building, the building would have to be at least 30' h~gh, probably more, and much, much longer than the building shown on this plan. I--think it was the intent of the board to provide relief in this case, and it has been short-circuited in some way, and we bring this action after another three or four months lapse of time in the hopes of clearing this up. There is one other section that is in question and I would like to ask Mr. Melrose to speak about that. MR. MELROSE: My name is Bob Melrose and I represent Melrose Marine Service. We were talking as this appeal~states here earlier, strictly~our own equipment, we are not doing work for anybody else or working on anybody-else.s equipment. We are looking for a-_place where we can maintain and store our own equipment. We own a total of about 5 cranes, all which are not out here at this time, but somewhere along the line, some of these cranes will be brought to this sit~-~and have work done on them. It would not be practical from our standpoint to provide a building large enough to move a crane in so that we could work on the boom, repair it or do work of that type. Surely, when it comes to enginer repairs and things like that that are precis~v clean conditions, we hope to do that type of work in the/Duildings we have indicated on the m~p. However, heavy equipment and this is the majority of what we are~talking about on this site here, really have to be worked on where they are and that's why we are asking for relief from this condition. There is just one other p~int that I wanted to make. Item 3, it's not necessarily a critical item, the drive which you have in the previous drawing, which we supplied, showed peripheral planting around this entire area. We surely desire to keep this place attractive as we can, and we feel that providing screen fencing, we are planning to put up somethin~ like ]-~BA November 15, 1984 ~. ZBA P.4 (Wickham Hearing - Continued) MR. MELROSE - continued: Anchor post fencing around the pro- perty from a security standpoint~ but we would like to ask that consideration be given to eliminating the need for screen fencing unless it was shown that the landscape planting provided was in- adequate to provide visibility from the.street. We think pro- viding both is over'kill. I think that those were maybe the two main points we Would like to make. I would also like to say that if you go back to the original drawing that we sub- mitted with the application, it showed on the site, locations where some of this heavy equipment might be placed, when it was being worked on or when it was being held to be worked on so we don't feel that we are changing our requirements, just trying to clarify ou~ in'tent at this time. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Melrose. Before we leave this subject, is there any specific recommendation you can make to this board concerning Articles 7 and 8, on the way you would like them written, or do you just want them totally eliminated? MR. ~ICKHAM: No, I feel that we can live with most of the cc~ ditions but I would there's got to be relief...it's self- defeating, obviously. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason.for my ~uestion, would you .~ object to a condition that all/vehicles ~e placed in the rear of the prsperty? MR. WICKHAM: I think Mr. MelrOse 'shows them up the rear from the main highway, from Route 25, but this original shows them up against the north boundary or near the north boundary. MR. MELROSE: We do not anticipate having any dismantled vehicles on the property. All of the vehicles on the property will be operating vehicles, vehicles which we are currently using in our buszness. We don't have any vehicles of the type that are not being used. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIN~ER: I was referrin~ to maybe a crane that had two different types of booms and one-boom remained disassemble~ at any one particular time, and of course, you can only put one boom on a crane. MR. MELROSE: Well, generally what you have in terms of these cranes, you might have a certain basic size boom that was on the crane and you might have additional sectiOns which you u~ for particular jobs, so you might be able to extend-athe boom on a crane for $0' to 100' The spare sections for that par- ticular crane w~uld be stored wherever the crane was. One point that Gail mentioned...asked me to mention to you .... was the fact that when these cranes were not being worked on or operated, they Would be stored in the boom-down position, so that they would not be visible from outside areas. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Gait, would you like to say something? - ZBA _!BA - N0¥ember ]5~ ]984 P.5 (Wickham Hearing - Continued) GAIL WICKHAM: Yes, I would like to address your proposed condition about the rear yard. Part of the problem is this equipment is on very large vehicles and you lo~k at the site plan and there is a maintenance yard' to the rear of the building, but the access to it would basiCally be through a gate and they may not be able to maneuver some of that big equipment back there. And that why it would be also be shown in the area in the front of the building. I~ all this property is heavily screened, I don't think you are going to have this problem of being terribly visible. That's just a practical matter CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was only referring to, since you are asking to have some relief in the area, I was referring to that as possibly an appropriate condition in lieu of some .... GAIL WICKHAM: I don't know that we are asking for relief from the screening, just for the board to consider a different type of screening, but cer~ain'~y that can be further tightened up at the Planning Board, but Where's there is a dense, natur.al vegetation, we thought that might serve in lieu of artificial. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Mr. Wickham. MR. WICKHA3~: May I say that I don't mean to seem pretentious for us to come down here and tell you what we'd like to have. If you thought well of it, either any of the three could meet with some of your people and discuss it briefly at your convenience. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. I thank you very much. The~e being no further question~, I make a motion closing this hearing reserving decision until later. Thank you again for coming in. At 8:05 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the matter of JAMES and BEULAH RICKETTS, Application #3250 for a Variance ~or appr6va~ ~f insufficient area and width of two proposed parcels, Suffolk County Tax Map 1000-139-03-19 and 30. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. GARY OLSEN: My name is Gary Olsen. I am an attorney having my offices on Main Road, Cutchogue. I represent James and Beulah Ricketts, the applicants herein. As I said in the application, the applicants presently own three parcels on a map designated as "Mattituck Heights", filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office, map number 1184. The parcels in question ~ ZBA November 15, 1 984 - ZBA .... P. 6 (Ricketts Hearing - Continued) GARY OLSEN - continued: are lot "D" and "E" on the filed map as well as lot #69 and 70. What the applicants seek to do is set off lots 69 and 70, bas~ical!y plot "D". The plot "D" would contain the house and it would have an area of 32,358 s.f., With frontage on Conklin Road, also known as Gran~ Boulevard of 154' and the second parcel would be the combined lot from 69 and 70 which would have frontage on the road ff3115.41' and it would have an area of 15,681 s.f.. The configuration of the property is that it's high on the northerly end and slopes down to the southerly end, the'house on plot "D" has a roadway coming off Of COnklin Road or Grant Boulevard and the house basically faces on this driveway or roadway, so, as far as the configu- ration is concerned, if all present structures are on the southerly half of the property. I have talked to the applicants and they would be willing, if the zonin~g board shouldgrant the area variance, they would not come back and ever ask for a re- split of the property. But actually what prompted this until the present 1983-84 tax bill, the applicants were getting two separate tax bills. They were getting one separate tax bill for lots 69 and 70 and they were getting another bill for lot plot "D" and a small tax bill for plot "E", which is basically meadow. IF you look at the other lots in the community, the whole subdivision known as "Mattituck Heights" pre-exists zoning, and none of the parcels in the area conform to the present 8,000 s.f. zoning requirements. The parcel to be set off would contain 15,681 s.f., which is over 25% more area than the average size of the other parcels in the com- munity. So, the granting of the variance is not going to substantially change, or in no way change, the character of the neighborhood. It woUld present a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship for these applicants to have an oversized parcel compared to the other pieces in the neigh- borhood. As'you are aware, the present zoning code .does permit the ZBA to vary or modify the application of the zoning regulations so'that the spirit of the chapter will be o~served, for the safety and welfare and substantial Dustice done. I think in determination, the board considers, among other things, character and existing uses in the dis- trict, conservation of property value, the affect that the proposed variance would have in conjunction with traffic con- gestion, the availability of water and sewage disposal and other matter. I think if you review the standards that the board will have to look at When they decide if a variance should be granted, that there is no way that it could be ar- gued that the granting of this variance, is in any way going to jeopardize the zoning code, since this whole subdivision pre-exists present zoning standards. I also have Mr. Lance Larsen here tonight, he's an independent appraiser, who has looked at the property and will discuss the economic impact to Mr. and Mrs. Ricketts in the event that this application should not be granted. Mr. and Mrs. Rickstts are also here if you have any questions that you might like to ask of them. Thank you. ZBA ZBA - November 15, 1984 .~/ P.7 (Ricketts Hearing -Continued) LANCE LARSEN: Good evening. My name is Lance Larsen. I am a real estate appraiser. I have an office here on the Main Road, Southold. I was retained'by Mr. Olsen to take a look at the property for the purpose of establishing market value of the parcel owned by Mr. and Mrs. Ricketts, as the property cur- rently exists and with the proposed setoff of the parcel and the remainder port'~nbeing the h~mesite . I believe you should have a copy of my appra{~.rr~o~t-ln front of you, so I would like tQ ~efer to a few of the items that are noted in it. The alternative address of ~is property is Grant Blvd. or Grant Avenue, it depends on which map you look at, okay, the Mattituck Heights map shows it as Grant Boulevard and the Suffolk County Tax Map shows it as Grant Avenue, so you will see a conflict there. The conclusion was predicated on What the site would seil for as it existed as a 1.103 acre parcel based on a survey done by Mr. Van Tuyl asAop- posed to what the two parcels separately would be worth. The single sets requirements for a single lot in that area in market value tops, appear to be in the area of $25,000 for a one acre lot. The smaller portion lots ran between $18,000 and .$23,000 based on other sales. Predicated on this analysis and the appraisal of which you have a copy of, it was my opinion that there would be an economic diminution of $15,000 to the Ricketts as a result of an assemblage that was performed by the Southold Town Assessor's in March 1980. There is one other point I want to bring out. The setoff lot would be approximately 25.5% larger than predominant lots in the neighborhood. That was based on the lots that were facing on Conklin and Mary's Road as well as the lots on. Bayer Freeman Avenue lots which were combined at a later date, I believe that those parcels were improved somewhere in the area of 1967 to 1972, they had been increased at that time and were under separate ownership of a different nature. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you talking about the ~ncrease in reference to the wetlands area in back of those parcels? LANCE LARSEN: No, I'm talking about the specific lots on ~he north side of Freeman Avenue, which are now shown as 100' pa~ cels. There were several there at that time were 50' parcels.. they were increased to 100, which would approximately be the same land area as the proposed setoff. The remainder parcels in the neighborhood are all of a smaller nature. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Mr. Olsen. GARY OLSEN: I would like to submit at this time a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map showing the area and g~neral s~ze and shape of the other parcels in the community, and I've outlined in red ink the subject premises as one total piece, just to help you identify. I think if you look at it, you will see that what we want to do would generally be in keeping with the size and shape of the rest of the neighborhood. The current tax map shows the parcel as being Lot #30.001. That particular _~BA - November 15, 1984 ZBA P.8 (Ricketts Hearing Continued) GARY OLSEN continued: tax maps shows the two lots existing as lot "19" and lot "30", which is exactly where the proposed cutoff line is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who ~;ould like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody li_ke to speak against the application? Questions from board m~mbers? There being no further question, I make a motion closi]~g the hearing reserving decision until later. Thank you very %uch everybody for coming in. At 8:2.0 p.m. - PUblic Hearing was held in the ma~ter of JOSEPH~A. WANAT, Application #3217, for a Varian(~e to approve insufficient width of parcel to be set off, Suff(~lk County Tax Map 100-112-01-016. GAIL WICKHAM: I would like to tell the board 1%~as sorry I could not make the last hearing and thank them f(~r recessing it until tonight. I think that the application ,hich was read at the last hearing does contain the basic act setting forth the practical difficulties. We've got a ~t in excess of two acres with 150' width, which is comparabl~ to those other properties in the area. To meet the 175' equirement would involve expanding the sizs of the lot to o~'er 140,000 square feet. The lot must have access and I hav~ looked at the report of the engineer and I understand that those com- ments will pro~ably be incorporated into the conditions.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I~ dealing ~ith this application, what was the nature of the 280A status of the application? Is that our forte or is it... GAIL WICKHAM: That is going to be, as I understand it, the Planning Board's jurisdiction, because the roadway is within the subdivision, which we have applied for. Now the Planning Board denied a Subdivision because of insufficient width of Lot 2, so upon action by this board, we will then go back to the Planning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which right-of-ways would the Wanat's be using? There are approximately three rig~t-of-ways on there, total of 7.6 acres. There being the east right-of- way, which we refer to as the right-of-way granted to Carrigan McDonald, and the center right-of-way which links up with the right-~of-way driveway next to their house. GAIL WICKHAM: Well, that's the one that's been used as part of the operation of the farm, but this r~ght-of-way on the east side is the one that would be ~ranted to lot 2 upon a conveyance. This matter has been pending s~nce March of 1983, at whTch time 150' was the requi~ment, and I think the application mentioned the purpose of selling that lot was to pay estate taxes and being that the lot would be conveyed separately from the farm, I wouldn't want the access to be ZBA - November 15, 1984 '~ p.9 (Wanat Hearing - Continued) GAIL WICKHAM - continued: up the middle of the farm. Now, I also might mention that we would expect the improvement would be as far east as possible. Probably within the original 16.~5 foot right-of-way, but 20' is provided just to have adequate room. CHAIRMAN GOE~RINGER: I thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody against the application? MR. MCDONALD: I am not really here to speak against it. I was before you last time when it was postponed, and I and Mr. Carig own a lot serviced by the same right-Of-way. I wasn't aware of the engineers report, that she was referrinq to, so I haven't seen it and I also wasn't aware of the fact that her client might be in at the Planning Board, so I am not sure what the implications of that are as far as what I am asking for, but both Mr. Carig and I feel that Mr. Wanat should hold'co-resPOnSibility for the improvements on the right-of- way as far as our lot with us, since he intends to take the benefit from this road for his lot or whatever future lots he may cut up up there. I have no notions what his plans are, but certainly that's not inconceivable and in the meantime he is trying to receive benefit from our improve- ment free of cost, and we feel and we feel that we should get some redress from that from you. But now, I am confused be- cause I don't know where it stands if it's in Planning E©ard, where does the jurisdiction lie? We came to you because we are part of that subdivision, I am not sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We haven't made that determination at this particular time. That was the purpose of my question. Have you made any improvements yet, Mr. McDonald? MR. MCDONALD: No. CHAIRMAN Goehringer~ I thank you. GAIL WICKHAM: I would just like to say that I don't think it is in the jurisdiction Of the board as to who is legally re- sponsible to make the improVements. That's between the pro- perty owners and the people that have to use the right-of-way. I think if Mr. McDonald wants to address the nature of the requirement of improvements, maybe Planning Board is the proper forum, when and if the subdivision is approved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any other questions concerning this application? Any questions from board members? There being no further question, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Thank you very much. ZBA - November ]5, ]984 P.IO At 8:30 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the matter of ANTONE and JEAN MILESK~, Application 93266, for a Variance to approve insufficient area and width of two parcels, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-115-04-009. (Maratooka Lake) Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. MR. MILESKA: I have nothing to add to application. I am here to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? How about, is there anybody else who like to speak against the application? I would like to read a letter for the re- cord from the Chairman of the Planning Board, which says: "Gentlemen, the following recommendations made at the Planning Board on Monday, August 27, 1984. Planning Board notes that the subject lot does not comply with the current two acre zoning, however, surrounding area lots are smaller or contain smaller lots. Signed and sworn to by Bennett J. Orlowski, Chairman, Planning Board." Hearing no further questions, I ask the board members if they have any questions? I will make a motion closing the hearing. You are aware, Mr. Mileska, that we have sixty (60) days to make a decision in this matter? Thank you very much for coming in. *********************************************************** Recess for 15 minutes. At 8:50 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the matter of WINDS WAY BUILDINC CORP. Application ~3207, for a Variance t0 apProve'i~'suf~i~ient area of two parcels along Cedar Point Drive East, SOuthold, Suffolk County Tax Map ~1080-90-03-18. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. CHAtRMAN~GQEHRINGER: You ar~ asking for three~tots,~_is~tha~ correct, Mr. Bruer? R. BRUER, ESQ: The application, via a letter, was amended to request that it be considered two lots. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am referring to a letter dated August 29, 1984, which says that on behalf of petitioner, we request that the above application filed January 10, 1984, be amended to reflect the request of two building lots, rather than three. R. BRUER: ESQ: That's correct. That's why the map showed two lots. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map showing other lots in the surrounding area. So in effect, you are incorporating lots 82, 83 and 84 into one building site, is that correct? [~BA November 15, 1984 zB~ P.11 (Winds Way Building Corp. Hearing - Continued) R. BRUER, ESQ. Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And 85, 86 and 87 into another building lot? R. BRUER: That's right it's 85, 86 and 87 into one and 82, 83 and 84 into another. I would respectfully request that the board grant the application. There are practical difficulties with respect to this application, in that there was originally six lots here, that were the Cedar Beach Property when it was subdivided in 1929. Of course, over the years, the Cedar Beach subdivision was not excepted from the ordinance, so where you have property in single ownership, it merged with the zoning amendments, or actually when the '72 amendments came. What we are now asking the bo'ard to do is divide the property into two lots in an area that is primarily ~ acre lots throughout Cedar Beach. There are some other properties that have merged, but for the most part, the houses and the property in the area I would say are 80% half acre lots. I don't hear from the record, but the Planning Board has recommended to this board that the application be gr~nted and I would also point out going back to the board's letter of January 20, 1984, when this matter first appeared before you, you set i~ off to be held in abeyance pending the Planning Board and the DEC. Planning Board finally took action on August 28th, approving the application, and the DEC has approved it this past September. And we do have a permit for it. I think the situation is unique and it's not really going to change the character of the neighborhood and I would ask that the board grant the appli- cation respectfully ask for a quick determination, because of the length of time it has been before this board, and it's nOa this board's fault. In getting a determination, ms client is a builder, has a contract to build a house on the property, and of course, as you well know, the weather setting in, we could be out of a job, so to speak until the Spring. We would like to get a foundation in, assuming the board's determination is in favor of the application and againcask for hopefully a favorable decision and a quick one. Mr. Wendell is here, if you have any questions about it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't have any specific questions, but I would like to say that this is the most difficult piece of property that I have ever been to to. MR. WENDELL: Yes, I agree with that. I had to get the surveyor to cut it through, because I couldn't get through myself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have never gotten my feet wet on a piece of property before. MR. WENDELL: It does have a lot of undergrowth; it's a beautiful piece of land, but it's really overgrown with poison ivy, briars, everything. I knew you would say something, because I heard you were going, and I went with my son and son-in-law, and started - BA November 15 1984 ' P.12 (Winds Way Building Corp Hearing - Continued) MR. WENDELL - continued: chopping away and I finally called Van Tuyl and said why don't you stake out where it's supposed to be. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It reminded me very much of Fisher's Island. I~just wanted you to be aware of that. MR. WENDELL: You mean the undergrowth? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. WENDELL: Van ~uyl did not want to go back and I said I can't quite figure out where the houses are supposed to be, because it was impossible, all poison ivy, all briars it has some beautiful cedar trees, and it's been there a long time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Bruer, we will attempt to give you a decision on. this by the next meeting~ which will be the 29th of November. Thank you gentlemen for coming ~n. R. BRUER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? There being no further questions, I make a motion-~closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. ******************************************************** At 9:00 p.m. - Public Hearing was held in the matter of MARIE J. PATTERSON, Application ~3277, for a Variance to approve insufficient area and width of two parcels, Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-128-02-17. Chairman read.the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. MARIE J. PATTERSON: I am Marie Patterson. I don't think I have much to add to what you just read. I use the house about six or seven months of the year. I have it open right now and it is an expensive house to heat~ It faces the water and has the old windows and I would like to build a smaller home in the future that would be close to the road, that wouldn't be a hardship to get out and it would be much more economical. I feel it would certainly be in keeping with the area. There are five houses to the west. There are two on the east, in fact they only have an eleven foot driveway~that three homes over there use, and mine i~ fifteen foot, and after the storm, rather ~BA - November 15, 1984 - ZBA P.13 (Patterson Hearing - continued) MARIE J. PATTERSON - continued: in March, it was my driveway that provided the trucks access to the beach, to fill in every- body's property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody else have a right-of-way over your property? MARIE PATTERSON: No. I am the only one. This house has been in the family between fifty five and sixty years. It originally belonged to Archibald Patterson and his son, Holly Patterson, and now I have had it since 1981. And there's just my son and I. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? WILLIAM BURKHARDT: My name is William Burkhardt, and if it pleases the board, I ~ill speak on behalf of my mother-in- law, Zelma Penny Kaytro, who is the owner of the property that is adjacent to and to the east of Mrs. Patterson's property. I have a number of oppositions to this proposal for the subdivision. The first is, as you can see from the tax map, this is one of the most densely, heavily populated areas in the Peconic Bay Boulevard area. As Mrs. Patterson said, there are five dwellings west of Mrs. Patterson and we are very concerned about the water table and the sewage system in th~s area being it is on Peconic Bay Boulevard. During a series of little rainfall, my mother-in-law's property, the water is very brackish and during periods of heavy rainfall, our property borders on the east side by a swamp, it gets very sloppy and the water gets full of tannic acid. We are afraid that the water table, it's very tenuous right now, I'm afraid it would be further damaged by the building of a tenth dwelling in an area that's less than 400' wide. Second of all, we feel it's an encroachment of my mother-in-law's privacy and the privacy of this dwelling, because the north corner of our dwelling is less than five feet from Mrs. PatterSon's line, where she proposes to do this. I also think that if the subdivision was granted that a dangerous precedent for like parcels in the same area would be set. Looking at the tax map, I count approximately 12 parcels as the same size as Mrs. Patterson's. If this sub- division were allowed, it would open the door to many more sub- divisions, I'm afraid. Additionally, for the record, since Mrs. Patterson acquired the property in 1981, there has been a property lin'e dispute, between my mother-in-law, Mrs. Kaytro, and Mrs. Patterson. It was not resolved to date, and is pre- sently being handled by Mrs. Patterson's laWyer, Mr. Palmer, and my mother-in-law;s lawyer., Mr. Wickham. It has not been resolved and it has continued since she acquired the property in 1981. We would have had a written opposition to this proposed variance, however, we were not notified of this proposal as we should have been being adjacent property owners.  -~BA - November 15, 1984 ~- ZBA P.14 (Patterson Hearing - Continued) MICHAEL BURKHkRDT: continued: The information was sent to Mrs. T. Kaytro, Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck. That's not my mother-in-law's name nor legal mailing address. The information which was mailed out 31 July, wound up in the dead letter office and it arrived in the Mattituck Post Office and nobody claimed it. The nature of the boundary line disagreement is that Mrs. PattersoD/alteges, although she has submitted no proof to us, that she paid for part of the bulkhead that was damaged during the storm and ~er.bulkhead had to be reconstructed, ours did not. We did not receive an itemized bill for ou~ bulkhead repairs, since it was just board repairs to our bulkhead, our bulkhead stood. Mrs. Patterson's was totally destroyed, and she claims that she paid for 8' of the bulk- head that is on our property and she wishes to be reimbursed for this 8'. We do not disagree to the fact that she is owed this money, what we wanted was an agreement with Mrs. Patterson that there would be no more property disputes. I have had the property surveyed four times, and erected three stone monuments, since Mrs. Patterson acquired the property. We wanted a property agreement stating there will be no more dispute of the property line and a check for the $897.00 for the bulkhead repairs that Mrs. Patterson alleges we owe, we wan~ furnished proof and a check will be forthcoming. We received a letter from her lawyer, Mr. Palmer, which stated that if we did not send the money immediately to Mrs. Patterson, that portion of our bulkhead, which is on our property, which has been surveyed and has a stone monu- ment, that portion of our bulkhead would be dismantled. It's approximately 8' of waterfront. Thank you. MARIE PATTERSON: May I say something. I have a letter here from my attorney 'that he sent to Mrs. Kaytro. I am sure the post office, she has lived there all her life, would know who she was. That's all I know, Peconic Bay Boulevard, she does live downtown somewhere. In t983 Mrs. Kaytro put a new bulkhead in, but she failed to extend it as far as it should have gone. After the storm of March 29th, 108~' or more was washed out. I replaced the whole thing. What I wanted to know is why when she put the new bulkhead in, why didn't she extend it at that time in 19837 Why did she only extend it a certain distance? And leave the rest]the way it was, so naturally, when it went out, I replaced the whole thing. They told you they use my driveway to do all of the fill and everything, and as fa~ as my property, there being a problem with the water, I know of nothing like that. They inspected the water all up and down there and there is nothing wrong. These people if they felt that way, they should have never sold off the back of their lot and they now have somebody living there, which faces my property. There are two houses on their original piece of property, and if they felt there was a water problem, they shouldn't have sold that other piece of property to somebody else. I don't know how many years ago that was, but it's not too long ago that a new home was buil~ ZBA -IBA - November 15, 1984 P.15 (Patterson Hear~ing - Continued) MARIE PATTERSON: Continued there. Why didn't they protest that home being built there, if they thought there was a water problem. I think this is lust a personal thinq against me, because I have asked th~m to please reimburse me-for re- placing the bulkhead. It cost me $11,350.00 to put a bulk- head across there and the fill. I feel the 8½' that they claim, the property has been surveyed twice, I have had stakes put in, Mr. Van Tuyl has done it twice, he did it again because Of their problem. Unfortunately, my father-in-law passed away on August 3rd, the day it was being done. And they came over and they threw, I had a split rail fence, dug it up, this young man, his wife and his mother-in-law, and just threw it there. I also had a very nasty phone call with obscene language from this man with regards to the Patterson name. I think this is all uncalled for. Before that, we never had any problem. I think it's the fact that I am asking them to pay the $893.00 and I don't think it's unfair, they are claiming it's there's I have given it to them, I told them they could go to Mr. Van Tuyl and get a survey from him. They want me to give them my surveys. I don't feel I should pay for survey to hand over to them. I told Mr. Van Tuyl that they have per- mission to have it. If they want to pay him, it's all right with me. I have paid $440.00 since I bought that property on surveys and every hundred feet he has put a stake in all the way up to the road. I have a three car garage. That's another thing, their garage, I don't think it's a foot off my property. And the people next to them have a garage there too that they use in the summertime to house people. Idon't use mine for anything but to keep whatever I have in there, lawnmower, garden things and I have been a good neighbor, and in fact, the Patterson's have been good neighbors all these years. I have kept up the property. We have done everything. Keep the place looking nice. I think it's one of the better homes there. I don't know if some of you on the board looked at the property. Well, I am not going to ask you your opinion but the place has been kept up. As I say, it is an old home and naturally the oil burner is going like mad, I just put in a new b~rner. MICHAEL BURKHARDT: First of all, Mrs. Patterson stated that ~e are refusing to pay the money. That's not true. A letter was addressed to Mrs. Patterson's lawyer, Mr. Palmer, stating that we have no qualms about paying the money once we are fur- nished proof that $11,350.00 was paid for 108', knowlingly by Mrs. Patterson. We never disputed the fact that she paid for 108' She never took this up with the people who did the bulk- head. She didn't take it up with Mr. Pat Carig, nor did she take it up with the fill man, Ray Nine, as to the fact that she was overbilled for 8'. She paid it knowlingly. I allege, if she figured if she paid for 108' of bulkhead, she was entitled to 10' of property. Now, if she furnishes proof that she did pay for this then the check would be forthcoming, plus we would ask for an agreement with Mrs. Patterson that she would cease and desist from continuinq to create a border dispute. My JZBA - November 15, 1 984 -~ ZBA P.16 (Patterson Hearing - Continued) MICHAEL BURKHARDT: continued - mother-in-law has also owned this property and it has been in the George Penny family, which is my mother-in-law's father :ntil he passed away. My mother-in-law inherited it from his estate in 1963. In 1965 she had it surveyed the first time, when it seemed that the property on the Patterson side, the lawn was con- stantly creeping over to the east. She had it surveyed in 1965. In 1981, when Mrs. Patterson was confused as to where the property line was, we had it surveyed in 1981. A stone marker was set in 1981. That same year, that stone marker disappeared. In its place, was put a large bulkhead type piling, alleged by Mrs. Patterson's son to use for fireworks. But the marker had disappeared. This property dispute con- tinued in 1984, we had it surveyed again two more stone monuments put up, one at the beginning of our property on the bulkhead side, and one about 20' back from that. We had to do this because, Mrs. Patterson is correct, she did in fact put up a post and rail fence after the new bulkhead was put in this past Spring. Unfortunately, she put the post and rail fence as near as we could figure, 6' on to our property. We knew it was markedly on our property, but we didn't know how much. It was then that we called Young and Young, had it sur- veyed, put the stone markers in where our prDperty line ended and found out that Mrs. Patterson's fence was indeed 6' on our property. It was at that point, after the stone markers had been placed and the property had been surveyed by Young and Young which clearly showed where our property line was that I did remove the fence. And there has been obsceneties thrown back and forth, unfortunately, on both sides of this thing. MARIE PATTERSON: I object. I have never used obsceneties at all to this young man. He is the young man that got on the telephone, he and his mother-in-law .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, that's enough. Mrs. Patterson, I just want to say that it appears that this application is going to be a little more lengthly than we had anticipated. I am going to ask that we recess this hearing, not close it, to approximately January 10th, because we are absolutely loaded with applications at this particular time. I am going to ask you in the interim that I receive a letter from your attorney, I am referring to Mrs. Patterson now, with the original copy of the survey. And Z would like to see copies from your attorney, Mr. Burkhardt, certifying an exact copy of your mother-in-laws survey, So that we might compare that survey, and at that particular time I can swear you both in and we can continue when we have both surveys of both properties and I hope that the houses shown, or the structures on your survey are there, so that we can understand it better, because we will then go down once again prior to the January 10th meeting and look at the property again, to see what the big problem is here. ZBA P.17 ~ZBA - November 15, 1984 ~ (Patterson Hearing _(Continued) MARIE PATTERSON: It is avery big inconvenience to me to have to come all the way from Hempstead in the middle of January~ to have to come out here and back the same day. I am going to have to close up the house. There are just a few corrections I would like to make. Number One, nobody touched their marker. It was washed out in March with the storm. The whole front yard, ours3theirs, it took off their front porch~even, so it must have taken everything with it and there was no reason to say that. And I have never used obsceneties to. these people at all. I was. absolutely flawed when I was called up on the phone by Mrs. Kaytro and took all kinds of guff and abuse and then this young man got on and used four letter words about the Patterson name. This was uncalled for so I just hung up. And there was no reason for it. I have never infringed on them. The fence was put up, it was a small split rail fence, and the men did it and they claim that it was on their property and I said fine. Mr. Van Tuyl will be coming here this week and he will take care of it. The next night I looked out the window and here the three of them are digging up the fence and just heaving it. And the only reason I put it there, is that they had some nice shrubs and things that belonged to them that were all washed down. When I renewed the fence on the other side, this piece was left and I just said to~:put it over there where the tree is, and what the man did, he put it straight instead of on an angle, so up in the front it was a few feet on their property, which I intended to move. But I wanted to wait for Mr. Van Tuyl to finish his survey, but unfortunately he came the day I was called to come back home because of a death in the family. And I have not ever had any disagreement with these people before. It's all a lot of nonsense. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Patterson, I understand your problem and what I can do is make it the first hearing that night. I know it's a bad evenzng, so give us a call that day, prior to the hearing and if it's a bad evening, we will recess it until the latter part of January. You have to understand our position, we have forty applications sitting here~ 28 of them have to close, real estate applications, before the first of the year. It would not be fair to put these off, some of them go back to January, so that's the reason why we have to hold it off at this time. This is going to be a lengthy hearing, I can't take an hour of the board's time from now until the end of the year, so I do apologize, but there's not much else I can do about it. MARIE PATTERSON: Fine, I understand. Everybod~ should be satisfied, the markers that they have are still have are still there and the property is marked all the way up to the road, the fence has been moved. There is no problem with that. It is just an excuse for not paying me for the bulkhead. That's all. There is absolutely no reason, could you ask this young man. ~LIZBA - November 15, 1984 -- ZBA P.18 (Patterson Hearing - Continued) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are asking the Town to enter into an application where there appears to be a boundary line dis- agreement. And that'B the reason I am asking counsel to be present on both sides to indicate whether there is or there isn'~t. And then we will take it up with our counsel after we have the hearing on January 10th. MARIE PATTERSON: All they ask for is that I agree to what the boundaries are now. I do agree. They just want me to supply them with a survey.. I am not paying for it. If they want the survey, they are very.welcome-to it. I Called Mr. Van Tuyl and told him they should have access to it and they should pay for it. I am not going to pay to pick up a survey for them. That's all their attorney asked for. I agreed to that and said it would be fine and they would reimburse me, but I have heard nothing from them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You will give us an original copy of this particular survey? MARIE PATTERSON: I have one. You couId have it now if you would like. There is absolutely no problem, they just want me to pay for the survey. They can have one CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have an original blue copy of this? MARIE PATTERSON: Well, I will have to ask Mr. Van Tuyl. Oh, I gave you photocopies. I will look. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: May I see that Mr. Burkhard~? MICHAEL BURKHARDT: Yes, you may. I would like to add that I am sorry to take up so much time with this matter. First of all, the marker that was washed out with the storm we reported missing to Young and Young approximately one and half years prior to this storm that occurred in March, so it was missing then. The fence was not heaved on her~pro- perty, it was placed on her property. When the survey was done by Young and Young, the markers were set. I myself went down and dug the postholes and replaced the fence where it now belongs on Mrs. Patterson's property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak either in favor or against this application? I have received what I consider to be an original (survey) from you, Mr. Burkhardt and I would appreciate a letter from your attorney indicating the problem. Mrs. Patterson, what I want is a blue copy of that survey. And I just want a letter from your attorney indicating what he considers to be the problem in this par- ticular boundary line disagreement. The only thing I can say is that this particular survey was made on June 11, 1984, you are giving me an August 16, 1982, so if you would, just an original of the June 1984 survey. Okay, I thank you. Any questions from board members. I am sorry I put you gentlemen off. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion recessing this hearing until January 10, 1~85. Thank you very much for coming in. ZBA 984 ' ~ P. 19 At 9:15 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the matters of COLGATE DESIGN CORP. and SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, Application ~3276 and 3275 respectively, both for Variances to construct a building with insufficient side yards, Suffolk County Tax Map Numbers 1000-t02~05-24 and 1000'62-3-37. (Both Hearings Continued from November 15, 1984). MR. ESSEKS: I submitted the Southland one, that's the one in Southold, to the Building Inspector's Office today, and I think they told us that we could just build it without a building permit. I don't think I need a variance, as we moved the location, and therefore I believe I can withdraw the~application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will open hearing ~3275 on behalf of Southland Corporation .... BOARD MEMBER SAWICKI: Do you need a motion on that withdrawal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I make a motion withdrawing that for Mr. Esseks regarding Southland Corporation. And I would like to open hearing #3276. It appears on the new map that you had sent us that you are asking now for a storage building to be constructed on the west side, is that correct? MR. ESSEKS: Correct. Because you told me you probably wouldn't give me that if I had it on the other side. CHAIP~4AN GOEHRINGER: Well, there is one little problem that we have, and that is since we advertised this application, and several people have come in and looked at it on the east side. Then we are going to have to ask you to reapply so that we can readvertise for the west side. MR. ESSEKS: I have heard exactly what you have said and if you tell me I have to do that, I will do that. Well, I think you may be perhaps in error. I believe you can just republish it as an amended application and put it on the next agenda without the necessity of filing a new application. If you tell me to do it the way you just said, I will do it. But if you want to check with Mr. Tasker, I don%t mean to be in- suiting.. CHAIRM/LN GOEHRINGER: You are not insulting. In fact, I had put a twenty minute pitch in before the Town Attorney yesterday, on behalf of this application, and that's exactly what he said. MR. ESSEKS: Yes, but did you suggest we readvertise? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I suggested everything. ~ ~ ?j! ZBA. 8A- November ]5~ 1984 .... P.20 (COLGATE DESIGN and SOUTHLAND CORP. Hearings - Continued) MR. ESSEKS: It shows that at times that even Mr. Tasker can be wrong. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We' will give you these maps back and therefore we will deny that application without prejudice. We will make every attempt to put it on as quickly as pos- sible. (Discussion off the record). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I make a motion denying this application without prejudice. At 9:20 p.m. PubliC Hearing was held in the matter of ROB~R~ De~REy, Application #3280, for a Variance to con- struct addition to dwelling with insufficient ~ideyards, Suffolk County Tax Map ~1000-40-01-10, ll. Chairman read the legal notice of hearing in its entirely and appeal ap- plication for the record. PETER PAUL MULLER: My name is Peter Paul Muller. I am ar- chitect for Mr. and Mrs. DeTrey, and. have offices at 72 Meetinghouse Lane, Southampton. The subject parcel is made up of two lots plus a very narrow wedge, which was additionally added subsequent to his original purchase of the Cottage, with lot ~ 10. He then acquired lot #11, many years ago and then an additional 10' on the water with zero feet on the road, providing a little bit m~re width on the west side of his pro- perty. In designing his home, we read the ordinance to main- tain the minimum 15' yard and at the time we anticipated pos- sible removal of a screen porch on the west side of his pro- perty, which would have given us then some 23' on the west side. As our plans developed, Mr. and Mrs. DeTrey expressed their desire to retain the open pOrch, which is on the west side. This is what has resulted in inadequate gross side yard di- mension. We tried desperately to narrow the house down; the addition is two rooms wide -- it-'s a living room/dining room on the east side in tandem and this is a long narrow room, which at the end looks out over the Sound and to narrow it would really turn it into a bowling alley. The adjoining room between that and the existing cottage is a master bedroom, which also tends to have a view of the Sound and this we over- lapped the existing cottage right up to the windows, so we felt we couldn't make that much narrower and still get the view of the Sound and get the beds and furniture in the way they wish. We approached the neighbor to the east, Mrs.Mannix, and she has given a letter stating no objection to this variance and I submit it to you for your record. If you notice on the survey, the residence is held considerably south from Mrs. Mannix's house and between her house, both on her property and the property of Mr. and Mrs. DeTrey, there is some very dense vegetation, which is our intention to maintain. We believe that she Will not be encroached upon, her privacy, and I believe the DeTrey's likewise will enjoy their privacy. ZBA - November ]5, ]984 P.21 (DETREY HEARING - Continued) P.P. MULLER - continued: We have done nothing on the west side to change an existing condition which has been there for 40 years. I believe that's all. If you have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. It is the intent of this Board to allow an access on either side of the dwelling. Because of the natural vegetation and the height on the east side, if we were to so grant this application, we would want to make sure that there was access on the west side, clear and un- obstructed access, to the front of the DeTrey's property, so I am asking you to understand the nature of the ~ay ~his particular Board acts, concerning applications of this nature. There are occasional bulkheads , sometimes rocks to be placed to stop erosion, whatever the case might be, and we will dis- cuss that within the deliberation period. However, you have to have clear and unobstructed access, for the availability of clear and unobstructed access on either side. After looking at the property actually topographically, the east side is probabl~ not the best side to have that access on. PETER PAUL MULLER: I believe on the west side of the property there is a small rubble wall following the line between that and the screen porch, I believe it provides clear access and we will continue to maintain that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. I hope to have a decision for you. Anybody else like to sPeak on behalf of this application? Against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I will make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Thank you for coming in. PETER PAUL MULLER: Might I inquire when I may expect a decision? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If we don't make a decision tonight, and I don't know if we will get there tonight, we will definitely have on on the 29th of November, which is our next regularly scheduled meeting. Call the office on the 30th of November. Hearings ended at 9~30~p.m. Respectfully submitted, *These minutes were transcribed from tapes as recorded e]ec- tronically by me.