Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/20/2001 HEAR0SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 I Prepared by Paula Quintiefi) Present werel Chaim~an Goehringer Member Dinizio Member Tortora Member Collins Member Homing Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, Paula Quintieri, SecretaD' PUBLIC HEARING: 6:37 p.m. Appl. No. 4993 - MICHAEL AND JOANN DEANGELO. This is an appeal for a Variance based on the Building Inspectors July 25,2001 Notice of Disapproval regarding the proposed location of a swimming pool in a yard other than a rear yard, required by Code Section 100-33. Location of Property: 2080 Elijah's Lane (and Birchwood Road), Mattituck: Parcel # 1000-108-3-5.015. CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir, state your name for the record. MICHAEL DEANGELO: Michael Deangelo. CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us about the new application? MICHAEL DEANGELO: I don't believe that the pool would have any adverse effect on the area. It's the only place I can put it in. I have one of my neighbors saying he doesn't have any objection to it all. And I had conversations with the other neighbors (inaudible). CHAIRMAN: The road next to your, which I believe is a dirt road, where does that lead to the lot in back, just the lot or does it lead anything else? MICHAEL DEANGELO: It leads to the lot. PAGE2 SEPTEMBER2u, ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOV, N OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Do you think there's more than that fixe-acre lot or other lots'? It looks like it goes to the fi~e-acre lot. It doesn't go to the nursery in the back? MICHAEL DEANGELO: No it doesn't. That's on the other side. CHAIRIVIAN: What is the reason why you can't put it in the rear 3at'd? Is it a cesspool /'actor'? MICHAEL DEANGELO: There's a cesspool on one side, my property, is wider that it is deep. There are trees and a shed; it's really the best spot tbr a pool. CHAIRMAN: This is a round pool? MICHAEL DEANGELO: Exactly'. CHAIRMAN: Does it have an expansion liner? Is it deeper than the normal four-tboter standard? MICHAEL DEANGELO: No. CHAIRMAN: So it's a tbur-foot pool. Mr. Dinizio, any questions ofIMr. DeAngelo? MEM[BER DINIZ[O: No. CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins'? MEMBER COLLINS: l just want to confirm what you said that looking at your house from Elijah's Lane in the rear yard 5'our cesspools would be to the right. The right rear yard we have flagpole. And then in the left part of your rear yard you have a railroad evergreens with gym equipment behind them, is that correct? So itl principle there is room in the rear yard it's just that you have to surrender .,,'our evergreens and move your gym equipment. Is that right? IvlICHAEL DEANGELO: That might be possible. MEMBER COLLINS: Okay thank you. IvlICHAEL DEANGELO: Is that being considered a side-yard where you can take the dirt road. CHAIRMAN: Well you really have two front yards. NIEMBER COLLINS: That's true that is a front yard. CHAIRMAN: It really is a front yard that was the purpose of my question. MEMBER COLLINS: Although it is not clear that Birchwood Road is it mapped? P~,GE 3 SEPTEMBER 2o. 2001 ZB~, PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I guess it's mapped. CHAIRMAN: It's onl3 mapped as a flat, because you have those five-acre lots back there, where you originally developed tile property and the developer chose to make five- acre lots back there. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, but it is mapped so it would meet the definition of street ill our code, therefore, that is a front yard which I had not really thought about. CHAIRMAN: It's really the only access to that lot. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN: We'll see what develops throughout the hearing sir. Please don't leave until we close the heating. I don't know if we time tbr a decision tonight. We are going to have a special meeting in the very near future. We have a huge agenda tonight and we may not get to it. We thank you, but just don't leave until I close. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. We thank you sir. We hope to have a decision for you in the very near future. SEE MINTUES FOR RESOLUTION 6:40 P.M. Appl No. 4988 - KEVIN SHANNON. This is an Appeal for a Variance based on the Building Inspector's July 5, 2001 Notice of Disapproval regarding the location ora proposed deck addition with a setback at less than seventy-five (75) feet from the bulkhead, required by Section 100-239.4B. Location of Property: 1077 Bay Home Lane, Southold; Parcel 1000-56-39. CHAIRMAN: Good evening Mr. Shannon how are you? KEVIN SHANNON: I'm fine thank you. CHAIRMAN: I had the distinct pleasure of visiting your very beautiful piece of property last weekend on a very nice day. I actually wanted to stay, but I think I had a meeting here. What would you like to tell us? KEVIN SHANNON: Just that, I know it's 62 feet from that tiprap. It's 8l feet from the high water mark. It doesn't have an adverse impact. We sent a letter to the Board and PAGE 4 SEPTEMBER 2IL 20O] ZBA PUBLIC HE ~.RING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD supplied some pictures. As you can see fi'om, on both sides, it has no impact to the neighbors. The two other neighbors in fi-ont of the house won't even see this. CHAIRMAN: What you're actually doing is cox ering or going around the existing co~ ered porch? KEVIN SHANNON: Right, what we're trying to achie~ e is this (hands up a magazine photo). So we're just moving. CHAIR1MAN: The pillars are going to stay there, and you're just moving a deck out farther than that. Is that dog real m that picture'? KEVIN SHANNON: Although I'm inheriting my daughter's dog, ill a couple of weeks, she's getting marhed Satm'day. CHAIRMAN: So there's really no change other than the fact that you're decking six feet of the existing and then you're going to square it off. KEVIN SHANNON: Right and build off to the left as you can see it. CHAIRIMAN: How big is that piece that goes offon the opposite side'? Six and 8.2 which is 14.9, and we have to take 26 away, so that's 26 across. What is the existing porch, do you knox,,'? KEV1N SHANNON: I think it's 8.9 times 26? CHAIRMAN: Wait I think I can read it offofhere. KEVIN SHANNON: 26.6 long and 8.9 wide and then we're bringing it six feet out. CHAIRMAN: The actual porch on the east side exclusive of the covered porch should be, according to my dimensions here, 14 ft 9 inches by 16 feet except for where it's clipped on the comer. KEV1N SHANNON: Correct CHAIRMAN: There are no intentions of covering that overhang? KEV1N SHANNON: No absolutely not. CHAIRMAN: That's going to be approximately, similar to the picture you just showed us? Can I have that picture back please ladies? Starting with Mr. Homing, any questions of Mr. Shannon? MEMBER HORNING: Sir there is what do you intend with that sort of unusual space, it's land or dirt that's going to be left in between the main house and this deck? Pa. GE 5 SEPTEMBER 21). 2o01 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT tOWN OF SOUmOLD KEVIN SHANNON: Well we would probably include the deck and put some plantings tbere. That's what we intended to do. We're pretty much not changing the ga'ade at all. CHAIRMAN: You really can't because you have an existing situation there. MEMBER HORNING: Does he have windows right there': KEVIN SHANNON: No there's a window up top that's all. Tbere's a basement window over towards the corner that will be past the deck. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, it's very straightforward. CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No I have no questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio': MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN: Okay, just don't leave before I close the hearing please. KEVIN SHANNON: Okay. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands is there anybody that would like to address this issue tonight? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well it's mine; we'll go ahead write it up, I'm certainly willing to go for a motion to approve it as applied. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 6:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4986 - DAVID AND MARIA PATTERSON. This is an Appeal for a Variance under Section 100-31C2.b based on the owners' request for structural renovations in an accessory building (rather than the main building) for occupancy as the owner's office, noted in the Building Inspector's June 20, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Section 100-3 l C2.b provides for accessory office use incidental to the residential use of the premises when can'ied on in the Main Building by the residents therein. Location of Property: North Side of Central Avenue, Fishers Island, Town of Southold; Parcel 1000- 6-4-. CHAIRMAN: Good evening how are you? P~.GE6 SEPTEMBER 20. 20o1 ZB ~. PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TO~3, N OF SOUTHOLD BARBARA HAM: Fine, ['m Barbara Ham I'm here representing the Patterson's. Here are the packets and the affidavits: [ have the original Affidavits tbr the Board Members. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Hain is it really true that .,,'our husband is not coining back to represent. BARBARA HAIVI: It's really true that [ think he could cook dinner once in a while, don't you think so. So he's feeding our son tonight. CHAIRMAN: Okay, but we do say hello to him actually just carD.' that oil to him. BARBARA HAM: He's veD' sensitive. This is an application lbr a home office instead of in the main building, the residence; it's in a garage that's to be renovated. In )`,our packet you will see an architect's letter as to why it wasn't feasible to put it in the main building. They would have had to split out and it would have been more disturbing. The garage, which is standing, is not in very good shape and needs to be renovated anyway. The structure won't require any variances; it's switching the office, which will be an Asset Management/Financial lnx'estlnent type of office from the main residence to the second stoD' of the garage. Steve talks about the Chapar case, which you had in here a couple of ),,ears ago. CHAIRMAN: Can l just ask a question? BARBARA HAM: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: You may not be able to answer this tonight, or maybe Steve will be able to answer this whenever. Isn't there any reason why that since this garage is, I mean we were in the garage when we were over at Fishers Island, I mean it's a typical garage with a old salt box roof leaning toward the water. Again, a very magnificent piece of property overlooking North Dumpling Island. Isn't there any reason why the garage couldn't be moved over and attached to the house? BARBARA HAM: I would imagine the reason is possible disturbance, but I will ask them to get equal information on that. It would be moving a total foundation. I understand that there is water behind there, West Harbor, and they just want to not disturb the foundation that's there. CHAIRMAN: But they're going to have to do that anyxvay because, quite honestly, I don't think the garage is built to code. I didn't really see much of a footing under there. MEMBER HORNING: The garage would have to be totally demolished and a totally new building built. CHAIRMAN: But it would only make sense to me to add it to the house and then you really wouldn't need a variance. P*,GE 7 SEPTEMBER2u. 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HE ~.RING TRANSCRIP] TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMBER COLLINS: Excuse me Mr. Chairman, what George just said is that a tact'? MEIMBER HORNING: Well that's the way, that's my observation. IVIEMBER COLLINS: I mean you've been there and seen it: you've all been there. CHAIRMAN: But the point is that you have this velT severe angle, it's a saltbox roof that faces the water, so you can utilize about 2/3 of the garage and the rest of it couldn't be utilized because of this saltbox roof that's on it. So we recognize the fact that the building probably has to be demolished. I don't know what they used in the old days regarding the construction of a garage. It's much different than what the3, use today. Today you have to go down three feet with a footing and so on and so forth. [ can tell you that in my particular obser,.,ation of this particular building there's no tboting. BARBARA HAM: For my own explanatiom would something that's built pre-code, which this was, pre 1957 to do a renovation: must it be brought up to code'? CHAIRMAN: Yes. What I'm saying is they're going to change roof lines an~,xvay, because the roof line, anybody that would build an office there and not want to have a view of the water, you can't do that with this huge sloping roof that goes down. I mean, you would be like this (bending) at the desk looking out. BARABARA HAM: I think in .,,'our packet it shows that there's, it goes higher. The roof touches the eighteen (18) feet it's peaked now with the new plan. It touches the eighteen (18) feet maximum height. CHAIRIMAN: Okay. MEMBER HORNING: We had a photo where you could see that the existing garage is a completely different structure than the structure that's proposed on the blueprints. BARBARA HAM: My understanding though is that they were planning renovation not tearing it down. MEMBER COLLINS: I was under that, my earlier MEIMBER HORNING: The real question is, can it really be used as office space and possibly as Use Variance rather than CHAIRMAN: Yes, so what would be the best thing to have happen, would be to attach the garage to the house, attach a new addition to the house; remove the existing garage and thereby, I don't know how the Building Inspector's going to interpret it, but I want to tell you that it's a lot easier than what you're asking for at this juncture. PAGE :~ SEPTEMBER 2(L 20(11 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMBER HORNING: Or keep the garage as the garage and build an attachment oll tile house. MEMBER TORTORA: Because the Variance is not for the dimensions of the property or the garage. It's tbr the use. CHAIRMAN: We very rarely, [ don't think we have ever, granted anything in a garage that was not attached to the bouse. We've gl'anted accessory apartments when they're attached to the house, in other words the person's using the existing footprint of the house; but again, you have a relatively new house that meets the Code requirements, not that we do Code requirements here, but you don't have to go in there and blow the place apart because use of Code requirements so on and so tbrth. So what they do is they raise the floor of 2 x 4, they put iusulation underneath so you're not sitting on a cement floor and they replace the doors with glass sliding doors and that's your accessory apartment which is about 484 square feet which is a 20 x 20 tbot garage or 22 x 22 foot garage. But, again, the key factor here is that it's attached to the house. MEIMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, you might .just Ir'or Miss Ham's sake, I think you're talking Code and she referred to 57, of course the Code he's talking about is the Building Code, New York State Fire and whatever it's called not the Zoning Code. CHAIRIVIAN: Miss Collins l think you were next, fight? MEMBER COLLINS: Comments'? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I think I see where this is going but I still want to ask the question which is, you said that he needs the space tbr an Asset Ivlanagement/Financial Investment business. This is something that it has, to the extent: it has clients that are at the other end of the telephone or a fax line. BARBARA HAM: Exactly, a ten minute computer and a phone. MEMBER COLLINS: They're not physically there. BARBARA HAM: No. MEMBER COLLINS: I hear my colleagues on the Board saying that home occupation is not a permitted accessory use ill an accessory building. I think if you were really going to push this you'd probably have to be pushing along the lines of saying this is not what they had in mind when they said home occupation, they were thinking of activities that bring people, like a law office. BARBARA HAM: Ivly understanding is that they were thinking about possibly rentals or people sleeping in these areas? PAGE~ SEPTEMBER 20.20ul ZBA PUBLI( HEARING 7R~,NSCRIP] TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMBER COLLINS: [ mean we have this stuffabout home occupations and they have to be in the house and [ think that the people that drafted that Code had in mind, the dentist, the doctor, the interior designer, the lawyer whose customers, clients come. I think this is different but I don't think I'm goiug to pursue that. This is more like a den to me. We know people who ha~ e dens in their garages. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: [ can tell you that this is exactly what they had in mind. A real estate agent could have his sign out front; most professionals can have business in their homes. CHAIRMAN: You're talking a builder or whatever but it's in the home right? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, well the law says it's in the home, and this is not in the home. I mean I'm certainly not against it, because like Lora says it's a den, and probably nothing more than that. BARBARA HAIVI: There's only a half bath and MEMBER DINIZIO: As long as it's done to Code. I mean this is definitely pretty far out on the side; it's not even tucked into the house. I think you could come up with a better solution in utilizing that garage. I think you just might better serve the client if you were aware of that. I stood in that garage and I don't see how you could possibly put a floor, a second floor on that garage without digging down and putting a decent footing in. I mean if you were just going to use the floor going in on the slab, close the garage doors and have a room in there, you could probably get away with it. But I don't see, that's not your proposal. I have a hard time with calling that, and allowing someone to have a business in that separate building. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ham you have a rather small piece of property. There is a zero lot line for the house. The house literally sits on the road. If you intend to leave the garage you definitely are going to have, in my opinion, without doing the calculation, probably a lot coverage situation. So it would be my opinion to take the garage down and to substitute the square footage of the garage, with the square fbotage of an addition to the house. MEMBER DINIZIO: They would be back to us by the way, simply tbr that reason because it still would be a standard non-conformity. CHAIRMAN: Right, you also have the setback problems that are before us. So conceivably we can do one of two things, we can hold this hearing in abeyance, close to recess it without a date so that you and your husband can speak to the client and find out what they xvant to do and you can modify this particular; actually we'll probably have to P&GEIt/ SEPTEMBER20,2001 ZBA PUBLI£ HEARING TRANSCRIPT TO~~, N OF SOUTHOLD re-advertise it as a new disapproval and new application. Why don't we just recess it without a date and you tell us if you want us to withdraw it. BARBARA HAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody that would like to speak in favor or against this application, this is a Fishers Island application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion recessing it without a date, pending infnrmation on how to proceed with counsel. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 6:53 P.M. Appl. No. 4992 PATRICK CARPENTER. This is an Appeal tbr a Variance under Section 100-244B based on the Building Inspector's July 16, 2001 Notice of Disapproval regarding the location o£ a proposed addition to dwelling at less than the required 35 feet tbrm the front property line. Location: 235 Orchard Road, Southold; Parcel 1000-66-2-2l. CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir could I ask you to use a microphone and state your name tbr the record? PATRICK CARPENTER: Patrick Carpenter, how are you? CHAIRMAN: I stopped at 5,'out' nice house the other day, in fact the same da5' that 1 was with those nice people down on Bay Home Road. What are you intending to do here sir? PATRICK CARPENTER: The house is going up one story, and fhcing the road, I would like to put an open porch. I need a Variance, I believe, of two feet. CHAIRMAN: Is that open porch on the first level or the second level? PATRICK CARPENTER: The first level. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio any questions of Mr. Carpenter'? MEIMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins? IVIEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I couldn't tell from the application whether you, in fact, were adding a second floor. You are adding a second floor? PATRICK CARPENTER: I am adding a second floor to the house. MEMBER COLLINS: Because the Building Permit Application said that new structure was one stoD'. Okay. So the house is going to go up and the front wall of the house is PAGEII SEPTEMBER 20. ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TO~,', N OF $OUTHOLD going to be where the front wall of the house is now. You want to add an open, uncovered porch or is it going to have a full roof. PATRICK CARPENTER: It's going to have a roolt l just want to get the picture clear. CHAIRMAN: So we're going to be within 32 feet plus or minus feet of Orchard Road, is that correct? PATRICK CARPENTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRIVlAN: Mrs. Tortora? MENIBER TORTORA: Okay, it's 38 feet, the existing setback now and the porch is going to be in front with pillars I understand? PATRICK CARPENTER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: And open on all three sides? PATRICK CARPENTER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: It's six feet by twenty-nine feet7 PATRICK CARPENTER: That's COITect. MEMBER TORTORA: That would, as the Chaim~an just said, it would be the width of around thirty feet? PATRICK CARPENTER: Yes ma'am. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Homing, any questions of Mr. Carpenter? MEMBER HORNING: What would be your compelling reason for want a porch, sir? PATRICK CARPENTER: Well, try to picture a two story, flat front house, I think, my wife wants it so. Try to picture that house two stories flat in front, I have to agree with her. MEMBER HORNING: So are you saying it's for esthetic and utilitarian? PATRICK CARPENTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Please don't leave before we close the hearing, Mr. Carpenter, we're going to see if anybody else wants to speak. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in P~,GE12 SEPTEMBER2/ 20~ I ZBA PUBLIC HE~,RING TRANSCRIPT [O'~ N OF SOUTHOLD favor of this application'? Anybody like to speak against the application? hands I make a motion closing the hearing. SEE MINTUES FOR RESOLUTION Seeing uo 7:00 p.m. Appl. No. 5001 DINA MASSO. This is an Appeal tbr a Variance under Section 100-244B based on the Building Inspector's July 31. 2001 Notice of Disapproval regarding proposed additions/alterations to the existing dwelling at less than the required single setback of 15 feet minimum, and less than 35 fi. total (combined) side yards. Location of Property: 5705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue: Parcel 1000-111-13-4. CHAIRMAN: [s someone here representing? You ha~e to state your name fro' the record. DON FELLER: Good evening I'm DOll Feller architect. Mrs. Masso was representing herself up until recently and asked me to fill in. She could not make it here tonight. I can tell you about the project on the existing house on Nassau Point Road. CHAIRMAN: Okay, go ahead. DON FELLER: It is the first house on Nassau owned by the Massos a one-story house. It has a ten-foot setback. Our addition is on the second floor; the addition is on the first floor. The bedroom's an addition, all on the second floor, which is on the southerly side of the property. At the time of the submission the time of design, doing the drawings, there was no situation that I was aware oE With the Building Department, there might be a problem there. Are there any questions that you might have about this? CHAIRMAN: My only question, Mr. Feiler, is that how come people, this is just a generic question, tend to always want to take the side where the side yard is smallest. I mean is there any particular reason internally why this addition couldn't move more toward the center of the house 7:34 p.m. Appl. No. 4989 RICHARD GLUCKMAN. This is an Appeal for a Variance under Section 100-32 based on the Building Inspector's June 1, 2001 Notice of Disapproval regarding the height of a proposed dwelling tbr the reason that Section 100- 32 restricts the maximum height to 2-1/2 stories. Location of Property: 4630 Orchard Street, Orient; Parcel 1000-27-3-7. P&GEI3 SEPTEMBER20,2~01 ZBq PUBLI£ HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Good evening sir. Counsel we haven't seen you tbr a while, would you kindly state .,,'our name lbr the record7 JOHN WAGNER: Good evening Mr. Chaim~an of Esseks, Hefier and Angel, 108 East Main Street, Riverhead. Good evening Members of the Board. I have ~tbr you an Affidavit of Posting that [ will hand up at this time. You previously received an Affidavit of Mailing and I have here as well. some of the green cards that have been returned so far, in fact there is only one missing at this point. [ am here tonight representing the applicant, Richard J. Glucklnan. Mr. Gluckman is here tonight, as well as his general contractor, Mr. Dennis McMahon. He will answer any questions that the Board may have. We are here tonight on a variance application with respect to the maximum number of stories permitted in the Zone, which is the R40 Zone. The maximum number of stories permitted is 2 !2 stories. That has been the detemfination by the Building Inspector that there may be 3 stories on this particular structure as built. The circumstances under which this is as follows. Apparently an application was made for a Building Permit in 1999. Plans were submitted, sun'eys were submitted. The plans were approved by the Building Department, the Building Permit was issued, construction took place and during the course of construction there were several inspections made of the premises. There was never any statement that there was a problem with the number of stories. It was rather late in the construction. The first time there was some verbal indication in March 2000 that there may be some question as to the nulnber of stories, howe~er, there was nothing tbllowed up in writing and there was no stop work order ever issued. The completion of the structure took place by July 2000. So we have here a fully completed structure, which now has some difficulty tbr the Building Department. The applicants upon learning of the Building Department's concerns, went to the State Codes Office and sought a variance of the requirements of that office tbr height and sought a variance to allow a 3 story structure and actually, after several lnonths of processing did receive in fact a variance fi'om the Department of State and [ recently submitted a copy of that variance with our application. If you would like another copy I have one here. CHAIRMAN: Fine sir, thank you. JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: I think it would be helpful if I handed up at this time, photographs I had personally taken as of two days ago of the subject property. I'll hand them up. The first two photographs, which are labeled A-1 and A-2, are general photographs designed to show the nature of the structure that we are talking about. You can see that the, on the left side of the photo is the area in question. It occupies approximately V2 of the under portion of the house. It does not extend across the entire house. It is essentially only half the house area that has this three-story difficulty. The rest of the house is t~vo stories. CHAIRMAN: The house does not exceed the 35-foot? JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: It does not. £n fact, ifl could just point out some of the figures having to do with the house, as constructed, were in R40 Zone, although the 40,000 P~GEI4 SEPTErqBER2tL2001 ZB~ PUBLIC HEARING TR~.NSCR[PT TOk~,~ OF SOUTHOLD square foot is tile minimum lot requirement which is actually 1.445 acres on this parcel. As constructed, the house has a front yard of 142 feet, where as only 50 feet is required. In addition, tile rear yard is approximately 200 feet, where as only 50 leer is required by Code. The total side yard tbr the as built house is 73.6 according to the survey and there is only 35 teet required itl the Zone and the minimmn side yards are 34.7 and 39.1 feet respectively which is well in excess of the 15 feet required by Code. So this is not, by an)' means, an overbuilt piece of property. The height of the structure measures out at 32 feet above grade, so it is within the 35-tbot limitation, as well that's set/brth in the Code. The only issue has to do with whether it is 2 !.,_ story or 3 stories, and I respectthlly submit to the Board that that is essentially 6 teet and a fire issue and I think if the Board will refer to the Variance that was obtained from tile State you will note that not only did they approve of the three stories but they also imposed some conditions to mitigate ever), possible satety concerns, both of which have been implemented by the applicant. Those incurred an installation of fire system that is centrally wired and in addition, the placement of ladders that can be dropped from the upper story window in the event of a fire emergency. Both those measures have been implemented and are in place. So I believe and I submit that the fire safety issues have been addressed by the applicant and should not be a concern to the Board. CHAIRMAN: What is in that lower story? JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: In the lower StOl3' are several stairs and there's a small utility area as well. You will see shortly, I'm going to give you another set of photos which gives you sort ora walking tour around the structure. This second set of photos which is labeled E-l through E-9 is essentially a ground level walk around showing you the area in question. Just to summarize some of the things you'll see in those photos there are several doors leading to the exterior in the fi'ont of the house lacing the street, there are double doors. There is another door which is really on the south easterly portion of the structure which is underneath the overhead portion to the rest of the house, that's another access to the space. If you move around to the back of the house you will see that there are doors and windows as well. There are glass moveable doors in the back of the house which, agaim provide access to the storage area and if you walk completely around to the northwesterly side of the house you will see that there is an air-conditioning unit there for central air. I provided you with a detail photo as well, showing the piping that leads from that air conditioning unit into the house itself: CHAIRMAN: So xvould I be correct in saying that that area is not only the mechanical area, but also it is a storage area that low area? JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: Yes, as I say it's broken up, it's partitioned into at least three storage areas and there is a utility room as well. There is no living space thak there are no bathrooms of any kind. The facility is strictly a utility space. CHAIRMAN: But it is heated? Heated and air-conditioned? PAGE 15 SEPTEMBER 2t~. 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOU FHOLD JOHN WAGNER. ESQ.: Yes. The next set of photos I would like to show you. The purpose of these photos is to show you the "neighborhood" character. These photos which are labeled C-I through 8 are also a walk around the house so to speak. These are pictures of the sun'ounding neighborhood taken in a slightly compass direction. You can see from the photo that, as a general rule, there's really nothing in the area apart from the house, which is right next door, which is only owned by the Trent Family. The rest of the area is pretty much open space and wetland areas. There are no houses in any of the immediate proximity of this structure and therefore, these houses are not affected and such houses are not affected by this particular structure. I just want to reiterate that this structure is well within the 35-foot height limitation in any event. The next photos l will show you is a photo of the houses [ was able to find in the area. These are labeled D 1-7. I will go there some distance from this particular facility that we're talking about. These houses are all quite substantial in size and l particularly refer you to the photograph DS, D6 and D7 which are houses that are located off westerly of the Orchard Road and on the adjoining side streets. They actually have some third stoD' expenditures to them. One of them is apparently an old school house that is in the process of being renovated. The other house that is the last photo appears to be a residence and appears to have a useable third story space. You can see there are windows up there. The long and short of this is that the character of the community does include actually pre-existing third story structures. CHAIRMAN: We did have a variance on D5, but it ~vas not for the height, nor was it for the use of the third sto~. It was for a tennis court. JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: The last set of photos that I have tbr you again, beating on the impact on the neighborhood which is one of our valid criteria tonight, shows a view of this particular structure from the sun'ounding roadways. Just to indicate to you what these photos are E-I is a photo of this particular house taken from the nearest intersection, which is across the street on Kinney Street, located to the Southeast. You can see from that photo you can't even tell the house is there. E-2 is a photo moving up Orchard Street in a northwesterly direction and also looking at the house, you can see a substantial screening in that area that protects the house from being seen. E-3 is the one place where the house breaks out in the open, and as you can see it's not particularly substantial view that you have there. E-4 is a view of the house taken almost directly from where the driveway is moving up again through sorne screening that exists on the property. So again, it's not something that attracts the eye or offends the senses as you drive past it. I've already touched on some of the criteria that this Board would determine in evaluating whether there is an entitlement to a variance here. I would like to touch upon a few more. You can see that the neighbor's character is what it is. The neighborhood such as it is is either open space or consists of rather large-scale homes. And you can also see that this particular house is well screened from the neighbors. The next question that we want you to consider is whether there is any alternative to the variance that we are requesting tonight, any feasible alternative I should say. There's always an altemative, the question is is it feasible. There really are very few possibilities here. One possibility would be to remove the upper sto~ of the house. That is something that could not occur without great expense and without a re-designing of the P~,GEI~, SEPTEMBER20,2001 ZB ~, PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD structure itself because there's ample pan of li``ing space is on that second story. The other alternative would be to try to build up the grade all around the structure to be similar to the grade you see in some of the photographs along the easterly side of the house. That is not feasible tbr several reasons. For one thing the house that's cun'ently constructed is not designed with a good framing to bear the weight of any dirt up against the wall. So that there would have to be substantial reconstruction of the under stop,.' structure to allow tbr that kind of mounding to take place. The second thing which is obvious from the photograph is that you would be effectively blocking several of the entrances and exists from the bouse which would not only present problems in terms of access in the event of emergencies, but also would defeat the purpose of the design of the house which was done in accordance to the penal regulations and allows as you can see in some of the photographs and some of the doors to allow tbr the passage of water in and out in accordance with the penal design criteria. The point is the cost which we estimate a minimum of $250,000 to do the work that would be necessary to allow this building up of earth around the structure. The purpose of that, of course, would be to make this area a cellar, as opposed to a basement and therefore take it out of definition of story in the Town's Code. It's a very technical solution to a problem at a ,,'er), costly, and I submit, not a ``'cry feasible alternative. We already discussed moving the upper story. That again, is not feasible. As I pointed out, we do meet the 35-foot height requirement of the Town. That is the Code requirement that this Town has imposed. We are in thct three feet under that height requirement. So the substantiality of the Variance is not significant. It really comes down to a tecbnical definition of what is a stop,,' and what is not. We already talked about the advePse effects on the neighborhood, which I believe is non-existent. I would like to point out, in addition, that from my inspection of the property I think the Board will probably agree with me, that this house is not blocking anyone's li~t or view. It's just there, t?ee standing, there's no one else around who's possibly affected. The only nearby house is the Trent house which is the northwest. I did not see any, to my observation, any detrimental effect on that house in terms of blocking light or view. The last thing I would like to just say, and this is really a summary of sorts also, this applicant before you today, based upon what's essentially there, it's a mistake. We have a Building Permit; we relied upon it, with ongoing construction, no one objected to the construction. We went ahead, it was completed, nothing in writing was every shmvn to them that there was a problem. I believe he acted in complete faith throughout and now he finds himself in aver), difllcult situation. He has a house that is thlly constructed but cannot obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. We are here tonight asking for the Board's relief as requested. We would ask tbr the variance as asked for, and of the Board has any questions regarding any of these matters I'll be able to answer them, and the applicant is here as well, and the general contractor as well. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wagner there's no problem doing a physical inspection of that lower section of the house is there'? JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN: All right, that's the only question I have at this point. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Mr. Dinizio, any questions? PAGE 17 SEPTEMBER21L20t~I ZBA PUBLIC HE,kRING TR ~.NSC'RIPT TOWN OF So[.rTHOLD MEMBER DIN[ZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins'? MEMBER COLLINS: Just to clarity, a little timing. The Building Pemfit was issued in the Spring of 1999 and I think you said that the house was finished in 2000. It was pretty much. I have friends right down the road, I'm out there all the time and I watched it. The request to New York State for the Variance on the approval of the throe-story issue, the Decision is dated April 24, 2001. [ think you said in your statement that it is when the Variance from the State was sought because people from the Building Department mumbles had been heard. Nothing had been said formally, but mumbles had been heard from Building Department people that perhaps indeed this house has three stories. So ifl understood what you said that was the reason to go to the State and get the State Variance. When was that done? l just want to get the timeline correct. RICHARD GLUCKMAN: I'm Richard Gluckman. The by the Building Inspector who visited the house during the third inspection I think that was March. MEMBER COLLINS: March of 2000? RICHARD GLUCKMAN: Yes, March 2000. I then spoke to the Building Inspector on the telephone; he said that he thought I should talk to the State because he would do what the State allowed. He couldn't make the decision. I spoke to Richard Smith, of the New York State Department of Codes. We had many conversations, and Mr. Smith visited the site I believe with one the Town Building Inspectors and told me on March 27th that he felt a murine variance could be granted. He subsequently went to the house later on June ?d with the Building Inspector Mike Verity and Smith told me later that it could be a basement. On June 26th I spoke to Mike Verity who said this is up to Smith and that also getting the Fema Memo was no problem, he could take care of it. I finally filed the application with the State in July 27th, 2000 and I got it nine months later, and subsequently sent it off to the Town of Southold Building Department. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman that's what I wanted to get in the record, because I'm personally very impmssed by the lhct that this Variance came down from the State says the Local Code Enforcement Official has been consulted in this matter and does not object to the granting of routine variance. I think that applicant really was allowed to go incredibly far along without hearing that them was going to be a Zoning Code problem here. I just wanted to get on the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gluckman I don't knoxv you personally, and we normally swear people in, in these situations, but I chose not to do that tonight. But I need, so at this point you are denied a C of O, is that correct? RICHARD GLUCKMAN: That's correct. P ~.GE IS SEPTEMBER 20. 20OI ZB~, PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOW N OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: We thank you. We'll continue witb [','[rs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: Tbis specific request to divert the Building Departments detemfination is that tbe tbr two StOly or to grant the variance? RICHARD GLUCKMAN: It's rather an unusual, the possibility right now. Because technically what we're appealing from is a Notice of Disapproval that purports to be a Disapproval of the 1999 Building Permit which is a little unusual because the Building Plans were stamped approved in 1999. I tbllowed it to the letter. I appealed fi'om the Document that we had in our possession. [ think the Document itself is perhaps what's incorrect. Because the Building Permit was issued there basically had been a change of mind by the Building Department. That's an independent confim~ation. I really think that the Board should review that determination that's the first step, that determination. Which is now a change of heart on the part of the Building Department. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, that was question one. But you did standard tbr the Variance, correct? the RICHARD GLUCKMAN: [ have denounced for the variance because they're saying I'm not complying with a particular provision of the Code. After the tact, but all the same the5, have made that determination. MEMBER TORTORA: The FEMA regulations require that the basement be set on grade wbich that caused the building to be three stories, is that correct? RICHARD GLUCKMAN: I'd have to defer on tbat. MEMBER TORTORA: No, it's not correct'? DENNIS MCIMAHON: Dennis McMahon, I'm the General Contractor. The FEMA is issued pertaining to the flood zone that the house is in. It's a level 4 ft. 6. with a flood zone ordinance and everything else. And that picture you say of the air handler (inaudible) CHAIRMAN: So in other words in the flood zone situation the lowest floor area had to be 4.6? Any other questions? We thank you sir. MEMBER HORNING: I'll continue with the statement that CHAIRMAN: We may have to submit this nlan back up again. MEMBER HORNING: There's a statement in here stating number seven, it's been addressed a little bit. The Local Code Ent-brcement Official has been consulted in this matter, and does not object to the granting of the routine variance under the Provision of the. What assurance do we have, is there something in writing that there's correspondence betxveen the local Building Department and the State? P~,GEI9 SEPTEMBER 2o. 2~01 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: I'm not aware of an3,' correspondence. [ assume that this was done as part of this investigation by the application. MEMBER HORNING: (inaudible) Shouldn't this be in writing? MEMBER COLLINS: [ don't see why. JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: It is finding by this particular body. I don't normally, explore into their findings as long something go by. As you knox,,,, they had nine months to investigate this matter. So there's no telling how many communications they had with the local officials. MEIvlBER HORN[NG: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN: Nlr. Wagner, is that about the end of your presentation, sir'? JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Okay we'll call you back up, please don't leave. We may take a short recess because I notice there are some people in the audience that have not seen the pictures, but we'll see what happens. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Good evening sir, could you cotne up and use the microphone. State your name tbr the record. MARTIN TRENT: Martin Trent, how are you? My wife is here also. I feel very badly tbr Mr. Gluckman because obviously he had a permit in the Building Department. I agree with what he determined said, had he been approved coupled with an exception. I did prepare a statement if I may. This set of photographs details of the construction of the house from the beginning to the end from April 1999 to about one year later, April 2000. You can see by the date of the photographs. They also clearly show that the first story is partially constructed of wood and I guess it's a story. When the house was constructed we watched it go up and we didn't really think too much of it. I mean the people own the property, they're allowed to build whatever they want to build on their property. A few weeks ago I learued that the house was not in contbrmance. That sort of made me angry because I know there was a Building Permit. The Town obviously must have made inspections as time went along and knew what was going on and apparently did nothing to do with it. I, not knowing the rules mid the Building Code of the Town did not object because I had no reason to object. Now that the house is there and the third story is in non-conformance I feel like I've been hoodwinked. I feel badly tbr Mr. Gluckn~an, but I feel badly Ibr myself too. Because this is a very, very tall structure that o,,erlooks my house and property and this set of photographs, which [ can leave with you, also is basically taken out our dining room window. You can see that it's not that it doesn't affect any neighboring resident. It's thirty feet from our property line; obviously it has an effect on us. PAGE2t~ SEPTEMBER21L2001 ZBA PUBLIC HE ~.RING TRANSCRIPT TO~3, N OF $OUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Your house is the one to the left, the high ranch t.~2ae? MARTIN TRENT: Yes the high ranch. One thing again that I a~m'ee with the applicant's attorney about is the issue of fill. We live in a Iow-lying area, as you know, and because the lack of the extent that we re~aded, we have water problems that didn't exist prior to the regrading of that property. We certainly don't want to see any more fills put on that property because it just will exasterbate the problem. We have, the question tbr the Board is the real question is for the Town. I guess the Board that it will show very clearly that the building is a full three stoties high, not 2 !,_-. it's not two with a basement. It's three stoties. The first floor is above grade, it has normal doors and windows and the only part that has soil around it is about ten fbot of that section, some of the sections to allow the sewage system. I guess the Town is partly at fault, because they approved the plans, obviously they did inspections through the Tnwn, but the applicant is also at fault. He is a registered architect and he should be aware that the three-story structure is disallowed by the Town. The end result is we have this, an oversized house looming over us, thirty feet from our property line. Now with the sun a little lower in the sky, it casts a long shadow. We're probably a little spoiled because: we've lived them tbr twenty-three .,,'ears basically without a neighbor. As I said people have a tight to build whatever they want, but build within the rules, please. [ guess last year I had trees planted along the property line twenty-foot tall trees, some of which you see in those pictures. One of which just died. It cost me a lot of money to have those trees put in. But now that I think about it, the building is in non-conformance, why do I have to pay tbr screening of an over-sized building. Just a couple of other points, I don't know what the possible outcome this is. Trucking in fill is absolutely unacceptable. The decision to deny the applicant's request is obviously going to be a hardship, it will cost a lot of money to fix it, to cut off ['-- a story or end up creating a cellar. If you grant these vatiance and you correct some of the drainage problems, and put some screening, that helps me negate everything, but nevertheless I think it sets a precedent tbr allowing three story structures m Orient. [ mean the Town of Southold, I don't know of others approved, but I know a whole lot of people who would like to build them because the view of the Bay. And probably any other houses that are built in the ama are going to ask tbr the same relief. And, in fact, I will probably have to do it myself, add an addition to our house, as you can see we'm also the only adjacent lot, the rear of our house, it's a flag lot, that borders on our property, and my intention in five years when I retire to build a house. I'm not going ask for a two-story house, I'm going to ask thme-story house. There's no easy answer here, the circumstances stink. Thank you for listening to me. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application or has specific concerus regarding the application? Hearing no further questions, is there something else you would like to add to Mr. Wagner? JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: Yes, just a few things. I may have tbrgotten to mention to you that the total cost of construction of the house as built is approximately $650,000. Built pursuant to the Building Permit that we had from 1999. I'd also like to point out that even if we had a 2 !5 story house here, technically 2 ~/i story house, we would still be permitted to go the 35 feet in elevation. This particular house is only 32 feet. So the PAGE 2l SEPTEMBER 2~1, 2Old ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TO~N OF SOUTHOLD impact of having a high house next to the neighbor would be the same whether we complied with the 2 !: story limitation or not, assuming that we took full advantage of the height limitations in the Code. So. we're actually below that. If we came up three feet in height, and it's not a maxed out situation. The other thing I want to point out, just reiterate is that the only possible justification for the story limitation is the Town Code as opposed to the height limitation. It is a safety concern. Now if people are being able to exit safely in the event of a fire elnergency, people will get out of the house and save their lives. Again, that is an issue that has been addressed by the State Code people, the.,,' have imposed reasonable conditions which have been complied with and I see no reason tbr this Board to vary from their role . The other thing I'd just like to point out is that with respect to location of this house on the property these are the. and neighbors must be friends. Thank you tbr coming tonight. I just would like to point out that as the survey indicates, the house is actually 34.7 feet as per line with the Trent property line. Under the Code, they could be as close as 15 feet, so we are not again, maxing out the situation, we've actually pulled back from the property line, this is not as massive a structure as it could possibly be under the code, and I think that under those circumstances we've done whatever we could to comply with the Code by not seeking whatever we could and I think Mr. Trent does not have the privacy that he used to have, but the Code does allow building in certain bulk and we feel that we're within those regulations and the only issue betbre the Board tonight is whether we have a real safety concerns that are associated with a 2 % story limitation. CHAIRIMAN: Mr. Wagner are you aware of any drainage problems? JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: On the property? CHAIRMAN: Yes. JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: No. CHAIRMAN: Any drainage problems that Mr. and Mrs. Trent may be experiencing based upon the construction of this house? JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: I'm not aware of any, which is something I observe ti'om walking out there. If there were some big fill against that property, essentially creating a berm in the side yard, that could result in possible drainage, trickled off onto the Trent property I would hate to see that result. Right now the ground is very level all around that side of the structure. I don't see anything indicating any kind of pool in the water. CHAIRIVIAN: Is 3'our applicant willing to do some additional screening in reference to height situation that exists on an exposed side to the Trent house? JOHN WAGNER, ESQ.: I believe he is. [ believe he's already planted several poplar trees. PAGE 22 SEPTEMBER 2o, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RICHARD GLUCKMAN: I've actually learned from Marty a little bit of how the drainage looks in that area. I want to sa5' two things about it. [ want to do eve .r.r.rything I can to make sure that the flow of water goes across the wetlands. If that includes including the drainage with a dr), well in the back area, I will make ever), opportunity. CHAIRMAN: You're willing to do that'? RICHARD GLUCKMAN: Yes. I put cypress in and mine was directly in line with a tree that Marry planted, it died as well. It's been replaced once already, and it's going to be replaced again. I am very willing to continue to plant screening that will lower the view. When I laid the house out, I was sensitive to what we were doing again to his property. It shifted the house to the west so that his easterly exposure wouldn't be blocked. I know it's a small matter but [ tried to be sensitive the tact that I do have a neighbor. Someday somebody might do it to me. I also, one of the reasons was a slight hesitation in the construction process, when we staked the house out with the surveyor I came to realize that I wanted to move it thrther away from Marty's house and I did. I wish I could have moved it further away, but again, I tried to center it in the middle of the property. So I hope, I would hope that Marty that we tried to get away anything, and I'm more than happy to work on the drainage problems as we discovered, as we realized and also the screening. CHAIRMAN: Could you create t:br us between now and the Special Meeting, I would like to close this to verbatim and I would like you to give us a further landscaping plan so that we could include that in our decision and tell us, give us a little information regarding the drainage also. I would like to include that in our discussion, our deliberation, post October 4th. So I need that by October 2nd so that we can include it in our deliberation. RICHARD GLUCKIVlAN: Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would like to make a motion closing this hearing to verbatim and officially closing it pending the receipt of landscaping and drainage from the applicant for the Special Meeting of October 4th which will commence around 6:30 in the evening. [ don't know exactly what time this hearing will be calendared to close. We will not take any further verbatim testimony. I offer that as a Resolution. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION (RECESS FOR THREE MINUTES) 8:26 p.m. Appl. No. 4991 - BARBARA MARTIN. This is an Appeal for a Variance under Section 100-32 based on the Building Inspector's May 1,2001 Notice of Disapproval for a proposed lot area of less than the required 80,000 sq. ft. in this proposed subdivision project. The lot which is being created is located in the R80 PAGE 23 SEPTEMBER 26. 201)I ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Residential Zone District, and the remaining lot is located in the R40 Residential Zone District. Location of Property: -.4~ acres located along the westerly side of Boisseau Avenue, Southold: Parcel 1000-55-5-15 CHAIRMAN: Could you state .,,'our name tbr the record ma'am? DIANE IMARTIN: My name is Diane Martin; I hope you accept my apologies I'm used to teaching in a classroom full of children not of adults. Tonight I will be speaking on behalf of my mother, Barbara Martin, and also for myself in respect for the application tbr the subdivision tbr the property located at 2355 Boisseau Avenue in Southold. I would like to begin by explaining to you one of the reasons that I'm asking tbr the subdivision. My mother has both economical and physical hardships. Over twelve years ago my father died of a failed kidney. My brother at twenty-seven died in a car accident in 1995. I currently live with my mother. This subdivision will be a family transaction that will allow me to help her financially by gradually paying for the land. Also my mother cannot physically take care of 2 ~/i acres due to arthritis. This subdivision will anable my mother to keep her property and benefit both of us. I am twenty-eight years old; I am a full-time reading and writing teacher at Cutchogue East Elementary School. The cost of land and property, as you know. in Southold Town has continued to rise and there is limited aftbrdable housing. I was tbrtunate enough to gow up in the Town of Southold and I would like the chance to continue living here and contribute toward our community by being a part of educating our children. Also [ hope to raise a family of my own in Southold Town. This subdivision would give me an affordable way tbr me to live in this community. I would like to submit this copy of my neighbor's signatures to my record. This paper verifies they gave support to the subdivision, if I may. CHAIRMAN: Sure, thank you. DIANE MARTIN: Also, my neighbor to the left of me, Mr. & Mrs. Schlockter and their son Greg Schlockter have been kind enough to take the time to come to this meeting. I respect this representation fi.om my neighbors, and she showed her support for my mother and I and support our decision to subdivide the property.. This subdivision will not compromise the community; it will not have an adverse effect on the environmental or the physical aspect of the area. Across the street from me is an aflbrdable housing district, Highpoint Meadows, which consists of fifty-seven ~,_, acre lots. A couple of hundred feet to the north of me is an area that is commercially zoned. To the south is Hamlet Density in Founders Village. Our property is intercepted by two zoning districts, R40 and R80; because of the unique situation and the large size of the lot for this area, this subdivision will not precipitate any other subdivision. Finally on a personal note, I can't express in words how important this subdivision is to my mother and I. Boisseau Avenue is named after my great, great, great, great grandfather Edward Boisseau. Our thmily earliest deed in Southold Town is dated back to 1860. I have always appreciated our Town and know how special our community really is. I am asking l'br the chance to continue living here working within our school and take care of my mother. PAGE 24 SEPTEMBER20,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT ro~,N OF %OUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Thank you Miss Martin. We'll start ~xith Mr. Homing, all3, questious Nit'. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No sir. CHAIRIVIAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: The only variance is going on the parcel that is in the R80 Zone from 67,000. DIANE MARTIN: Yes ma'am I understand it's an 18% variance from what we should have. CHAIRMAN: We believe you. Miss Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No I have no questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't have an.,,' questions, teacher. CHAIRMAN: We'll let you sit down and we'll see if anything else develops so please don't leave until we close the hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Just state your name for the record. GREG SCHLOCKTER: Greg Schlockter. neighbor. I just want to say I think it should be done. I have no objections; it won't do anything to the neighborhood to make it look out of place. I sa3,', go tbr it. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak against the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing. Who's is this? MEIVlBER DINIZIO: It's mine. If there are no objections, I would like to make a motion to grant it applied tbr. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 8:34 P.ML. Appl. No. 4994 - ED AND EILEEN MAHER. This is an Appeal for a Variance under Section 100-244B, based on the Building Inspector's July 27, 200 l Notice of Disapproval. Applicants are proposing structural alterations and additions to existing dwelling, and a Disapproval was issued because the degree of nonconformance is increased with regard to the nonconforming side yards and lot coverage. The new construction areas under consideration are shown with: (a) a setback at less than I0 feet on one side yard, (b) setbacks at less than 25 feet for combined side yards and (c) lot P ~,GE 25 SEPTEMBER 2(k 201~1 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRAN%( R[PT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD coverage exceeding 20°0 of the total lot. Location of the property: 3655 Bay shore Road. Greenport: Parcel 100-53-6-15 CHAIRMAN: Good evening ma'am would you state 3'our name for the record. MERYL KRAMER: Good evening I'm Meryl Kramer. [ am the architect for Ed and Eileen Maher. l'ln not going to ti')., to re-read my application to you but what I would like to do is just read a couple of items that I think are very important why we are requesting the variance. The size of this lot is veD', very small. It's 6,000 square feet, thereabouts· This existing house that is on the lot already violates the side yard setbacks. So any work that we do is obviously going to be increasing that non-conformity. In addition, we are putting on a second stoD, which is stuck within the existing footprint and we would be increasing that degree of non-conlbiTnity once again· The owner has requested that we fill in if you will the existing rectangle that is created by the existing footprint· We are not going out on any side than the house is already occupying. In addition there are many other houses along this road on Bay shore Road that have been doing similar projects, if not more so and their immediate neighbors have just received a variance for a similar size project. It's pretty basic what we're asking for is just to fill in the footprint on the ground floor and then we would be adding a second floor addition that will not cover the entire footprint because it would be a sloping ceiling and we will have dormers and such. l am ,,'er5' happy to entertain any questions that you might have about the project· CHAIRIVlAN: [s there any possibility of you bringing in the, standing in front of the property on the road, the left hand side which would be the northwest side. What exists there now Miss Kramer in reference to a foundation or is it a crawl space, is it a full foundation, what is there'? MERYL KRAMER: It's a partial, it s a crax,,l space, and it's almost 6 feet, 5.7 [ket deep. CHAIRMAN: Is there an)' possibility of holding the property line at it's maximum, [ mean holding the setback at it's maximuln at that point? Thereby cutting offthat 2.6? MERYL KRAMER: Right now that would ovelMewed as the master bedroom. CHAIRNIAN: Could you extend that to the rear of the property instead of to the side of the property? In other words take the 2.6 offthe side and put it on the rear~ which would be the front yard'? MERYL KRAMER: I would have to ask the owners only because they have a very, very tight budget. They won't do any demolition. CHA[RMAN: Let me tell you what my problem is. We're talking a two-story house, less than four feet from the property line. Under zoning aspects I find that unacceptable. I will admit to you that it is not the full distance of the house on that side, but certainly that would make it 7.5, what is that I see 7.5 on the other side where it says, oh I'm sorry 7.1. PXGE26 SEPTEMBER2 2'~01 ZB ~. PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOX,¥ N OF SOUl-HOLD MERYL KRAMER: The other possibility could be that the second story addition does not go that 2.6. To tell you the truth we tried to do a setback that did not go or exceed non-jurisdiction, then we've got Trustees permit and now we're here for you tbr a fi~otprint. CHAIRMAN: That's a possibility also. To leave out one stop,.'. MERYL KRAMER: To leave that portion a one stop,.'. CHAIRIMAN: Well you'll never get a lire truck, but you'll always get hoses, that are sure. You're really going to use the opposite side to fight any fires. MEMBER TORTORA: There's no access there. Virtually if there were a fire on that side of the house you're not going to make it. CHAIRMAN: How would that look, in reference to, assuming that there was one story there? How would that look? MERYL KRAMER: Well I considered the idea of having the roof begin to slope at that point and then gradually go up. Again, I would have to consult the owner, the only thing I could say is maybe we could have an alteruate as to either we do not have the second story or alter that portion. Or we eliminate that 2.6 and have it expand, you're saying towards the water, CHAIRMAN: Toward the road. MERYL KRAMER: Toward the road. CHAIRMAN: There's plenty of room to add it to the road. MERYL KRAIVlER: Yes, we do. Again, it's going to be a budgeted concern. EyeD' little dollar seems to count these days. I xvould have to submit to them. CHAIRMAN: That's the purpose of the discussion, I'm sorry I didn't mean to cut you off. Whether they use a basement or a crawl space. Certainly if there was a crawl space, there's less block that would be needed to block that area up. MERYL KRAMER: Sure. CHAIRMAN: I don't care if you leave it there as a planter. You know, fill it in as a planter. What do I care, I don't care. But, at least we don't have that, I mean four feet is impossible, you can't even put a ladder on it to get up to that portion of it. And it also then allows more ingress and egress to that side. That's just my opinion, at this point. I'll deter to Mr. Horuing. Any questions, Mr. Horuing? PAGE 27 SEPTEMBER2(L21)~/I ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANS(RIPT TO\VN OF SOUTHOLD MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: ................. inaudible ........................ veD,' concerned about access for the area and fire. If it's financially feasible to cut that portion to the front part that would be a very reasonable solution. This is something you have to discuss with your client. CHA[RMAN: You could rip that foundation down to grade. MERYL KRAMER: It's more than just the tbundation. The entire rooms that was in tact, and that was the one part that, they're not gutting the entire house. They're trying to do it as economically as possible. They're leaving most of the first floor. They're not even doing drywall or anything like that. It's going to be just a second story addition and filling in with a porch, a screened in porch on the first floor, covered porch on one side. CHAIRMAN: We know how creative you were though down in the Arshamomque area so we're asking you to release some more of that creatix,ity down on Bayshore Road. MERYL KRAMER: So is it out of the possibility then, the idea of not having a second story over that one portion. CHAIRMAN: We'll see how we progress down the dais here. We'll go down to Miss Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: l understand the plan is that the entire house will acquire a second story. MERYL KRAMER: The entire house will be a second story, however, it's going to be a sloping ceiling with dormers to retain the cottage appearance, that feeling and size as well. It's not going to be a full two story, with a roof on top. It's more going to be a roof that starts at the first floor and then goes up with dormers coming out of it. MEMBER COLLINS: I understand what you're saying, but the whole existing house footprint will acquire this second story that you just described, l just want to make sure, I'm trying to visualize this because I have some views on this. These proposed covered porches on your site plan, that's because you're new second story will come out and fill in those comers, and on the ground floor you will make it a porch. Is that the concept? MERYL KRAMER: Yes, but it won't be the full floor, it might be part of the roof and then the floor would be set back. Now that we haven't come up with a final plan because we didn't know exactly what was going to be allowed. I do know that I would prefer, I believe that they would prefer to leave the existing footprint, as is, and work within that and design the addition in such a way it would be found acceptable to you rather than to P~GE28 SEPTEMBER 20.200J ZBA PUBLIC HE ~.RING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOU[HOLD start to demolish an entire side of the house and then add on. Because that effects the prim' dr.,,~vall, painting, flooring, foundation. CHAIRIVlAN: Right, two wails. MEMBER COLLINS: IVly colleagues have been concerned about this yep,., small setback on the north side of the property. I'll just put my two cents in and say I think the setbacks are what the setbacks are and if it becolnes two stories rather than a one story it's bigger but it doesn't change the setbacks and that doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as your request tbr 27 95 % lot coverage and you said it's a very small lot, that's the point. It's a very small lot. When people say I have veD' small lot, but I need a big house, and theretbre I need 27-!,- % lot coverage I'm inclined to dig my feet in. l just thought I'd say so. We get, we tend to put up battle lines around 23 or 24%. CHAIRMAN: We haven't even discussed lot coverage. MEMBER DINIZIO: I really wanted visit the lot coverage. That's the biggest drawback. If this house were on a larger lot, you could just say it was part of the new interpretation of the Building Inspector that's non-contbnning. When you're also exceeding the limit of lot coverage, then that's another thing in the midst. MERYL KRAMER: I think what gets tip on that is that the garage, which is not even a large garage it's 13 x 24, but that takes up a large portion. You're fully 1,'3 the size of the house. I think that's a little bit of what makes our situation more difficuh. CHAIRMAN: My suggestion is that you scale it doxvn to 24% and you tell us what you're going to do with that roofline over that really substandard setback which, minimally we'd have to go with one story over that. Resubmit the plan and we'll take a look at it. That's my suggestion. We'll start with Mr. Homing on that issue. MEMBER HORNING: Well I kind of agree with you, and I do agree that they're having a second story, over the non-conforming setback is a detriment to the welfare of that structure itself: We do draw the line on lot coverage around 24%. It would be hard pressed there at 27°,,0. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora, second round? MEIvlBER TORTORA: CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, nothing further. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, me either. PAGE2g SEPTEMBER2tL2~)~II ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TR.a, NSC R[PT TO~3, N OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: So we'll see what develops throughout the hearing but if you resubmit that please we'll close the hearing to verbatim as of tonight if you resubmit it please by October 2'~d, so that we can look at it by October 4'h, of which we will have a Special Meeting and close the hearing as a matter of course. We would appreciate that. Again, I know you can do it, we've seen you do it betbre, in fact I had the distinct pleasure of riding by that premise that you did over on Dixedon. You did a beautiful job. MERYL KRAMER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak t:br or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing as to verbatim testimony pending the submission scaling down the lot coverage and that issue of sub- standard setback to be submitted by October 2''a. The hearing of October 4th We will close the hearing. I olt'er that as a Resolution ladies and gentlemen. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9 p.m. Appl. No. 4928 - MICHAEL COLAVITO. Applicant requests a Variance under Article III, Section 100-32, based on the Building Department December 15, 2000 Notice of Disapproval tbr a proposed addition and alteration to an existing dwelling, which exceeds the Code limitation of 2-1,'2 stories. Location: 6150 Main Ba~,wiew Road, Southold; 1000-78-4-44.2. (Cancelled at the request of the architect) 8:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4995 - PETER AND VALERIE LEONIAK. This is a request for Lot Waivers under Section 100-26 to unmerge three lots identified as Parcel #1000-98-1- 16, and Parcel 1000-98-1-15. Location of Property: Pine Tree Road and Bittersweet Lane, Map of Nassau Farms, Cutchogue. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Goggins, how are you sir'? WILLIAM C. GOGGINS, ESQ.: Good evening, Members of the Board. I'm William C. Goggins; my office is located at 13105 Main Road, Mattituck, New York. I represent the applicant Peter Leoniak and Valerie Leoniak. I've got a lot of papers here. This, as you know is an application for a waiver. I've submitted the application, and you have all the information regarding the lots and the sizes and so forth. I'd to give a brief overview befbre I get into the elements that we have to prove. Basically these lots were initially purchased from a sub-division, and that sub-division was called Nassau Farms. I have the original sub-division map that was filed on March 28, 1935. I would like to submit it up to the Board so that they could see what the original sub-division did look like at that time. About 20% of these lots still exist today. CHAIRMAN: As single and separate lots? PAGE 3O SEPTEMBER 20. 2001 ZBA PUBL[C HEARING TRANSCRIPT FO\\'N OF SOUTHOLD WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What did.vou just hand 'n. ~ WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: The cop.,,' of the sub-division map that was filed BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh. the same thing the Chaimmn has? WILLIAM GOGG1NS, ESQ.: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Since we've intetTupted ourselves, could l just ask Mr. Goggins to repeat what I think he just said, which is that of these sub-division lots that were laid out in 1935, you think roughly 20°,,o of them, as originally laid out are still single and separate lots. They didn't get bigger one way or another? WILLIAM GOGGINS ESQ.: It appears to be that way, yes. IMEMBER COLLINS: Okay, thank you. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: I also, you can make the comparison to how they're laid out today, the Map of Nassau Farms is on two sections of the Suffolk County Tax Map, and I've made enough for each Member of the Board to see, having highlighted in yellow. Section 104 and Section 98 of the Suftblk County Tax Map that is how the Map Nassau Farms from 1935 looks today, with the changes and lot lines and so forth. Also I have taken the liberty of going to the County Center and taking Section 98 of the Tax Map which is where these lots are located and I've gotten a large copy of it so you can really see how the lots currently are mapped out; and you can also see the intermittent lines which show the prior sub-division of Nassau Fam~s. It's tough to see it on the Tax Map and that's why I blew it up so you would have a pretty good idea of what the difference is between then and now. CHAIRMAN: Oh, the old sea size. WILLIAIM GOGGINS, ESQ.: I've also had SUlweys done of each of the separate lots, Tax Lot 15, Tax Lot 16, and Tax Lot 17. I'm going to hand those up to the Board that that you can view the size of the lot and the location. Of the maps I've submitted, the one map indicates the Lot 32 on the original map was Nassau Farms, which is now designated as Suftblk County Tax Map Lot 16. The second map I submitted was Lot 30 and 31 fi.om the original Nassau Farms map which is Lot 16 on the Suffolk County Map and the survey I've provided would'ye been Lots 29 on the Map of Nassau Farms and currently Suffolk County Tax Map Lot 17. These maps are not to scale because [ reduced them on my copy machine from the large size here to the size you have before you. Now to give you a history of the properties I can see the property was sub-divided in 1935. Carl Rockledger, who was the stepfather of Valerie Leoniak purchased Lot 16 on February 1 ~t, 1943. Mr. Rockledger then purchased Lot 15 on December 3, 1954, and then he P~.GE31 SEPTEMBER ZB & PUBLIC HE '~RING TR*,NSC RIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD purchased Lot 17 on April 29, 1964. There is a single and separate search. It was submitted as part of the application, so that indicates that all three of these lots were purchased at separate times. In addition, since assessments were made against these properties and they were taxed, they've always been taxed as separate tax bills, rye also submitted those separate tax bills to the Board on our Application. In addition, I had a conversation with Scott Russell who is an Assessor of the Town of Southold. and he informed me that Lot 15 and 17 had been taxed as buildable lots and I have the original affidavit tbr the Board to review. What this affidavit shows is that Mr. Rotbledger and subsequently his wife, and now his stepdaughter have been paying taxes on Lot 15 and Lot 17 as buildable lots. CHA[RMAN: lye never seen one of these betbre. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: I submitted an application that I made here lbr Joseph tbr the same reason that we're asking for here and the same map of Nassau Farms in the same area. It xvas the exact same application with Waiver of Merger. Mr. Rothledger owned all three of these lots as of 1964. You'll hear testimony from Valerie Leoniak, which she'll testify the reason why her stepfather held onto these lots is because he didn't have a retirement, didn't have a pension and his intent as he got older, if he needed for hospital or to live, he'd be able to sell these lots and make a profit on it so that he could live and be able to build on them if he wanted to because as all the other lot owners io the area had done. When Mr. Rothledger died in 1992 his wife again, still wanting to keep these single and separate it was her intent that in the event that she needed the lnoney, because she didn't have a pension either that she could sell these lots to be able to live. Now she has died and these lots are now in the name of the daughter, Valerie Leoniak and her husband. What her and her husband had done tbur years ago was that the3, had, they lived in Connecticut and Valerie, the only daughter and her husband is the only son of his parents. Both their fathers had died and their mothers, they had no one to take care of their moms. So what they did was, they sold the house in Connecticut, bought a house in New Suftblk, they lived with Mr. Leoniak's mom, to take care of her, she was in her 80's. They did that because they needed to be close to Valerie's mom in Cutchogue, here she was lMng at Lot 15, to take care of her in her old age. They moved here, Mr. Leoniak took a cut in pay and they did the fight thing for their parents to take care of them. He took a 60% cut in pay to do this and now that all the parents are now dead, they don't have a pension, they don't have retirement and so they want to be able to sell these blocks separately so they can maximize their retirement and their pension. That being said, I would like to move on to the elements that make up the Waiver of Merger. The first element that we know is that the waiver will not result in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood. We're talking about two lots, and Nassau Farms as it exists today, there are approximately 115 owned parcels. Two out of 115 would be less than 1% of the lots in this neighborhood; in tact, it's .0173% of the lots. Therefore, from that overview the waiver will not result in an increase in the density of the neighborhood. In addition, I counted the amount of lots that were sold in the same form as they were in 1935, and I found that 28 out of the 115 were that way which is over 24°,3. Based upon the documents I've submitted you can see that there will not be any significant increase in the density of the neighborhood by allowing the two PAGE 32 SEPTEMBER 20. 2001 ZB ~. PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT l'OVv N OF SOUTHOLD lots that have always been deemed to be build able, we've always believed to be build able to be able to build on them. The second element, the way we would recognize the lot that consistent with the size of the lots in that neighborhood, it's the same thing, there are 28 out of 115 lots in the neighborhood that are this size. There have been prior applications tbr these waivers in your subdivisions, one which was before which was the Joseph A Mello. He had the same situation. He was an elderly man; he had a lot next to his house. He wanted to be able to sell it in the event he had financial problems. And if he didn't have financial problems he wanted the ability to give it to his son so he would have a place to live. Based on that, and also prior cases, [ think the other name was Pelmy had an application, the same thing in the same area and this Board recognized that these lots were consistent with the size of the lots in the neighborhood. (inaudible) precedence confined to that element, economic hardship tbr a moment. The natural details and character of the lot and the character contour of the lot will not be significantly changed or altered in any lnanner and there will not be a substantial filling of land affecting the environmental flood areas. I'm sure the Board is going out to look at this property, it's fiat. There aren't any enviromnental sensitive areas near it. Them won't have to be filling if they are going to build. There won't be any substantial slopes or contours to this lot. I'm not even sure that it can be built anyway, because it's kind of narrow and that won't be up to the Board, it will be up the Health Department and the Building Department. I believe we've met the criteria of 1, 2 and 4 under the Section 100- 26 of the Southold Town Code and the last part is the economic hardship. We believe that the way we will avoid economic hardship tbr Valerie Leoniak and her husband, as I stated before, and I know you're going to want to hear from her. She will be shy, and she's a little bit nervous, so for her testimony befom the Board, I'd like to walk her through it if I could. But before I do that, is there any questions? CHAIRMAN: We'll start with Mr. Homing, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: Sure, one immediate question I can think of is did the applicant think of dividing, making two lots rather than three? WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: No she hasn't. Her stepfather always believed it was build able and he would be able to sell these things and when he died her mother felt the same wa.,,'. That they still would be able to sell these things. And the reason why they purchased it was so that they would have the ability to sell it so they could effectuate their retirement needs and so there was never a need or thought about losing one of them. Because they've always felt that each lot would gixe them a retum enough so that they would be able to live their later years in life. MEMBER HORNING: And at the time of the merger law what was their intentions then? WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: I don't thil~ they knew about the merger law. They're both deceased now, but based upon conversations with Valerie, they didn't knoxv about it. I knoxv it was in the papers for some time, people just didn't, maybe this is foreign to you, but people just didn't know. PAGE 33 SEPTEMBER2LL2O01 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT '1'O~3, N OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? ME~vlBER TORTORA: You think that 28 of the 115 lots, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that 28 of the lots are similar in size of this of 115'? WILLIAIVl GOGGINS, ESQ.: Correct. IVIEMBER TORTORA: In other words there are 28 of 115 lots that are all under 15,000 square feet, is that what you're saying? WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: No what I'm saying is I haven't been able to measure each lot because I haven't surveyed them all. That was the purpose of providing the old map and the new map so you could see how some lots have changed and some have not. It's difficult to know exactly what the sizes were then and what the sizes are now without getting an accurate survey. But MEMBER TORTORA: You can get a pretty good idea looking at the County Tax Map. And actually my own observation is that these lots are, both lots, regardless of whether the Board approves this or doesn't approve this, these lots are small and a majority of the lots in the Block, either Block 98 or Block 104. The only section where the lines are relevant is the County Tax Maps and on top of it some of these lots are merged. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Well if you look at Section 104 and if you look specifically' where these lots are located you will see that the lot, there are two lots across the street that are in their original form and if you look on MEMBER TORTORA: Are you on 98 or 1047 WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: 98. If you look at 104 which is to fight of 98, to the south of 98 you'll see on the waterside, you'll see lots 1, 2, 3,4, 5.1, 5.2 those are all the same size lots as the lots that we are asking to be unmerged. MEMBER TORTORA: Well the lots across the street appear larger. [ really do know this area pretty good. My own personal observation, just looking at this, and believe me you're welcome to prove me wrong is that they are smaller than a majority of lots than both lots. That's my personal opinion. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: So you're saying these lots are inconsistent with the lots in the area'? MEMBER TORTORA: I don't think you can make a statement that says that they're consistent with the major/ty of the lots in the neighborhood. I don't see that that's my opinion. CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins? PAGE 34 SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMBER COLLINS: No, I don't think I have any comment. I think that it's known that I'm generally sympathetic to waiver of merger. I don't have anything further. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: I see it a little differently. I see that there are, they're have to be some lots that are similar to this, and I think you have to take the entire sub-dMsion as a whole not just taking the difference and similarity. Certainly, I know the area very well, and there are some very small houses and very' small lots there that I know, whether they merged or not. They received Suftblk Tax bills on this. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Yes the taxation came to Town. Yes, they' receive separate Tax Bills, they've had separate Tax Map Lot numbers and it's always remained separate. MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you know if they subscribe the Suffolk Times? WILLIAM GOGG1NS, ESQ.: No I don't know. MEMBER DINIZIO: How about the Watchman? WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: I don't know. MEMBER COLLINS: I just want to stick two cents in so the record is clear. [ think Jim was saying these ads were run some years back telling people to pick up their stocks or they were going to find themselves merged. I only remember the ads vaguely, because they didn't affect me, but we see these cases over and over. It's what you call merger by inattention. Old folks who've owned these lands for years, and years and years never thought that applied to them. It's a shame. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to bring the applicant up? WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Yes CHAIRMAN: Okay, ~ve're ready. There is no reason to be nervous, xve're nice people. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: State your name for the record. VALERIE LEONIAK: My name is Valerie Leoniak. Do you want to know where I reside'? WILLIAM GOGG1NS, ESQ.: Yes. VALERIE LEONIAK: 295 Fanning Road in New Suffolk. P.\GE 35 SEPTEMBER 2u, 2~)01 ZBA PUBLIC HE~.RING TRANSCRIPT TO~,', N OF SOUTHOLD WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Could you tell the Board kept l:ather and mother and what their intent was ~:br these lots'? VALERIE LEONIAK: IVly stepfather Carl Rothleider and my mother had the lots separate for a retirement or in their minds for medical expenses ii'something came up. It was their cushion. They didn't have an5, pension and as far as [ know, they didn't have any lite insurance. They had nothing except those lots. WILLIAM GOGGINS ESQ.: After your stepfather died in 1992, did you have any' discussions with your mother regarding these lots. VALERIE LEONIAK: She had said that she wanted to keep the lots because Carl had said, Carl her husband my stepfather, in case of medical reasons or. My mother got Social Secm'ity, my stepfather got Social Security and that was it. They didn't have anfrhing else. So they wanted the potential to sell. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Now' about four years ago you moved from Connecticut, is that correct? VALERIE LEONIAK: Yes. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Would you tell the Board why you moved from Connecticut? VALERIE LEONIAK: My husband is an only child and I'm an only child. IMy husband's mother, my mother-in-law, her 85th birthday is tomorrow. She has Parkinsons Disease. And my mother, at that point, she was, mid-80s when we moved here in 1997. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Why did you move here in 1997? VALERIE LEONIAK: Well to take care of our mothers. We were in Cmmecticut and my mother-in-law was ill Queens and my mother was out here and it seemed like the best thing to do in order to take care of them and we're only children. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: There's nobody else to take care of your parents? VALERIE LEONIAK: No. WILLIAM GOGG1NS, ESQ.: So you moved to Nexv Suffolk and you're living with your mother-in-laxv there, taking care of her. VALERIE LEONIAK: Yes. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: And at the same time you were going over taking care of your mother ill Cutchogue. PAGE 30 SEPTEMBER2fl. 200I ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TO\VN OF SOUYHOLD MALERIE LEONIAK: Yes. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: What ettEct did this have on you and .,,'our husband financially, moving down to help your parents? VALERIE LEONIAK: Well we certainly put his job o the line and took a substantial cut in pa.,,'. We moved out here, there was nothing else we could do but to come here and take care of our mothers. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Did there come a time when .,,'our lnother died? VALERIE LEONIAK: Yes, she died in January. WILLIAM GOGGNS, ESQ.: What was her intent in giving you these lots'? VALERIE LEONIAK: She wanted me to have them, so I would have financial security. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: What is your financial situation now? VALERIE LEONIAK: Well, we don't have any pension, anything to fall back on. Certainly upsetting our life when we were up in Connecticut financially, it would create an economic hardship. Not having these lots merged or unmerged, the way they were. There are Suffolk Tax Bills. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: You need to have the ability to sell them in order to secure your financial future. VALERIE LEONIAK: Yes. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Without them, you have no pension, no retirement, nothing to rely from. VALERIE LEONIAK: No, I'm a homemaker. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: No further questions. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that xvould like to speak either tbr or against this application? Yes sir. Would you just state your name for the record? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Good evening Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Madam Secretary. I'm Eric Bressler ofWickham, Wickham and Bressler PC 10215 Main Road, Mattituck, attorney tbr Tom Catrell one of the neighbors who is speaking in opposition of the application. Members of the Board this is a classic example of merger. That's what you have before you. Merger that occurred a long time ago. Merger that subsistent despite the publication, despite everybody's knowledge that there was merger. A merger, P~,GE37 SEPTEMBER20,2001 ZB,~ PUBLIC HEARING rRANSCRIPI" TOWN OF SOUTHOLD wbich in ten .,,'ears passed . And now .,,ou have the application before you. This application should not be granted. It is fatally deficient in several respects. Turning to the criteria that the applicant must show in order to persuade this Board that a variance is required, and we see a failure on ahnost eyeD' count. The first issue where there's a thilure is on the issue of density. I think, with respect to the issue of density where it has been a failure ot'proot'here. I think the documents betbre you do not establish that they would not be a change in density. I think in order to address that issue, you have to ask first the question, what is the relevant area of inquiry? I think I've heard those questions being raised i-'rom several members of the Board. What's the relevant area of inqui~.'? Is it it'the entire subdivision, is it the several block areas surrounding the property? Or is it something else? [ don't think it's necessarily the subdivision. This Board has stated on numerous occasions that you look to the area, you look around and you look at the people, are they impacted immediately? You look at the houses and the lots that are around these particular pieces of property. In this case, this one piece of property, and I think when you look at that what you find is that this is small. This is a small as it gets. Are there others that are almost as small? Yes there are. Are there a lot of them? No. Most lots are larger. Then to create this type of unmerge is going to create two more of the smallest lots right in that area. I think that has a negative impact on density. Next, [ understand that the Board is to say that there was a single and separate search that had been submitted. From a review of the file, it appears that that is not complied with the Code requirements with respect to the nature of the single and separate in our review when we did not see the necessaD, indemnities on running in favor of the Town they were required that my review of that today revealed that that technical requirement is not met. Finally, let's get to the heart of this application. The real substitute problem with this application is one of hardship. Hardship is well defined by case law in the Zoning context. The one thing where hardship does not mean is that ifl could only get what I'm asking for I could have more money. That's what [ heard tonight. IfI could do this, I could have more money and I need more money. Well the cases have never defined hardship in those terms. The cases define hardship in terms of, can I get a reasonable rate of return from the property. That is the standard test. Let's apply that test to this particular set of facts, and see where we come out. The starting point for me now is what does the applicant have into the property. Well I don't think the applicant's got an.,,xhing into the property. The applicant got this property by inheritance. That's what the applicant has gotten. It is my understanding that the doesn't live there, so I don't know what rate of return the applicant is getting on that zero investment on the property. With no dollars and cents put before you, as to what rate of return could be acbieved by renting that property. There are no dollars and cents as to what could be achieved from selling that property. Since those things are not betbre you, you cannot possibly assess whether or not there is an economic hardship in terms of whether or not you should grant this waiver of merger. In fact, there's no evidence as to what it would bring if it were sold in either condition. Either there's a house these original three lots or four lots, or divided. You have no evidence, so you have nothing at all to base a finding of hardship on. The attempted proof was, I need it tbr my retirement. Even assuming that that is a legally cognizable type of hardship, where you get something by inheritance, which we certainly don't concede reflected in the case law. But let's assume for a moment that that were true you still have a time of showing that proof. If you're going to make that PAGE3,X SEPTEMBER 2(L 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD argument assuming is legally cognizable you're going to bur5,.' your soul. There's no proof of hardship in dollars and cents. Then you really should perform, you have at best, conclusory statements, and I need the money. Could not that be said of all of us with respect to any asset? Who among us would not say. [ need the money. That is not legally cognizable tbr hardship. The long and the short of it is, the applicant has come betbre you with a plea from the heart. I did good, I took care of my parents and 1 by no means mean to diminish that. That's a perfectly fine thing to do. But that's not how you come before Zoning Board of Appeals where there are criteria that are set forth that we must meet. I don't mean to delay that point an,,,' longer, this Board has decided those issues/hr years, and years and years, and you guys know what hardship means as x~ell as I do. I don't think that you heard ans.lhing about that tonight. So for that reason and tbr the other technical reasons that I raised I think that this particular application should be denied. Before I finish up I would like the Members of the Board to take a look at the subdivision map that was submitted to you. CHAIRMAN: Oh, the original subdivision map. ERIC BRESSLER. ESQ.: I think after there are only one or two points I heard and that is on the issue of Dempsey, correct me if ['tn wrong are houses shown on the maps. IMEMBER TORTORA: The Suftblk County Tax Map, that's all. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I think that the Board should keep in mind that these lots, if they were to exist and if you were to grant the merger, [ think I'm going to run a 100- 24A1. I think you still have a problem with lid, because of that Schedule 80A. I think the Board; I didn't hear anything about that issue tonight. So the long and the short of this are, we think that there's been a total thilure ofproofi And notwithstanding, counsel's statement that the evidence was going to permitted with respect to the various elements that proof was sadly lacking and regardless of how )<~u may feel about the inamosanry conduct of the children with respect to the parents, with all due respect, that's not the issue before 5'ou. I would like the opportunity tbr Dr. Cattrell to step up and address the Board briefly. THOMAS CATTRELL: I'm Thomas Cattrell, my wile and I own lot #18 on the map, tax map. Actually the letter expressing my opposition to the request on the two point side I'd like to add to that I think that a sub-division drawn in 1935 to the situation enumerating the North Fork today with the different kinds of people are moving into the neighborhood with different pursuits, that build different kinds of houses and I think a subdivision that is 65 years old is not relevant. I also question the statement that Carl Rothleider didn't know anything about the merger law. I think I bought the house in 1964. In those days Carl had a __on his fence describing him as a real estate broker. I doubt very much that he was not aware of the merger law. [ was sent an e-mail today by Thomas Levonis this morning, the adjacent neighbors, which was a letter he thxed to the Board sometime today. PAGE 39 SEPTEMBER 20. 2001 ZB', PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TO'~ N OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: We have it. Thank you. THOMAS CATRELL: Any questions? CHAIRMAN: Any questions of this gentleman ladies and gentlemen? We don't think so, thank you. Mr. Goggins, we need as many green cards as you with you. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: I'm not sure ifl brought them with lne. But I do know that I had tbur that came back, normally they come back a lot more quickly, but I think because of what happened in New York City, they're slowed down. I would just like to reply briefly to Mr. Bressler's remarks. I don't think there's anybody else in opposition. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else in opposition? Okay', seeing no hands. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: As to the remarks as tar as being able to prove guide of these lots are in selling them or not selling them; having them separate or not having them separate, I don't think we need to bring a real estate broker in here. An appraisal will testify that not having these lots unmerged would cost a lot of money. The lots in our Town sell for an~,~vhere between $60,000 - $150,000. That's a substantial amount of money. If that's what the Board requires, which I don't think it does, they're just perpetrating a broker to testify, that the value of these lots being separate and also the value of them being merged. That's easy to do. It's so obvious. The second, so that the Board can take the original notice of that. The second thing that Mr. Bressler said, that kind of struck me in the stomach was, and he said Mrs. Leoniak came here to say I just want more money. That's not the case at all. Her financial situation is rather bleak, as was told with her coming to take care of her parents, and unlike other real estate investors that's equal to local property; this property specifically was for their retirement. That's what they have it for, that's what her parents had it for, and it was also tbr emergencies. They don't have savings, they don't have retirement accounts and that's what they chose to do. Most people save, they have retirement accounts, llLads, CEO plans, whatever we have to do. Plus we have Social Security to help us along. But we have all these things because we need to know what we have for the time of retirement. These people look at it differently. They have these lots as their retirement plan. It's not as Mr. Bressler said, I'm just here because I need more money. That's not the case. The case is, this is their retirement. That's the difference between coining up here and saying, I need to split them because I need more money; as opposed to [ need to split them because that's my retirement. It's a totally separate way of looking at your life, when looking at retirement. As tar as , I tully disagree, we have proof beyond a doubt that we reached the burden on all tbur elements and we stand by that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Goggins, betbre you sit down, what I would like to know is what the lots are worth. Okay, so possibly betbre October 2nd, you could submit a letter to us. We don't need any testi~ing, we just need a local real estate broker to tell us what the house lot is worth, and what the two satellite lots are, which are the nature of this application. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: I will get a license appraiser to do so. P&GE40 SEPTEIMBER2tL2001 ZBA Pt;BLIC HE.&RIN6 ~R.~,N~C RIPT FOWN OF SOLITHOLD ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman will we have an opportunity to review that submission and respond to it'? CHAIRMAN: Yes you may. In fact, I'm going to ask Mr. Goggins to submit that to y'ou personally', when he unilaterally submits it to us. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: In fact, I will hand deliver it, it's not tar. CHAIRMAN: For everybody's knowledge, their offices are right next to each other. IMr. Bressler we would need that by October 2''a from counsel, so we would need you to respond no later than say 2:00 on the 4 of October because our meetine will be that night if you would sir. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Yes, the response Mr. Chairman may be depending on what he is submitting. The response may be a request for a short additional period to produce sitnilar evidence of my, own. CHAIRMAN: Okay'. WILLIAM GOGG1NS, ESQ.: Okay, what we could do is we could shorten the time, I can get the appraisals done by say the 28th of September, which I will give to Mr. Bressler on that day'. That will provide you with six day's in which to CHAIRIMAN: Then you can get back to October ?, which we would really like eversrthing wrapped up by. Is that all right'? WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: That's good. CHAIRMAN: Thank you sir. Hearing no further testimony I will make a motion closing the hearing to verbatim testimony upon submission of a licensed appraiser evaluating the value of the lots submitted by applicant to us and to counsel in the opposition. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman I would like to verify one thing. Should we choose to have our appraiser go out, there is no objection lrom the applicant? CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to'? WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: There's no objection to coming out to the property, but we object to going inside the house. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well to the extent that the applicant's appraisal is valued when it's done, something about the house, then it's only fair that an arrangement be made with similar treatment. WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Or, our appraisal will reflect not going into the house. PAGE 41 SEP FEMBER 2~, 2001 ZB~, PUBLIC HE&RING TR ~,N$CRIPT TO~3, N OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Is that all righr? ERIC' BRESSLER. ESQ.: Yes, that would be fine. CHAIRMAN: We are really interested in the value of the land. I realize the house appears to be thirly old, but I know it's there. Of course, with today's standards it certainly has value, there's no question about it. As long as we're outside the outside, we're okay. Is that all ri~t? Thank you. Make the motion again. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4987 - ELLSWORTH BAYLIS, JR. This is an Appeal under Section 100-3lA, based on the Building Inspector's October 31, 2000 Notice of Disapproval for a proposed accessory storage building on a vacant lot. Section 100-3 lA does not provide for a storage building as a principal use on a vacant lot. Location of Property: 6425 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic; Parcel 1000-86-6-21 containing 11, 214 sq. fi. CHAIRIVlAN: Could you state your uame tbr the record please? WILLIANI KELLY: William Kelly and I am the agent tbr Ellsworth Baylis, Jr. CHAIRMAN: We knot,,' you want to build a storage building on this vacant lot. WILLIAM KELLY: It would be considered that. To shed a little more light on it. I have a copy of the Tax Map just to show part of the situation. So I will pass that on to the Board right now. This situation here is Mr. Baylis owns Lot 23 and resides at Lot 23. The lot in questions is Lot 21. You can see that they're separated by Lot 22. Lot 23, 22 aud 21 had originally been in the Baylis family since the early 40's. As the story goes, Lot 22 was, one uncle owned it and eventually sold it. Anyhow the lots aren't adjoining. The probletn being that on Lot 23 where Mr. Baylis resides there is not enough room for a garage. Because of the size of the lot and there's a small cottage there which does have a garage, but it's a one car garage and it was formally from a period of time when cars were a lot smaller thau they are today' so I can't see it housing any' type of vehicle. So, his only option really is to go to Lot 2 l which he owns and has a right of way to Lot 21 it gives access to Lot 22 and Lot 23. So that's the hardship, he just doesn't have space on Lot 22 to construct a garage and his ouly option is to construct one on Lot 21. CHAIRMAN: You are atvare that we don't normally grant accessory structures. WILLIAM KELLY: Very aware. It's a unique situatiou, and it's bounded because oftbe lot size. As far as accessory structure on Lot 21, that complies with the Code, except for the fact that there's no primary structure, l'he primary structures on Lot 23. I'm aware of P'~GE42 SEPTEMBER2/ 2uOl ZB& PUBLI£ HEARING TRX, NSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUI'HOLD that. this was his only recourse. Mr. Baylis is here with us tonight. His neighbors are here with us tonight. The neighbors have no opposition to this. CHAIRMAN: Why doesn't he just build a small honse with a garage attached? WILLIAM KELLY: Because he doesn't have a need for that. He doesn't need the house. It would be a very small house. CHAIRMAN: Build a small house xvith a big garage. WILLIAM KELLY: If he wants to do it that way, we could do it that way. CHAIRMAN: And if you need variances, we'll allow them as long as they're not close to the property, line. WILLIAM KELLY: Well the other part of that, then you get into the financial hardship. If you build as a residence, if it would be approved by the Building Department, the cost of that would be quite a bit more than building a garage. We're talking about a structure that's, by the time we're done it will probably be about $20,000 versus building a residence which even if we build a small residence and meet all the criteria of that you'd be on the low end you'd be looking at $75,000 to build a small residence. So that's what he can afford. And the fact that he doesn't need it. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio? Do you have an5' thoughts on this one? MEMBER DINIZIO: No I don't have any thoughts. CHAIRMAN: He's been on the Board almost as long as I have. Miss Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Well on my tbur years on the Board I can think offthe top of my head of three, somewhat similar cases, one of which is actually betbre us right now in East Marion. There was another one out in Orient and I guess in all those cases the land on someone wanted to build an accessory was contiguous. And they could merge the lots if they wanted to and do what they wanted to do. You unique situation is indeed are that the lots are not contiguous and they can't merge. I don't know quite what I think about it. WILLIAM KELLY: The only thing that makes it contiguous is the fact that the right of way for Mr. Baylis, not necessarily him but his fanfily who has owned the property for some time had granted the right of way that goes to Lot 21 to Lot 22 and Lot 23. So they're granting a right of wa5' to Lot 22 to Lot 21. So they're connected in the right of way. CHAIRMAN: So we're back to Mrs. Tortora? MEIVlBER TORTORA: P~.GE 43 SEPTEMBER 20, 2(101 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF $OUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: You come in with interesting applications Mr. Kelly. The last one had 75% wetlands on it. WILLIAM KELLY: To me it's a unique situation and there are ways that we could stretch the issue. We could go to the Building Department and file an application tbr a residence that has one bathroom and one room that's of size because it meets the criteria of 850 square feet that's required. But we're being up fi'out and honest with it, and that's the way I prefer to handle it. MEMBER HORNING: Is it the applicant's idea to park his car in this thing everyday let s say. WILLIAM KELLY: Yes it is. And I had the same questions to Mr. Baylis as well. I think when you meet Mr. Baylis that here's your situation and you have to walk up, this distance to your garage to store stuff. I mean to store the cars as well as, he has a waterfront piece of property, he has a lot of water apparatus and the intent is to store that in there as well. And you wonder why would he do that? He has no recourse except to do that. CHAIRMAN: What was the purpose of retaining the lot'? WILLIAM KELLY: That I really don't know. Actually, the three lots were in the family and then as it turned out they were summer cottages and the one lot one of the uncles owned and the uncle the was divided up and his parents owned the other two lots. His uncle sold the lot. When his parents died he inherited the other two lots. That's where he lives. So he actually acquired the two. CHAIRMAN: Is tbere any anticipation that he will ever build a house on there? WILLIAM KELLY: I don't believe so. I think if the lot was ever sold, the house was to be sold the way I see it is it's a big problem if we resolve it. Because the structure that we're building there meets the requirements of an accessory structure, meets the setback requirements of an accessory structure. CHAIRMAN: This is an absolute stretch, but I would be very willing to go to the Town Attorney and ask him if you were willing to demolish those three sheds and build a building in the exact same size, as that was formally meaning in the center of the lot. WILLIAM KELLY: If he were to demolish the three sheds. CHAIRMAN: Right, and build a building the size of the three sheds. WILLIAIVI KELLY: I don't know think the three sheds would be big enough to give him room for his two vehicles. CHAIRMAN: That's the only stretch I can see. PAGE 44 SEPTEMBER20. ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUl-HOLD MEMBER TORTORA: Unless we put a covenant oo it. WILLIAM KELLY: I mean to build a house there's a lot of problems if you build a house. MEMBER HORNING: You'd have to build it according to the Code; the only problem is the Code does not allow tbl' a structure. WILLIAM KELLY: That's correct. That's wby we applied tbr the Variance because there are a lot of cases. CHAIRMAN: Here's stretch number 2. Is he willing to covenant the lot and sterilize it? WILLIAM KELLY: Meaning? CHAIRMAN: Not build a house on it but just build a garage and leave the garage on it. WILLIAM KELLY: I have to ask him that question. Me I would sa.,,' .,,'es. That's a question Mr. Bails will have to answer himself. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you ask him that? WILLIAM KELLY: Why don't I let him come up and you ask the question'? IvlEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman I was thinking along the same lines. Obviously it's a stretch, we're stuck with the use rules and the code, but by doing that we sort of write a little separate la~v that says this garage is the primary use on this property. It's creative. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bails what we have before us. as you are aware, is a rather large garage which we don't have any necessary objection to but you don't have a primary structure on the premises. ELLSWORTH BAYLIS: That's right. CHAIRMAN: Assuming we could get the Toxvn Attorney to go along with this would you be willing to covenant the lot that no house be built and that the only primary structure on this piece of property be this garage. ELLSWORTH BAYLIS: I v,.rould. CHAIRMAN: You would? MEMBER TORTORA: It would mil with the land. P~XGE 45 SEPTEMBER 211. 2,1Ol ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: It would run with the land remember. The only thing you would have on this property then would be those three small sheds, and this large garage. ELLSWORTH BAYL[S: Right. CHAIRMAN: So, therelbre, it would act just as if it was contiguous, meaning next to your house lot, which you have )'our cottage on. ELLSWORTH BAYLIS: Correct. CHAIRMAN: Okay MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Baylis if you were to be deceased what do you think would be the outcome of this parcel. Who would buy this withjust a garage'? ELLSWORTH BAYLIS: It would go to my estate. CHAIRMAN: But it could not be divided. It would have to go with the house lot. ELLSWORTH BAYL[S: What you're saying, as [ understand it, you're making it more or less one parcel. CHAIRMAN: One parcel, right. ELLSWORTH BAYLIS: Which the right of way is in touch. CHAIRMAN: Oh yes, those right of ways have to exist. ELLSWORTH BAYLIS: The parcel of land was originally bought with the right of ways to give a guideline. Because if we access to the two other people's property, now we're going back to the 40's. CHAIRMAN: All tight so we'll touch that with the Town Attorney and see how he feels about that, and if need be, and we can draft it that way. We're just telling you would have to file that covenant in the County Clerk's Office. Whatever the house lot would go, this lot would go along with it. ELLSWORTH BAYLIS: In other words I would have to come to my CHAIRMAN: Yes, the lawyer would have to draft the covenant and you would have to file County Clerk's. ELLSWORTH BAYLIS: But you will send me some sort of cover letter? CHAIRMAN: Oh yes. We'll send you the decision. PAGE 46 SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 ZB~, PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ELLSWORTH BAYL[S: Outlining what you want I assume, because right now [ have a basic idea but this is the first time I've been to one of these things. CHAIRMAN: Well you're doing pretty well. Vve thank )ou s r. ELLSWORTH BAYLIS: Thank you and thank you tbr the consideration. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak fbr or against this application? Hearing no further comlnents, I just want to mention Mr. Kelly this a one story structure, is that correct'? WILLIAM KELLY: Yes, that's COITeCt. CHAIRMAN: And it contains of what, just electricity? WILLIAM KELLY: Just electricity. CHAIRMAN: We thank you, and we may be able to xvork this one out we'll see what happens. Hearing no further colmnent I make a motion closing the hearing pending a discussion with the Town Attorney. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4985 - BRIARCLIFF SOD, INC. This is an Appeal under Section 100-33 based on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 with a total land area of less than the required 80,000 sq. ft. in this proposed subdivision project. The lots, which are being created, are located in the R80 Residential Zone District. Location of Property: 24.97 acres extending off the north side of Leslie's Road and offthe south side of Main Road (S.R. 25) in Peconic; Parcels 1000-85-3-12.1, 12.2; 1000-97-10-1. CHAIRMAN: Ahnost close to the end Mr. Fitzgerald, how are you tonight? JANIES FITZGERALD: And here is a your copy of the deed including the second and third page I just don't have an.,,xhing to report. CHAIRMAN: You mean in reference to our question on the meets and bounds description. JAMES FITZGERALD: I have the answer to that. My name is James Fitzgerald I am representing BriarcliffSod. The answer to the question about the meets and bounds is that the deed of development rights in the meets and bounds in that document are based upon the New York State Claim Coordinate System, which means it's true north. The rest of the world, including people in New York State who are working for the State or P~GE 47 SEPTEMBER 2iL 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOk~,N OF SOUTHOLD the County, use the regular system, which is based on maguetic north. And the difference of all along each of the sets of as is, is about 13 degrees. CHAIRMAN: So that's the variance? JAMES FITZGE[U~LD: Yes. It's a different basis. I couldn't tell you why and neither could the surveyor who answered the question. MEMBER COLLINS: Excuse me Mr. Chaim~an; Mr. Fitzgerald is answering a question that I understand that the office asked him. But I hadn't heard it. Is this the question of why when you read the deed banning the development rights and you read the description in there and then you look at the survey, north, south, that west that are different, that's why. It's because, okay. JAMES FITZGERALD: And if you follow it around. MEMBER COLLINS: It's the same property. It's JAMES FITZGERALD: It's about 13 de~ees difference. MEMBER COLLINS: It's a different way of describing the lots. CHAIRMAN: I jumped the gun Lora, because [ thought the deed, which he gave us, was going to answer that question; and he said no, he had the answer for that question. Thank you sir that clears up that problem. Could you tell us what the major portion of this piece of property is'? Is it a sod farm? JAMES FITZGERALD: At this point the north half of it is just a sod farm, which has just been harvested, and now they're getting ready to replant it. I think the south half is being left, do we still sa.,,' fallow? CHAIRMAN: Yes, fallow. JAMES FITZGERALD: But it has all from the sod thrm. This request tbr a variance is from a period of notice still for the one with the deed requested in the year 2000 for the adjoining property then Chicanowicz. The reason for the situation that exists is the same. The same sun'eyors did the surreys of the two properties at the time when the brothers were about to sell the property. And the properties are kind of mirror images of one another, but the main point is that the area which was resen.'ed on each of the two major lots was for building lots was erroneously figured as if it were rectilinear, as if it were a rectangle. They currently told the surveyor to make it 350 x 500 which would have been a ! 75,000 square feet which would have been adequate for two 80,000 square foot lots. And indeed he made it 350 x 500 feet, but unfortunately the not the angle of 90 degrees and the total area lbr the building lots is about 146 or 147,000 square feet. Which leaves both of the lots 5,664 square feet short of the required 80,000 square feet. PAGE48 SEPTkMBER2iL20t/I ZB.* PUBLIC' HEARING TR~.NSCRIPT TOVv~N OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Wbat about lot #4? JAMES FITZGERALD: Yes there's a question. CHAIRIMAN: Just let me explain this. Mr. Fitzgerald we grill him every time and he's really done his home\york this time. JAMES FITZGERALD: Remember nothing is easy. When the transfer development rights or the sale of the development rights was proposed to the county they said tine, but we don't want those two farm buildings that are on that piece of property, that Lot #4 is included in the original BriarcliffSod property. They said they didn't want it. So the owner and/or the surveyor drew a line around it and sold the rest of it the development rights to the County, leaving that what I had referred to in the application as anomalous lot and I don't know what to say about it except that CHAIRMAN: Well have they deeded the house out? JAMES FITZGERALD: No. I don't know. CHAIRMAN: No, they deeded the house out next to it, adjacent to or contiguous to it. Oh that's Chamews itself that's right I'm sorry. EveD,body keeps on talking on Chamews I thought that was part of the whole complex and I didn't realize that that belonged to Mr. Chamews. I apologize, go ahead. So that's how you ended up with this remainder parcel of parcel #4. JAIMES FITZGEIL,~LD: Yes, and I'm at a loss to sa.,,' anything other that if the subdivision is granted it will just lay there that way forever. CHAIRMAN: How big is that lot Mr. Fitzgerald? JAIVIES FITZGERALD: In square feet, 14,000, it's about 14,600. MEMBER COLLINS: What lot were you asking about'? CHAIRMAN: Lot #4. MEMBER COLLINS: #4 the little one. CHAIRMAN: But basically the development rights JAMES FITZGERALD: Do you mind ifI come up there so I can hear. CHAIRMAN: No at all. So basically the development rights organization did not \,,'ant that piece of property. JAMES FITZGERALD: They didn't want the buildings. P ~.GE 4q SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 ZB~. PUBLIC HE~.R[NG TRANSCRIPT TO'O, N OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: They didn't want the buildings, so they cut that out and that property has been literally sterilized to this point because of its undersized nature. And that, thereJrbre, is the nature of this application along with those other two lots down on Leslie Road. JAMES FITZGERALD: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: Ihey didn't cut out this parcel? JAMES FITZGERALD: Who? MEMBER TORTORA: The client put these lines, they split it off? JAMES FITZGERALD: No, that's fight. MEMBER TORTORA: Not you. your client split that up, the County didn't split that up. JAMES FITZGERALD: No, not directly, indirectly by saying they MEMBER TORTORA: They could have split an acre if they wanted to, JAMES FITZGERALD: It apparently had no value to either the owner or the county. If it had been made a larger lot it would have reduced the amount of land that was sold, that the development fights were sold, and it would have laid there as a one or two acre lot instead of MEMBER TORTORA: But it would have, in other words, at the time this didn't happen centuries ago this happened in 1994 and when you split that lot off you made a decision at that time not to split off an 80,000 square Ibot parcel but you split offa 15,000 square foot parcel. At the time, you knew that it would never conform the standards of the building lot. JAMES FITZGERALD: Presumably, I was uninvolved at that time, but I'm certain that the people that were understood that. MEMBER TORTORA: The other question I have is the access to the second lot is it from Leslie Road? JAMES FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the proposed access to the (inaudible) Another question I had is, I'm not sure which comes first in a case like this. These lots were not created by deed. I'm not sure if you can grant a variance for a subdivision on lots that were never created. The entire one parcel is merged except for the Chamews little piece. PAGE $0 SEPTEMBER 2o. 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JAMES FITZGERALD: The only place that has separate lots is the one that's on tile survey and on the tax map. The reason they got on tile tax map is because of the sale of the development rights of the count3,' and there has to be lines defining that sale. Now the owner of the property and I never did anything to have the tax map changed. So the county must have submitted that information to the real property tax sei~ ice and that's why they're on the map. MEIVlBER TORTORA: I'm aware of that, what I'm just saying to myself that if we create lots out of merged one ownership. Briarcliff Farms, are you/bllowing me on this Lora? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, you're saying that they want to sub-divide a lot that doesn't exist. It did not ever get deeded. As tar as deeds go. there's the whole Chichonowicz property. That's interesting, I hadn't thought of that your right. MEMBER TORTORA: And I don't know how we can do that, because the code says you can't even JAMES FITZGERALD: Well you can do it the same way you did the other. MEMBER COLLINS: We did the other one. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, this thought occurred to me after we did that, especially when I look at that little tips that was split off before. How was it created, it was split up. JAMES FITZGERALD: Actually what we intend to do is to ask Planning Board to approve the creation the lots after you approve that in principal by saying it's okay that there be 5,664 square feet less than the required number. CHAIRIVlAN: Why don't we hold this in abeyance and let you go to the Planning Board and make sure that act with a 3'es to that? JArvlES FITZGERALD: Okay, on the other one, they're just tvaiting for the Health Department approval. It's been all through the SEQRA. MEMBER TORTORA: Which other? JAMES FITZGERALD: The adjoining lot, which is exactly MEMBER TORTORA: Oh we're not talking about the one we already approved. We're not going backwards. MEMBER COLLINS: Let's get clear what we're talking about. PAGE 51 SEPTEMBER 20.2fl01 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TR~.NSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Why don't you make an application to the Planning Board for this one'? Because we got some rather strange statement from them recently as a matter of today [ believe. It was an email message regarding this. We'll give you a copy of it. We'll just hold it in abeyance until you go to them. MEMBER COLLINS: Well Mr. Chainnan the e'mail that I only glanced at tonight seems to address the anomalous lot. [ do not think the email addresses. MEMBER TORTORA: I think it addresses both. MEMBER COLLINS: Really. It says this is too small. The lot looks terribly undersized. MEMBER TORTORA: They need to clarify what they're talking about. I think we need to talk to legal counsel and find out if we can grant a variance on lots that don't exist. MEMBER COLLINS: Since we're pursuing this. JAMES FITZGERALD: They' have to be lots that don't exist. CHAIRMAN: We're just saying that the),' were never, it's one lot. JAMES FITZGERALD: That's what we want to do is create them. CHAIRMAN: We understand that Jim. MEIvlBER DINIZIO: Well wouldn't the lots be described in the, when they did the purchase of the development rights. CHAIRMAN: No, they described it as one parcel. One parcel cutout. JAMES FITZGERALD: On the existing tax map two building lots are shoxvn as one. MEMBER COLLINS: That's because the tax map authorities got something from the development rights people. MEMBER DINIZIO: But they weren't concerned about whether to split these lots at the time. They were just concerned about describing what they were purchasing. They also described what they wanted on them. MEMBER COLLINS: I actually read word tbr word the deed making the development rights and it starts from a point, as deeds do, and it describes the property over which the development rights were being sold. And it says, and that description doesn't cover the entire Chiconowicz parcel from Main Road to Leslie Road part of it's left out it's not mentioned, it's just not there. That doesn't in any sense make it anything; it just means it makes it a piece of the big parcel on which the development rights didn't get sold. It's all PAGES2 SEPTEMBER ZB~. PUBLIC HEARING TR',NSCRIPT TOV~N OF SOUTHOLD still one parcel. That's Lydia's point and that's Nery interesting that it didn't occur to us whert were looking at the next-door property. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Jim that email message is not part of the file. You've got to decide on whether that should be put in the file. CHAIRMAN: Put it in the file. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You want to put it in. CHAIRMAN: It was comment regarding this piece of property, this application that's betbre us and theretbre we should make it part of the file because that's caused some inquisitiveness on out' part. There's nothing wrong with .,,'our application. We understand the situation; there are just some issues that are raised there regarding this. So what I would like you to do is take this to the Plalming Board, we'll just recess it without a date and we'll re-advertise it. MEMBER COLLINS: We'll talk to the Town Attorney to find out if we're doing the chicken bet:bre the egg or the egg belbre the chicken and so on and so forth. I'm not sure because this is only' the second one we've actually had. CHAIRNIAN: So, we'll just go fronl there. If you would do that we would appreciate that. JAIvlES FITZGERALD: Okay, sure. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to either tbr or against this application'? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion recessing it without a date. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 10:09 P.M. Appl. No. 4962 - ROGER AND LESSLIE WALZ. (Carryover t?om prior heating calendars). This is an Appeal requesting a Variance under Article XX[V, Section 100-242A; based on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 corrected Notice of Disapproval. The Notice of Disapproval states that the existing structure has a nonconforming setback of three feet from the easterly side lot line and 6.5 feet from the west side line, and as a result, the second-story addition represents an increase in the degree of nonconformity. Location of Property: 2505 Old Orchard Road, East Marion; Parcel 1000-37-6-5. CHAIRMAN: Who is representing whom here? Mr. Bressler, twice in the same night? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: There's a rarity isn't it. I'm here on behalf of the applicants. I understand that we have a carded over hearing. P',GE33 SEPTEMBER 20. 2001 ZB~, PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Is there a great possibility that we could carD., this over again'? I mean you're certainly welcome to bring in your witnesses and so on and so forth, but an?thing you could do to expedite this we would appreciate. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: You know that's in my nature. Yes, we shall I understand Mr. Chairman and it ma.,,' be necessao' to take special steps but I understand the objectors are here. You adjourned this specifically to give them an opportunity to be here. So [ think they ought to have the opportunity to hear what we say. Here we go. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, this is an interesting application I think. I think it's a significant application. I think the application consists basically of two parts. Notwithstanding the way this thing was initially styled and brought on. I think it brings up two issues and I would urge you to consider it on this basis and if you need any amendatory papers. This is a highbred application in tact. What we are dealing with is an Appeal from a Determination of the Building Inspector. That determination resulted in a denial of an application to increase the size of a noncontbrming building by going up. So the issue before the Building Department and before you tonight in the first instance is whether or not under the relevant Section 100-242A whether going up is something that results in an increased noncontbrmity. It's my understanding that up until extremely recently the answer to that question was no. Because as long as you stayed within the tbotprint or indeed as long as you stayed within an m'ea that was defined by a line that ran through a point which closest to the lot line, as long as you stayed within that envelope there was no greater nonconformity or degree of nonconformity. Indeed very recently that was just what this Board held. I'm sure the Board is familiar with, what I'm familiar with and for the record I would like the Determination of the Findings and Facts. In that particular case there was a building situation upon a lot that was nonconforming and the building was situated at an angle such that the greatest nonconformity occurred and they heard which was real nonconformity and was more determined when as long as a structure stayed within an envelope which was measured by a line parallel to the boundm'y that went through that point everything was okay, and that to my understanding in the twenty- five years or so that I've been doing it is the way everything looked. The Building Department did it that way and this Board did it that way and I've been given to understand that betbre my time and since the inception of Zoning it is done that way too. Everybody understood just what that meant. It's been brought to my attention as a result of the denial we got here and in conversation with members of the Building Department where very recently there has been what is to me an inexplicable change after roughly fifty years that the Building Department's Determination as to how they're going to deal with these things and now, if you stay within the envelope and go up you will be disapproved. I'm not sure why, I'm not sure how; but we find ourselves before this Board seeking relief. I don't know of any reason why that should necessarily be so at this particular time. There has been no change in the Ordinance and a model of any change an3,xvhere that would lead to this result. The first wrong of this application is reversal. Do what this Board has been doing consistently and indeed what the Building Department has been doing consistently tbr all these years. There's been no change in the Ordinance and I think it would not be rational to adopt some sort of change in the absence of some sort legislative action. I've not been able to determine any valid reason why there should be that kind of a change. I don't believe that the Building Department PAGE 54 SEPTEMBER20,2001 ZB~ PUBLIC HE*,RING TRANSCRIP¥ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD was in error all those years, and while I may disagree with the Board from time to time, certainly my position tonight is that the Board was correct in adopting those detem~inations. And we urge the Board to adhere to its precedents and apply a unilbnn rule to my client that's been applied in the past. CHAIRMAN: Let's just leave that issue right there. What you really need to do is to file an Interpretation with us if you want us to over claim that issue. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I've sent in a reversal actually. CHAIRMAN: [ mean you need to file an Interpretation to actually have us file us a reversal, in order words, at the eleventh hour you can't bring that issue in. ERIC BRESSLER. ESQ.: No, that was lily application to amend, Mr. Chairman to bring that since you indicated at the outset that there was no doubt before the proceedings my application is to file xvith you the necessary papers to bring that within the purvey of this Determination so as not to duplicate the efforts of the Board. And have everything under one umbrella. CHAIRMAN: So you will do that now? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I will do that. I make the oral application and I represent to you that I will follow up with the necessary papers to bring that to you so we don't waste time and eftbrt here. And that's all I've got to say about that application at this time. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I have a question, would that have to be advertised? CHAIRMAN: The Interpretation has to be advertised. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's going to take time. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I'm asking for a Reversal, which would necessarily require you to Interpret, right. That's all I think what I want to say, or can sa.,,' about at this particular time. Assuming argued that they get the house back I would like to briefly address the second prong of the application. Should you chose to agree with that the Building Department's Interpretation, which obviously I urge you now to; but should you chose to do that there's a second prong to the application and that is if that's going to be the rule down there, then we're in front of you tbr a variance. That has been properly advertised and we are here seeking reliefi I read the initial presentation so I won't go over that material again. What I would tike to do is to address in the first instance, I would like in that regard to put before the Board I've actually go two of these. CHAIRMAN: What are we looking at here? P\GE_SS SEPTEMBER 20 ZBX. PUBLIC HEARING TR&NSCRIPT TOV, N OF SOUTHOLD ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: You are looking at a map of a community called Old Orchard, Gardiners Bay'. CHAIRMAN: We knew it was Gardiner's Bay. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: That's what it says, this is Gardiner's Bay but it says there so you can identi~' it tbr the record. It says in the upper right hand comer Community called Old Orchard. And you are looking a blow-up of the tax map and you are looking at a number of homes that are marked in blue and each of those lots including the ones not marked in blue that are on the waterfront are enabled with the names of the owners. What I'd like to do is match up, if I could, each of those parcels with a photograph which are labeled on the back. What is the purpose of all that? The purpose of all that is to demonstrate to the Board what the nature of the waterfront lots, the thirty-seven waterfront lots in Gardiner's Bay are. And if you look at these blue ones and y'ou count them you will see two-level homes. That's what this is designed to demonstrate. This means that by far the large majority of these homes are two-level. Why is that important? It's important because that's what we're asking for, and it will not change the character of the neighborhood. It is similar to most of what's there. Now there was an issue where at the last meeting, concerning the impact of this particular project on one of the neighbors. The Board has in its file based upon my' review a series of letters from people in the area. One of which from an immediate neighbor, he is alleging that there is going to be an impact on light and air. This project was designed to have minimal impact on that neighbor to the west. I'm going to ask Mr. Brown to come up and just address you briefly' with a couple of exhibits and what he's going to be doing is truthful. He is going to be showing you photographs of the south and north elevations of the house with the new constructions superimposed. And what this is going to show you is that roof line on the west side of the house, has been designed in such a manner as to soften the impact of the neighbor from what currently exists. Specifically' on that side of the house there is an extension that comes out in a triangular thshion and it is of a height that goes out to the entire edge of the house. We're proposing to eliminate that and gradually go up from the first floor, up a little bit higher with a gradual roofline. It would actually result in less impact to the neighbor than currently exists. So this house has been designed in a manner to minimize impact while at the same tilne giving to these people it is essentially no different from what most of their neighbors already have. You're also going to see from Mr. Brown two studies that he has prepared. One on light and one on air. Fascinating things, really I saw them outside. The light is going to show you that there is no impact on light on the neighbor except tbr the briefest period of time on calendar basis at a time prior to 5:00 a.m. in the moming. There is a tiny, tiny sliver when there is a tiny bit of impact and you will see how that works. So in essence there is no limitation on sunlight reaching this house. Why is that'? Well that house is in front of ours. And can't move the sun tneans that they get better sun that we do at least in terms of when the rays arrive first. So there's no blockage. You're also going to see in terms of breeze, air; you're going to see a chart that has been prepared by' Brookhaven National Lab, which indicates where the wind comes from on a daily basis. He's charted that out in terms of the compass. And again, because their house is in front of ours they get the benefit of the prevailing southwesterly and there's no adverse impact. In fact the only adverse impact PAGE 56 SEPTEMBER21L2O01 ZBA PUBLIC HE ~.RING TRANSCR[PI' 'fOP, N OF SOUTHOLD on the air and the wind, if you want to call it adverse, is that they're sheltered fi'om the nor'easters' because our property is more to the east of theirs. If you want to call that a detriment I guess we'll live with that. I would think of it as a benefit. I don't want the nor'easters' coming down on my house. So in terms of light and air, there is no negative impact, in fact, there is a positive impact on the neighbor in terms of shelter from the nor'easters'. That having been said I ask Mr. Brown to come up, show you the demonstrative evidence and put it in your record. ROBERT BROWN: May I approach'? CHAIRMAN: Sure. ROBERT BROWN: I realize some of these may be difficult for you all to see at once. CHAIRMAN: For anybody in the audience we, of course, are not going to close this hearing. Everybody has the right to look at it and so when we're done with the presentation we ma.,,' reserve any discussion that we have with it after we stud.,,' them. ROBERT BROWN: I just want to start with a photograph taken in front of the Waltzes house towards the west. So I think this clearly. CHAIRMAN: Where is Mr. Martin, he might want to come up and see this. Is Mr. Martin in the audience? Anybody else that has an interest? Mr. Martin why don't you stand over there and watch the whole thing. Mrs. Martin how are you'? Anybody else have an interest in this issue on the opposition side'? Or on the for side, you're welcome to stand over there. Okay, let's go. ROBERT BROWN: In view of the question that the Walzes house is facing me west, it is my opinion that this photo clearly shows that when you consider that the second floor addition only starts at this point offthe Walzes house and goes up here that the impact on the vast majority of the neighbor's house is, in my opinion, insignificant. We go then to, you asked at our last meeting for some presentation of the actual impact and I realize that these are fairly thint, but overplayed on these photographs is what the proposed construction would look like. The roof peaks are taken, you can see in the photograph, are the poles that rest on the structure to show the peak of the roves. CHAIRMAN: Could you mark that one up a little bit more? MEMBER TORTORA: That's the top of the roofline there'? It's very hard to see. CHAIRMAN: Could you mark that one up takes that one back tonight and mark it up a little bit more? ROBERT BROWN: I'm not quite sure what you want. CHAIRMAN: We'll take PAGE 57 SEPTEMBER ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TR',NSCRIPT TO~,~ N OF %OUTHOLD ROBERT BROWN: You want the roofline marked up'? CHAIRMAN: Yes. ROBERT BROWN: I'll do it fight now if somebody has a pen. This is where there is a gable end roof that we are replacing with a shed roof that you can see that much of roof is being removed ~t?om the west. CHAIRMAN: The cutout still stands there right? ROBERT BROWN: This portion of the cutout? CHAIRMAN: No the cutout down below where the tree is, in back of that tree. Is that in front of that house'? ROBERT BROX,¥2x~: This is the part of the house that will remain, and the roof, instead of going up to here, will now come across here. CHAIRIVIAN: Agaim you have plenty of time to comment on, this is not a quiz situation. ROBERT BROWN: Let me explain this briefly, this is centered on the center of the house to the west to show where the impact is. These arched lines represent the sun in the sky on the 21~t of any specific month. The months denoted by the roman numerals on the. So the highest the sun is in the sky in the morning because the Walzs house is to the east, you can see that on June 2 1st from 4:45 to approximately to 5:00 a.m. this portion of the Walzs house in fact does shade the center of the neighboring property. After that point and on any other time in the year, there is absolutely no sunlight impact from the house to the northeast. And finally, in the upper left hand comer is a sample from Brookhaven National Labs, this was just a few days ago, the top to bottom indicates degrees of the compass. You can see from the outline of this house that it blocks air from approximately 355 degrees to 60 degrees. That is indicated by the red on the chart. I think its fairly clear from this being recordings of wind direction according to the angle fi'om which its coming that the vast majofity on this day and on other days that I sampled, even more so in some cases, the vast majority of the wind is coming fi'om directions other than the northeast. But I don't think it takes Brookhaven National Labs for us to know that the wind comes off the water in the summer, it comes from the northeast, northwest rather on a winter day, and if its coming from the northeast, I'd just assume be blocked. I hope that helps you. I r r CHAIRMAN: We will certainly study it Mr. Brown. Well certainly, stud) these there's no question about it. And if we have any question on it ROBERT BROWN: If you have any questions please feel free to call me. If you need any calculations. P~,GE58 SEPTEMBER 20. 2001 ZB& PUBLIC HE&RING TRANSCRIPT TOXS N OF SOU1 HOLD CHAIRMAN: We'll do it at the next hearing, Eric is going to modi~' this and we're going to open them together. Thank you. What else do you have to say Mr. Bressler? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: At this particular time, and keeping in mind, we will be back once more. given the lateness of the hour. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Martin you will study these, you'll have questions and we'll quiz the applicant's counsel and architect at the next hearing. We just have to determine when the next hearing is going to be. Our problem Mr. Bressler is that we are absolutely loaded for the October meeting. So we are loaded as we are tonight. You can't get more saturated than this. I have a feeling this is going to be part of the November calendar. That's the only way I can suggest here. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: If that's your first available date, we'll take it lVlr. Chairman. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's the fifieenth. You're going to get it in next week I guess right? CHAIRMAN: Yes. So hearing no further comtnent from anyone, I'1l recess the hearing and we will then take both issues and if we have any questions on those issues at that point, we may also request a member of the Building Department to come in and discuss that. Since we have a unique situation, we have Mr. Forrester who actually did the Notice of Disapproval but now holds another position in the Town. we may ask him to come and now Mr. Verity holds that position and we may ask them both to come, we don't know, we'll see what happens. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: 1 had previously contacted Mr. Verity, but due to the lateness of the hour. he was able to stick around and I'm not sure if he did you would want to hear from him now. CHAIRMAN: So, I offer that as a resolution, ladies and gentlemen. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Recess tbr five minutes 10:48 p.m. Appl. No. 5003 - KACE LI, INC. This is an Appeal requesting a Reversal of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated August 13, 2001, denying an application tbr a building permit for two-family dwellings under Article IV, Section 1000-42A.2. The reason stated in the Notice of Disapproval is that the proposed project indicates several two-family dwellings on a single parcel, and that the Code allows only one such structure per lot as a permitted use. Zone District: Hamlet-Density (HD). Location of Property: South Side of North Road (a/k/a: C.R. 48) (now or formerly referred to as "Northwind Village" site), 500+- feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport; Parcel # 1000-40-3-1. P~.GESu SEPTEMBER 20.2001 ZBA PUBLIC H£&RING TRANSCRIPT TO\VN OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pachman, we honestly feel that the file is somewhat deficient in some of the inlbnnation that we would really need to understand this; so we would hope that upon the presentation tonight, we will thoroughly understand this file. If we don't, we're going to ask you to enhance it more after this hearing. I would appreciate that. MATT PACHMAN: Very good, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Forrester. you've sat back there patiently for the last hour and a halt~ You have been a wonderful person to this Board, and we ask you to come forward and shed some light on this Notice of Disapproval that you had written. I believe we're discussing the August 13, 2001, and any other notes you'd like to shed. ED FORRESTER: Okay. During this Notice of Disapproval the application was submitted to my department August 10, 2001. The applicant had previously filed for a project of construction to develop this site. This is an amended application as noted on his application. The use let me back up to August 8th. On August 8, 2001, I received a letter Irom the applicant's attoruey where counsel has requested I review the application as two-family dwellings and not as multiple dwellings, as previously applied for. responded to the request, in a lettertbnn, requesting a formal application as I and in a Notice of Disapproval, if he wanted to appeal iL [ need the application to formally process the Notice of Disapproval. On August l0th, I received the application. I believe the Board has a copy of it. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we do. ED FORRESTER: In applying the Code, code analysis to the project, if you look at the intended use the appropriate Section of Code in the case is 100-44 HD District. That's what the parcel falls within. To propose to erect several two-family dwellings on the lot. The Interpretation of Code as permitted uses, under Permitted Uses 100-42A.2. The permitted use is a two-family dwelling. That is my determination, that a single two- family dwelling was a pennitted use, several two-family dwellings were not. A Notice of Disapproval was issued based on that determination, signed on that date. CHAIRMAN: Does the Board have any questions of Mr. Forrester, at this time? MEIVlBER TORTORA: Not at this time, no. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Forrester, if we could just ask you to stay for about another ten minutes; and we'll give you the old high sign, and we will wish you a sate home at that point, okay. Thank you. Mr. Pachman, I think this is what you were looking for. MATT PACHMAN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, thank you so much. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pachman, we are going to entertain your presentation, possibly with some resen,ations based upon what counsel has suggested to us. So if there's some change or something that we construe not to be, we may mention that to you. PAGE 60 SEPTEMBER 20. 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEAR[NG TRANSCR[PT tOWN OF SOUTHOkD MATT PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, if I could guess that, if [ understand the nature of this hearing if you might just elaborate on what you did say based upon Town attorney I think it would relevant and important, and only /hit that [ understand what that was. What I understand the limitations that the Board is looking for. CHAIRMAN: We are not really going to entertain any questions regarding site plan tonight. We're not involved m that issue at this point. We want to understand the application first. Counsel, unfortunately is out of the State. He would have been here with us tonight. We are going to ask you to come back and COlnplete this hearing on the 4th of October with us, if you are available, which is at a Special Meeting. If not, we cart make some other provisions. But thought it was going to be the 2nd of October, but unfortunately we are not available at that time. ROBERT YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, could we possibly address you as an interested party. We are, the numbers here are directly on the other side of the road. We've had very little notice of this. We are trying to organize our thoughts. Organize our actions, and we got notice on the 1 ?, postmarked certified mail. In light of the events of last week, it was very difficult to contact people. October 2"d is much too early for us. CHAIRMAN: We understand that sir. That doesn't mean we're going conclude it on that night. All that very simply means is that we are going to, we will probably continue from that particular point on. I understand that, and [ want you to be aware that, in my particular situation, it takes me sometime to understand exactly what applicants, this is a generic statement, are requesting. Therefore, [ like to take it in stages, rather than try to cram it into one specific heahng notice and one specific time. If you have specific concerns regarding this, then you are certainly welcome to voice them. The hearing will remain open. We will accept letters from you or from any spokesperson from your group. Mr. Pachman, we're ready any time you are. MATT PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, but the person that spoke, ifI could have their name for the record. ROBERT YOUNG: Robert Young, 62625 C.R. 48. MATT PACHMAN: Now. Mr. Chairman I certainly will proceed tonight and I appreciate the opportunity. The reason why I ask you that, and I appreciate that you gave me that explanation because when you hear our application, I think you will understand that we're not asking this Board to make any determination with respect to the site plan. It's our condition that the site plan is in effect. That's why I'm interested in understanding what your counsel's conversation with the Board was with respect to it. In any event, I will proceed at this point, and hopefully I can give. CHAIRMAN: You will be able to discuss that with counsel on October 4th. He is not coming back until the latter part of September, so therefore that is the, normally we would try to meet next week but it will be the week after. P~,GE 61 SEPTEMBER 20.2001 ZB~. PUBLIC HE~,RING TR ~,NSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MATT PACHMAN: Well then, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is Matt Pachman, Pachman and Pactunan, 366 Veteran's Memorial Highway in Commack, New York. This application is an appeal requesting an interpretation reversing the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated August 13, 2001, which denied the application trbr a Building Permit tbr two-family houses under Article 4, Section 142.A of the Town Zoning Code. KACE LI INC is the owner of a 70-acre parcel of land located on the south side of Route 48, near the juncture of Chapel Lane. The property has been owned by KACE or its predecessors since March 10, 1982, which is approximately 19 ?2 years. On July 11, 1983, the Southold Planning Board approved a Site Plan for Kace to build a condominium development at the subject property known as "Northwind Village". Mr. Chairman, I would like to hand up to the Board copies of the Site Plan, signed by Henry Raynor, as Chairman of the Planning Board on that date. CHAIRMAN: I just want you to know Mr. Pachman, that counsel may resort to return those; I have no idea at this point. We'll accept them at this point, temporarily. MATT PACHMAN: V'ery good Mr. Chairman. CHAIRIMAN: I don't like to load anybody up here, I'm telling you straightfot-,vard. MATT PACHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman you mentioned something that I really don't understand it, because the very essence of our application here is that, as a matter of law, the building Inspector could not deny this Building Permit because of the approved Site Plan. So when there is a statement that it be on a Site Plan, which is the basis of the application that you've heard or that the court is not going to entertain any questions about the Site Plan. CHAIRMAN: Well, actually there's a little more. We weren't even going to accept any testimony about Site Plans. I'm just telling you what counsel told me. glATT PACHMAN: Okay, very good. Pursuant to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Chapters 760, no parcel of real estate can be connnenced or to be developed until the Suffolk County Department of Health, has approved the proposed water supply and sewage disposal facilities and pursuant to the Town's Zoning Code 85.8 Subdivision G, befbre a Building Pemfit can be issued to commence construction of the property Kace had to obtain the approval for the proposed water supply and sewage disposal system fi'om the Suffolk County Department of Health. In 1983, and Mr. Chairman, I'm going into the chronology because it's very important to understand why we say that the Building Inspector, as a matter of law, improperly turned down this Building Permit Application. CHAIRMAN: You're talking about the current August 13th. MATT PACHMAN: Absolutely. You can't understand the nature of our belief that the P~,GE62 SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT fOWN OF SOUTHOLD Building Pen-nit Application denial is improper without understanding the bistory. In 1983 the Trustees of the Village of Greenport acting in their capacity as the Board of Water Commissioners, administered an exclusive franchise tbr the services of Water and Sewer for this territory, beyond the limits of the Village of Greenport, which include the subject parcel. This satisfied the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health that 1 just mentioned to obtain the required approval. Ail proposed building projects where construction, housing, or sewer developlnent, in this area such as the Northwind Village project, had to obtain the approval from Greenport tbr water and sewer services at that time. On January 10, 1983, Kace applied to Greenport for water and sewer approval for the project. The Utilities Committee of the Village, which assisted the Village Board in administering this franchise approval Kace's project tbr water and sewer services and referred the matter to the Building Board, and the Trustees of the Village denied Kace's application on July 18t~, 1985. By letter dated December 30, 1986, Kace was intbn-ned by the Town of Southold Building Inspector that a Building Permit is ready to be issued ir'or this project and the only thing it needed was water and sewer approval from Greenport and I have a copy of that December 30, 1986 letter from the Town Building Inspector confirming this. I'm handing this up to the Board and I ask that this be made a part of the record. On February 24, 1987, Kace again applied to Greenport ~br water and sewer set-vices for the project. Again, on March 23. 1987 the Utilities Committee of the Village approved Kace's application and sent it on to the Village Board of Trustees. On December 7, 1987, Kace again submitted tile application to the Village of Greenport Trustees tbr approval. The Greenport Trustees, at that time, failed to rule on Kace's application /hr water and sewer services. As a result, Kace remained unable to obtain water and sewer services for the project. Without that pre- condition, Kace was unable to obtain a Building Permit. On or about May 20, 1987, Kace commenced an action in the United States District Court tbr the Southern District of New York against Greenport due to its refusal to rule on Kace's application. Noxv on July 1994, while that Federal Court action was continuing, the Southold Town Board re-zoned the parcel from multiple residence, MI, to HD. On FebruaD, 6, 1996, a stipulation and order was entered in the Federal Court action and it was so ordered by U. S. District Court, Shira Shindler and thus made an order of the court. [ hand up a copy of that Order of the Federal Court again ask it be made part of the record. Mr. Chairnmn and Members of the Board, the importance of this Federal Order was that Greenport was ordered to provide sufficient sewer capacity within four years of the execution of the stipulation, in other words, on or before February 6, 2000. Tile stipulation also said that Greenport acknowledges that it had water capacity at that time, and thus the project had the water approval necessary. Thus the only thing that was keeping this project from getting a Building Permit was the sewer approval from the Village at that time, and the Village had four years until February 6, 2000 to provide sewer services. There was no other pre- condition, no other requirement, no other hurdle as determined by the Southold Building Inspector to return the Building Permit. Pti. or to the expiration of this February 6, 2000 deadline, as ordered by the Federal Court in that stipulation, in October 1999 the Southold Town Board voted to re-zone this parcel from HD to RS0. By judgment dated December 4, 2000 Justice Berler of the Supreme Court Suffulk County overturned the re- zoning and stated it was violative of the New York State Town Lax*,'. The Court said that the purported re-zone was illegal, void and of no et'feet. I have a copy of that order by PAGE 63 SEPTEMBER 21L 2001 ZB& PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT FO~3, N OF SOUl-HOLD judgment fi'om the Supreme Court Suflblk County. which I am handing and [ ask that that may be part of the record. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pachman [ just have to ask you to speak a little closer to the mike. because these people are sitting on the other side of the room. MATT PACHMAN: I apologize; l thought I was speaking loud enough. CHAIRMAN: Just pull it a little closer to you. Thank you. MATT PACHMAN: The Town Attorney's office did file a Notice of Appeal with respect to that judgment that I'm referring to from Justice Berler. In a letter dated July 14, 200l, he submitted a stipulation where it tbrmally withdrew that Notice of Appeal. I hand up a copy of that letter of transmittal to the Clerk of the Second Department Appellate Division which had that stipulation. That withdrawal ended that litigation, and thus the property today remains HD. Since that time the applicant has been seeking to get the Sufl:blk County Water Authority to abide by the temps of the Federal Court stipulation and provide water to the project. As this Board is aware, the Village of Greenport sold the franchise with respect to water to the Suffolk County Water Authority. The Suffolk County Water Authority is a successor, and thus we now have to deal with that entity. Mr. Chainnan and Member of the Board, Kace has been caught in the proverbial revolving door. Its Building Permit was subject to and conditioned upon authorization ti'om Greenport to connect to its water and sewage system. Again, I emphasize that was the only last remaining pre-condition to obtain the Building Permit. As [ noted, Greenport initially denied the application tbr water and sewer, the applicant had to go to Federal Court. The Federal Court Action was resolved by an order of the Federal Judge saying that the Village and now the Suffolk County Water Authority had until February 2000 to provide water and we're still, at this point, attempting to enfome that stipulation. Southold Town Code Section 100.255B states "All site plans should receive final approval prior to the enactment of this Article shall remain valid tYr a period of three years from date of such enactment. This period will begin if of all governmental approvals had been obtained. Since the Sufl:blk County Water Authority has not yet issued its approval tbr water, this period has not been commenced. Again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, the reason why I'm taking this time at this late hour to go in detail through the chronology and to explain the long and detailed history of this project, is because it is essential, Mr. Chairn~an, to understanding why, at this late date when that was the only pre-condition to obtaining a Building Permit, why it is improper for the denial of the Building Permit now. The only change with respect to this project, since the 1983 site plan approval is that the Zoning classification of the property has changed from light multiple residence to HD. Now, Mr. Chairman, I hand up copies of the pertinent portions of the Southold Zoning Code, the MI Zoning Code in 1983 and the HD Zoning Code now. I ask that these collectively be made part of the record. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: (Received (8) Exhibits) This copy (Exhibit 7) is M light, no MI? Did you mean M light? PAGE 64 SEPTEMBER20,200I ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT [O~, N OF $OUTHOLD MATT PACHMAN: It's specifically M 1 Zoning. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But this is (a copy or) the M Light that you're submitting? MATT PACHIMAN: That's the zoning. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So it was not zoned M Light. MATT PACHMAN: It was zoned M Light, Multiple Residence dwelling. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Okay, that was different than MI. MATT PACHMAN: Yes, M Light Multiple Residence. Thank you Ibr that clarification. Also have copies of what I just handed up on the display board to make it easy, for easy reference. Members of the Board the importance is, that as you can see, the language of these two Codes are word for word identical. No building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of the building shall be erected or altered, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used in all or in part tbr any use except the following. In 1983 it was Multiple Dwellings, now it's two-family dwellings. So in reality, the only change, the only relevant change to the zoning of this parcel is that multiple dwellings, used to be permitted as a matter of right and the5 were deleted as a matter of right and instead we have two-family dwellings as a matter of right. The applicant has correspondently changed the plan in only that one respect. Instead of developing the structures as approved on the 1983 site plan for multiple residence it's agreed to develop them for two- family residence, as pen-nitted as a matter of right in the HD Zoning District. There is no other change, there is no change to the site plan whatsoever; no change to the site plan whatsoever. The applicant intends to develop this property as you see on the 1983 site plan, it's going to look identical, and it is identical. Kace is in no way responsible for protracted municipal delay, which 1 just had detailed to you. It's expended substantial money, time and effort, and was, and remains prepared to commence construction of the project. This site plan has been, at all times and continues to be, valid, pursuant to the express tenns of the Southold Town Code. The prior Building Inspector's determination that the Building Perufit was issued upon approval by the Suffolk County Water Authority still remains in effect. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, the Appellate Division Second Department in the case of Kennedy vs. the ZBA of the Town of North Salem, has ruled that under these circumstances it is arbitrary, capricious and illegal for a subsequent Building Inspector or, for that matter, for this Board to come to any other conclusion and Mr. Chairman, I hand up a copy of that case for your reference. Mr. Chairman I understand that, based upon what you've said, it's the desire of this Board to hold this hearing over to October 4m. I hope you see why it is important to understand the history of this, to understand why we say that this new denial by the Building Inspector is arbitrary and capricious. I received at 4:05 today, literally as I was walking out the door, a memo from the Plmming Board; and although I was going to address that tonight, I will hold that now, hold those comments over for the next hearing, and I would certainly be interested in understanding what the Town Attorney or whoever advised you, P &GE 65 SEPTEKIBER 20, 2001 ZB & PUBLIC HE&RING TRANSCRIPT TO~3, N OF SOUTHOLD this Board about listening to testimony concerning the site plan. And, [ think it would be important and only thir, Mr. Chairman, that the applicant has an understanding nbout what these supposed ground rules are before we come in here so that there is a level playing field. Because to the degree that we believe that that may not be legally proper, we want to have an opportunity to address it. We filed this application quite some time ago. We filed this application initially in December 2000. The Building Inspector said it was denied, multiple family residences longer permitted as matter of right. We mnended it lbr two-family dwellings. I think it only proper that we have an understanding about what anybody advising this Board is saying with respect to this application prior to the next hearing date, so that we may have a full and better opportunity to respond and to not further delay this matter by asking for an adjournment on that day because of information that we're just receiving at that time. CHAIRMAN: I'm not positive I can comlnent on that tonight. MATT PACHMAN: Mr. Chairu~an, I'm not asking you to do so. I will say, however, it is my understanding, I would ask. Mr. Chairman, if there was any tsqpe of submission or memo or anything that the Town Attoruey did supply to the Board to discuss this matter. CHAIRMAN: In reality, [ explained to you in the beginning that we thought >'our application was a little deficient, even without counsel, we allowed you to continue with 3,our not only your chronological order which is certainly helpful to understand. We didn't stop you in any way tonight. MATT PACHMAN: Absolutely, you didn't. CHAIRMAN: We didn't give you the time out sign. We didn't mount any attack towards your presentation. We understand your frustration, we know the applicant very well. I've known Mr. Kontakosta for many years; in fact I've known him since 1976. Working with 57 attorneys in my present position, there are times when attorneys say certain things, and you abide by those. I don't know what the reasoning was. That's all I can say. MATT PACHMAN: Mr. Chairu~an, [ would just say that if tbr any reason the Board feels that the application is deficient, I would like to know that, because I would like to have an opportunity to amend that to the Board's satisfaction. The Clerk did request I give an explanation for the Interpretation; I did file what I thought was an adequate explanation to be supplemented, of course, by the Public Hearing that's why we're here tonight. If there is anything further that the Board needs in terms of the application to alleviate anything about what you mentioned to you we would like to know it, because given that the Board has held this matter over I would certainly like to provide the Board with all the necessary documents and information to form a complete record. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to comment on it, Lora? MEMBER COLLINS: I think that the reason why I am and other Members of the Board felt the application, the application placed before us dated 8/23/01 turning into Appeal PAGE 66 SEPTEMBER2t3,2001 ZBA PUBLIC' HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD #5003, it said the Building Inspector has denied out' application fbr the construction of an unspecified number of two-t;amily dwellings on this lot -- it said that because we know that's what the Building Inspector said -- and it said this is an Appeal but there was no indication in the Appeal you gave it tonight, what you were asking. Tonight you said, you want us to interpret the law and reverse the 8/13 Notice because there exists an old site plan. You mentioned the old site plan in your application but you certainly didn't explain, as you have attempted to do tonight, why the existence of a site plan for a different project, in my view it was a different project, in 1983 was relative to your request. Tonight you have elaborated, at length, and I think therefore from the point of view of fi:ding the application was inadequate, you filled in the blanks. We certainly haven't gotten to the pros and cons, a key one of which is 3,our assertion that the Building Inspector's statement to your client in 1986 that the only bar to a Building Permit was getting water and sewer, but that is a binding, that binds all future Building Department actions". I find that quite an extreme statement and I won't go any further. Those are the things we haven't discussed. I do think, and I think the Chairman will agree, that the issue of the indefiniteness or I don't have the right word - the lack of definitiveness in your appeal as put before us on paper, has been taken care of by your testimony tonight. IVIATT PACHMAN: I appreciate that you've cleared that up, and we'll resolve that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, which I assumed you would do any way. IVIEMBER COLLINS: [ think that's why we had you coine on, even though we had ail appeal that probably most of us found didn't tell us what you were looking /br. We thought you would come and tell us. MATT PACHMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN: It would be important oil who that Building Inspector was, if it was Victor Lessard, we have a major problem because the gentleman is ilo longer with us. IV[ATT PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the person that signed that 1986 letter was Victor Lessard. CHAIRMAN: So, at this particular tiine, we will take some brief testimony, we will recess the hearing and ~,e 11 go from there. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, if the testimony is going to be broadly from people who are, broadly speaking, in opposition, I fear that they're going to testify to why they dislike the project, they think the project is unwise; we've seen written input from the gentleman who spoke bei:bre, that he sent to us. I don't think that addresses the issue in front of us. The issue in front of us is whether the existence of a site plan approved in 1983 binds under the reading of the law the Building Department to let them do now, what they want to do now. That's the issue, and frankly, I don't think that these folks without an attorney are in a position to say much about that. P,\GE6? SEPTEMBER2~L2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TO~. N OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: We've never restricted anybody from speaking. MEMBER COLLINS: [ undcrstaud that, [just wanted to get my two cents in. CHAIRMAN: We'd just like to take some brief statements from you and then we're just going to conclude this for the evening if you don't mind. We'd like you to use the mike if you would sir. The usual question, the proverbial statement that's made is that if you are not available on October 4th. we would certainly like to take a statement /'rom you tonight. But we want you to be available on October 4th. and an~hing after that. ROBERT YOUNG: I can only speak tbr myself, but I do believe that all of the parties interested believe there are organizations in the Town of Southotd. North Fork Environmental Council is interested in this matter. The5' have so expressed it. l believe that my letter does not address the issues that were presented tonight. [ had no notice about this, the only other notice that I've had is a driveway was cut from the project onto the North Road in March of this year and it was stopped, apparently, by some action fi'om the Building Department. And redo, as [ see it, and not speaking further to our meeting with counsel (inaudible). CHAIRMAN: We urge you to bring all interested parties on October 4th. [ hope we get this room on October 4th. We may or may not have it. We ina), all be crammed into the Town Board Room. ROBERT YOUNG: But then in terms of having a representative address this Board, will we have to have a complete brief and presentation at that time, or will we be able to be given a period of time address the proactive test. CHAIRMAN: We'll make a determination at that time. I assure you that this Board has never, we're just not in a position to not take testimony from a person or people that are not ready to, and that testimony is not ready to be given. This is still America, and we're waiting for your response. ROBERT YOUNG: As a lasxnan in this area of the law, all I can say to the Board is that there has been a tremendous change since the renovation of the plans that were properties on the North Road. It has become a death trap for traffic for cars, for pedestrians or cyclists. We've seen close misses every day of our lives getting in and our of our driveways, it's next to impossible and I hope not only this Board, but the applicant will be able to address that problem and other problems in the course of pursuing their project, l certainly recognize that they've owned the property for this period of time and they should have the fight to develop it in a way that is consistent with the community and our laws but, at this point in time, the situation is extremely serious for those of us who live there. The traffic condition has become such that we are creating problems, Foxwood, the fen'y and developers are being responsible for, but we're bearing the burdens and xve're beating the risks. We certainly hope that this Board can develop some considerations on whatever issues .,,wu address. PAGE 68 SEPTEMBER 20.21)Ol ZBA PUBLIC HE~,RING TRANS( RIPT T£)V~ N OF SOUTHOLD CHAIRMAN: We will certainly' tO,. Thank you. ROBERT YOUNG: Would it be appropriate tbr the other interested parties to identi~' themselves tbr the record or. CHAIRMAN: Let's wait until October 4th, if you don't mind. I just want to go back to the Building Inspector one time. Mr. Forrester, we do have a couple of pertinent questions. We realize you're still here and I think at this time we'll ask you a few if you are able to come on October 4th, we would appreciate it. We want you to think about these questions between now and then. So we'll go with Mrs. Tortora first. MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to jump down to permitted uses in the HD Zone, because I'm not 100% clear on all this. In your Notice of Disapproval it says that proposed project indicates several, exact amount unknown, two-family dwellings on a single parcel, Code allows only one such structure per lot as a permitted us. I know that's true in the R80, R40, AC, RO, and MI and II. In fact that is that tact via, those exact words appear in each of those districts, but it doesn't appear in the HD. ED FORRESTER: Do you want me to respond, or do you want me to wait until the 4th? MEMBER TORTO1LA: I'm just curious as to why? ED FORRESTER: In a matter of admitting that Section of Code 100-42A, permitted uses, the office saw fit to use as singular, one family dwelling, and two-family' dwelling. That is the basis for the disapproval. MEMBER TORTORA: That's true, but if you go to 100-3 l.Al, the exact language under that which is AC, R80, 120, 200 and 400, the permitted use is one-family, detached dwellings, plural, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. ED FORRESTER: Yes, I'm familiar with that section; however, I wasn't dealing xvith that section of the Zoning Code. MEMBER TORTORA: Then there's 100-31 permitted by Special Exception. 100-31.B it says two-family dwellings not to exceed one such dwelling on each lot. ED FORRESTER: I didn't write it, I just interpreted it. IVlEMBER TORTORA: That's what I mean. That's why I was curious because the quality. ED FORRESTER: I understand the question. CHAIRMAN: [ mean you surely don't have to give us an answer. Is that it? PAGE 60 SEPTEMBER2..2001 ZBA PUBLIC' HEARING TRANSCRIPT [OWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMBER TORTORA: That was the main question. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again. MATT PACHMAN: If I just may make a quick statement to Miss Collins. I just want to point out that you said, that we are asking you to interpret the law and with all due respect, Miss Collins, we're not asking that. We're asking you to review Mr. Forrester's interpretation of the Code as per the colloquy between Mr. Forrester and a Member of the Board. Now you want to make sure that the Board understood that that what we were asking the Board to do. MEMBER COLLINS: Okay I was working from my notes, listening to you and you said you are asking for an interpretation and a reversal. I think what you wanted to say was you are asking us to reverse his interpretation of the law. MATT PACHMAN: Maybe we are being in semantics, and I don't mean in any way, we were asking for a reversal of Mr. Forrester's determination based upon this Board's interpretation of the Section of the Zoning Code that had been discussed here tonight. I hope that that explains it. If it's not, I will certainly try to explain it further. But that is what we are seeking at this point. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I just want go down on notice that we are going to set a time of 7:15 p.m. on October 4th. I want to be honest with you: I have a trial that dab', so I hope I'm going to be there. I may be late. Mr. Forrester, we thank you. ED FORRESTER: It's a Thursday? CHAIRMAN: October 4th, it's a Thursday. Thank you, I wish you a safe home, because I know you're going as tar as these nice gentlemen next to you. I'm just going to entertain this question from this nice lady in the back on my left and we're going to recess the hearing. Yes, ma'am. Could you just come up and use the mike. I'm sorry to put you on the spot but if I get yelled at from this nice lady sitting to my right here. NANCY FOLEY: My name is Nancy Foley'. My only question now is, exactly how many houses are being built. CHAIRMAN: We really haven't gotten to that, and I'm not tr)4ng to be, but this is some of the stuff that we are referring to as fill-ins. MATT PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, it's pursuant to the site plan that's been in effect since 1983. We're not changing the structures on the site plan in one single respect. So the number is exactly what's shown on the site plan. The amount of dwelling units will be, it's not 108 as mentioned in the letter today, and it's half of that. But the number of structures is the exact number of structures that had been on the site plan since 1983. So it's not an indefinite number, it's the number of structures on that are on there. P~.GE ~ll SEPTEMBER 211, ZB ~. PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT I O'0, N OF SOU THOLD CHAIRMAN: Thank.you. Hearing no furtheP testi~nony, I make a motion recessing this until 7:15 p.m. on October 4th. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION End of Public Hearings Prepared by Paula Quintieri