Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/30/1999 SPEC , APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora Southold, New York 11971 Lara S. Collins ZBAFax (516) 765-9064 George Horning Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY/ SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 A Special (Open) Meeting of the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS was held at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on Thursday, Sep- tember 30, 1999, commencing at 5:30 p.m. This Meeting replaced the former Regular Meeting of September 16, 1999, which was canceled due to Hurricane Floyd in the area. Present were: " Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr., Member Lydia A. Tortora, Member George Horning, Member Lora S. Collins, Member Linda Kowalski, Secretary to ZBA 5:30 p.m. Chairman Goehringer called the meeting to order. * * * The Chairman proceeded with the first item on the Agenda as follows: 1. DEUBERATIONS/DECISION: Pending Appl. No. 4723 - Southampton Lumber Co. At the beginning, the Chairman asked whether any Board Member wished to speak. Members Collins, Tortora and Dinizio each spoke individually. Member Collins indicated a draft from the prior meeting, for approval, was prepared for discussion. Member Tortora indicated another draft was prepared for discussion. tonight. It was agreed to continue discussions later after the hearings are held tonight on other matters. * * * II. SEQRA updates: RESOLUTION: On motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Collins, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following SEQRA actions and declare Negative Declarations for each of the applications as submitted: Unlisted Actions: W. Rich III - pool on lot without principal use. H. Raynor - lot area variance for second use. M. Peters - lot coverage variance. Page 2 - Minutes Meeting held September 30, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals Type II Actions (setbacks, lot-line variances, accessory uses) G. and J. Braun - side yard setback. C. Emery - bluff setback. M. Thomson - accessory use. E. and J. Dart - lot line adjustment. M. Peters - setback from rear line. A. Krupski - setback from rear line. P. and D. Pfening - barn location. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Goehringer, Dinizio, Tortora, Horning, Collins. This Resolution was duly ADOPTED by unanimous (5-0) vote of the Board. * * * III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5:54 p.m. Appl. No. 4702 - DAN AND MADELINE ABBOTT. (Continuation from July 22, 1999). Request for a Lot Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26 for a substandard vacant lot referred to as 355 Pine Place, East Marion, Map of Gardiners Bay Estates, NY, identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 37, Block 4, Lot 14. This request is based on an application for a building permit and the Building Department's February 11, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that Lots 14 and 15 in District 1000, Section 37, Block 4, have merged under Article II, Section 100-25A, due to common ownership at any time since July 1, 1983. The adjoining lot 1000-37-4-15 is improved with a dwelling and is referred to as 435 Pine Place, East Marion, NY. Eugene Barnosky, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicant. After receiving testimony, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried, to CLOSE the hearing pending deliberations. This Resolution was adopted by unanimous vote (5-0). 5:57 p.m. Appl. No. 4739 - JOANN and WILLIAM RICH III. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-31C.4 for the use and location of an accessory swimming pool, constructed under Building Permit No. 18782, at 1105 Orchard Street, Orient; Parcel Nos. 1000-25-2-20.17 and 19.1. This appeal is based upon the July 28, 1999 Notice issued by the Building Department, disapproving an application for a Certificate of Occupancy, for the following reasons: "Swimming pool or tennis court incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain...subject parcel does not contain a principal residential use. Original permit for pool (#18782) was issued based upon a survey indicating that this lot had been merged with the neighboring residential lot, these lots were separated by ZBA in Appeal #2104 dated March 26, 1976 and have not merged." Page 3 - Minutes Meeting held September 30, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals William Rich, Esq. appeared in behalf of his application. After receiving testimony and answers to questions, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Horning, and duly carried, to CLOSE (conclude) the hearing. This Resolution was duly adopted by unanimous vote (5-0). 6:25 p.m. Appl. No. 4740 - GEORGE and JEAN BRAUN. This is a request, based upon the July 22, 1999 Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval, for a Variance under Article III-A, Section 100-30AA for approval of a side yard location of the existing accessory garage due to the proposed construction of an addition to dwelling. Existing garage is currently in the rear yard. 2005 Bay Shore Road, Greenport; Parcel 1000-53-4-11. Robert Grigonis (Contractor) appeared in behalf of the application. After receiving testimony, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Members Tortora, and duly carried, to CLOSE (conclude) the hearing. This Resolution was duly adopted by unanimous vote (5-0). 6:28 p.m. Appl. No. 4741 - CHRISTOPHER EMERY. Applicant's request for a Variance is based upon the August 13, 1999 Notice of Disapproval, and Article XXIII, Section 100-239AA.1, for a proposed location of an accessory swimming pool in the rear yard with a setback of less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff or bank of the Long Island Sound. 2735 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-94-1-13. Christopher Emery appeared in behalf of his application. After receiving testimony, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Collins, and duly carried, to CLOSE (conclude) the hearing. The Chairman asked Mr. Emery to arrange to have the green signature cards submitted for the permanent record under Ch. 58 (Notice Requirements). 6:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4742-SE - MARY ELLEN WHITTET THOMSON. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III, Section 100-31B(13) for approval of "as built" Accessory Apartment use, in conjunction with applicant-owner's occupancy of her residence at 6230 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY; Parcel 1000-128-2-3. Gary Olsen, Esq. appeared with Ms. Thomson. Mr. Bill Koster appeared with a question concerning owner- occupancy and whether someone has to resubmit when the property changes ownership. The Chairman replied that a new application is required the way the current Code is written. After receiving testimony, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried, to CLOSE (conclude) the hearing. This Resolution was unanimously adopted (5-0). 6:47 p.m. Appl. No. 4744 - EDWARD and JUDY DART. This is a request for Variances under Article II, Section 100-23-C pursuant to a Notice of Disapproval issued September 1, 1998, and applicants' request for a change in lot dimensions with respect to lot(s) A and B with insufficient lot area, depth and width (area less than 40,000 sq. ft., lot depth at less than 250 feet, and lot width at less than 175 feet in this R-40 Zone District). Location: East Side of Peconic Lane and the South Side of North Road (C.R. 48), Peconic, NY; Parcel No. 1000-74-3-15. Mr. Edward Dart spoke in behalf of his application. After receiving testimony, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Page 4 - Minutes Meeting held September 30, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals Member Collins, and duly carried, to CLOSE (conclude) the hearing. This Resolution was unanimously adopted (5-0). 6:56 p.m. Appl. No. 4745 - MARY JO PETERS. This is a request for a Variance under Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3, based upon the June 24, 1999 Building Department's Notice of Disapproval, for approval of the location of an "as built" addition with lot coverage in excess of the 20% code limitation and with a rear yard at less than the code requirement of 50 feet. Location of Property: 5035 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; 1000-128-1-15. Mr. Joseph Orr and the owner, Mrs. Mary Joe Peters Orr appeared, and Mr. Orr spoke in behalf of the application. After receiving testimony and answers to questions, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Horning, and duly carried, to CLOSE (conclude) the hearing. This Resolution was unanimously adopted (5-0). 7:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4746 - ALBERT J. KRUPSKI. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33B based upon the August 24, 1999 Building Department's Notice of Disapproval, for approval of the location of an "as built" accessory building with a rear yard setback at less than the code requirement of three (3) feet. Location of Property: 36050 C.R. 48 (North Road), Southold; 1000-69-4-6. Albert Krupski, Jr. appeared in his father's behalf. (No objections were received from neighbors.) After receiving testimony, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried, to CLOSE (conclude) the hearing. This Resolution was unanimously adopted (5-0). 7: 10-7: 19 p.m. A short break was taken. 7:19 p.m. Motion was made by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Dinizio, and duly carried, to reconvene. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). 7:19 p.m. RESOLUTION: The next hearing was cancelled due to lack of compliance with Notice Requirements under Ch. 58 of the Code. Appl. No. 4685 - VINCENT TORRE. This application involves a request under Zoning Code Chapter 100, Article III, Section 100- 31C(2) based upon the October 20, 1998 Notice of Disapproval (updated January 27, 1999) for a variance to convert accessory barn for retail sales in conjunction with applicant's Art Studio and Gallery, disapproved for the reason that retail sales and a gallery for public viewing in the accessory building is not a permitted use in this A-C Zone. Location of Property: 100 Sound Avenue, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-120-3-1. No appearance was made by the applicant or his agent. The Board instructed that a letter be sent to the application advising him that this matter will be held for a public hearing at the November 1999 Regular Meeting, for which Notice is required to the adjoining landowners and posting of a sign by application. The following RESOLUTION was adopted: Page 5 - Minutes Meeting held September 30, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Dinizio, and duly carried, to CALENDAR this matter for a public hearing for the November 1999 Regular Meeting (Nov. 18th). This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). III. PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued: 7:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4699 - LISA JEROME (HARDWARE STORE). Two additional green postal signature cards were submitted to the Board Secretary from P. Moore, Esq. The board proceeded with the hearing. This is an application for Variances under Article X, Section 100-102 to locate a proposed addition with rear and front yard setbacks at less than the Code requirement and under Article X, Section 100-103C for a proposed (addition) with extended frontage, greater than Code limitation of sixty linear feet in this General "B" Business Zone District. This request is based upon an application for a building permit and the Building Department's AprilS, 1999 Notice of Disapproval. Hart's Hardware Store, 50000 Main Road and Jockey Creek Drive, Southold; 1000-70-5-6.2 (corner lot). Patricia C. Moore, Esq. appeared with Mr. Goodale, operator of the Hardware Store (father of the owner, Lisa Jerome). After receiving testimony, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried, to CLOSE (conclude) the hearing. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). 7:28 p.m. Appl. No. 4747 - PAMELA and DAREN PFENING. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Sections 100-31C and 100-33, based upon the revised Building Inspector's September 8, 1999 Disapproval for a proposed storage barn/bUilding to be located on a vacant lot without a principal use. 2905 Arbor Lane, Mattituck; 1000-113-7-25. 7:49 p.m. Appl. No. 4724 - JOEL AND MAXINE HIRSCH. Continuation from July 22, 1999 hearing calendar.) This is a request for Variances based on the June 14, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for a proposed single-family dwelling with respect to: (a) insufficient setback from the top of the L. I. Sound bluff at less than 100 feet at its closest point; (b) insufficient side yard at less than 20 feet on one side; (c) insufficient total combined sides at less than 45 feet; (d) buildinq heiqht qreater than the code limitation of 35 feet. Location: North Side of Private Right-of-Way (Private Road #11) extending off the North side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck; 1000-112-1-12. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. appeared and spoke in behalf of the applicants. Anthony Tohill, Esq. appeared with his clients, neighbors in the area, Steve Reska, P.E., Pat Given, Appraiser from Hauppauge, Richard Warren, Intra- Science. Please see written transcript of statements made during the publiC hearing, prepared separately and also filed with the Town Clerk's Office for permanent record- keepi ng. After receiving testimony, motion was made to RECESS the hearing until the Regular Meeting in November. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Goehringer, Dinizio, Tortora, Collins, and Horning. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). * * * Page 6 - Minutes Meeting held September 30, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals End of Hearings. AGENDA ITEM IV. DELIBERATIONS/DECISIONS. The Board deliberated on the following applications. The originals of each of the following determinations were filed with the Town Clerk's Office, and copies are attached to this set of Minutes for convenience purposes: Approval: Appl. No. 4746 - Albert Krupski, Sr. Conditional Approvals: Appl. No. 4740 - Jean and G. Braun Appl. No. 4741 - C. Emery Appl. No. 4742 - M. Whittet Thomson Appl. No. 4744 - Edward and Judy Dart. Appl. No. 4699 - L. Jerome (Hart's Hardware Store) A Straw Poll indicated a Possible Denial at the next meeting for: Appl. No. 4739 - J. and W. Rich III AGENDA ITEM I (continued from earlier): Pending Application of SOUTHAMPTON LUMBER- Appl. No. 4723. A straw poll was discussed for both confidential drafts (either for possible approval or possible denial). Chairman Goehringer offered a motion that a decision not be postponed until the next meeting on October 14th, and the motion was lost. After further consideration, a quorum of three votes was not anticipated for either. The following Resolution was then adopted: Motion by Member Horning, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, and duly carried, to postpone a determination until the October 14, 1999 meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Goehringer, Dinizio, Tortora, Collins and Horning. This Resolution was unanimously adopted (5-0). AGENDA ITEM V. RESOLUTIONS/OTHER ACTIONS: A. Code Committee Meeting: (none). B. Inspections regarding pending applications. C. Resolution approving Minutes of September 1, 1999 and August 18, 1999. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member collins, and duly carried, to APPROVE the Minutes of the August 18, 1999 and September 1, 1999 Meetings. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Goehringer, Dinizio, Tortora, Horning, Collins. This Resolution was duly ADOPTED by unanimous (5-0) vote. Page 7 - Minutes Meeting held September 30, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals * * * Agenda Item V-D. Resolution: Hearings for 10/14/99 6:30 p.m. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried, to CALENDAR and ADVERTISE the following applications for public hearings to be held on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1999: 6:30 p.m. Appl. No. 4743 - RAYNOR-SUTER HARDWARE, INC. Variance for insufficient lot size with regard to a proposed second principal (permitted) use (2nd Floor). Corner of Pike Street and 320 Love Lane, Mattituck. 6:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4750 - R. RIBAUDO. Proposed swimming pool at less than 100 feet from the top ofthe L.I. Sound bluff at 1920 The Strand, East Marion. 1000-30-2-56. 6:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4748 - ERNA LANG. Proposed garage in a front yard location at 220 Oak St., Cutchogue. 6:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4752 - MICHAEL RUSSO. Application for a Variance with respect to the front yard setback of a proposed addition at 775 Oakwood Road, Southold. 1000-90-4-22. 6:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4753 - PAUL and RUTHANN CORAZZINI. Application for a Variance with respect to the existing garage and proposed pool, in a side yard area as modified by the proposed location of a dwelling addition, at 3120 Albertson Lane, Greenport. 1000-52-4-1.2. 7:00 p.m. Appl. No. 4754 - ROBERT AND ESTHER BADENHOP. Special Exception for an Accessory Apartment in conjunction with owner's residence at 1100 South Drive, Mattituck. 1000-106-12-4. 7: 10 p.m. Appl. No. 4755 - EDWARD AND AUDREY WETZEL. Addition to dwelling with a front yard setback at less than the established 30 feet and less than 35 feet provided by the Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code. 35 Second St., New Suffolk. 1000-117-10-20.4. 7: 15 p.m. Appl. No. 4756 - WARREN BRIAN. "As built" accessory garage in a side yard location at 500 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. 1000-115-12-6. 7:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4757 - SCHEMBRI HOMES. "As built" foundation for a dwelling at less than 50 feet from the rear property line. Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. 1000-86-1-4.24. 7:25 p.m. Appl. No. 4749 - LESLIE WINDISCH. Request to convert accessory building to sleeping quarters (habitable without cooking or kitchen facilities), and add bathroom facilities at 1375 Pine Neck Road, Southold. 1000-70-5-39. _ ~ ~ Page 8 - Minutes 3D 0.' ~ 'tft Meeting held September - _/1999 \:' . #, Southold Town Board of Appeals , ~0~ 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4751 - W. HOWELL AND R. PATTON. Application for (a) Interpretation determining whether or not bathroom facilities in an accessory building creates a second dwelling, and (b) a Variance, if necessary for approval of bathroom facilities in accessory building (without sleeping or habitable quarters), at 15825 Main Road, Orient. 1000-18-3-15. 7:45 p.m. Appl. No. 4758 - RONALD AND VICTORIA JOHNSON. Request for Variance locating accessory horse shed in side yard at 510 Tallwood Lane (ROW off w/s Cox Neck Lane - formerly A. Foster), Mattituck. 1000-113-07-19.2 (p/o 19.14). VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Goehringer, Dinizio, Tortora, Collins, and Horning. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). * * * 'Vl EXECUTIVE SESSION (none held). * * * There being no other business properly coming before the Board at this time, the Chairman declared the Meeting adjourned. The Meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~-. ~~~- UJf~~kl 10/13/99 Board Secretary . RECEIVED ---:- THE . ".. " . AND FILED BY ~I _ SOUTHom TO"VN ! .DAtE 11/2> ! 77 CLERK I ROUR tP- :/:> P/11 I . "". . J ~ . . - m i '~~"~111 Clerk m _ _ -I -- -- , 10'V\1n 01: I i I i i ~,-.. '-'-------- - . """'~.~! ......., --.. ..... , . APPE.Ai:S- BOARD MEMBERS ~~ I.~ Southold Town Hall .Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ~-~. . . ~, 53095 Main Road ~ . ~~ James Dinizio, Jr. o . - P.O. Box 1179 Cr.I. .;;;e Lydia A. Tortora '0 . .. fPl! Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins ~. .. . ~\- /! ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 George Homing ~ Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DEUBERATIONSAND DETERMINATION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 Appl. No. 4740 - GEORGE ANDJEAN BRAUN 1000,53-4-11 STREET & LOCALITY: 2005 Bay Shore Road, Greenport DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: September.30, 1999 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTYFACTS!DESCRIPTION: The applicants' property is a waterfront lot known as Lot 33 on the Map of Pec.onic Bay Estates, with 50 ft. along Bay Shore Road and 328 ft. deep located in Greenport, Town of Southold. The lot isitnproved with a single-family two-story frame dwelling with accessory garage located in the required rear yard area as shown on the June 10, 1982 Van Tuyl Survey. BASIS OF APPEAL: Notice of Disapproval dated July 22, 1999 regarding the location of an existing garage, which will be to the side of a proposed addition at the rear of dwelling. RELIEF REOUESTED: Applicants are proposing an addition at the rear of dwelling, which Will place the existing garage partly in a side yard. Applicant is not requesting a building permit regarding the garage, which has a valid Certificate of Occupancy No. Z-3971 issued September 23, 1970 by the Town. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION. DESCRIBED BELOW: On the basis of testimony presented and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: (1) Grant of the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the garage has existed for 30 years and has a Certificate of Occupancy No. Z-3971. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by locating the garage or the addition to the dwelling in any other location. (3) The requested area variance is not substantial. (4) In considering this application, the Board deems the grant of the variance for the garage in its location (existing for 30+- years) to be the minimum necessary and adequate to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. RESOLUTION! ACTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Dinizio, it was "~~.=".~=~~-^---~" - --~-~'_.---~-~---~'-.--- --------------- .~_.._- -- ---------- \ . . Page 2 - September 30, 1999 Re: 1000-53-4-11 at Greenport (BraJn) Southold ToWn Board of Appeals RESOLVED, to GRANT the variance, as applied for. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Goehringer, Dinizio, Tortora, Horning, Collins. . This Resolution was duly ADOPTED by unanimous (5-0) vote of the Board. * * * <~~ ~RAAD p, GQBj~, <'1iAtRM~ .... . Approved for R!logon 10lS .. ., .................._...~.....u...~..............,....................._..................1 :- . ~.~~-_._--. . . APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS .. :.i. ~ Southold T~wn Hall Geratd P. Goehr.lll.ge r,ChaIrman ~./~~......,...'..............~..:2.\',\\", 53095 Malll Road James DlllIZio, Jr. g; . . ~ i:j P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora ~ ' ~~ Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins ~.. .'. / ~ ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 George Homing 'O.f ~ ~.;:s.1Y Telephone (516) 765-1809 ~" BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS! DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 APPL. NO. 4744 - EDWARDANDJUDYDART 1000-74-3-15 STREET & LOCALITY: CR. 48 and E/s Peconic Lane{Peconic. DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: September30,l999 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY. FACTS!DESCRlPTION: The property is 2.012 acres in size and, is T"shaped with frontages of 155.2 ft. on the south side ofC.R. 48 and 120 feet along the east side of Peconic Lane! Peconic. The property is zoned R-40 Lbw-Density Residential. A survey by Roderick VanTuyl, L.S. dated November 24,1976 shows a 2-1/2 story frame house set back approximately 59 feet from the west front oroperty line on Peconic Lane and more than 230 feet from the east rear property line. BASIS OF APPEAL: Building Inspector's September 1, 1998 (and August 27, 1999) Notice of Disapproval of application to subdivide the property into two parcels. The reason for the disapproval is that the proposed division would create a nonconforming lot of approximately 31,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 Residential Zone District where a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. is required. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF K.::OUESTED BY APPLICANT: Applicants request a variance for a proposed division of land as follows: Parcel A of 55,920+- sq. ft. fronting Peconic Lane, and Parcel 6 of 31,000 sq. ft. of vacant land. The unimproved Parcel '6', fronting on County Route 48 would be substandard (nonconforming). REASONS FOR BOARD ACT10N: .On the basis oftestirnonypresented, material presented, and personal inspection! the Board made the following findings: (1) Applicant is attempting to sell the property. Its relatively large size! and its unconventional shape, are hindrances to the sale. Based on market response over the past year, Applicants believe that the requested division is preferable, both esthetically and economically! to the division approved in App!. No. 4622. (2) Grant of the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the character and appearance of the improved lot fronting on Peconic Lane (Parcel "A") will not change, and the vacant lot fronting on c.R. · 48 (Parcel "6'') will. be of a size consistent with the neighborhood. (3) There is no evidence that grant of the requested variance will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions. ------ "_.._.",..,"..,-~-"..._~. -- ,,_..,"~---_.- 'Page} - Appi. No.4? 4 4 . . Re: 1.0.00-74-3-15 (Dart) ZBA September 30, 1.999 Deterrniration (4) Grant of the requc5ted variance is the. minimum action necessary and. adequate to enable Applicant to make his property salable while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. BOARD ACTION/RESOL.UTIQN: Cn motion by .Member Collips, second~by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRJ~r\T the \'ariance as applied for, subject to the CONDITION that Parcel A (the larger parcel) shall be subJect to a covenant, to be filed with the Suffolk county Oerk,Jhat will prohibit further subdivrsion.. Giant .of this variance for Parcel B is in consideration, of and Conditioned upon theimpos\tion.of ~uch covenant. A copy of the filed covenant shall be. furnished for the permanent records or ttle 30ard of Appeals. VOTE OF THE BOARD: A'y'e,: Goehringer, Dinizio, Tortora, Horning, Collins, This Resolution was duly ADOPTED by unanimous (5-0) vote of the Board. *********************",)j.;'.~'",,, "" 1000-74-3-15 (Dart) I , _._--'.-_.-..' J . APPE~LS BOARD MEMBE. I~Jl~>. ~:.:~ ":_~-<.:. /~~'i>\}fFDL.t ;~""" . Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman i/~.~' 53095 Main Road ~ "I James Dinizio, Jr. o . '> P.O. Box 1179 en '""' Lydia A. Tortora ~ ~i; Soulhold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins ~. ~.'. ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 George Horning ~QJ + ~~~,i( Telephone (516) 765-1809 ., . . . 1 ""'-, . BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 Appl. No. 4741 - CHRISTOPHER EMERY 1000-94-1-13 STREET & LOCATION 2735 Sound View Avenue, Mattituck DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING September 30.1999 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTIDESCRIPTION: The applicant's property IS located at the north side of Sound View Avenue in Mattituck with an area of approximately 46,000 sq. ft. and road frontage (lot width) of 100 feet. The October 9, 1992 Young & Young survey shows an existing dwelling at 100 feet from the top of the bluff. The dwelling is approximately three years old. BASIS OF APPEAL Notice of Disapproval dated August 13, 1999 regarding a proposed 16 ft. deep by 32 ft. wide in-ground accessory swimming pool structure disapproved for the reason that it is being proposed at fifty (50) feet instead of 100 feet from the top of the Sound bluff Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A.1 of the Zoning Code states that a minimum 100 ft. setback from the top of the bluff is required. RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant requests a variance to locate an accessory 16 ft. by 32 ft. in-ground pool 50 feet from the top of the bluff at an angle, as shown on applicant's sketch (from the survey map). The easterly side yard for the pool is shown to meet the current code minimum-setback requirement (10 feet). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Applicant has submitted a letter dated September 13. 1999 from George B. Michos, Consulting Engineer. with inforrnation regarding applicant's site. Mr. Michos indicates that the construction of the pool in the proposed location will not disturb the top of the bluff or increase pressure on the soils in the vicinity of the bluff. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW On the basis of testimony presented and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: , . .> /~ .- Page 2 - Appl. No, 4741 1000-94-1-13 (Emery) Southold Town Board of Appeals (1) Grant of the 'requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because accessory structures are permitted in the rear yard and applicant accepts recommendations made by the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District in a September 16, 1999 letter to the Board of Appeals, and the applicant's Consulting Engineer, George B. Michos, P.E.in a September 13, 1999 written opinion to the Board of Appeals. (2) The benefit sought cannot be achieved without a variance for the reasons stated by applicant at the September 30, 1999 hearing. (3) The requested area variance is substantial at a fifty (50%) percent reduction from 100 feet to 50 feet from the top of the Sound bluff. (4) In considering this application, the Board deems this action to be the minimum necessary and adequate to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. (5) The grant of relief is subject to the conditions set forth below, and is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable applicant to enjoy an accessory use of an in~ground pool while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. (6) The difficulties are not self-created. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Dinizio, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested SUBJECT TO THE FOllOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the pool always remain detached from the principal building and not be connected with a deck or other structure. 2. The po.ol and surrounding structures shaH not be closer than 50 feet to the top of the bluff as proposed. _._,.,~" -,----- -"-~._------------_..._- . , ~ cPage 3 - Appl. No."4741 .....-- i.J.. ,""'" 1 000-94-1-13 (Emery) . 'Southold Town Board of Appeals 3. The pool structure shall not be enclosed. 4. All water drainage from the pool shall be confined to the landward area of the dwelling, and a drainage basin shall be constructed to retain water runoff. 5. Applicant agrees not to drain any pool water in the direction of the bluff and shall take all steps necessary to prevent runoff in that (northerly) direction. 6. No excavation or heavy equipment within 50 feet of the top of the bluff. -"..._- ----_.~,.,- ~._._.- APPEALS. BOARD MEMBERS ~iJ SoutholdTown Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman .~. . ~ 53095 Main Road .,. ==> . ::2. James Dinizio, Jr. .; 0 ... - P.O. Box 1179 :;<'-l.... ~ Lydia A. Tortora ...~. .;. ;p Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins ~ ~:" ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 George Homing 'fJ./ + ~~.. Telephone (516) 765-1809 '" BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DEUBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 Appl. No. 4740 - ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, SR. 1000-69-4-6 STREET & LOCALITY: 34850 C.R. 48, Peconic DATEOF PUBLIC HEARING: September 30, 1999 RNDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicants' property is located on the south side of Middle Road (a/k/a C.R. 48) in Peconic and consists of 9,376 sq. ft. with 102.89 ft. frontage along Middle Road. The property is improved with a one-story, single-family house and the subject accessory building. The August 6, 1998 J. Metzger survey shows the accessory building at 2.0 ft. from the rear property line and 3.6 ft. from the east side property line, at its closest points. BASIS OF APPEAL: Notice of Disapproval dated August 24, 1999 regarding the location of an existing garage, to the side of a proposed addition at the rear of dwelling . RELIEF REOUESTED: Applicants request a variance for the accessory garage as located with a 2.0 ft. setback from the rear property line. The code requirement is three feet. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION. DeSCRIBED BELOW: On the basis of testimony presented and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: (1) Grant of the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the garage has existed for 30 years. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by locating the garage in any other location. (3) The requested area variance is not substantial. (4) In considering this application, the Board deems this action to be the mmlmum necessary and adequate to preselve and protect the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Member-Chairman Paqe 2 - September 30, 1999 Re: lUOO-69-4-6 (Krupski) p.: . Southold Town Boa rd of Appe Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the vari3nce, as applied for. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Goehringer, Dinizio, Tortora, Horning, Collins. This Resolution was duly ADOPTED by unanimous (5-0) vote of the Board. * * * ~"-...J. ':'1 ":;-" I~!j' CH RMAN , ,.:'0., t'_^\ . Approved for Filing 10/4/99 .......................~........~..................................................., - . XPPEALS. BOARD MEMBER. . Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 George Homing Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 Appl. No. 4699 - USA JEROME 1000-70-5-6.2 STREET & LOCATION: 50000 Main Road and JOCkey Creek Drive, Southold DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: August 18, 1999 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located on the southeast corner bf Main Road and Jockey Creek Drive in Southold. According to a survey by Joseph Ingegno dated February 19, 1999, it has a total area of 20,264 sq. ft. with a 200 ft. frontage on Main Road and 90 feet on Jockey Creek Drive. The property is improved with a frame building used as a hardware store, and frame shed/garage, It Is zoned B General Business. BASIS OF APPUCATION: Building Inspector's April 5, 1999 Notice of Disapproval denying an application to construct an addition to the principal building. The reasons for denial are as follows: (1) Under Artide X, Section 100-102, the Bulk Schedule for the B District requires a minimum rear yard of thirty-five (35) feet. The proposed rear yard setback is indicated as twenty-six (26) feet. (2) UodeI".A.rtide X, SectIon lQO-~ ~~JbJII~ _ ~~~~e- 'f hu~red (100) feel: from the ilgf1t:-Qf:Way. 'The ptoposedflUnt - .. ck .from.the Jockey Creek Drtvel1ght~v 15 hlnety-five (9S):F. .' .~ . . , _ '. ..r '.~ .' - " i':", (3) Under Artide X, Section l00-103C, the project shall be divided Into separate ,Sb:UCtUreS so that no s1ngl~,~ $hall have more ~n sIXtV (60) linear ~ P.f'fronlja&t The ~1i~~ Is 68.8 feet and U)lil.Proposed addition Is 2S 1111s ~ tI . .11~. '- RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant ~uests ,a, vaJ1ance authorizing oon~GIl of the addition as proposed. Applicant's or1glnal proposal showed the front wall of the a~dltlon set bac;k 5 feel: from the front wall at ~exlstlng = ~ltlng In a minimum rear . " ..dIIIFii4.... .1~Jt~~...... II ulllf.......- ....lMIlid.".. ..'~!'f!' . -. . .' .,", ".-"-......s ,...__,~.I"I. 11_'lltr' ,',II rl-, ,~. '.- _ ,1_' _1',11,.11 I,: ...1,: r. ".." . ..it'to .., . . . '." " ll~ " . f 'r' I'. ,.- -" ,,' r 1'/." "_I'. (, 'f. II .,.~ '..~. .~~ .~w':..'\' _ II, I';. _ . ;IIJ' _1'~._~ - ~.~ ~ ,,_ ftC" '-':!i P;.:"" vi"'''',..,.. H'Il:- w -, ~ ..- __.~ ..... _".. _'_' _ . .......... _... .._ _ - Page 2 - Appl. No.4. . , , 1000-70-5-6.2 (Jerome) Southold Town Board of Appeals -- REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION. DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: (1) The proposed addition would extend the hardware store's Main Road frontage by 25 feet, from 68.6 feet to 93.8 feet, and would be 40 feet deep on the north side facing Jockey Creek Drive. Applicant states that this is the only reasonable and cost-effective way to achieve a needed expansion. (2) The rear of the existing building is 41.6 feet from the rear lot line at the c10sesJ: point. Although the addition will be less deep than the existing building, the rear yard setback will be reduced to 26 feet at the closest point (under Applicant's original proposal) because the rear walls are not parallel to the lot line. The shape of the property is such that applicant requires a rear yard setback variance in order to build a reasonable addition to the store. (3) The Board concludes it is preferable to follow Applicant's original plan for setting the addition's front wall back approximately 5 feet from the line of the existing front wall, and at the September 30 hearing Applicant agreed to this. Grant of a rear yard setback variance authorizing 26 feet at the closest point to the easterly lot line will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the addition will not substantlally change the nature of the building or Its appearance in the neighborhood. '.~'. t:, '., :~. -. . -~ . fOot . . "" 'undeSl proper1fes.. ... " .- .-. l""",'i:. . .. . JS) .~~~,~ ~ ~.~=ntGfthewartanoe_set forthbelow r. veanacl..effec:t:~,.Qn :.C)ren~IOI1m_. > !:' tlons. The grant of this relief Is the m nlmum action i'lElO9silry ai'lcf 8deQu. . able ~t.~,tl.~~hlle ';\"""[":' tf o. 'nelgh. '" .' , and "," .' I e M,.....~.. ....~ " . ,. .t.~'.'L .':" ,,- ,f,'" ...., , . 1'.... ,.,... W'"".~,. - '" """-., ...~............ - -" ';, ~ .. - ~ ,:li, " . ",,".i" ., " ,.,' _; ,..'~ 'iAIIlIi-.'~- "~..,;;.,.~ l~".~"'-" (., I" -:,rl" 1,1 11\.1_ _111~fl II' rr. ."'-1 II I," 'il ~iiIliI~ ~ " ~ .-..r.~,(..:.1 '.',1." r [~". ~'" 1'.lfl .;- I' ....,'t" .'-, I ill:-' , , .1: , -"""", " "'.'" ' , ..",i,,,. .,; i. I'.': ,",' -I n ..1".......... _II-. -, _ _ _/ r ..'.' '~""''''''-II -".., II. """',_,." ~" '.,. ... ,_.~ .;' ...,,~ ".:or " ~ . '. ....,...,._ "............".lI'!"-\"~'t-..._r.... ' 3-> , , ',.j < . "'-. ' ~",^';p . Page 3 - Appl. No 4699 1 1'000-70-5-6.2 (Jerome) Southold Town Board of Appeds 28, 1999, included tr-e 'following resolqtion interpreting Code section 100-83C, which applies to the. Limited 8us:ness zone and is worded identically to section 100-103C: "RESOlVED, that the Sc.ard interprets the meaning of section 100-83C to be that a structure shall have no more than sixty linear feet of frontage On one street, so that a structurE: with two streetfrontagessatisfies section 100-8:3C ifit measures no more than 60 Iineqr feet on one of those frontages." This interpretation applies as well to section 100-103C. Therefore, the propcsedbuilding frontage of40 feet faGing Jockey Creek Driv~ satisfies section 100-1 03C and no variance is required fortheproposed frontage of 93.8 feet on Main Road. RESOUITION/AOION: _ On (notion by Member Collins, seconded by Member Homing, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the requested variances authorizing a rear yard setback of 26 feet at the closest poin-c to the rear lot line and a front yard setback of 95 feet from Jockey Creek Drive, suqjeG to the CGNDmON that, in accordance with Applicant's original proposal, the front wall of the addition shall be set back 5 feet, more or less, from the front wall of tile existing store; and further RESOLVED, that pursuant to this Board's authority under section 267-b1 of New York Town Law, the Building Inspector's Notice Of Disapproval dated April 5,1999 is hereby reversed with rf'..spect to the proposed length of building frontage facing Main Road. J~~~~If: '!%~i ,_',:.~ -"-~~-~~_.."~"... -- "_-"-""~---'_..~-,.._--_.~~~~..,-_.._"---.;~"-",..,,.,----cc=:-'.,-.''',,--- -=.._..~~,--,"--~.~.."" . . , - ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora Southold, New York 11971 Lara S. Collins ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064 George Horning Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OFSOUTHOLD FINOINGS,DEUBERATIONS.ANO DETERMINATION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30,1999 Appl. No. 4742-SE MARY ELLEN WHITTET THOMSON 1000-128-2-3 I STREET & LOCATION: 6230.Peconic Bay Boulevard, LClurel ~,." DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: September 30, 1999 FINDINGS OF FAG PROPERTY FAGS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property consists of approximately 24,000 sq. ft. in area with 150167.64 ft. frontage along the south side of PeconicBay Boulevard in Laurel. The property is improved with a two-story wood frame residence with asphalt and gravel driveway areas. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Applicant is requesting a Special Exception pursuant to Artide III, Section 100-31, subsection 8-13 for approval of an \\ Accessory Apartment" use within the footprint of applicant's existing principal residence. BOARD FINDINGS: In considering this application, the Board has reviewed the requirements set forth pursuant to Article III, Section 100-318-13 for the Accessory Apartment and finds that the applicant complies with the requirements for the reasons noted below: 1. The Accessory Apartment is located within the footprint of applicant's dwelling. 1 2. The Accessory Apartmentis subject to a Certificate of Compliance issued by the Town Building Inspector with respect to all other rules and regulations pertaining to occupancy, as well as the New York State and local Building and Fire Codes. 3, Ms. Maryellen. Whittet Thomson, the applicant herein, has through .her attorney submitted a copy of her current deed indicating that she is owner of this property. The deed was recorded April 7, 1969 in the Office of the Suffolk County Oerk. The owner of the existing dwelling plans to continue occupancy of one of the dwelling units as her prindpal residence. 4. Applicant has submitted the following information with regard to floor area: (a) the existing prin~pcll bUUdinQC9ntaipsa. total of 2'~~psq.ft.; . (b) the Accessory Apartmel"lt, presently 6c+uPied pUl'Su~n~.'~'. a. wrjttE!r.Memoranl1ltl~.9f l~se,ls 712.sct, ft.;. ... (C).. ttleAamai@j~g aFl~ for ~,Q~o.er:'s,~Jl1IeJl<!e i~.~,4~8sq...ft. With~#Q3S+",i<f:l..ft.dow(l~1I'Sand406 sq, ft. tlp$t!ail'S. ~z'<.';'r'Y4i,~:~",},~~~",~'[!t,K"rt., . ")j!W!!t<;< ';:i"~r>J~f~'f\/!":f!!7,;;"i'!/ ,\ ... '. '\yY ?(/i'l"" 5. The Accessory Apclltment me.ets the code required 45(!) minimum livable area and contains 712 sq. ft. of livable floor area. ~_.__._-_._---_.....~ ._".._~----- , _ , J. ~ . Page 3 - September 30, 1999 ZBA Appl.No.4742 (Thomson) Parcel 1000-128-2-3 at Laurel F. That all proposed structures, equipment andlTlaterialshallbe readily accessible for fire and police protection. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by ~1emberDinizio, seconded by Member Tdrtora,it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the Special Exception for an Accessory Aparthleht as applied for, pursuant to the Conditions of the Code liste.d at Sectionl00"31B(13). VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: GOEHRINGER, DINIZI This Reso.lutioO\^fas .duly adopted (5-0). TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS HELD September 30, 1999 Pg. 1 Appl. No. 4702-DAN & MADELINE ABBOTT 3 Appl. No. 4739-JOANN & WILLIAM RICH III 13 Appl. No. 4740-GEORGE & JEAN B. GEORGE BRAUN 15 Appl. No. 4741-CHRISTOPHER EMERY 20 Appl. No. 4742-MARY ELLEN WHITTET THOMSON 24 Appl. No. 4744-EDWARD & JUDY DART 27 Appl. No. 4745-MARY JO PETERS (ORR) 33 Appl. No. 4746-ALBERT J. KRUPSKI 35 Appl. No. 4685-VINCENT TORRE 36 Appl. No. 4699-LISA JEROME (Hardware Store) 41 Appl. No. 4727-PAMELA & DAREN PFENING 52 Appl. No. 4724-JOEL & MAXINE HIRSCH TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) 5:54 P.M. - Appl. No. 4702 - DAN & MADELINE ABBOTT (Continuation from July 22, 1999). This is a request for a Lot Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26 for a substandard vacant lot referred to as 355 Pine Place, East Marion, Map of Gardiners Bay Estates, N.Y., identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 37, Block 4, Lot 14. This request is based on an. application for a Building Permit and the Building Department's February 11, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that Lots 14 and 15 in District 1000, Section 37, Block 4, have merged under Article II, Section 100-25A , due to common ownership at any time since July 1, 1983. The adjoining lot 1000-37-4-15, is improved with a dwelling and is referred to as 435 Pine Street, East Marion, N.Y. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We ask the attorney for Dan and Madeline Abbott to come forward. How are you tonight Sir? MR. BARNOSKY: Very well Mr. Chairman, thank you. Eugene Barnosky, Melville, N.Y., representing the Abbotts. May I hand up Mr. Chairman, the affidavit of posting and the receipts which were received by the Post Office. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, thank you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Great, thank you. MR. BARNOSKY: Mr. Chairman I know you have a very heavy agenda and I won't burden you with a lengthy presentation. I only want to note since the last time we were here, I guess we've been here a couple of times since April,. That the last hearing to refresh your recollection was I guess kept open for the purpose of the Board receiving perhaps an expert opinion contrary to that submitted in live testimony by the applicant. I do not believe as of today, any such an opinion has been submitted and therefore, on behalf of the applicant, the record contains the unrebutted testimony of the Real Estate expert. That the grant of this application we have no negative impact upon the neighboring properties, that the lot in question is similar to lots in the area in the pattern of developments and indeed we've submitted evidence that there are numerous lots in Garden Bay Estates that are either equal size or smaller. Likewise I just want to note, that the Garden Bay Estates Association now supports our application. Thank you. 1 5:37 P.M. - Appl. No. 4739 - JOANN and WILLIAM RICH III This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-31 CA for the use and location of an accessory swimming pool, constructed under Building Permit No. 18782, at 1105 Orchard Street, Orient; Parcel Nos. 1000-25-2-20.17 and 19.1. This appeal is based upon the July 28, 1999 Notice issued by the Building Department, disapproving an application for a Certificate of Occupancy, for the following reasons: "Swimming pool or tennis court incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain... subject parcel does not contain a principal residential use. Original permit for pool (#18782) was issued based upon a survey indicating that this lot had been merged with the neighboring residential lot, these lot~ were separated by Zoning Board of Appeals in Appeal #2104 dated March 26, 1976 and have not merged." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. Could you state your name for the record, please. MR. RICH: My name is William Rich. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. RICH: I am the owner of the property. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, we have an issue here that's truly I think on the verge of getting out of hand. The background is, in 1974 I purchased my primary residence on Orchard Street, 1045 Orchard Street. On the maps that I provided everybody is, 19.1. In 1981 I purchased an adjacent lot from William Schrieber after the Zoning Board of Appeals permitted a separation of his lot from his adjoining lot, your notice indicated that it may have been separated from lot 19.1 but, in fact it does not separate it from that lot. I purchased lot 20.17 which is on the corner of Tabor Road and Orchard Street for the specific purpose of preventing somebody else from building a house on that location. Although I did purchase the lot I never intended to merge the title for estate planning purpose or income tax planning purposes. I wanted to keep separate title and in fact I took the property under separate title. In 1990, January of 1990, I applied for a Building Permit to improve that lot for a swimming pool and a utility building. I was given the permit and spent over $110,000 inputting the pool, landscaping on the building end. The property, the Building Department indicated that there was an intent to merge. The concept of merger never came up. The map that was submitted, really it did show a border that was they call a prior border but, it mentioned two separate specific tax lots. And, a merger isn't a landscaping concept. A merger isa legal concept where the both owners get together and take it under one new t,tle and one n~w tax map number. I continued to pay real estate taxes on two improved lots since 1990. In fact, in 1996 that lot 20.17 was in fact 3 traded for my own internal tax purposes to my wife which was confirmation that maintaining the two separate titles was useful for income tax planning purposes. As I said, there was no mention although the code may have indicated, there was no mention when I got the Building Permit that it would be a merger. If there had been a request or a notification that the lots had been merged, I would have put the pool and spent the money on a different part and not spent the money on the adjacent lot. Certainly, there was no request for a variance. There was no indication that the pool project, you're going to have to discuss with the neighbors. There's been a letter submitted that indicated that the neighbors were advised that there would be a merger and that's absolutely ludicrous, the neighbors didn't even know about it. Up until the notice was posted they probably couldn't even describe what a merger was. There was no forum that would have required neighbors be notified or a conforming pool. In 1999, May I.had accepted an offer to purchase the property for frankly a very high premium price. The buyers were interested. Certainly not in subdividing or building anymore structures on that property, but, they had a need for a tax lot and were ready to pay me a premium and increase the value of the property because there were two separate tax map numbers. They had no interest in subdividing, no interest in building a house, but, it did. A high net person recognized that it was an advantage of having two separate tax map numbers. When the Building Department refused the Certificate of Occupancy, the offer was withdrawn and basically I got stuck on what would have been a very, very attractive offer. After that, I did a little research and found that under the circumstances there is a law in New York State called the Law of Vested Rights which in essence developed through case law which indicates that the property owner relies on a valid Building Permit and spends money, and improves the property which I did. I spenfover$110,OOO ten years ago and now there's an indication that I will not get a Certificate of Occupancy unless I merge the lots which will decrease the value of the property. Now the merger of the lots really accomplishes nothing. NoboOY isgoing to pay the premium prieefor these two lots is going to put LIP a smallsh~ck on a half acre.. I presented pictures and books that I gave to various Mempers of the Board. It's a very attractive piece of property. It's a compound that's landscaped. As I. said, .it took me welt over a $110,000 dollars<and it's absolutely. improbable that anybody woulopay that price and sell off the adjacel1t lot~nd be squeezed in. So,. as Isaicj, based on my reliance on the Building Permit Icontinueo to improve the prqperty. I pay taxes every yearfor the past 9-1}years and. lost avery, very attraqtivepurchase. I have another buyer who is :again interested in buying. They w~nt two building lots, have no interest in developing the property and I'm on the verge of losing another one because I'm unableto get this Bui.lding Permit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rich are you an attorney? MR. RICH: Yes,l am. 4 ~~'-'~-..'c-,~__,.,,,,,_,""____:_'____"'''''-'-''--_',~,'_''.__'--__..,":.".~~ -.~~~----~-- '__""^"."..",n_ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What was the purpose and the reason why I ask that question, you're both an applicant and an attorney and of course there's no reason to swear you in because you're an Officer of the Court, OK., and that's the reason why I asked the question. What was the purpose of building a garage that size on that piece of property? MR RICH: For my equipment? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean two stories on that side? I mean it's an extensive, extensive garage. MR RICH: It certainly is and there were many times over the past year I kind of wish it was bigger. I have a lot, I bought a boat, I have a lot of equipment for the orchards ans;j maintaining the property and cars. It is a full, full barn and it's not rented out to anybody. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you at any time ever realize that the Building Department was in error in granting you a Building Permit for the construction of the swimming pool and the construction of the garage storage building? MR. RICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You were. When did you come to that realization? MR RICH: In June of 99 when the a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean there was no time subsequent, immediate subsequent the issuing of the granting of these Building Permits? MR RICH: Absolutely not. In 1997, I transferred title from the title that I took in 1981 to my wife's name. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On that lot? MR RICH: On that lot. I continued to pay taxes separately. Never, never even comprehened that. There was no mention anytime that there was a need for a merger. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: These are unique circumstances. These are circumstances that this Board is somewhat akin to and I probably can count on my right hand the amount of times that applications of this nature have come before us. But I'll yield to my colleges and I'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Do you have any questions of the applicant Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't. 5 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: One is just a point of fact. The pool is sought of mentioned in various of these documents. But, the issue at hand I gather is C of Os for both the pool and the barn garage? MR. RICH: Based on my understanding, there's no problem issuing the C of Os for any of the other buildings. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I'm sorry go ahead. MR. RICH: I've been told by the Building Department through my partner who is really out h~re more often than I, that they had it ready to go but, they wanted to wait and issue them all together, so they were holding them off. But, I have not been advised that there's a problem with the storage barn. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, my understanding of this case is, the Building Permit that was issued back in 1990 of which you were kind enough to give us a copy, refers both to the pool and the building - MR. RICH: It does. MEMBER COLLINS: And indeed there's a notation on it, two C Os will be necessary and as I understand it, your problem now is you realize you don't have those C Os, you went into the Building Department and asked them for them, and said, they can't issue them, and the reason is that these are accessory uses on a property with no principal use. Is that a good nutshell of the situation.? MR. RICH: That's a nutshell. MEMBER COLLINS: So I think probably both of the C Os are in the picture. The Building Department memo refers to the original pool permit, but, I think that's just a shorthand. The way I read this is, of course this is a complicated situation, but, I think it sounds like a use variance request and that's a very difficult road to hoe because really what you're asking us to do, as I understand it, is to grant a variance that says, it's OK for these accessory structures, the barn and the pool to be used on a property with no principal use. MR. RICH: But in fact, there is, it is part of a principal use. It's just that it's - MEMBER COLLINS: Not on my property Sir. Not on, that, that's the issue. MR. RICH: It didn't say that on the Building Permit. 6 -.- __ ,_.u.u_~____,._._,__~_~_.,.~__.~__.,_._~~_.__ MEMBER COLLINS: Well going back to the building, let me tell you something that sought of troubles me a little about this. You have emphasized the Building Department was in error in issuing the Building Permit for accessory structures on a parcel with no principal use and you said they were in error and that's why you're citing the Doctrine of the Law of Vested Rights and Equitable Estoppel and that sought of thing. But, going back and looking at the Building Permit Application in 1990 not only did it have that survey that we've all seen that shows a line that says, former property line between the two lots implying that they'r,e all one lot. But also, the Building Permit Application gives the size of the property on which the activity is to be conducted as the total size of the two lots and it also says, the current use of the property before the construction is residential with a small barn, and after the construction the use of the property will be residential with a small barn, a big new barn and a pool. All of which was telling the B':-lilding Department it was only one lot and I don't think that they were in error, I just think they just had inadequate information that you gave them. MR. RICH; But that doesn't constitute a merger. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, no Sir, absolutely not. That's your problem. Your lots aren't merged and you don't want them merged. Of course not. MR. RICH: But it reduces the value of the property. I've already lost a premium price. MEMBER COLLINS: I understand that, but, I'm trying to give you my reading of this case. You have two lots. They never merged. You never wanted to merge them. You built accessory structures on one of them that has no principal structure and that's a violation of the Zoning Code. It's a violation of the Use Rules and now you want us to fix that and I think to fix it we've got to give you a Use Variance and those are extremely hard to get. That's where I come out. MR. RICH: What appears on the New York Law Vested Rights and I jeopardized it right up to the last minute. It's expanding and I didn't make any distinction between a use variance application. It's more of a formality and there is all kinds of language in a half dozen cases cited. Judge Lazer provided the most significant face case vested rights on estoppel and this certainly seems to say where a property owner relies and I certainly relied. I continued to pay taxes. I changed title and I was never informed until I tried to sell the property and I was deprived of a sale. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? One second Lora. MEMBER COLLINS: Sure. 7 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The title to this property was originally in your name and that's when you changed it from your name into your wife' name? MR. RICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, excuse me. MR. RICH: The primary residence is in joint names. MEMBER COLLINS: I lost my train of thought. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry. MEMBER COLLINS: No, my concern is that the Building Permit upon which Mr. Rich relied in 1990, was issued based on information that told the Building Department that the situation was other than what the situation was and for him now to say, that he has vested rights and equities against the authorities because he relied on that permit just bothers me and further more I don'tthink that we admittedly I don't anything very much about the law, the administrative procedure in New York, but I don't think that we are the formed argue vested rights and equitable estoppel to. I think that's what you argue in court when you're suing under 78 asking, telling them they've got to issue your permit. I've spoken too long I think. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I do not agree that's a use variance. There were a lot of oversights to give you a background on this a little bit that occurred in the seventies for lack of communication. The Board's ruling on this is suppose to be permanently attached in the Building Department to that file in the Building Department. So to just say they didn't know and therefore they just went ahead, I don't think that's accurate. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry Lydia you're rebutting something I said, and I don't understand what you're saying. MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, I do not believe it's a use variance. I do not agree with your statement that the Building Department had no other information to go on. The Zoning Board of Appeals made a decision in 1976 - MEMBER COLLINS: Letting them set-off the lots. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, creating this. Our department is not somewhere off in the moon. We're here in Southold Town, Building Department is down there. When that decision was made, this is automatically, was automatically made 8 ,,_~__,_'~~_'___ _ _'_'___'~_~ -----~,_..,.,_-.__"C",__,--'_c.-.---:,..~.:...".---,.,.,~~_,_,.-~--,~-,-,---.,.,..,,~.~~---- part of their file and that information goes with that file. So, when he went in 1990 and filed an application to build a swimming pool, that information should have been in that file. So, I do not absolve them and say, no they had no way of knowing better. They're not up in the moon, they work in our town. As far as a use variance, I don't see it as a use variance anymore than allowing a structure that is required to be an accessory structure that is to be required to be in a rear yard that and we allow it to be in a side yard. The issue here is the location. So, I don't really agree with that at all, that it is a use variance. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I mean it's good to argue this on record because I think we need it on the record. Obviously we don't want to take upa lot of time with this. I think you're totally wrong in your interpretation of use variances verses area variance, but, I stop. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: The applicant had started to tell us what he thought the principal use was. Could you tell us now? MR. RICH: The functional generic use of the entire property is, residential. There's no distinguishing a line of demarcation between the two lots. ( ) the two properties were landscaping purposes. There's absolutely very little possibility that anybody would pay the kind of money they would have to pay to buy this property and not continue that in a greater landscaping and use of the property. Maintaining the two separate tax lots simply enhances the value because it's a more flexible asset for state and income tax plan. It's not, it doesn't pose any threat to (a) create a precedent or (b) create an opportunity. Certainly somebody could damage the property. The two pieces taken separately are certainly technically less valuable than the whole according to appraisals that I've had. The whole with two separate tax lots provides an enhance value. I don't understand what the opposition would be to have premium prices secured in Orient when it's not going to increase density, it's not to have any negative impact on anybody except to increase the tax rates. It is a residential use. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a question if I could, from your last statement. Would you be willing then to sterilize that lot so it would not be a buildable lot? MR. RICH: Sterilize it? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah. 9 MR. RICH: I'm not familiar with that. MEMBER DINIZIO: Say to us, you won't sell it as a buildable lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the whole purpose of the hearing though. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you're saying to us, no-one would possibly do it, no- one would possibly, well? MR. RICH: Right, but, in order to ( ) the buyer that I lost in May for example, wanted to do a tax swap on some early complex real estate swaps that they had and needed was going to pay a premium for the two separate tax lots. As long as they're able to maintain the two separate tax lots for income and estate plan purposes, I <;lon't care what restriction is placed on it. But to force the merger basically says that I can't sell the property at a premium. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not asking you to merger. You're saying that no would possibly buy that to build a house on it. MR. RICH: No, that's a subjective valuation on my part. If you look at the property, people are not going to pay you know over a half a million dollars and then sell half of the property and let somebody build 50 feet from their front yard. Close off the pool, close off the entire length, somebody might, but, I don't, I don't, certainly the offer is to buy the individual pieces have been a fraction of the whole. So why would somebody pay, you k now X and then convert it to being fraction tax. Technically they could and if there is such a legal concept as sterilization, I'd be happy to entertain it. I just never heard of such a thing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I mean just that particular statement doesn't seem to fit in any of the argument if you're saying to me, that it's not worth. The value is gained from it being a separate parcel. MR. RICH: That's right. A separate tax lot would permit certain tax - MEMBER DINIZIO: Buildable, buildable parcel. I mean the value of that parcel is that it's a buildable piece of land. MR. RICH: I don't think based on the people that I've been interfaced with, the value is not as a subdivided piece to put another building on. It provides additional flexibility. One specific situation I needed, it had tax swaps. In fact I'm still waiting to here because if they can swap two pieces of real estate into these two pieces of real estate, they prefer to gain on that. They have no interest in building. The enhance value is because of the deferral of their primary realized gain on another piece of property, not on the ability to dig a hole and plan another house. 10 _"~~______~.__~_"~c",,,,,,-_~_~~__~~__~-'-"-'~_7_.~~_:'-:--=rc-:-,--e.~~._~'~"~- ,'.,"-T.=~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Interesting, thank you. We'll see what develops. We appreciate it. Is there anybody like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anybody like to speak against the application? Sir? I should point out that we do have letters in the file from residence and I assume Sir that you are one of those residence. MR. ROCK: Yes, my name is Ted Rock. I live across Tabor Road adjacent to t his property and the other signatures, Judith Nigro and Donald Boerum are also - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear that the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your ,knowledge? MR. ROCK: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. ROCK: I agree with Mr. Rich who has created beautiful property there. There wonderful neighbors. The problem is that it's not a property. It wasn't a valid Building Permit because I think you're arguing at us because the information that she said the Building Permit, Building the original permit group didn't have was that it was in fact not merged. They thought it was merged based on what was provided them. The total square footage and the so-called former bounty lines. So it was issued on incorrect information. The previous history of the lot I don't think was the issue there. How they could have been presented this information mistakenly is a question that I have. They would never have, they would have needed a variance at that time if in fact, they knew it was a separate lot. So clearly for whatever reason I'm sure it (changing tape) Mr. Rich said he needs it as two separate tax lots for flexibility and as the gentleman said, the only flexibility ( ) matters that one could be sold separately. I believe that Mr. Rich never had that intent. In fact, his wife, Joann Rich,told both Donald Boerum and Judith Nigro, at the time that the pool was built, at the time they purchased this corner property, that they purchased to keep it both an open space and historic district is key there. However, she could promise whoever buys it in the future wont' do that and to say no-one will built a little shack on half an acre, his beautiful, gorgeous house in the existing ( ) building around. The other smaller part of the two pieces and that half acre is bigger than just about every other lot in the historic district of the village and I wish I could believe that no-one else will. I'm sure it's not his intent to build there. But, someone could put up a tall hedge, separate the pool and build a beautiful hous.e on the corner there and then the density would increase and I believe that in terms of the value of the overall property it isn't you know, the purpose of the property is residential. He referred to it as an entire property. It is not an entire 11 property, it's two pieces still and until it is not two pieces there is that risk of building. That risk of building is our concern. If there were another way to sell the building rights, or to for all times make sure that there could be no other building on that property, then I have no problem with it being a separate tax lot. However, I don't think it's the purpose of anyone here to be building and to their action of the Zoning Board some potential buyer's tax will cause and I think that should be a side issue. I agree with Mr. Rich, that the value of the property as a whole as a beautiful landscaped home. It's wonderful, the pool is beautiful, I have no objection to the pool as such, to where it's located as such. The objection is to the potential that it has to be sold as a separate lot. with then, whoever purchases it as a single lot and that's what we have to, that's what we're up against. And, as the neighbors on that corner, we absolutely resist that other corner. I think that's alii have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak against? OK, any questions from anyone at this point? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 12 _'__'__.'~.'~_~'_~_____~'_'__'.~_ _. ,~_,~~,__,,'__"'~~~_____',-,,_'_~~-C"__ 6:25 P.M. - Apple. No. 4740 - GEORGE & JEAN B GEORGE BRAUN This is a request, based upon the July 22, 1999 Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval, for a Variance under Article III-A, Section 1 00-30A.4 for approval of a side yard location of the existing accessory garage due to the proposed construction of an addition to dwelling. Existing garage is currently in the rear yard. 2005 Bay Shore Road, Greenport, Parcel 1 000-53-4-11. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sir if you would state your name for the record. MR. BRAUN: Good evening, my name is George Braun. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. BRAUN: I am the property owner and this is Bob Grogginess who is the contractor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? What would you like to tell us? MR. BRAUN: The proposed extension of the house is going to overlap the currently detached garage by perhaps 10 feet and technically ( ) to the attached garage on what is currently a back yard and moves it into a side yard, I guess according to the Building Department. It probably would be possible to knock down the garage and push it further back thereby putting it into the back yard again. It serves no useful purpose to do that. In fact it constitutes a number of hardships, not the least of which is a modest cost that doesn't need to be incurred. Number 2, it will place the garage rather far back from the house making any use of the garage that much more difficult and lastly, will push the garage to a point where it starts to overlap on the neighbors' adjoining properties and while there's nothing illegal about that I know that the neighbors would just assume that the garage would stay where it probably is and so the application contrary to the way Newsday had it published is not to for a variance to move the garage. We're asking for a variance not to move the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Braun how long has the garage been there? MR. BRAUN: Since a, the records indicate since the house was built which would be about 1955. I've owned the house for eleven years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with Mr. Horning. Any questions of these gentlemen? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? 13 MEMBER TORTORA: The addition, is that 14.6 by about 24, is that about right? MR. BRAUN: 14 feet deep by 24. MEMBER TORTORA: No, the application seems very straightforward. It's very clear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No questions, no problems. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. we thank you for presenting that. If anything else develops we'll let you know. Please don't leave until we close the hearing. Is there anybody else 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. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 14 __.,_ ._,...._._._._____ ______,--,-,___._.-------,---_._._~~-',..__:_c~_,_.._,._.'_"-..,~_--_.~~.,_.,-_-".~"..-c.~~~-_ ...'''"'7T'T~=tTi:::;T'''._..,.'".'..i;''.',..,.,'''..','',,''.i,,_,;',' 6:28 P.M. - Appl. No. 4741- CHRISTOPHER EMERY Applicant's request for a Variance is based upon the August 13, 1999 Notice of Disapproval, and Article XXIII, Section 1 00-239.4A.1, for a proposed location of an accessory swimming pool in the rear yard with a setback of less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff or bank of the Long Island Sound. 2735 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-93-1-13. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Emery how are you tonight. MR. EMERY: Very good. CHA~RMAN .GOEHRINGER: Good evening. MR. EMERY: Good evening. As you know we're looking to put a swimming pool in. On September 7th, Mr. Chairman, you requested a note, a letter from an . independent engineer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hm, hm. MR. EMERY: I believe you have that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. EMERY: And we also have the soil and erosion, I believe you also have that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. EMERY: We have a bulkhead at the base, the toe is in fact in tact. Phragmities have been growing, the bluff is sound and basically we're requesting a variance on the 100 foot mark. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me, you have to ask for four green cards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need four green cards from you. MR. EMERY: I'm sorry, I don't know. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The signature cards, four more green cards we were waiting for, on the certified mailing. 15 MR. EMERY: Swim King was suppose to have been here today and drop them off. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, we didn't get them. MR. EMERY: I apologize. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's all right. MR. EMERY: That I can get. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK. MR. EMERY:: The four that you're missing, are those from individuals that did not return them or - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They should have been four that did return them. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They should sign them. It's a certified mail notice, they sign it, and then return it. But, we must have it for the file. He can mail them tomorrow or something. MR. EMERY: On all, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Question. The question I have Mr. Emery, I don't like to, first of all your property is absolutely magnificent. Your house is magnificent. I do question the vegetation of the bluff itself, OK and that was the purpose of having the engineer give us a letter. I am in hopes that if this Board grants this swimming pool in your rear yard that there are two things that exist. Number 1, that it never been linked to the house, OK. So, god for bid if something was to happen to the bluff, OK, and that's number 1, and that will be a restriction that I'll place on it as one voting Member of the Board and number 2, that you really do work on this bluff because it appears to me, apart from the toe issue, it appears to me, that the bluff is not that great and I just have a concern with that, all right, and in granting, you know, I, I don't want to grant something that's going to further exacerbate the topside of that bluff. You know what I'm saying, which is, and I think you're building the swimming pool far enough away, that you know, probably is well negligible at this point. But, I do think that more vegetation could be grown on the bluff and I think that the options of soil and water conservation as an evaluation have given you, I think that you should take heed of to be honest with you. This is not a mandate, this is very simply a suggestion on my part. MR. EMERY: Very good. 16 ~~-----~---'--""~----'--""---------~---"'-'------'-~-_.,,_...--~~._- -~."...~-c"".,.,-""".c~~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At no time is this pool going to be enclosed, is that correct? MR. EMERY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio, questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: A dumb question because I don't know anything about pools. Occasionally the pool drains, doesn't it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. Is this a liner pool or a gunite pool? MR. EMERY: It's a liner pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, liner pools never drain. MEMBER COLLINS: Never drains? OK. I knew I didn't know anything. I have nothing further to say. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, they drain a I ittle bit. You have to drain down to a certain point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but you never really physically take all the water out. MR. EMERY: From what I understand from what Swim King has informed me, is - MEMBER COLLINS: I was concerned over if the pool actually, when I was a kid, pools were drained. But, that was a different, that was a different world. And, the water has to go somewhere and I didn't want it going down the bluff, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's it? MEMBER COLLINS: That's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? 17 MEMBER HORNING: Yes Sir: Can you tell us very simply about your consideration to locate the pool where you want to locate it as oppose to other sites. MR. EMERY: The real problem is that on the east side we've got a septic drain, a junction box on the west side we've got a daylight basement so I'm really, I really have no choice other than the front of the house and that's really not the one that we, since you've seen the house, to put the pool in front of the house would kind of ruin it. MEMBER HORNING: But zoning would allow for it so they could consider the front being Long Island Sound, is that correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MEMBER COLLINS: No. BOARD SECRETARY: No, the road is front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Only the road, Sir, it's a reverse. MEMBER HORNING: I thought out on Fishers Island sometimes the front, the water front. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, yes actually- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's because of the private road aspects. You have more private roads in FICO than I have ever seen in my life and they estimate different front yard settings and so on and so forth. That's it? MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. We'll see what develops Mr. Emery and we thank you for coming in and presenting this and you'll get us those green cards, right? MR. EMERY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to point out to you, that if we don't get them, we can't make a decision, OK, so we've got to get them. MR. EMERY: If I might, can you give me the listing of the names of those people? I mean I'm in the dark, I apologize. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The pool company is the one who mailed them out. It's best if you call them directly. Thank you. 18 -~~- "--~--'--~-'--'-'------'---- "-'~-- . ____..M_--,--,-.,....--, -.".,........,."",.~-~-_.."~._---'^,---'.~-~~~"_..~_.- MR. EMERY' Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Don't leave yet though because we haven't closed the hearing. Is there anybody else would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anyone else? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands we'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving the right for this decision pending of course the receipt of those green cards. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carri~d. See Minutes for Resolution. 19 6:35 P.M. - Appl. No. 4742 SE-MARY ELLEN WHITTET THOMSON Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III, Section1 00-31 B(13) for approval of "as built" Accessory Apartment use, in conjunction with applicant- owner's occupancy of her residence at 6230 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-128-2-3. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Olsen I understand that you are representing. Good evening Sir, how are you? MR. OLSEN: I'm well, thank you. My name is Gary Olsen, I'm an attorney-at- law, having my offices at Main Road in Cutchogue. I represent the applicant, Mary Ellen Whittet Thomson in connection with this application for Special Exception for an accessory apartment for the property that she owns at 6230 Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. The applicant obtained title to the subject property by deed dated, August 3, 1964, which was recorded in Liber 5590, Page 278. I'm going to submit a copy of that deed. I also submitted with the original application, another deed which was recorded on March 17, 1969, in Liber 6530, Page 01, which, this property was originally owned by Mrs. Thomson's parents and the latter deed, the 69 deed, was an Executor's Deed basically to wrap up her mother's estate. But, here's a deed in August 3, 1964. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. OLSEN: The property is designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000-128-2-3. In September of 1964, Mrs. Thomson applied to the Southold Town Building Department for a Building Permit to do a total renovation of the subject premises which was formally a carriage house. The Building Department issued a Building Permit number 2526Z on September 21, 1964. The plans which were submitted to the Building Department were prepared by an Engineer Gordon Ahlers which plan indicated, that the first floor area would contain a living room, dining room, kitchen, study and foyer and the second floor would contain a living room, dining room, a dinette, kitchen, bath and three bedrooms. I will be submitting tonight a copy of the floor plans. I also submitted them as.part of my original application as prepared by Mr. Ahlers stated August 27, 1964 for your records. Also to be submitted, will be the Building Permit number 2526Z, which I just referred to, to build the addition and make the alteration to the existing dwelling. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued by the Building Department on October 11, 1965, number Z2249 pursuant to the aforementioned Building Permit, a copy of which you have in your file and I'll submit additional copies now. I'll also now will be submitting a copy of the Southold Town Property Record Card, indicating that there is an apartment above the garage. This property is in a R40 Zone. It contains approximately 23,220 sq. ft. This property is extremely private and it's difficult to see from Peconic Bay Boulevard for from the adjoining properties. It's located on the 20 ~~~~~~~-'-"--~-'---"--'~'"'-"~-------'-- -.'--~~.~"""""""--- south side of Peconic Bay Boulevard. It's entered by going through two concrete columns and the property is basically enclosed with hedges, trees and bushes which makes it difficult to see from either from Peconic Bay Boulevard or the adjoining properties. The house is occupied by Ellen Thomson as her primary residence on a year round basis and she utilizes the entire first floor for her personal use as well as two bedrooms on the second floor. The second floor apartment is currently occupied by a tenant of the applicant, one, Jennifer Swanson pursuant to a Memorandum of Lease dated November 19, 1998. As part of my application to the Zoning Board I have submitted a copy of the Memorandum of Lease for your file. The total living area of the structure is 2,150 sq. ft. of which Ellen Thomson occupies 1438 sq. ft. and that's comprised of downstairs of 1,036 sq. ft. and upstairs of 0402 sq. ft. and the tenant's area on the second floor is 712 sq. ft. As part of the papers which I submitted to the Board I outliredin pink, that area on the first and second floor being occupied by the applicant, and in yellow that area on the second floor being occupied by the tenant. As the .Board is aware of the Southold Town Code under Article III, Section 100-31 B(13), permits accessory apartments in an applicant's primary residence by Special Exception. The Code sets forth a list of requirements for accessory apartments which I will briefly review. (I.) The accessory apartment shall be located in the applicant's principal building. As I'Ve indicated Mrs. Thomson resides in the building and utilizes it on a year round basis as her primary residence; (2)The owner of the existing dwelling shall occupy one of the dwelling units as the owner's principal residence. The other dwelling .. unit shaH be leased for year round occupancy evidenced by a written lease for a term of one or more years. As I've indicated, not only does Ellen Thomson reside in theexistingdwEHlingona yearround basis, but she has a Memorandum of Lease with Jennifer Swanson which lease runs from December 1, 1998 to Novernber30, of 1999 and you have a copy of that agreement. (3) The existing one family dwelling shaH .contain not less than 1600 sq. ft. of livable floor area. AsJhaveindicatedthe total squar~footage of livable areaoHhedweUing is, 2, 1eiOSq,ft. .(4 Theac~essoryapa~mentshall containnotless than 450 sq. ft. ofHxablefloorarea, and,as I have stated, the livable floor area of the accessory ap~rtmentis712sq.ft.asouUinedi@ yellow ink on the floor plans which were submitted as part of the . application. .. (5) The accessoryapal1ment shall.. not excsrrd40% of the livable floor area of the existing unit. 40~of 2,150 sq. ft. is 860 ~q. ft.and accorqinglyJheaccrssoryapartment of 712 s8.. ft.fallswithin the guitielinesof the Code,'. (6) A mini~um of three (3)off,.street'parkingspaces shall be provided. I'm going to be submitted herewith, a copy of a sketch that shows that there are currently 4 if not 5 off-street parking spaces and the sketch also shows plantings which provide for the privacy of this parcel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR04SEN: (7) Notmare thanaoe (1) accessory apartment shall be permitted ona lot. This application is being submitted for only one (1) accessory 21 apartment in the applicant's dwelling. (8) The accessory apartment shall meet the requirements of a dwelling unit as defined in Section 100-13. As I indicated before, this accessory apartment was approved by the Southold Town Building Department when the applicant submitted plans for a total renovation for which a Certificate of Occupancy was granted. (9) The exterior entry to the accessory apartment shall to the maximum extent possible contain the existing exterior appearance of a one (1) family dwelling. Photographs were submitted as part of this application. The entrance to the accessory apartment is obtained through a door on the north side of the residence facing Peconic Bay Boulevard. Access can also be obtained through the applicant's front entrance on the west side of the building. A review of the photographs and an inspection of the residence would in no way reveal the fact, that the premises are being utilized for other than a single family residence and accordingly the outside appearance keeps the look of a. one (1 ) family residence. (10) The building is a preexisting building which was built prior to April of 1957, which was totally renovated pursuant to a Building Permit issued on September 21, 1964, for which a Certificate of Occupancy was issued on October 11, 1965. Lastly, Section 100-263 of the Town Code sets forth General Standards governing Special Exception uses. In reviewing the standards as set forth in the Code, it is respectfully submitted that (1) the accessory apartment use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties ina Residential District; (2) The accessory apartment will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted for legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts; (3) The safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience and the order of the town will not be adversely .affected by the proposed use and its location; (4) The proposed accessory apartment use is in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of the Code; (5) The use is compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scaleandoveraH appearance and that's why I stress that this is a very private parcel. . You can't even .see the building on it from the road; (6) The structure equipment .and the material will be readily accessible for fire and police protection. Section 100...264 of the Code al$o sets forth other matters to be considered in determining whether or not a Special Exception should be granted and it is respectfqlly submitted, thata review of those matters to be cons.idered under Sect.ion 100~264wou.ld clearly indic~te that no adverse conditions will result from the Board granting this .applicatio{lfor an. accessory apartm~nt. Accordingly it is respectfully requested,that this application be granted. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Olsen while you're standing there, I had the distinct pleasure of reviewing the building with Mrs. Thomson and most of which you said I will admit this properly and exactly correct, OK? I'll start with Mr. Dinizio. 22 ~"._---._,",-"---'-'-"--"-'--'--"""~--------------"-'~-~,"--,-~..,,,...-.~~---------~~_._--,----,---_._----~~ --.,-------~~-- ~ MEMBER DINIZIO: I have nothing to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: All set. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Boy, I'll tell you must of dazzle them tonight. We thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes, how are you tonight Sir? MR. KOSTER: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Kindly state your name for the record. MR. KOSTER: William Koster. I live next to the next to the property and I'd like to say, that Mrs. Thomson has been a wonderful neighbor and it's a beautiful home, but, I do have a question and I felt this was probably one of the best time to ask you because you haven't ask people in the audience before. I'm assuming that if this is granted, which I hope it is, it will be for her ownership and then if someone down the road should purchase it, they would have to resubmit, is that correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. It does not survive the sale. MR. KOSTER: That was my only question. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Anybody else like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHA~RMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution> 23 6:47 P.M. - Appl. No. 4744 - EDWARD & JUDY DART This is a request for Variances under Article II, Section 100-23-C pursuant to a Notice of Disapproval issued September 1, 1998, and applicants' request for a change in lot dimensions with respect to lot(s) A and B with insufficient lot area, depth and width (area less than 40,000 sq. ft., lot depth at less than 250 feet, and lot width at less than 175 feet in this R-40 Zone District). Location: East side of Peconic Lane and the South side of North Road (CR 48), Peconic, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-74-3-15. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Mr. Dart, how are you tonight? MR. DART: I'm well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. We have only one question to ask you before you commence and that is, did you receive the letter we sent you regarding the Planning Board's comments? MR. DART: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. What would you like to tell us in general regarding your application? MR. DART: It was just about a year ago that I came before you seeking a means to divide my two acre L shaped parcel, a home site parcel in Peconic into two parcels to enhance the sale of my residence that fronts Peconic Lane and I'm back now asking for you to consider an alternative to what I had proposed and which you had granted the first time. The situation is this. Everybody from the butcher and the baker and the real estate man and the prospective buyers to my wife, who thinks that I must need to have my head examine for these concept that we asked for the first time to divide the property along that particular lane because it is detrimental actually to the sale of the house. It has a, I shot myself in the foot by asking for that particular methodology. I have potential customers come to the standing in the back yard and they'll say, well where is the property line going to be?, and I'll say, you're standing on it, and they'll say, you mean I don't get that that I'm looking'at right back there? Well, no that belongs to the other parcel. So, at that point, they usually turn and leave. So, it's been a detriment to the sale of the house. So, at this point, either I'm fixed either with throwing in all of my land to make the sale happen, or, finding some other means to divide the property which will allow me to preserve the value, lower the price, the total asking price for the home site and make a sale happen. So, this new strategy is apparently to everyone else and now to me, the clearer path to take and I ask that you consider the divisional along the line that I've shown on my sketch plan which creates lots no smaller than any of the other neighboring lots 24 ~_~"~___~.c"....,.,..~__,___.__ ,~ _'_''''__"--,-_''",_'_'_'''-~~C-__'''_,,,_'_''_____~'__~____~__,._.___,.,-..-.-.-----,..~~__.__c__-..-.-:~~~--___,._c_"'-~,.._,_~..., ,,,,,,.,-:,>,,.....,. in Peconic. I think it's still consistent with the neighborhood and I ask you to consider that for a variance approval. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, just before I leave you and I turn it over to my colleagues, you don't have any objection to the Planning Board recommendations? MR. DART: I think they're the same recommendations as previously to ask for no further subdivisions, something like that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. DART: I'm agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mr. Horning, any questions of Mr. Dart? I don't mean to put you on t he spot. MEMBER HORNING: Weill want to verify what this is here. Is this your new proposal? MR. DART: Yes, that's the new one I picked. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What it basically is, is a elongation of the house lot. MR. DART: Right, yes, that's correct. That's the one I'm asking for now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I didn't expect to see you back so soon. MR. DART: Time flies. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, Ed, the real reason you want to do this, is it's very short again? MR. DART: Well, yeah. Two acres of land is a fairly sizable piece of lawn for anybody to maintain. The fact that the property is L shaped, and it's at least 3/4 of an acre of it is around the corner that you can't even see from the home site itself allows for it to be a natural to divide that leg of the L off to make the home site parcel a little bit smaller and therefore have a lower sales price. I spent an 25 awful lot of money on restoring the old Victorian house. They, like the movie, they seem to be money pits and I'm lucky to get out of Peconic with my skin as far as trying to recover my expenditures on restoring the house. So, I'd rather not have to lose my sh irt. So, this is a way I can lower the price on the home site parcel and still have something else to sell and maybe break even. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, and you would not mind a condition on there, no further subdivision? MR. DART: No, I wouldn't mind and also, I think that my prior plan to use a quote tonight, that the prior plan disrupted the integrity of the landscape as well. This new strategy would not. I wouldn't have to move any shrubs or any trellises or anything like that, so it's a clearly a better plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you Ed. Don't, just don't leave because we may have you know someone. 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. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 26 .__'"-_'-'.-"'_.~-".,-~.~~-------,..,,"--_..."- --- ------------. 6:56 P.M. - Appl. No. 4745 - MARY JO PETERS This is a request for a Variance under Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3, based upon the June 24, 1999 Building Department's Notice of Disapproval, for approval of the location of an "as built" addition with lot coverage in excess of the 20% code limitation and with a rear yard at less than the code requirement of 50 feet. 5035 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; 1000-128-1-15. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a letter in the file from people whose property own it. Good evening Sir. Can you state your name for the record. MR ORR: My name is Joe Orr, I'm Mary Jo's husband. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: How do you do? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: How do you spell your last name please? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you spell your last name? MR ORR: 0 R R BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us Sir? MR ORR: Well, as Mary Jo purchased this house on an foreclosure, we've been in a process of renovating the interior. We've expanded that to the exterior and request for a variance adjustment. We weren't aware of Mr. Klett's issues until a letter came to us and since reconciled those differences between the two of us. Instead of just having the privacy screen on one side, we're going to build a hedge row for him or create some plantings so that he receives the privacy he requested. He's quite a culturalist of his own, so he's going to have a lot of input as to the nature of the landscaping that we're going to take on. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, is he here tonight, or have you just spoken to him? MR ORR: We spoke to him and we wrote him a letter and he said, he was going to send in another letter to the Board, saying that he was all in favor of it now. So, there really isn't anything further. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR ORR: In starting this whole endeavor, I made several phone calls to try and find out you know, what we had to go through and we were either going to go 27 with a patio or a deck and we opted for the deck issue because it seemed to give us an easier access for various things. I've always had somebody in my life who is a handicap so I thought this might be you know a better situation for all concerned and that's why we ended up going with the deck instead of a patio. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, there was never anytime where you applied for a Building Permit, is that correct? MR. ORR: No, that was, those were a lot of the conversations. We were told, no I was under the assumption that if I kept the 3 feet it would allow and under certain guidelines and we didn't have to go for that, but, that was obviously a mistake on my part. CHAIRMAN .GOEHRINGER: And the deck is not to be enclosed? It will never be enclosed? MR. ORR: No, no, never, it's just a platform with a railing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As we see it? MR. ORR: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of these applicants? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: What is the 6 ft. privacy screen mean? MR. ORR: On the one side the property it is a fence. Basically there's a shed that's somewhat rusted out so we're kind of adding kind of closer property to enhance our property value. MEMBER COLLINS: It's a fence? MR. ORR: Yeah. MEMBER COLLINS: I mean when I walked into the property I crawled under the tree next to the boat on the other side. I guess I didn't really look to see what was on the easterly side. 28 ---"-~'--'."----'--"'-----'-~-'--'~~-""-'-'-----'----~'---~~~--.......,---,'- r-.""'--'-'-' .~~----~~-_.~ MR. ORR: Yeah, it's a, and again in getting into the back yard landscaping we're going to add some shrubbery and take out some of the older stuff that's there that seems to be quite overgrown. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, may I raise the question of alternative relief, or do you wish to do that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, you're welcome. MEMBER COLLINS: The deck is very big for the lot. It does increase your lot coverage substantially above what the Zoning Code requires. It is a pretty crowded scene. And, the rear setback is very substantially less than the Code requires, all of which adds up to the possibility I think when this Board considers this and your request for a variance to allow you to have the deck, that we may very well find what we can agree on and that's what we need, is something that we can agar on, will be to authorize a somewhat less deep deck, a shallower deck and our question to you, is whether you want an all or nothing answer? In other words you can have your deck "as is", or no deck, or, are you willing to consider, obviously we can give you alternative relief and you can say no and sue us or whatever. I'm just kind of laying out the possibility this may Board may think that there's room for compromise here. MR. ORR: Well that's what, we, we had started building this deck. We started out with a shallower deck and I was subsequently pulled aside and said, am I going to be the only one sitting on it? So, that where we came up with the extra 6 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just say something in their defense? Having lived off of Peconic Bay Boulevard for a long period of time, this property owner is one of the first in that area to come in to legalize their decks, OK? There are several in that specific area which are far more extensive than this applicant's decks, notwithstanding the fact, that your opinion and so on and so forth. So, we, you know. I think it's a proper question that you mentioned, you know, alternate relief, but, who knows? We may and we may just say - MEMBER COLLINS: No, I just wanted to surface the issue, that's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We are now nearing Mrs. Tortora's statements. MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? 29 MEMBER HORNING: Clarify the Building Permit aspect for us. You applied for a Building Permit? MR. ORR: As we were finishing up the interior we started to think about the exterior and this was back in September, so I made several phone calls and asking what was the criteria for a permits and who should I file with, what should we go for you know, who should we talk to basically? And they said, well, you know they gave me the criteria of 3 feet below, or you could ( ) ground, the shower stall itself was fine the way it is. OK, well that sounds good I don't have to apply for anything and then in December I made three more phone calls because we were getting more serious about it and they continued to give me at least to my satisfaction, the information that I was lOOking for and I'm saying, we really didn't need anything. In the Spring, somebody came along and said, 'vI{E111 no, you need a permit. It's pretty obvious so we stopped and we called in and told them what stage of the building that it was an unsafe structure so I asked Mike, .( I didn't get his last name) - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Verity. MR. ORR: And he said, we'll make it safe and that's as far as you should really go for now and wait until you come before the Board and ask. MEMBER HORNING: Who built the deck? MR. ORR: A gentleman that's a friend of mine since I was around 5. He's been building decks on Long Island for about 20 years and don't even ask why we didn't go for a permit, that's that's another a - MEMBER HORNING: OK, I won't ask that. A couple other brief questions. You mentioned that handicap accessibility, something like that, did you not? MR. ORR: Yes. Well that was the main issue between a patio or a deck which way do we go. We'd love to open up the back yard for more of a family atmosphere because again, with the growth and everything, there really wasn't a lot going on out there. MEMBER HORNING: What are you calling handicap accessibility? MR. ORR: Well just so that we can, my cousin could wheel out from the interior to the exterior without any kind of nature endeavor going down the stairs or - MEMBER HORNING: There's no ramp from the deck, though? No handicap accessibility onto the deck except from the house? 30 ~_.__.___,~_~~....__~_~.,--c.,--_.___.,"~"""'_"--~~_~~_~~ -."",......,-~-'~ MR. ORR: Right. Well, that's mainly the issue for us, going in and out of the house. MEMBER HORNING: You have a ramp into the house? MR. ORR: Not at this time. That's the future consideration. MEMBER HORNING: I'm just curious because you mentioned that top and I didn't see a ramp on the deck, so. MR. ORR: No, that's well, you know we can either put something in front of the banister. We're not sure how it's going to work out. Our concerns were the bathroom and the accessibility in and out of the house. MEMBER HORNING: Yeah, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Oh, could you please contact the next door neighbor and have him at least send us a brief little note saying that there is some unanimity here between - MR. ORR: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because if not, we're going to have to discuss other options and mandate certain screening and so on and so forth. MR. ORR: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else 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 pending the receipt of a letter from th.e next door neighbor saying that, they have withdrawn their objection and have some positive criteria in reference to what they're going to do for screening. MR. ORR: Fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Take care. All in favor? MEMBER COLLINS: Did we vote on this? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, no, we didn't get a second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a motion and a second. 31 7:05 P.M. - Appl. No. 4746 - ALBERT J. KRUPSKI This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33 B based upon the August 24, 1999 Building Department's Notice of Disapproval, for approval of the location of an "as built" accessory building with a rear yard setback at less than the Code requirement of three (3) feet. Location: 36050 CR 48 (North Road), Southold, 1000-69-4-6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: AI, how are you tonight? You are Albert Krupski, Jr. MR. KRUPSKI, JR.: Yes, on behalf of my father, Albert KRUPSKI. A brief history on this. My grandparents boughUhe house and property I think in 1978. There's a gC\rage on it and that was pretty much that. When my father sold the property last year the new owner wanted a C.O. for the garage so we went to the Building Department and they said, no they can't give a C.O. because it's two feet from the property line, not three feet. Going back to the records, the house was built in 64 and the garage was dragged in from somewhere else and you know, before my grandparents owned it and it's converted. It use to be some sought of a house. It was converted into a.garage before they owned it. So, now we're anxious to seek a variance so we can get the C.O. so that the new owners can have it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, any questions of Mr. Krupski? Anybody? MEMBER HORNING: I have one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, George? MEMBER HORNING: Is your family still the owner of the property? MR. KRUPSKI, JR.: No. MEMBER HORNING: Why isn't the new owner applying for the variance? MR. KRUPSKI, JR.: That's one of the conditions of the sale. MEMBER HORNING: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: This is so you won't have to move. You want to leave it where it is? 33 MR. KRUPSKI, JR.: Well, I mean that's the way my grandparents bought it , when they bought it, and it's an issue now because the new owners wanted it., the C.O. MEMBER DINIZIO: C.O., well, OK, that's alii have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else any questions? OK, thank you. Just don't leave until we ask if there's anybody else. MR. KRUPSKI, JR.: Do you have all the necessary green cards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, yes we need green cards from you. This is a green card evening. MR. KRUPSKI, JR.: I hope this is going to be enough. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. This is fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 34 -~~ ~~----- ~~--~-~ - "~--~ - -- -r ~----~~~._-~'___~--c"__ .-...,...,---_.,---,-.--,--_..~-~.~ 7: 19 P.M. - Apple. No. 4685 (Continuation) VINCENT TORE This is a request for a Variance under Zoning Code Chapter 100, Article 1 OO~ 31 C(2) based upon the October 20, 1998 Notice of Disapproval (updated January 27, 1999) regarding a Building Permit Application to convert accessory barn for retail sales in conjunction with applicant's Art Studio and Gallery, disapproved for the reason that retail sales and a gallery for public viewing in the accessory building is not a permitted use in this A-C Zone. 100 Sound Avenue, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-120-3-1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is Mr. Tore present? Mr. Tore is not present. I respectfully requests that the Clerk of the Board send him a letter indicating to him, that his application be held over tothe November meeting and that he must make the proper notices. If he does not appear at the November meeting, we will very simply cancel this application and that's the extent and inform the Building Department of such. I offer that as a Resolution. MEMBER DINIZIO: What's the date? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: November 11th. MEMBER DINIZIO: November 11th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Jerry made a motion. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 35 7:20 P.M. - Apple. No. 4699 - LISA JEROME (Hardware Store) Variances are requested under Article X, Section 100-102 to locate a proposed addition with rear and front yard setbacks at less than the Code requirement and under Article X, Section 100-1 03C for a proposed (addition) with extended frontage, greater than Code limitation of sixty linear feet in this General "B" Business Zone District. This request is based upon an application for a Building Permit and the Building Department's April 5, 1999 Notice of Disapproval. Hart's Hardware Store, 5000 Main Road and Jockey Creek Drive, Southold; 1000-70-5- 6.2 (corner lot). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore how are your this evening? MRS. MOORE: I' m fine, thank you. I have two cards that came in after the people with the consents. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: We're continuing so I won't rehash everything we done before. A couple of things that I want to certainly thank the Board, Chairman Goehringer, on behalf of the Board and Members of the Board, and discussed this proposed site plan with the Planning Board. There was pretty much I think we can report to the Board that there seems to be agreement and type of layout (changed tape) The applicant certainly amenable to that and I think that there was a preference so that we could preserve the sign which has kind of a historical significance but it's - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It also breaks up the length of the building. MRS. MOORE: It breaks up the length of the building. One of the issues that came up I guess in my own mind I hadn't seen your determination from the July 28th meeting when the application was made for an interpretation of the section dealing with the 60 ft. linear frontage on one of the roads. Reading that decision it seems that we have two front yards here and we have one on the Main Road and we have one on Jockey Creek Drive. So, it would seem to me that based on your interpretation that we would not necessarily need a variance from the 60 foot rule if you were to apply your interpretation where you have two front yards. That's something that you should certainly consider and if we can eliminate variances that's fine, that's always a preference. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to tell you that that was presented by Ms. Collins and I'm not sure that we all agree with that aspect of it as it pertains to this particular application. So, a - 36 ---- . --~~~-~._.~,-- MRS. MOORE: That's your interpretation and you can choose to apply it. It just seemed consistent with a corner piece. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. MOORE: Do you have any questions either for Mr. Goodale or myself? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The original situation when we met with the Planning Board was and we'll deal with the plan that we have, let me just see the current date on it, August 13, 1999. Is that the claim you're dealing with? MRS. MOORE: The one that I have in front of me is August 5th. CHAIRMAN,GOEHRINGER: Oh, we received it August 13th, pardon me. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI; No, it's updated, revised Pat, August 13th. MRS. MOORE: Oh, OK, I have so many surveys in my file because we've gone back and forth. It may be that the last revision done by the surveyor is the August 13th date. The one I have in front of me I could look for it but I think you probably have it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What I need you to do, is to give us a final plan, OK, and that is draw the line from the podium of the or the brick podium by the sign and tell us what you think or what your applicant thinks the distance is that he and she, basically she is the owner and the gentleman is the operator, Mr. Goodale needs to be from that sign so that we have the actual final piece of the survey and I don't need it done by the surveyor. You can write on the survey yourself. So just meet with Bill, and give it to us, and then submit it to us so that we have it in our file, and we can act on that. Now, at the hearing we were talking 5 feet, and we said, that 31 feet then went back to 26. MRS. MOORE: 27, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 27, OK. If you would just write that and fax it over to us and we're all set OK, in my opinion, all right and we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. MRS. MOORE: OK, just so I have a clarification, I understand giving you the 26. 7. That I don't have a problem with. Do you want a measurement of the front from that sign? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I just want you to draw a line through it, through that line that actually runs through the podium or the platform. 37 MRS. MOORE: The base? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, the base platform of the sign which now moves it back five feet and you know, and that's basically it. MRS. MOORE: OK. In other words you want the revised survey that's going to be the one we're going to use for the Planning Board that's going to be showing the addition setback 5 feet with the 26. 7? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. MOORE: OK. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: And, as I said, you don't have to get that involved to, you know, I mean you're going to need that but, I don't need that. You know I'd rather just have you submit it with a letter saying that this is what we are suggesting at this point. MRS. MOORE: That's fine, that's fine. I don't want to have to send the surveyor back out just for a measurement for the sign. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of course not, no. Ms. Collins, do you have a comment ? MEMBER COLLINS: No, just for the sake of not complicating their lives anymore than necessary, the setback measurements, the rear yard and so forth that were originally submitted because your original submission had the five foot indent in the front of the side. That's sought of still valid. The difference is that your revised plan showed what you called what we really need - MRS. MOORE: Right, the cutback version. MEMBER COLLINS: And shows the building as you would actually in fact build it and it seems to me that you just, the only problem I have and it's small but, it's one of those loose ends. The original plan that was submitted showed that rear yard setback as 26 feet even and then the building front was move 5 feet forward and the rear yard setback went to 31.7 feet and I never understood where the half of foot came from. I don't worry about - MRS, MOORE: The original plan done by the surveyor? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MRS. MOORE: The same surveyor? Because, we had two additional surveyors. 38 -,----- "-c.-c-,.-,----,_,.~----,--,---_~__,,__'~. ."._..._~=~-~-==~~~- MEMBER COLLINS: I know Greg Crone was in the picture, right? But this is - MRS. MOORE: Yes. East End Drafting had done the original proposal that wasn't put to scale, so that's why we brought in Joseph Ingegn to actually measure, to give an accurate measurement. That doesn't look like Joe Ingegn survey. MEMBER COLLINS: This isn't Ingegn. Since I raised this give me just a second to see if I - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I just need to ask a question. This and I forgot to ask Mr. Goodale, this is a two story addition, or one and a half addition? MRS. MOORE: Two story. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two story, OK. MEMBER COLLINS: No, Ms. Moore, this came with your original submission and it is an Ingegno's survey. We received it in April and it shows a 26 foot rear setback - MRS. MOORE: Oh, OK. MEMBER COLLINS: And the revised one moves the front 5 feet and the rear somehow moves 5-1/2 feet. It's not a big deal but, it's the kind of thing you like to see resolved. MRS. MOORE: Well, I have to rely on the surveyor to give me an accurate measurement and I think that when that was brought to scale down it was fine tuned to make the exact measurement. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. MRS. MOORE: I think that's the only conclusion I can draw. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good. Any other questions from the Board Members of Counsel? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well then, what is the actual measurement then, is it a half foot? MRS. MOORE: I think it should be - 39 MEMBER DINIZIO: This one? MEMBER COLLINS: 26.7. MRS. MOORE: It should 26.7. That's what I believe it to be. MEMBER COLLINS: We will assume that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, all right. Is there anybody else 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. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 40 --~-'-''''--'--''-''~'-~'-'--'--'-'.~~~--=~.~.__.~----- -'''''''~-''''-'''-=--C-C_-~'''''''--_'''C-C''~C-.--C-__-''-~''__'_~~~_'_ _ ,+.'S'7,r~-"';_",;"_"i_"",_"";h"7.7.=,_"".,,,.;,.,,,,.,,,,__',0=--- 7:28 P.M. - Appl. No. 4727 - PAMELA & DAREN PFENING This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Sections 100-31 C and 100-33, based upon the revised Building Inspector's September 8, 1999 Disapproval for a proposed storage barn/building to be located on a vacant lot without a principal use. 2905 Arbor Lane, Mattituck; 1000-113-7-25. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: This came in the mail late yesterday afternoon. I mailed one to you too. I didn't know if you got it. MR. PFENING: Yes I got it just today. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, good. MR. PFENING: This cards are all in,. The last one came in today. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you have the Affidavits that go with them? MR. PFENING: Yes. That was the copy we didn't mail you on sending them out and two Affidavits. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. MR. PFENING: This was Mr. Gatz? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, the same letter. I MR. PFENING: Yeah, I already got it. I CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: State your name for the record. MR. PFENING: Daren Pfening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have before us an application for a storage building on a vacant lot and we have a letter of concern from an adjacent property owner apart from that letter which we certainly will take into consideration and we may ask you questions on, what is the purpose of the building? MR. PFENING: The purpose of the building, part of the covenants and restrictions of my property that we purchased, does not allow you to store an RB on the exterior of the property. I don't know the exact wording of it. An RB in the a, I guess anywhere in view as how it states or so on. It does state that it is 41 motorized. We have a large travel trail that we use quite frequently. It's a fifth wheel trailer. That's one reason for the barn. I have a tractor that I use. Part of that tractor and (inaudible) may be used to take care of the private road at times along with some snow plow equipment and probably an extra truck and that's the main purpose for the barn. I may have my own personal you know woodworking type of shop in there or something like that and use for storage of different things. We would like to put this up prior to, obviously to keep everything down at the site when I'm going to be under construction and keep everything out of the weather and also use to store some of the materials and things when the house is under construction. That was main reason for building this building prior to that and then getting on to the house. We're now in preliminary designs for the house itself and I'm trying to locate the house on the property working around several large trees that I want to save on the property. I've been doing some of my layouts myself. We have quite a few large peach trees there, so we're trying to work all around that and that was also the main purpose of putting the barn you know where it's going if anybody had to ( ) or survey the property, that's the least intrusive area on the property to put that type of building addressing Mr. Gatz's letter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. What do you do for a living? MR. PFENING: Building Contractor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there would there be, of course I could swear you in concerning this but, I don't think I'm going to. Is there any reason or is there any thought of storing construction equipment, construction materials, OK, for any other job site other than this one? MR. PFENING: No. There's no reason for that. I have, actually at my place of business now I have a 27 x 27 garage that we own. It's a model home we're building that I'm selling and I barely use it for any of that use. The way we run our business I don't really have any construction equipment in my use, like let's say, back hoes, bulldozers or anything like that. The materials that we use is from time to time, basically go from job to job and occasionally I could say, I may have an extra cabinet or two here or there, some 2 x4s but, we're not talking about storage. I don't need it. It's not necessary. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any other position or location that this Board could deal with other than the one that you have applied for? MR. PFENING: The position of location? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. 42 __~n_~'_"""_~'~ --~~"---"".-"--'-"'----'-~~~'----"""-~--~~--'-~'-~,'~'~-'~----~~~'~~-~'~~-_.~" c~=SC--l MR. PFENING: Well after, the pbsitlonof locatioh actually I thought was not an issue. It was an issue until timely straightened out where the front yard actually is, where the side yards actually are and the rear yard actually is and the barn does not come in conflict with any of those locations. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, it's 15 feet from the property line and that's what the concern is. MR. PFENING; Well actually, it actually turned out to be 20 feet from the property line. I've redrawn on a survey which I was told to bring with me, I can pass around what those locations are now. That original survey was drafted was marked up here at the town with me and Mr. Forrester originally and I think Linda knows a bit about this. We went back and forth a couple of times in the original survey. I haye that as well that you can compare against. (Handing out the original survey and the new survey.) This is the new. I've drawn it basically to scale leaving 20 feet here, but, I think the barn would be pulled back a little bit. We just want to have access here and I'll go on the microphone saying why I don't think it should be here. We've established that this is my 60 foot front yard. This is my 50 foot rear yard. MEMBER TORTORA; Whose we? MR. PFENING: Mr. Forrester and I. MEMBER TORTORA: Then why does the Notice of Disapproval still say that it's the proposed accessory building is in side yard? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's been a new one, MR. PFENING: That's since been removed. That's why I think there's a little confusion. MEMBER TORTORA: On August 27th? MEMBER COLLINS: September 8th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI; September 8th. It's probably towards the back of the file maybe. MR. PHENING: I was just trying to address Mr. Gatz's letter actually on that. I think the Variance application now is only for the proposed construction of this building prior to the house dwelling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any customary structures uses which are customary incidents is principal use? 43 BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Lydia it was updated later. It wasn't in the packet. It was updated about a week later. It was in the mail box. MR. PHENING: And this is what actually Mr. Forrester had drawn was the original front yard, the original front yard, the original side yard, the original rear yard and after many discussions we felt that this wasn't necessary. It was actually detrimental to this property being five acres and its location. They were trying to spin off with a cul-de-sac. But., then everybody here would have to spin off the cul-de-sac around me. It would affect everybody. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, we have several issues that we could deal with here in reference to restrictions. Let's take number 1, OK? Is or are Mr. & Mrs. Gatz aware of this new change that you have? MR. PHENING: They may not have been because this survey went out but it also, it went out because this is the original survey. I realized that when I received his letter today. I didn't get his letter until today until 5:00 o'clock so I didn't even know there was - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, I would appreciate your giving them a call and at least fax them over a copy of this new correct plan, OK, that's number 1. MR. PFENING: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Number 2, if the Board was so inclined to grant this, the construction of this, they would link this to the C of 0 to the house. In other words no C.O. would be granted on this until the house C.O., the house was actually constructed, OK? MR. PFENING: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the purpose of that is, that we have no intentions of allowing this type of building as a primary use because it's not a primary use, it's a storage building. MR. PFENING: I agree with that. The cost of the property - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not speaking for the Board. That's my opinion. MR. PFENING: Yeah, well the cost of the property itself in the area that it's in, I have no intent to use it just for that. That would be, financially it wouldn't make any sense. 44 ~__~~__~~..._~,_".,._~~_._~~~~_,._..-.-..~_._,....,-----,-,--c-~~-~~-- ,'''''''.,,',' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we have one of two options here. Is there any screening? I know it's an absolute ridiculous question because of the amount of wooded areas in this. But, is there any screening you're anticipating on the Gatz's side. MR. PFENING: Yes, well as a matter of fact,. after speaking with Linda before the first application, I was told to just go in there and give a little bit of a clearing and mark the barn. I don't know if anybody took the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I went in there the day after the storm. It was gushy. MR. PFENING: OK, I did mark, I did stake out the barn, I did mark the barn, I did clean it. ,There's almost 40 feet of screening or 50 feet of screening to the south of me that I can't even see the farm field after clearance. I mean you couldn't even walk through it and it's dense and I intend to keep it up and I think that to address Mr. Gatz's letter and his concern, I only take my side of it down. I would assume if anybody purchased that five acre lot they wouldn't come up to the .Iast 20 feet of the property and take down all of those trees and that screening, number 1. Number 2, I do have intent to plant probably some sought of evergreens along that area, especially the back of the barn. And, that main reason was to put the barn over there as not to intrude on my neighbor to the north east which her home is built very close to her property line. Her pool almost abuts my property line and I felt that if I put the barn there, I'd be almost on top of her. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this the lot 19.17 is that the one you're referring to? MR. PFENING: I forget. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you talking about the lot to the east? MR. PFENING: Yes. Mrs. Boeckman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Boeckman, right, OK. MR. PFENING: And the back of Mrs. Boeckman's property, I don't think it can ever be built on residential because ofthe size of the lot. It's a substandard lot. If anything, if somebody was to purchase that, or, Mrs. Boeckman wanted to put up a barn, it would be near where my barn is. There's almost two or three acres back there. It's a densely wooded area. Again, on her side, there's also very large trees that I do not want to take down if I can avoid it. There's no reason for that. I'm clearing for the barn the trees are a couple of Oaks, I mean maybe ten 45 or twelve inch Oaks but, some are even diseased in that area. It makes no sense to where it's going. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, so warping this up, number 1, if the Board allows you to commence construction on this building, you will screen it to a certain degree from the surrounding neighbors? You'll mention that to them? Number 2, the C.O. on this building will be linked to the C.O. on the house, OK? And, if there is any alternate location between now and the completion of this hearing which I'm going to suggest to the Board that we actually complete it on in two weeks from now and close it at that time, giving you an attempt to speak to Mr. & Mrs. Gartz, so if they have any further concerns they can voice them either verbally or by letter, OK? That's the story. MR. PFENI~G: OK. I mean the only other I can get to the locations right now for you to look at the layout of the property. The only other location is to my north west which again, after walking the property carefully I've spent hours and hours down there, it does not make any sense to put it there. It's also going to put it near my neighbor to my direct west whom I've become very friendly with and again, I have to extend the driveway all the way back down to that corner. It just doesn't make any sense to be over there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning, questions? MEMBER HORNING: Yes, just for clarification. Your case basically stands to be based on the fact that you're out of sequence here? You haven't built a principal dwelling there( coughing)? MR. PFENING: Yes, the side yard variance was proposed originally is not part of this hearing I don't believe. It's only to build a barn prior to building the house. MEMBER HORNING: Right. And, what is your intention again in terms of building the house? MR. PFENING: We have two residence up for sale now. We believe they're going to sell fairly quickly and our intent is probably to start building the house in the spring. I'm in the planning stage now. So I'll probably start construction on the house in the Spring or in the Summer and to be in the house before the year of the next year. MEMBER HORNING: What is the importance of building this barn first. then? MR. PFENING: Well, it's to use, it's to use it for storage for some of my personal items because I intent to put the barn (inaudible) regardless of that whether I put the barn up after the house or not. It just made more sense to me 46 -'-~~~'-""""""""~__-C"--__""'__'_~',"-'-"""'~'.-'-'-'_"_____-c-'_c----~______ to build it now and utilize it for the next six or twelve months while I can. I have like I said, an RB that I'm going to have to move when I sell my other residence to there, we'll put in storage when I going to put up this barn now or later. I didn't see any reason to build the barn simultaneously with the house. It's only going to detract that and I can use it while I'm building the house. MEMBER HORNING: There's no possibilitythat nothing else will be built and that will become the principal dwelling on the place? MR. PFENING: The barn? MEMBER HORNING: Yes, no possibility of that, correct? MR. PFENING: No, no, it's definitely not the intent. Like I said, financially it just wouldn't make any sense to have that property down there, to ruin everything back there, the power and do everything I can just to have the barn up. I could buy property anywhere else for probably a third of the price and do that. MEMBER HORNING: And again, that particular barn is going to meet the setback requirements of the Code, is that right? MR. PFENING: Yes and to clarify on that survey, I believe the setback is 20 foot on the side and 20 foot from the rear and I'll clearly meet that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's a common driveway you're utilizing right? That driveway runs into that lot of Mrs. Boeckmans. MR. PFLENING: No, it doesn't. That driveway in my own from the Cul-de-sac all the way back to the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And dead ends on your property? MR. PFLENING: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And no-one else has a right-of - way over there? MR. PFLENING: The only other is L1PA. I've given right-of -way to L1PA , and New York Tel and Cablevision because I ran everything back there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right do you want to give us a copy of your deed sometime too so that we'll have that. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, because you mean there's no access to the property on the - 47 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Boeckman piece we're referring to. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, the Boeckman piece? MR. PFLENING: No, no there's no access. The only access is from the front and that was the original subdivision of this property. There is, like I said, there is a legal easement that's drawn. in and it's marked even on the survey that you have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did Thornton Smith own Boeckman's piece too or is this where the property stopped. MR. PFLENING: I don't believe he owned it, no. If he did, it's quite some time ago becaus~ this was subdivided I think for quite a while. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora, did you have anymore questions? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I was just concerned about that eventually the access to the Boeckman's piece would be through your piece it would land that storage garage, a barn, in the front yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 100% in the front yard. MR. PFENING: Yeah, but she could never gain access to there. I think her lot is 2-1/2 acres so it would mean that you would have to subdivide a substandard lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, that's not our point. The point is, does she have any other access from her parcel to the house? MEMBER TORTORA: (More than one person speaking) she could apply for and it would be right through there. MR. PFENING: But could she still build a house on that piece? MEMBER TORTORA: Of course and if the Zoning is in tact, yes, more or less, I don't know. MR. PFENING: So, she'd have to subdivide the piece that she's on to build the second dwelling? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't know that subdivision. We're just talking about legal access. 48 MEMBER TORTORA: We don't know. We're kind of thinking that garage if that garage, if there's a possibility that that garage barn is going to land in the front yard in the future though. That's what we're thinking of. MR. PFENING: As far as I know there's no legal access, they have to come across my property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No I just got confused by that. There's a house on the Boeckman's property and you mentioned her swimming pool. MR. PFENING: Right, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: That's the other property. MEMBER COLLINS: And it's the Boeckman's property, to its east. MR. PFENING: That property runs adjacent to mine. MEMBER COLLINS: Abuts his property to the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's two parcels there. MEMBER TORTORA: It's two parcels Lora. MR. PFLENING: To the east, no. MEMBER COLLINS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Weil, it shows as two different tax maps but it's probably merged. But, Mrs. Boeckman gets in a different way. She gets in through a different fashion. She comes in through a - MR. PFLENING: A road that's a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Off of Cox Neck Road. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, she comes in from the east and your house is to her west. MR. PFLENING: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, and my colleges are worried that the right-of-way that gets to your house might under some circumstances be extended to get to her 49 house, which would turn it into a road and it would give you a front yard and you'd have a barn in the front yard. MR. PFLENING: I don't think it will ever be. MEMBER COLLINS: You've said it could never be and I think your right. MR. PFLENING: No because there's even another access there that was tied up a some sought of grant, the a, prior to that. I mean the subdivision I'm in is completely finished, you can't get through that area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, that's right. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. OK, so that's what we're going to do at this point, all right? MR. PFLENING: So I need to come back in two weeks? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't need to. You can send us, you're going to send us a copy of your deed and you're going to tell us in your letter that you contacted the Gatzs and that it. MR. PFLENING: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right and then we're just going to as a matter of operation close the hearing. MR. PFLENING: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right? MR. PFLENING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Are you closing the hearing, Jerry? 50 -~.~~~-_.,~- "'''. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, recessing the hearing, pardon me, I apologize. Recessed for the next regular schedule meeting at which time I will close the hearing pending the receipt of the deed from the applicant and any correspondence he had with the neighbor who .had a particular problem. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? MR. PFLENING: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR. PFLENI,NG: I just want to bring it up. Even though Mr. Gatz may oppose the location of the barn, I still don't think that that's even an issue on this parcel because - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well all we want you to do is tell him that you moved the barn 5 more feet and we want you to tell him that you intend to do plantings around it and so on and so forth. MR. PFLENING: OK, but I mean I'm at the understanding I mean, that I can build this barn 20 foot from that line from rear and side yard, with or without. I mean I'm legally able to that is that correct? So the only application here is, whether I build it prior to building a house. We're talking about six or twelve month period. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well it's setbacks too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't answer that question and I'll tell you the reason why, OK, because just as the front yard, rear yard and side yard changed by the two differences of the Notices of Disapprovals, that situation may change again. Hopefully it won't, all right? So if I could answer that question I would answer it, but, I have no ability to answer it at this point. MR. PFLEINING: OK, thank you.. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I need a second on the motion, please. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. 51 September 30, 1999 Board of Appeals 7:28 P.M. - Appl. No. 4724 - JOEL & MAXINE HIRSCH Continuation from July 22, 1999 (hearing calendar.) this is a request for Variances based on the June 14, 1999 Notice of Disapproval for a proposed single-family dwelling with respect to: (a) Insufficient setback from the top of the L.1. Sound bluff at less than 100 feet at its closest point; (b) insufficient side yard at less than 20 feet on one side; (c) insufficient total combined sides at less than 45 feet; (d) building height greater than the code limitation of 35 feet. Location: North Side of Private Right-of-Way (Private Road #11) extending off the North side of Sound Avenue, Mattituck;1 000-112-1-12. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Moore would you like to start the hearing? MRS. MOOI~.E: I have some green cards, actually from the last hearing that I found in my file. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you, great. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: Dr. Hirsch could not be here this evening. He has 90 mile trip and because of his schedule he could not attend this evening. But, it really is our opportunity to hear what the neighbors' objections are. We have not heard anything up to this point and our position has always been to try to medicate their concerns. We'd like to hear what they are before we can address them. So, at this time I did submit to the Board probably the day after the hearing, as soon as the surveyor had for me the change on the survey that shows that the height variance request to be 1 foot above what is the 35 foot limit. So, we've amended our application on the record and by way of exhibit showing that the height variance is not what it was originally. It has been reduced to the one foot. We've already placed on the record our reasons for it and the height of the bluff being the main concern that the topography of this property is meek eliminates any view if it cannot, if the house cannot be raised to be able to see over the bluff. Dr. Hirsch is paying for this property as a water front property, and he would like to have the benefit of the view of the Sound, as do all the other neighbors. They enjoy the view of the Sound, and Dr. Hirsch similarly wants to see over the bluff. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no movement of the house position at this point on the survey as it was presented to us? MRS. MOORE: No, we were waiting. My understanding we were waiting a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: An evaluation. 52 MRS. MOORE: A report from the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Soil & Water. MRS. MOORE: Soil & Water Conservation. But, the report really didn't say very much, if anything. The house itself when you look at the survey is at , it's over 100 feet back from the crystal erosion line and the required distance of 100 feet, it's closer to about 125 when you measure it from the lines that the surveyor drew. The only structure that encroaches in that setback area is the accessory is the pool. So, we're dealing with the structure being the supports of the pool and the actual a, yes, it's just the decking and the pool itself is going to be encroaching in the 100 foot requirement. CHAIRMAN .GOEHRINGER: That's a 75, is that correct? MRS. MOORE: Yes the deckinG begins at 75 feet, correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you very much Mrs. Moore. Mr. Tohill how are you tonight? MR. TOHILL: Good evening Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. The applicant then is finished with the applicant's presentation? MRS. MOORE: No, the applicant's attorney is not finished. The applicant's attorney - MR. TOHILL: Then I'm not going to proceed until the applicant's finished with his presentation. No sense going out of order here. I'll speak when good manners say I should speak when it's my turn. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore, what else do you think you might have available that you might want to present to us? I'm not putting you on the spot, I'm just asking you the question. MRS. MOORE: We have submitted the file, presented written, the application is very detailed as far as the standards that we had to meet. We presented to this Board the aerial that shows the character of the area and the placement of this house in relation to the other houses. We believe that for the most part our presentation has been made. I need to respond to what their choosing to submit and a hearing is not all a, it's a give and take. The Board will have questions, I'm sure I will have questions and I think Mr. Tohill is asking for something that is procedurally not required. We have submitted to you our presentation. However, the issues that they raise may require additional information to be provided. I won't say I'm completely finished with my application, no, I will wait to hear what they have to say and then we will respond accordingly. 53 --~--~"~~~~~-'-~'--'. ,~",-,~'7'~--"~~""_'C',c"" CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know what else to tell you Mr. Tohill. MR. TOHILL: Here, there are four variances, 75 foot bluff setback at 36 foot height, a17 -1/2 foot side yard that should be 20 on each side, a total side yard. I haven't heard anything from the applicant with respect to any of the four variances and I don't think I'm here for any other reason except to hear about those four variances. So, I'm not sure how you ask me to proceed, she asked me to proceed if there is no application that's been presented to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just say this to you? MR. TOHILL: She's trying to get at my file. She said to me when I wrote the letter to you, asking to adjourn to the 16th until tonight, that she would oppose the application unless I revealed the inside of my file. This is another way of attempting to do this. Totally improper, I don't know how it could be done. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just say this? There are people that come before us, that sometimes never and sometimes they are attorneys, sometimes they are lay people and sometimes they are people who have worked for towns before. An example would be and I hate to use the name, but, a gentleman like Roy Haje you know owns an organization in Southampton and he worked for the DEe at one time. These people just choose at this point not to continue with the hearing. Now,- MR. TOHILL: You mean this applicant? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe this applicant, maybe she chooses to continue with those aspects of why or she does not deal with the specifics. I have no idea. I have no idea why she doesn't want to deal with the specifics. But, I'm not here to force her to deal with them. MR. TOHILL; I'm not either. I'm simply saying to you, that the proper procedur,e is that the applicant finishes. There's a burden of proof, that I studied in Law School and have spent the last 25 years teaching or talking about, or arguing or writing briefs on. What happened to th~t here? This is Southold, we're part of the State of New York, we're one of the towns. Aren't we going to follow the Town Law? There's a burden of proof. If the burden of proof hasn't been addressed and we're being told I'll address it if and when I choose to address it, that's a little bit capricious. That's making you look bad. It's taking advantage of you. It's asking you to stick your necks out. I don't know why anybody would ask you to stick your necks out. And, I'm not going to bite into that and so when she's finished her presentation, I'm prepared as I was six weeks ago to proceed and my clients who are the four families, the Gurneys, the Camerons, the DeGraffs and the Rothbergs, who were here at that meeting and who are here 54 again this evening are paying by the hour to prepare for the last meeting, reprepare for this meeting and to be here this evening aren't going to look kindly to wasting that money if Mrs. Moore simply is unprepared, which is what we're plainly dealing with here. I want you as the Board to address the fact, that she is unprepared and I want her to finish her presentation and I'm prepared if it takes me until 5:30 tomorrow morning, I'm prepared in writing, with my witnesses, everything, to start the minute she finishes. I was the last time too. In fact, you'll see some of the documents are dated from the last meeting. I'm not even going to change the dates. That's the way I'm going to do it. I believe that I'm talking with correct procedure under New York Law. I can't be mysterious. They go first, I go last. That's the ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just say, that I am not in a position to force anybody to 90 anything other than what they do. And in general, I have to tell you, that I just, when a person says that, that's it and that's what I assume was it, so I'm assuming. MRS. MOORE: I have a, just that I thought we went through quite an extensive hearing process the last time. I did all the speaking and Mr. Tohill made a few commentaries about how prepared he was. I can go back, and I can go back through my notes, and I will restate everything I said before, I will add to it an extent that my notes, if there are any questions that go along the way. I am here to stay, I can stay here all night as well and my application was a thorough application submitting the standards and justifying the reasons for the area variance. I would, if the Board doesn't feel that that was adequate, I will just continue with my notes and I will proceed. I have not gotten a copy of the transcript so I honestly would have to go back and I will just begin from where my notes, my outline how it's prepared. I have no problem. I think that I won't get into commentaries that Mr. Tohill makes. I find them unprofessional and I will let you conclude for yourself his commentaries. If your ready, I'd be happy to present the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you telling us you presented the area variance standards the last time? MRS. MOORE: I gave you a very thorough outline with the diagrams on the aerial photographs. If, when I review the transcript and I review the commentaries that Mr. Tohill has with regard to what we presented, then, at that point, I'd be prepared to respond and add any additional information that may be lacking. Last time we had a very extensive hearing. I had Sound Shore Excavating here to present testimony as far as why the height variance is necessary. But, I'm prepared to go back. I have no problem with that, so. I don't want the Board to think. my memory, I can't go back and remember everything that was said and to what extent what was said. I will go back to my notes and start from the beginning and present the case to you. I hope it will be 55 >~--._^-,-_.._~,~~.._,--_..__._~,-~~~--- - "----,~-.'--.~-~-,~ -~--~~-- .-- as thorough as it was the. last time. It may be more thorough as I go through my notes. I was under the impression I was here to hear what Mr. Tohill had to say of why this variance should not be granted. I will go back and I will submit to the Board why this area variance should be granted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was .our understanding and it's the understanding of a couple of my colleges here, that you dealt with the area variance standards. Is that correct? MEMBER COLLINS: Absolutely. My notes show - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so therefore, at this point we' will say that you have concluped with that aspect of it and we're ready to go. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE: That's fine. I do wish to supplement my testimony and my presentation when I see the transcript and I review it and like what Mr. Tohill has to say. I think Mr. Tohill has discounted absolutely everything I submitted to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just say something to you? He has mentioned to me as a matter of operation of law, all right, that is an issue that we will discuss with counsel, OK, that he would not allow you to come back and deal with other aspects of it, OK, which you have never been, no-one has ever been in any way short and curtailed the - MRS. MOORE: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, we'll deal with that aspect of it if that's the case, OK. MRS. MOORE: That's fine. I do wish to respond to his commentaries and to whatever gentlemen that are here to testify on his behalf. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, OK, we're ready. MR. TOHILL: Mr. Chairman, at this time I'm taking the position that the record has been clarified in that the applicant has rested and that now I'm to respond to the presentation that she has made, which is the normal way in which we have always worked. The first thing I'm going to want to do, is introduced the people that are here with me in addition to the neighbors, Steve Maresco who is a familiar face to you, a professional engineer is here. He will be dealing with one of the issues. Pat Gibbon, an appraisal, certified appraiser from Hauppauge is here. He will be dealing with some of the other issues. Richard Warren from Inter-Science is here. He will be dealing with other issues. Before I begin with 516 their testimony I have housekeeping issues that I want to raise. The first one is, that under your rules in order for a person to come here there has to be a floor plan drawings. There are no floor plan drawings. There are no floor plan drawings in your file and there are no floor plan drawings in the Building Department and I know all about buildable lot thinking in the Building Department. But, I also know, that this is an application of the mass of a building. ( ) its neighbors and the desire to have less than the required side yard setbacks and so I'm saying to you, that we cannot do what we need to do without those and I don't know and again why this Board would stick its neck out ignoring its own printed rules that all the other people are required to follow. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not sure that's a printed rule, but a - MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like to know where you got that information because that's news to me and I've been a Board Member here for four years. MR. TOHILL: OK, it's the requirement of your application process. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's in an application. It's not a Rule.? It's a Regulation.? It's the policy that was adopted by this Board and filed with the Town Clerk? MR. TOHILL: It says, that there has to be seven sets of a floor plan. I didn't write this and I'm not the Zoning Board. I'm saying to you that the rules should be applied even handily- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that. Let me just say this to you, OK. If, we are in need of that, we will ask for it at the hearing, OK. MR. TOHILL: I'm going to need then to keep having to come back to deal with it if it's not going to come in up until the last minute. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will ask Mrs. Moore to continue the hearing rather than go to five o'clock tonight, tomorrow morning, which really doesn't bother me because I'll don't sleep anyway, so it will be fine and so we'll just ask Mrs. Moore for those. MR. TOHILL: OK, but, that's not fair and we object to it. The second thing is that you require an authorization from the owner to permit a third party such as Dr. Hirsch to make an application for variance. There is no authorization anywhere in the file. There is a fax copy of a Real Estate Contract and the Real Estate Contract allowed as of February 26th of this year, someone to make an application during the next 150 days for a side yard relief, not for any other application. 150 days has expired and there is no authorization. 57 September 30, 1999 Board of Appeals Transcripts CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we'll ask for another authorization. We'll ask for a plain copy of an authorization. When I say, other than fax and so on and so forth. MR. TOHILL: But the Board shouldn't proceed without that. CHA~RMAN GOEHRINGER: Then lets not proceed tonight. MR. TOHILL: Fine, that's the best result. That is the best result. That's the only one that's a full issue and not to criticize anyone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we are going to recess this hearing until November 11th. (changed tape.) To reconvene this hearing on November 11th. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. End of hearing. Rerrd 6') !-<uJa +arruL RECEIVED AND FILED BY 1 THE SOUTHCLD TOVVN CLEHK I DATE (p I Cu{oo HOUR l 0 :~ ' I ~4~OlJ~:/~ ! Town C' 1 'T' € '" . ,1.e:rF., ,LOwn OJ. ::::;outi:lold 58