Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6087 So,Lin)GE.2 2CA0.a4 F3 A3 W p_26-Go,0 Go22 c ' voz 4o(79 — f ccy Q/E - ai -Ar/ a f�Ei�hT w- ' cs-a2 y�4z� ser64c.t //,4o2) 11� 104 //ID/ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �,'/''Qc SOU Mailing Address:V! IJ James Dinizio,Jr. �/� �� lSouthold Town Hall \\-) Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman �* ; 53095 Main Road•P.O. Box f 179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ` G Office Location: Michael A. Simon ,?AD ����� Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank Leslie Kanes Weisman =4OOu " di' 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) ,,••'t Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net RE EIVED - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ' \ ) I -J,.4 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631)765-1809 Fax(631) 765-90642 2 2 008 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS, DECISION Southold Town tler6 MEETING HELD JANUARY 10, 2008 ZB File# 6087 —LAURA SOLINGER Property Location: 13459 Oregon Road, Cutchogue CTM 83-2-10.12 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply dated October 31, 2007 stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The Applicant owns a non-conforming lot of 1.426 acres in an R-80 Residential Zone which includes land along the shoreline of the Long Island Sound, adjacent beach and bluff, and land improved with the applicant's 2-1/2 story house. The southerly yard contains a play space for the applicant's children, an access driveway extending from the street right-of-way, well, open landscape with a few mature tree(s) and plantings. BASIS OF APPLICATION: this application is based on an August 21, 2006 application for a building permit to build an accessory garage and Zoning Code Sections 280-15 (A and B), based on the Building Inspector's December 4, 2006 Notice of Disapproval, renewed March 14, 2007 Notice of Disapproval. The reasons stated in the Building Inspector's March 14, 2007 Notice of Disapproval are that: (1) the accessory garage is not permitted under Section 280-15A for the reason that such buildings shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and that (2) under Section 280- 15B, such buildings shall be set back no less than 10 feet from any lot line. ZONING CHAPTER 280 OF TOWN CODE (formerly Chapter 100): Zoning Code Sections 280- 15 as amended January 16, 2007 states under subsection A that such buildings shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and under subsection B, that on lots containing an excess of 39,999 square feet up to 79,999 square feet, buildings shall be setback no less than 20 feet from any lot line. Page 2—January 10, 2008 • ZB File No.6087—Laura Solinger• CTM No. 83-2-10.12 FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 15, 2007, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Written submissions were extended, and accepted, as of December 5, 2007. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting variances for a proposed 24 ft. by 32 ft accessory garage building, with (a) a proposed setback from the western side property line at three feet; (b) the height to the top of the ridge proposed at 26 feet, shown on the October 21, 2003 surveyor site map dated, amended July 28, 2007, prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin III, and applicant's elevation drawings (undated, unsigned) with ZBA date stamp received September 11, 2007. AMENDED APPLICATION/ALTERNATIVE PLAN: During the November 15, 2007 hearing, the applicant was asked to submit an alternative that will be in more conformity to the code requirement setback and code height limitation. On November 29, 2007, the applicant submitted for consideration a revised (hand-drawn) site map proposing a setback of 5 (or 7) feet from the western side lot line, instead of three feet. The applicant also offered a letter dated November 30, 2007, stating a proposed: (a) lowering of the vertical height of the sidewall of the building from 12 feet to 10 feet, instead of lowering the height to the top of the ridge, (b) installing a traditional standing seam metal roof, and (c) shortening the length of the building from 36 feet to 32 feet. The sidewall height does not lower the height from the top of the ridge or increase the nonconforming setback that is proposed. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: At the public hearing, the neighbor Mr. Soja, owner of the closest resident (adjacent on the western side of applicant's property), objected to the proposed three foot setback from the property line, the height of 26 feet and the length of the building at 36 feet. Mr. Soja also testified that the water runoff does not come from his property, but from the slope of the Applicant-Solinger's property from North to South. This was confirmed by the elevations on the survey and personal observation. In addition, information was received by the Board (ref. westerly adjacent landowner's letter of December 5, 2007) stating that the applicant's property totals almost 60,000 square feet in area, and width of about 116 feet, in which to build a garage, and that the applicant is also an owner of the lot adjacent on the easterly side of this property. 1. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(3)(1). Grant of the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Applicants are requesting the construction of an accessory two-story garage in the southwest yard area, but in a nonconforming location on the property. Page 3—January 10, 2008 • ZB File No. 6087—Laura Bolinger. CTM No. 83-2-10.12 With the advent of the new accessory building law, the code-required distance on parcel with 62,112 square feet, is a 20 ft. minimum setback with allowable maximum height of 22 feet to the top of the ridge. The applicants wish to place this 30 ft. by 36 ft. garage, as amended at seven feet (or less) measured from the westerly side property line. The applicant also requests a height variance at 26 feet to the top of the ridge, instead of the code limitation of 18 feet when located ten (10) feet from the property line (and code limitation of 22 feet in height when located 20 feet from the property line). There are no other garages that are very close to the property line and of such magnitude affecting adjoining neighbors. 2. Town Law &267-b(3)(b)(2). The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The yard area between the applicant's home and the street (right-of-way) line to the south consists of+/-26,500 square feet of yard on the south side (138 feet wide by +/- 190 feet deep), which yard area contains sufficient room for placement of an accessory garage that will meet the code requirements while providing a benefit to the landowner for an accessory garage or as an addition to the home that will meet the code requirements. 3. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(3). The variance requested is substantial, resulting in a 65% variance for a set back of 7 feet, as revised, from the westerly side lot line, instead of the code required 20 ft. side yard setback for an accessory garage exceeding 18 feet in height to the top of the ridge, proposed herein at 26 feet to the top of the ridge. 4. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty has been self-created because there is land area available for placement of a garage without a setback variance and at a height that will conform to the current code. 5. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(4). To grant the requested variances in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board determines that a garage may be constructed at a much greater setback from the side property lines to bring the relief into more conformity under the Code. This application for construction of a garage at 26 feet in height is substantial and the building would be very close, and strongly visible when viewed from adjacent areas. The Board determines that, to relief for setbacks (3 feet originally, then at 5 feet) now as modified for only 7 feet, measured from the westerly side property line, is not the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an accessory garage on this property, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. A garage may be relocated to another site on the property with conforming, in part or in whole, to the current code requirements. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, Page 4—January 10, 2008 ZB File No. 6087—Laura Bolinger CTM No. 83-2-10.12 seconded by Member Simon, and duly carried, to 1 ' DENY the application without prejudice, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringer (Chairma. , Di ' io, liva, •.imon, and Weisman. This Resolution was duly adopted.(5-0). / GE' A RD '. GOEHRINGE• JR., 'YIRMAN / ; Approved for Filing 01/ v TO X6017 tilTO V 1) Town Clerk for filing (and date stamp) 2) ZBA at Town NFB Annex(when done) Thank you. Linda.Kowalski(aTown.Southold.nv.us • 765-1809 (press 5011 at voice recording) I a,tinol/JT bF -1.- EFILI{E5T' gAG•CER + " l FINAL MAP --4SEP j %�� REVIEWE 3 BY ZBAay SEE DECISsON # .6 0?, - '. DATED 4,2 G /02607 • Iiiii a 149" - __ 1 ,1. i — _ I I f , - i_.1 ____IL 1L#Rr,-tr, e06,--r-f4 Lac--- s-r1 cow -2.-e-C trek/Mt"t3 -*612—>`c :...ry,,.L,. 14E-tAL aog' ._ . 1 sEp 11 %007 i, 1 -fr ,tc,p2 , ,,,.... I I . 1 , • 1 :- . ' --- 1 , I i 1 I , i t • i I i - I i I p i .... I. 1. . 1 . ,-- I. . t . ) rw.„ 1 Ii- k •-., . 1 - f .c, I ' • i , .v .. , .—...„: - a 1 i • I ' 11-- 1 , . • r, i •... I ' - t i : 1 ., ..., , ., . it! .. 1 . ..1 I c---..... .• . - - . , . - # I I •••e=ca! '-,--: _ i -fl.•••• ••• . — t ti- ,.. . . I I I i / — I -I I i 1 . , t .1 , I. i . . , i 4 i . . , --.11 I I I ; •• ' - ' ; . • I . . 1 ! N , , ,.. , . . :_ . • • . . , • . . _ ._ _ . ._ . _ , .._.. _,.,..„_•4.-_,_,,, -- :i.- - -1,1 1:4- .14,11--- . 'i t.---fi*----11 • ; ,•,..*1,4.....*mo., ,c . ,: ,, 11 , . 1 ---,-.41 4----. . • _ • .4 1 4 i I. -2- . ---.,-....- 1 1 i ____I - . , „. 1 N. -'> ;1 . i . i I . • . . • t I . : ' F • i • r . REVIEWED BY ZBA it • CIS1014, kg20‘\ 5c&rof FLE-L/47-/041 1/2 SiEERE * ii --- 9- - • - DATED \')--/ \R / g\ . _ •; 4- AjO >tule4Bu#06— *- At ikiii/t%L. Et --C--LC- SEP 1 1 %OU% ems.. .........NIIIMI ,I, ":, V" • 1 ./1 \ 1 ! w w - Q 1< - ct to \ / V 4 1 -/ N ‘P i / <HI � i A/ 4a f , . , . ‘c - FINSL Iv AP RE !EWER BY ZBA c r ,„, ---L4 „ I y je se �° SEE DECISION # 4 133 D T 6 e l wd I t ' A-� tv/�oXL % U` = l ,D 54 tII To: Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Annex Southold, NY 11971 , /2'4 Qty Yrstp From: William Gorman RECCEOV D PO Box 1447 ft r Mattituck, NY 11952 NOU02007 °v ) Date: Nov 30, 2007 "kp0�� BOARD OF APPEALS Re: Laura Solinger, �4 Side yard setback and variance kinked- Accessory building height variance Tax Map#1000-83-2-10.12 To Whom It May Concern, After much consideration, we have arrived at what we hope to be a reasonable solution regarding the side yard setback, and overall dimensions of the proposed Solinger garage. Mr. Soja was sent a summary on Nov 26th for his thoughts, but hasn't responded so far. There is currently 40.5' between the southern property line and the trunk of a large maple tree to its north. The tree is a beautiful specimen all by itself, but also substantially screens the house to the benefit of neighbors and owner alike. Our goal is to place the garage in the only sensible and usable location on the property while keeping this tree with its beauty and utility intact. 40.5' is the distance we have work with, the minimum depth of a usable garage is about 24', and so we're left with 16.5' to allocate to between the root structure of the tree and a setback to the southern property line. As the tree is large, the drip-line, and the root structure extend 15' out from the trunk, therefore it's inevitable that we would have to intrude and disturb this root structure to erect the garage. Our goal is to minimize that intrusion into this area. Here are our proposed changes to our plan: l Cott 7 1. We propose the new side yard setback be 5' rather than 3'. In consideration of Mr. Soja's concerns, we would make a number of design changes and assumptions of responsibility: a. Drop the height of the proposed sidewall from 12' to 10'. This would mean that the sidewall of the building would rise 4' above Mr. Soja's driveway instead of 6'. • ( 1 • b. Reduce the overall length of the building from 36' down to 32' again, with the intention of reducing visual expanse of the roof from Mr. Soja's property. This is a size reduction of the proposed garage footprint of almost 30%. c. Rather than an asphalt shingle roof, a promise to install a traditional standing seam metal roof. d. We would assume full responsibility for the drainage issue caused by Mr. Soja's newly constructed berm that runs along the southern property line. During construction of the garage, we would install drainage infrastructure sufficient not only for the garage, but for the run-off from Mr. Soja's property. 2. In regards to the request for a height variance of 2'. The reason for this request is our desire to utilize a windowed clerestory to capture and bring natural light into the building. There are only two ways to do this, via a clerestory light well, or via skylights on the roof slope. We feel that the clerestory method is better for everyone involved because it would create a substantially more interesting roof line, and provide great light and ventilation to the structure without impinging on the neighbor's privacy (because the windows would be high above a person's head rather than at eye level). Having made this point, the height variance is not necessary to build the garage, it's only necessary if it's deemed better to have a traditional metal roof, with a classic roof structure, than one single flat expanse of asphalt roofing broken only by skylights. In summary, our first concern is simply placing the garage where it needs to be to provide utility, after that we also hoped to make a building that was more than just a utilitarian shed, but that seemed naturally a part of the surrounding environment. Thank you for your consideration U.4) NinkVitd-ta- 'ill m ":"t'ri9n, North Fork Permits RECEOVE© Authorized •epresentative for Laura Solinger NOV 3 0 2007 id- b0 BOARD OF APPEALS Gun Nuido Aiis • Vti A�\") * • • To: The Town of Southold Zoning Board of AppealsEzz Re: Laura Solinger#6087 13459 Oregon Road, Cutchogue,New York Date: November 15, 2007 My name is Martin Soja. I am the principal/member of Oregon Cliffs LLC, (Oregon)that owns the property adjoining that of the applicant. My address is 13457 Oregon Road, Cutchogue,NY 11935. I have read and reviewed the applicant's request for a zoning variance and have several items I would like to bring to the Board's attention prior to its making any ruling. My attorney, Charles Cuddy,was not able to speak on my behalf because of prior legal commitments. He has,however, delivered a letter to the Board stating legal issues of concern. I would like to read into the record my concerns regarding this application. The applicant is requesting two exemptions to the Zoning Code. 1. Side Yard Setback Relief The proposed building is significantly larger than just a garage. The footprint is nearly 1,100 square feet and the total interior space will have over 1,600 square feet,which is larger than a medium size house. • The building structure is purported to be a multi-use garage—storage building. The garage portion is only for two cars,per the application. A two-car garage can easily be sized as a 20 x 20 building. This would be 400 square feet. The remainder area is a purported storage building. The(1100-400)is now 700 square feet of storage space on the first floor plus an additional 470 square feet on the second floor. • It should be noted that the new garage being built at the neighboring Judge property is a new 3- car garage building which is 22 x 32 feet(Exhibits A and B). • If this building structure was made a more conventional size of 20 to 22 feet in depth rather than 30 feet(shorten the extended back end); it could be built on the same location without any need for a variance. The applicant has alternate choices on the location of the building. • There are additional suitable locations on the 1-1/2 acre site; • There is an existing garage under the house which the proposed garage building structure could abut; • The applicant and/or the applicant's spouse is a co-owner of a 3 acre parcel adjoining its property on the east which can be used to build a garage/guest house/storage space of this size. 2. Height Issue The Town law changed in January of this year to limit accessory building structures to 18 feet in height. Prior to the change,the limit was 22 feet. The applicant is seeking a variance to build a 24-foot high structure. The reason given was to block the view of an"elevated house structure". • • It is interesting to note that the applicant's house is actually built higher than my"elevated house structure". Additionally,a new 24-foot high structure three feet from the property line would overpower anything in the area. • The size of this building is inconsistent with any other garage in the area. • The height of this proposed building is 7 feet above the Town Code limit of 18 feet. • If this building was connected to the main house, it would be required to have a 20-foot setback. • This building will dramatically reduce the value of the Oregon property. It is effectively a wall 24 feet high, 36 feet long and three feet from the property line. • The building should be downsized to a reasonable structure and placed a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. • The building should be properly screened with trees to preserve the environment of the neighborhood. • Traditionally landscaping with trees is used to block a neighbors view; not erecting a 24-foot high by 36-foot long structure. The applicant stated the six foot elevation and home height creates a visually overpowering landscape. The stated"overpowering"view is of an area landscaped by trees which are growing and in a few years will completely block out any view of the Oregon house. If the applicant builds a 24-foot high, 30 ft deep by 36-foot long two-story building structure 3 feet from the property line,the view from any side would certainly be more overpowering than a landscaped area. The applicant complains about having to look at the grade of the landscaped area created by Oregon. By sloping the grade of this area, Oregon has shielded the applicant from having to overlook the Oregon paved driveway. (See Exhibit C) If Oregon bad not sloped the grade and paved the driveway in this manner,there would be a narrow strip of flat land and then the Oregon driveway would be in plain view of the applicant for more than half the length of the shared property boundary. So the sloped grading improved the applicant's view of the Oregon property. In other words,the view of the side that is a nicely landscaped slope should be preferable to a view of a paved driveway lying at the same grade as the applicant's property. The applicant maintained that the sloped grade on the Oregon property creates some sort of problem for the applicant's children when they play in their own front yard. The installation of the garage will not materially change the view for the children playing in their front yard. To the extent that they are in front of the garage(i.e., south of the garage,between the garage and the access side of the lot),their view of the Oregon property will not change as a result of the proposed new building structure. In fact,they will now have to look at a 24-foot high building structure that is located much closer than the Oregon house. (Exhibit D) 2 • The applicant's expediter implies that it is necessary to erect the 24 foot high garage structure to remedy "problems"caused by the Oregon's six foot elevation. Moreover the proposed remedy is creating an unusually large building structure in order to shield the view of a structure that is consistent with all building codes, and in the distance. Height variance to block out a view. Using building structures to block out neighboring views with a height more than allowed by code is essentially using a building to create a 24-foot high wall. The view from any side of this building will be overwhelming. Screening views is usually done with landscaping—not by building 24-foot high buildings. In addition,the garage is being built at an elevation of 61.8 which is one and one-half foot higher than the existing grade of 60.6. So,in addition to building a 24-foot garage,by raising the first floor,the applicant is raising the building by an additional one and one-half feet so the structure is actually 25 'A fret in height above the existing grade level. Water runoff from elevated landscape The sloped six foot incline is gently graded over a 10-foot wide area and is landscaped with over 100 trees and shrubs. The top of the sloped area abuts a lowered driveway which is sloped away from the applicant's property in a straight line from the front to the back of the property. Any water from the entire parcel, other than the 10-foot area, is sloped away from the applicant's property. Thus,the installation of this slope area on the Oregon property directs any runoff of water from the Oregon property away from the applicant's property. There is no drainage issue,nor any potential drainage issue, from the densely landscaped,ten foot wide area;there has never been any runoff towards the applicant's property whatsoever. The grading and inclined area were carefully engineered to prevent any erosion or water runoff by the use of large stones, an erosion control blanket,deep mulching and significant plantings. There is no cause and effect whatsoever between the incline and the purported pooling of water anywhere on the applicant's property. The design of the sloped area redirects all of the runoff from the Oregon property(except for the 10'wide stretch)away from the applicant's property. In summary,this application should be denied. 1) There is no need for side yard relief because: a) the building is grossly oversized. It can easily be built without any setback change using a traditional garage size; b) there are alternate locations to construct a garage/guesthouse/office building on the property or on the newly acquired parcel. 2) The height variance should be denied because: a) the proposed height is at least 7 feet above the existing Town Code; b) the additional height serves no purpose other than to block a view and effectively create a large wall; c) the proposed structure and height would create a terrible view to any neighbor; d) an ancillary building of the proposed mass and height would significantly reduce Oregon's property value. 3 • • Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted,d Martin Soja Oregon Cliffs LLC 13457 Oregon Road Cutchogue,NY 11935 4 ./ •. ,, • ..-:r •.-i---41.?:.",-,;,..,,•,4-„,::,,,,,,;;;:.--;14:--,,-,,;:;-,"- -gt:/,' "411.1"--.4:::::=•-‘24,4-&-..-:•...ti:: 1 . 47: if i',..c: ,t:::* i . •-,iftv,:lttiyar. -•4!......a.::;,.. riptyc----_ _..,,,,,,.:.,:, ,$"•-• :„.•.w.,,,,,,,,,..,.._,.- 1 • ,- •• •• i• -444r&frj. :,:"71'!iii-C;f:Sfir,'`'•frA'%.‘i& 'Vet, tr.' 'A!I 1;..fi, ' •;•• it ... ' .7 '-'• (A.AA ' i - ..- 5. "'" .. .. . ._ .. , :i lek:A;r..fr‘lisk.a-r.il.:filaitari4,. c'' iw•sit ,.. , ,F-itlA •c% • - i .4,4.047,7n1 1 AFTA?'..t• ,e,„- =. 4. ,—/ , , , . . . •.., 1 :,7`..14 earaterSctr::::,,,,liti ...41`:,'„'. . k',:th.%,',..,:‘, ,:), 3 K_s ; C-, c . • . . .. . ..•. , .. .01E44 40..4, . ; a, . , A„.2., •. pi, 4''oct,',It *. ...• • V ! frdiveil • ...l ‘'.. ;4" I. v •• . •' •111,•.' ••-• *. .• •",:.,`,•.t.....*:2,24.17..::'::.h. ',..n:L.,.... : .. 4, 1.(fil\ 4.'''• '. t .. . .. . %, • ..., . . • • • 32 Y22 Cr."041'46.. - •j":1•;:::(•;;;•-';'-t.t k"'f,.S.'• ' 7 .t.-. - t . .....7 n!..,.....:it,.. -::......, 714retr.;.•.4. ,4 • .' -4!")?•tiVI•43;'•14 alba: ' . a kl. i filt4.4c• , t s sit' rip e.• iimoi::::.,,,,,.„:„.., . ape...04r • " ••••.„,:::,,,,.• ,, Viri‘ t voteti ifaf:• , t. • .. , 4% 4. )1•:)t• ; -e-t. ''''''''''Ci•••••!-.• f'F2'.-3‘,7 ' ir, -' • -.1 • • :1ftt •• .n j ..t r•-,..- --.41.:‘,4-ts • lk.,,;• ••• ' - ( !:.•.• r‘v.- , .,. r...,*•:‘: ." •4.-4,7 ., .,, , r.N., ---...44• • , ., Ill-,.4110...;'.:-..1:, Al 411traraci.,,,.:. 4..:*:_:::•'. __•_: :("...... , ..':'_: ' -iiii;,":::;,::::•;.•. :',...'‘' 1 - . •, ...)40.9: h)itt, .f ',- i 7):t 0 - • );,::'•.: , ':.0:'-'17-.)4',4).))1g).";',Zit., _' "'::'''')) -7. • '•',.= ..-1•! . iiii.,4?)!.• ltik :• ) :),[:_±.*;) i ..: qv- ' iiii,:;,.::::-.4.--.. ikist , ri ' ,:-.,. ,:„.,..,,..,,,,,• ,;•:,.. .,,...:. ,..:• ,........„.,..„„ . , ,,,,..,„..„..„. . ,,..____ t , , ,,..) 1. ' ‘.4. : 4'1611 r'i''''Y'Verlarili It . --•!•.'"::::‘!!':'' ''•:••• ••••••• .:. •.• rt::444.5ji3/47:44"? •,- Tr:7:-.-...7 ,.: _:, .. , ,- ,.- ...realit i . Ert... , .:: .• , • .. • :„. ...,, ,....„,,aW - „:„...:_::......._......_...„.•,, , _ • • „ . Itst . . „ :. . .....• , ••••••. .: . 1 ,.. „ i an ii. 4.H . i PR MIE ' IIR “. . ' •/...:•••:.• ,:•:?.••••'[... 14,;i?•.. • - .;•-,.-2./..-..• ----• -• ••.: . • .. ii. —•- •• r n ”; I i ;1' •: IP lit . / '1`.'L• tzt, lilt El ma :, i....- •••,-::.Acf:',',":,:-.7-',-.,,ti::.:tu .,;:....,,',.,.,,,,.-•,..y, ,. ' '-.•,-..' ' '*.: -.,,, .:,:•::: , : t-,•,,,4 , =.';'L•:..,,,:',.. :::,,,4ti.:ii.;-,,...,3.:, ;,:. •• ',; ,.:-.,'.. , &, • ; -, , . , .,..,,i. _-- - :,,:ifiki..7;h1.;.(...;,...-;.,.,.24.;,. J. '' ,' : . ; . . . . . - . . s, ',. . - .. !• ! - , 1 . i.,,„ i;:t . . • . . ,.. .. •.- , r.-- 1-2,',„, ., ., : , t ',-- ----- ' • ..!1,45s,:,,.,.,,..-:?,, ;.;,-.,..., . ,,,,,.-.,..,f, 2. . . .., , ..;.,.., ..,_....,..,...., - . . ' --‘,-::!,-;,.!4.1:ii.,::,-,,lif...?•;.•,.1, sk ',"•;;;',.!4. : _ ..f ..i:: , vs,4•-,,,,,,4„, , ,,, ... "' ' "...".4 ' 3'1 '4:ff.- 13:-4-41 ,t -, : ,,,,,,,,,,,,,••••• ... , , • ,•,..,•2„ic.A..,,,v,...,.. •,..,,, ,gi ;,(..,:,,Vi ci•;7.,,.'• ... .... t f••• •• f .7:4: ,'. n;,- • n' .n7,Npummules t . ' •<:,,,:g,:/..3:iii.,. ,,4,.A.'g, -,i -r*-4,0•,Thitas.:4,,.:;7.- ,=....„•,,-, .. . -1110.1 s• :i. • • : --1-n---hit:"-!:2.:X• •.-: - „ — _ . . . r • ' 1.11n.rti --c- 'ft ,,tt • . . ft---- .. :. . • . . . - .. ' - • - . ' _ -. .... _ .. . _ _ -. - ___ , . __ • ,. .,... ,... - ? ' - ---- - .,>•-- -•-• •;Ict--S --- -. - .. ..., _ „ , , _--.. ,,_ -.. 41P - , . . -.,„ . ,_- • • . _ . . _ .. s • a akx t',S`g' "4 Aiy; 114 a} :Ciir ' de f ::".<.,*,:: 4 � w 4 �'jilti� '�•^', (,,,:«:•;;;74.12-'74k1/2:1' c ? 4�'0 n F i tis . � s � .- :?.?,:,101-1,,"• ,,k,-e Kj ,( yniSit r 'W2.8 . s�y .4 .te �« ..,�1,i � ai � `114 : i ° tetd1X ' } ei {-, : ....:*43,5'.t. 4 W $.,x 3wpn > ^ ' i' -3- 1l:,: . 4,4 : +` t F' �5 ,7 ti ' `, t ` r S i Q'1 + ir'$5 ak:sparY 'F "4"-'?'''"..:' � ,i i. *"� �`jyEt ✓5?`S W � �� zi<e., l +6 -y Nom ` 'x ' y .,+vF ::a ,ke.„ .q, ts t : kFiYt^ 4 4-t � 7 t "t ^ .S C ( n p a a `P I Y ,y,� y tt 1 , { '21M . 3,:t.ei....,.. ., ,, , ,% . :iic . rr....... . __. . _ ..„, , _:_._ *,.. t. .. t — _ : . , _., 1 ,, •. . . 1 r.:.,....: .. ., U� 1411 v x 4 \. e kto• 4 • li ry (�yy f, • } d Y `yq�yy,�, N t a` ''pe.» `C'i�' m ;� "F t.M M�rr�1141 t'°i l pk- M `}A wR.nt • �..-.. •yL�. ur a. ,. wig{, J k F . .max i� a u Myra ' ., •r' 'ayL_ P. •r ''x' fff.r��� •,i •'"F ` '`. ,•:::4 - • s. it i. Fh? 6 k �''+�".; .. 1 t4J !%3Tt ' '? t & ! 31F4/ s3 . '� rt' 2rik r"` yt�r �t I t } A� a yy ..,..-1,,,. . �• toY•,,,._• �,.py�� . . r r .t A�w.e. rX "'Y'� _ �" w s .! • } °g3 ...« rr;C .. +� �4 � 'N= v.+.�,.n araauur .v, ,y.or:�".x„yeey t. r- '«� y • eros„ �F_lb / 7( 1 y "„.y,: q�iry9` 662 f 'f d ,„ ' "Y 't , i4...27,-;;;.,:-. F c�'-�. `"si" 4a 5 r�4'.r34 I: • w' ftp ,a .M $ t, `fes �rH R 4 FB' xa. �v } c t •,' 5d,� , �r r,a. . . 4 fi K �� Ma ;Cj 74 • fry Y� }�' y � y w ' a ^" g�y,. r n d��ood/SoT,4 sot. r ,vq c'2 /n ecN 1 fi. ... L...... ,,6415 41>'1 ,--. i--) ! - , 47_ ii r-- ---i - - II 1 ' i-d 1s, I ! 1 _ ��/\ 4± uJ�� i k t • i7. Y vi{ y �,*.''sq 44; ynY .Q :f+".. '} v..,...,1.-,Or,:7741\ .—': t }. ,v}r'v.:, tiitti, ' ,�, i a ... t t- xmd ,p1 x o Y '- 'n ./1 v 1':'xt`( a�My't > *,-. ax ` lX 4 ' t` 'a :, 4 r ! ,2 t P L•Cf f� �b4t 4 ` '+ttmr.. N+ P „\' I t *� et di5{ r 77., -.. l & .[he rf4 a t A H`t',•u•P v F4t,yx>4 ry 9 ^{ �f � Nt.. tJ-y,k „.. .. "r �; ? ' .t,..--,,,,,,-,‘41.4.,,,,,..: w- .O. ryh a�+y 7 ✓:' ws .-� r t '7777 WY r! Y7 At"sf '.;:;•'7•:/4 '.'te `L u.r`� ,u 5� f � .fry. 4� N'Aih a. +s'kr •�Cl� r, arJ ;i t� v " * ,v : is n{ ML ;' �,'rfet,r . T ?....�. #�f-.` ' c .. ,,r' "+ ? i' "jx n v' 8F `°' .d 7 y a}�SS11}}�a' 1M,,, 1 1f�" t � $ "' r;,, ♦ - A 4e;t' s. , T n q .? 4i w44\'-',x+'f!''ty +➢ .. 4g,,,iv +i. . .::(t. "'k i'"u,tih+ f.75 f y •-,,,,,,-....„.1.4%.t • z,.<v ,� �y : r3 '>-' 1b5'+?.-r-V7+-E, /�,r'�u fq ,,M -T'.'s i ,f • \ f {-:� f ',� ? Y'"i' -ce ,.4-.;.,ti,,,,,,:, ,ti, d - :.:-„ g,�7} Y. t i $ +45•14';!” ;r «t •`a ',$.t e, ro a7,44.{ ,i r .z fi }.1„....,/,,,.,..?'4.,,,c:„.;,,,,• ,, *a t `� z k O +' `h ! .r,°P� 5"' - -"'.'1 ! 'rt t }y{ •t^rJhV�Q X544 •e fyt T 5fi lr` .,R M1 S ;• Ar C cr t A d t .{ ht 8 ''Y�d '`(' .� f ev` 1 • 'W y+Fw y^y xx - F ; +^ n" q ! .E71.--0. 3.71;-:-11V)';',-... ` kr 1, i L t l } 4 � ' � S 4 �' ;•- • .,,,, ATX ,.17,1111%.,rt do . Y: ,, :•14.55"+'«{ s ' r :.:t4 t,3 S'' i ' �a , w1+ v Yy' +77 xl �.� :' k >,f s n,t �t 5x;77, x3 'tFp' .•>:�-h r„ C ^ +T ^r. .y`'.., Y _ v r €.. . s a' *5 �11 w+ 4 `44 "'Y .' x t k``` Yi 4„y J . :. rx ; r s . t v 4 - .A * •1.54..x, tialf �Jn»•b W- �$ c t 4 "Y -it:r, ki ''S :+ka �}3 .411%- .+5 n'J'YYi 5^ ..t P yt ^$ • . N •zsr ,x77 E-1 ')S<• }: t 'T. ''.1411%-gr;'. y et. vt , }' l '+ 3f" ✓yV 4 ?., 4,--- t. m � '� • -'S` 3.QY s t_ti :: t { ,t. r r., t s rrti�� y " �'S ; 'a� �. k> s r" tR L; I'''',�{.,. c';$j x.77=��}4,' •, ?1. t ,t.'0• ..t A` ` ¢ } f,� e . } x ; { .:ty." xµp '. f g rY� t.,my: '.,. . q -v� w.• �" � t .�yp•� , +'R.- s_;), =Y ..ac#1 ‘.4..:t., ..,,' "*xpi;�, „+� 3 r^ � �;e�+d� f t�' 3 ;a: JY1 ' rt i�"4 `�a 5 ✓A�a� ' - a.se .d r 'iy „, { +.X ,F E `^ + n u, ' ., ry• II'''. '} �v,Y � �¢" y r t i't {4 *+➢ � M SM .. .A 'ft S/5 $ �r }n a L t k" \: `i .lyd t f) fr f - 4 t,$• n'`; ,zty 1bA '!g t ” 'h C�, t `i x '+) 1/tT11 3 ++ „}dti. h .}�ry iK !r rYK '�M'N'yi.,M ,8 :1 x ^w ' :•;:\-- -.44:1-11'7.4.7447",: ;� t z .y.tc 00. t'"�l •177}77.„ A - ri44 \'' fit" tr } d��' .{( Q! e_fr �'i . ?4, y :-.....G.* �+ f }' �\ �qi. d r7 �j -�r +�' +5 .• C h�` 477+ �i {� ti'r +7777*: y ,,; , i +, d� , 4 m ? ♦ "b r: (,'1t��\\ '� .,"%,,,..--...., . rl p^f�s ' ,; ' .1,--:-.- t -:-.: V#4.7....,,;..../...1..../-..:-.'\ i ,e "` "" \,;, ; %" , � .: -i% - t x } V\\ 1777.. ` J-�' •rx y x ,. 5 _ �.7+Y� .il. ��� / , osn L• fl,. se` ,`.�4 qq ,.',..{::4::-.., �q 1, d� , � ,.. { Y`ie • •' Axl4, .�,rte'. .p rSK , 3 zity. v aL s ;` t a.,• w i ,-,t+..r, , 'Y"w � y5.e.a '� ��<'Ln. 4�' •< Ts. ° ,1\17', � ::.W " #"v<iw., rr t!w _.. adv S �. `, ` 1 • :._,r ^y Y&;; ay... +A M1� .. `" ht , I 377 _ ' C __ iaFw ' • x • 4�� x' r ,} °,--r,C" t tt,r +r y y_'f ." .-: �t x 1. ,r ,' :.4, :h,.. .ib , ei• k � .f-b r •:�+rT w '' �,t Jjp� Nr- f • _ bf>a ,'✓f'' +.. 't " zYx• �.r„ ..' y } '-h, 1 �� Y ' YY • { tw o S i }R -� Q -` t X tV y d • •s. • .,.. k'Y. # }•.,.NS+ .:R!"uv E'.'� ' .- ..•.. 44:49,t„ � sR sn 7. _ :�,,, t 5 '.. �• -�. NiPth Fork Permits 0 Permit Expediters _ 1 SEP 11 2007 To: Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals cj� Town Hall Annex Southold,NY 11971 From: William Gorman PO Box 1447 Mattituck,NY 11952 Date: September 10,2007 Re: Laura Solinger, Side yard setback variance and Accessory building height variance Tax Map#1000-83-2-10.12 To whom it may concern. Laura Solinger would like to build a garage on her property. Because she lives on the bluff, the garage needs to be located in the front yard. The narrow width of the lot,the location of the house,and the location of the mature specimen trees have all conspired to steer the garage location very close to the western property line. In addition,the neighbor to the west has unnaturally elevated his property grade by 6 feet,thereby creating several environmental and aesthetic issues that require attention. We are seeking the following: A. Side yard setback relief By positioning the proposed garage 3' from the western property line,several objectives are met. 1. The proposed garage would be located in the least invasive and most sensible position on the property. None of the mature trees would be disturbed,the garage would not block the front of the house as viewed from the road or driveway,and the garage would be located near the house for sensible access. 2. A trough will be created between the garage foundation and the foot of the man-made embankment created by the neighbor to the west. This narrow trough will redirect water run-off to the south--into a new drywell if required--and away from Ms.Solingers's parking area where it now pools due to the recently elevated landscape,and 3. Esthetically,it will make the front yard appear less encroached upon by the neighbor's 6 foot grade increase(and 6 foot additional house height) by extending the building envelope as far toward the western property line as possible. Because the front yard is the outdoor gathering place for the family--and the playground for the children--the visual effect of the recently elevated landscape is quite overpowering. Our proposed garage location will block the most egregious view of the neighbor's property characteristics as seen from the front yard. 2. Height variance of an accessory structure By allowing the garage to be constructed 2 feet higher than the code permits, Ms. Solinger would be able to block a bit more of the height of her neighbor's elevated house as it is viewed from her front yard. Finally,the additional height would make the garage appear more proportional to the new landscape environment. As the building permit denial was issued on December 4,2006,it was determined that this variance would be considered under the old code(prior to January 22,2007).Therefore,in reference to Article III,Section 280-I5A and B,we are requesting a 7'relief for the side yard setback,and a 2'height relief of an accessory building. y' . .tl.'— � 'ircons'. it ram 'rt min orth Fork Permits Authorized ' presentative for Laura Solinger P.O. Box 1447, Mattituck, New York 11952 631-445-1461 ll� ;�rv� aai5/� • fiECEDVIE® December 4, 2007 cted 8>ce , • Southold Town DEC 5 2007itiNC.i Zoning Board of Appeals i 006'7 53095 Main Street BOARD OF APPEALS Southold,NY 11971 Dear Zoning Board Members; Re: Laura Solinger#6087 13459 Oregon Road, Cutchogue I would like to respectfully reiterate some of my objections and concerns regarding the variances requested. Based on the zoning variance notice sent to me, I was erroneously led to believe that the variance request was 3 feet from a town mandated 10 foot set back. I subsequently found out that the required town set back is, in fact, 20 feet from our side yard property line. The applicant previously requested a variance to locate a new garage structure 3 feet (instead of the required 20 feet) from my property line. The application also failed to note the joint purchase of a large parcel contiguous to the applicant's property on the west side. Please refer to the letter previously sent to the Zoning Board by my attorney and the letter I presented and submitted at the last hearing. I respectfully request that you find against the variance for all of the reasons previously stated and in particular the following items: 1) There are ample locations to locate a reasonably sized garage structure on the applicant's original 1.5 acres of property, including an area adjacent to the existing garage. Alternatively, if they select a site which abuts my property, the current town building codes and set back parameters were established to protect neighboring property values and esthetics and, accordingly, should be enforced. 2) There is no evidence whatsoever of any water problem that relates in any way to my property or to the berm on my side yard. The driveway, berm with erosion protection blankets and heavily landscaped areas were carefully engineered and effectively constructed to absolutely prevent any run off onto the Solinger property. With the berm over 95% of any water drains away from the Solinger property. If there is any pooling of water on the applicant's property, it is clearly a result of the applicant's yard topography and lack of any measures to mitigate their issues. Further, it would have been a condition that pre existed before to our arrival. Moreover, if the applicant's hill (which approximates the same height as the highest point in our yard)was landscaped, and perhaps enhanced with other water control measures, their low point, which is contiguous to their hill, would certainly not pool water either. The proposed location for the garage structure would clearly only exacerbate any water issue; not remedy it. • • • 3) The previous application failed to disclose the Solinger ownership interest in three acres that is also adjacent to their 13459 Oregon Road property but on the Eastern side. This parcel also provides numerous locations they could select for a large garage/office/ guest structure, away from existing neighbors or us, if they so chose, which would not only be esthetically pleasing but also greatly appreciated. Alternatively, conformance with all of the existing building codes is only fair, right, reasonable and appropriate. 4) There is no logical reason for a height variance above the town building code of 18 feet. Any building or effective wall above this height creates an eyesore that the recently revised town code effectively attempted to prohibit. It would be particularly egregious to grant a height variance for a significantly oversized free standing garage structure. The applicant recently sent me an email (copy attached) again suggesting my berm is causing a water problem and requesting I agree to locate the proposed overwhelming structure 5 feet (instead of the previously requested 3 feet) from my property line in exchange for lowering the height of the building. Although some changes were proposed, they are still incremental and the size of the building is still overwhelming. If it's only a two car garage, it could be built in a 20x20 space. In addition to building an unscreened oversized garage the applicant also wants to save an existing maple tree that happens to be in the space where they want to build a garage. As previously mentioned, there are many other options such as placing the garage somewhere else on their 1.5 acres or on the additional 3 acres; reducing the size of the proposed garage and/or replacing the maple tree. Building on the setback to attain a larger garage and keeping a maple tree does not appear to be a valid reason for a setback variance. With all of the options available, should they choose to build this garage structure immediately adjacent to my property, both my family and our property value would be negatively impacted. We respectively suggest that adherence to the current building codes is necessary, and that the Board permit only an appropriately sized building structure to be constructed at least 20 feet from the property line, at a maximum height of 18 feet from the current ground level. As my property adjoins the applicant's on both the West and the South side, clearly my family and I are most affected by the negative aspects of the proposed building. The granting of any of the requested variances for a free standing garage for the purpose of convenience is unnecessary. Accordingly, I respectfully request that all of the requested variances be denied. Sincerely, p Ann and Martin Soja Oregon Cliffs, LLC 13457 Oregon Road Cutchogue,NY 11935 Zoning Bd Ltr_120407 ,La. .4 o cup 62/456 e✓rvt • ,A 7 �/�� CA-1:' CHARLES R.CUDDY -tb rag40 1 9 '07 yrtfP ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK Mailing Address: TEL: (631)369-8200 P.O. Box 1547 FAX: (631)369-9080 Riverhead, NY 11901 E-mail: charles.euddy@verizon.net December 5, 2007 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53905 Main Street Southold,NY 11971 Re: Laura Solinger#6087 13459 Oregon Road, Cutchogue Dear Zoning Board Members: I represent Martin Soja, whose residence is immediately to the west of Laura Solinger. I have been made aware that the Board, within the past few days, has accepted a new plan from Ms. Solinger. It would appear that a further hearing would be appropriate, but under the circumstances certainly a letter in opposition should be accepted by the Board. Ms. Solinger filed an application with the Board originally requesting a garage side yard of 3 ft.and now has filed a plan showing the side yard of either 5 ft. or 7ft. The requested variance, both originally and now, is extraordinary. In either instance (5 ft. or 7 ft.), the present request for a variance is a deviation from the required side yard exceeding 60%. The justification for placing the garage virtually at the property line is to retain a maple tree.The tree is given greater deference then the neighbor. The tree can be removed, another tree can be planted or the garage could be moved to another location. The garage remains a significant structure. The building is 32 ft. long. It exceeds the maximum height allowed. Effectively the applicant is proposing a building that is a size of the modest home. There is no attempt to examine alternative sites to the east.No explanation is given for abandoning the garage at the east end of the parcel. The effect of this structure will be to impose a large building virtually on top of the property line. Not only is the requested variance substantial,there are alternatives,and the problem is self created. Based on the criteria of Town Law 267-b (3)this variance cannot be granted. Very truly yours, tr Charles R. Cuddy CRC:ik Not- • • l CHARLES R.CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRIFFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK Mailing Address: TEL: (631)369.8200 P.O.Box 1547 FAX: (631)369-9080 Riverhead,NY 11901 E-mail: charles.cuddy@verizon.net November 13, 2007 Southold Town RECEIVED J Zoning Board of Appeals 7 i i 1 I C/0 7 S MaN Street r— 11..., 4 la K 9 Southold,NY 11971 �! Re: La ger#, BOARD OF APPEALS 13459 1 • n ' oad, Cutchogue Dear Zoning Board Members: I am the attorney for Martin Soja, the principal/member of Oregon Cliffs, LLC, which owns the residential parcel immediately to the west of the applicant's parcel. The proposed garage will be virtually at his property line. I am unable to appear at the hearing because I am engaged at the Surrogate's Court in a contested probate matter. I request that this letter be made part of the record. A variance cannot be granted solely because it is a matter of convenience for the applicant to locate a structure at a particular site or,in the alternative,because the applicant is displeased with the layout of the adjoining parcel. Moreover, the proposed "garage" is a substantial two story building with 1,000 sq.ft. on the first floor. The building will be the size of many homes and one cannot help but suspect it will be used for more than a garage. The building's dimensions and location strongly suggest disdain for Ms. Solinger's neighbor. It also appears that the applicant may own property immediately to the east of this lot and certainly can construct a garage at the easterly line of the applicant's property. In fact the survey accompanying the application shows a garage under the east side of the home. Further,a review of the survey indicates that there is ample room to move the "garage" to the south and east without requiring a variance for the side yard. This proposal cannot prevail based on the balancing test set forth at Town Laws 267-6 (3). Undoubtedly, the applicant, by deliberately placing the garage in a side yard, has created the situation requiring the variance. In addition the requested variance is substantial. There are alternative locations available on this 1.5 ac. parcel and the impact on the Oregon Cliffs parcel is significant. For the foregoing reasons, I request that the Board deny this bold attempt to satisfy the applicant's personal desires. Very truly yours, di e e Charles R. Cuddy Encl • I Marty Soja • • From: Steve [smuth@optonline.net] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 4:51 PM To: Marty Soja Subject: garage Hi Marty, Our builder finally got back to me with some changes to the proposed garage. I 'm paraphrasing the changes but here are the basic points: We'd change the side yard setback request to 5 ' from the property line instead of the ten that's likely to be granted. I don't think the 5' will make much difference to you but if you'd consider not opposing this request we'd be happy to make a number of other changes and promise a couple of design elements that I think you'd like. a 30% reduction in the footprint of the building, from 30 X 36 to 24 ' X 32 ' -reducing the sidewall height from 12 to 10 ft, which would mean the side wall would extend 4ft above your driveway instead of 6' - a promise to clad the roof with a standing seam metal roof instead of asphalt shingles. -officially assuming responsibility for the winter run-off from the berm on your property. While building the garage we will pay to put in dry well to handle it. -leave the choice to you on the height variance request. We need to get light into the garage and we'd probably prefer a clerestory light well at the top of the roof but need 2 more feet for it. This would break up expanse of the roof and make for a more beautiful roof-line but the choice is yours. If not we'll use skylights on the roof facing south. That's it, apologies for not running the details by you before submitting the plan, we've been trying to figure out what our options were and finding out what was going to be allowed plays into it. I know you'd prefer not to have a garage there but we don't have too many options so the question is how big, where, and what does it look like. Let me know your thoughts and we'll resubmit with the changes. Thanks, -Steve 1 111 Tke. Tandy Fa,�nw 13795 Oregon Road ..9 Cutchogue, New York 11935 ty Tel.: (631) 734-5169 Fax: (631) 734-5174 Timothy T. Stele 061 November 14, 2007 (Vi�a'"p w•UU''``�S p�p , ,�9"O (�t I'I Dear Members of the Board of Appeals, My name is Timm Steele. My wife,Jeanne,my two sons and I own the seventeen acre farm directly to the south and adjacent to the lots of both Laura Solinger and Marty Soja. I was born and raised on the North Fork. I am a nurseryman and have been for 33 years. It is my understanding that Ms. Solinger is applying for a variance for a two-car garage that would be 3 feet from her westerly property line and 2 feet higher than code. I have no objection to this whatsoever. Ms. Solinger informed me today that Mr. Soja is objecting to this variance. I find that ludicrous, all things considered. Mr. Soja clear cut the acre and a half on which he built his 6,000-plus square foot house and 3-car garage. In the process he removed 95 %of the old and beautiful trees,including indigenous ones protecting the bluff that apparently obstructed his view. He then imported 10,000(according to his contractor)cubic yards of fill and stone to raise his entire property approximately 6-10 feet+from what was the natural grade. This created not only an eyesore but severe drainage problems towards my property. The house he built on top of the hill of his creation is looming,very visible and aesthetically unpleasing from all perspectives including as far away as Oregon road. In contrast,the Solinger/Muths have been environmentally sensitive neighbors and have done a good job of preserving the natural integrity of their land and trees. They built a home that has a low impact on neighbors and the surroundings and is aesthetically pleasing. In fact all our guests are amazed that they can not see the Solinger home at all until they are right next to it. I can understand their wanting to block the unsightly view of the house next door that is visible from anywhere on their property. In addition,from my perspective,the site where they want to put the garage is the only logical place for it. It is totally amazing to me that one can build such an unsightly home,elevate it 10 plus. feet as the Sojas did and complain about a neighbor building a garage. To me and I'm sure most of the community ; that just defies reason. Sincerely, imothy . teele I _ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOU?1HOLD: NEW YORK X In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDA VET 504-,1,06t?____ or MAILINGS (Name of Applicants) CTM Parcel 41000- 575 -:7R-7(),/ � X COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, Wla444,4 C K)&1, l4f4 residing at ,74/C 1444(4 R' O o zi& pt- , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that On flit _ _day of OGSO _ , I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Stairk04 , New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTEL), a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the (,Assessors, or ( ) County Real Property Office _, for every property which abuts and is across a public or priva,e street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's property. --- :if, ,'i,. rah Sworn to before me this '&U day of Oc k e'c , 2007 ( CP----14---11-V.- . f �j PENNY BEDELL NotaryNob019E6 99317 W Yoh (Notary 1 u ) Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires Sept.29, I PLEASE list, on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet of paper the lot numbers next to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed. Thank you. U.S. Postal Service., . Er CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT a (Domestic Mall Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) M1 For danveryanfonnation visit our website at www.uspt ..�. .; a LW�SIIE NY 11377 N ru Postusr $ $0.58 I 0971 o cntilled Fee $2.65 1 76 Q O Rnur CI (Endorsement Requlrrd) _,$2_15 E ED RCS'Il tEdJ IIV ryPee (Endoresrr nI F a iu,retl)t-R $0.00 a M Tam!t•retage s Fees t $5.38 10/30/2007 '-nSnrii r< P Pf ((LI13ERTo_ ` oi3 IJ,� ; 410-Sect $( fsST wB°Ds • I.U.S.Postal ServiceTM ru CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT ru (DomestIc Mall Only^No Insurance Coverage Provided) 1`- For. Information visit our webrtto atwww.usps cotl s O I CUTCNOGUE NY 11935 -------------- I $0.58 0971 u prslegr s ___ p ,,:eF riiled ee ^- _ $2.65 _ 76 I= --__._-- Acstm i k 0 AMP Peceipt ree $2 15 Here O ;Eulo�ementRujuirutl) i o .. ,ricietl Davery Fen r_R fur ement.if .1) $0.0 0 I $5.38 10/30/2007 Mion I Pcstaya h Frrs $__—._—.---- Is) .It i / • at 1. r tag p� �JJ{� 1 mrr Apt V ©�LG�� Rb t r'ORo<No (3459_._ !cs-cGtscoao 6 l " 35- Form 3000,June 2002, SR*Rent"kir Itiqn4rti U.S. Postal Service ro CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT o ',.(Domestic Mill Only;Na insurance Coverage Provided) a , [- :gdelWiry Information visit our websto at vwrw.usp6•camo o i' MANHASSET NY 11030 —_—_-_� _o -____.— r` postage $ $0.58 0971 p Certified Fee $2.65 76 O _______ postmark O Return Receipt Fee $2.15 4em CI 06 ndcrsemem Required) ------ ' Rcrtriaed Delivery Fec 00 � OWrrseinnnt Fie qui mreelPo,Payr&Fres $ - -$5.38 ^ 10/30/2007 — GL� o :se,rl Tgice-tope-) (Is cdS LL C o , -.veer Apt No; rs wtlhk)tkt4s5e'1- „ 11030 ,ptform 3a0O.4une 2002 ' , , See Reverse for Instructs, • IIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (I 1S TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK !!!! X In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT Asv* 501-4/0-6-972._ OF SIGN POSTING (Name of Applicants) Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1000- 63 - 2- - 0 42- COUNTY lZCOUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW � YORK) I, vim' �bqm ASU residing at 37'41 r flA,L.(7 7t$ 1 OKI Ei(•j•-r , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: A 6 On the day of AfelltMT3+✓cr X71 personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon my property, located ten(10) feet or closer from the street or right-of-way (driveway entrance)— facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance;" and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven days prior to tb at date of the subject hearing date, which hearing date was shown to be /S Artilf M 13E1R L007 At S :tore) Sworn to before me this /3 day of Noue7-t6ez , 2007 NANCY T.CU= NS,Publlic State of�arymbi15w lb rk n 7 AaAJknktbZu�0� ((N Public) *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property aslhe_area most visible-to-passersby. • • LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15,2007 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 280 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959,on THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15,2007: 9:45 A.M. LAURA SOLINGER#6087. Request for a Variance under Zoning Code Sections 280- 15 (A and B), based on the Building Inspector's March 14, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed accessory garage which will be less than 10 feet from the side property line. The Building Inspector also notes that their determination is not updated regarding the current accessory building code and the notation that the garage will be greater than 18 feet in height remains as written. Location of Property: 13459 Oregon Road, Cutchogue; CTM 83-2- 10.12. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours and prior to the day of the hearing. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at(631) 765-1809,or by email: Linda.Kowalski©Town.Southold.ny.us. Dated: October 12,2007. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JAMES DINIZIO,JR.,CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski 54375 Main Road (Office Location) 53095 Main Road (Mailing Address) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 IV fr.tici e., f Tai 1 t 1,\� • y 019 -PO rs+61^ J %\\ 1v IC #8575 ytD/ ` Cara- 11:1xr ) cil STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for1 week(s), successively, commencing on the 1st day of November, 2007. ,,,/,.. en.: � Principal Clerk /� Sworn to before me this 6 day of +�' V 2007 succe04-41e2/11 CHRISTINA VOLINSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No 01-V06105050 Quoli ei in Suffolk County Commission Explrea Peoruoty 28, 2008 LOLDLOWN ZONING concerning the height of the garage ex- less than 25 feet from the side property 1:50 PM. DANIEL HUME #6097. SOUTHOLD TOWNLSceeding 18 feet. Location of Property: line.Location of Property:1700 Park Av- Request for a Variance under Section BOARD, OFAPPEALS15, 13459 Oregon Road,Cutchogue;CTM enue,Mattituck;CPM 123-8-5. 280-14,based on the Building Inspector's THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 2007 83-2-10.12. 11:25 A.M.CHARLES S.WITCZAK October 1,2007 Notice of Disapproval PUBLIC HEREBY GIVEN,GS 10:05 A.M.NORTH FORK GREEK #6092. Request for a Variance under concerning a third-story to a single-fam- suantNto SE tS267ofthe TonLawr- COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION#6088. Section 280-14, based on the Building ily dwelling (under construction and. ha tSection (Z i Town Law and Chapter 280(Zoning),Code of the Request for a Variance under Section Inspector's September in a Notice subject to Building Permit #33295-Z). Town of Southold,the following public 280-13,based on the Building Inspector's of Disapproval concerning a proposed The Building Inspector notes that the hearings will be held by the SOUTH- IAugust 17,2007 Notice of Disapproval single-family dwelling which is allowed proposed construction shown on plans OLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF 'concerning proposed additions and al- on a lot size of 160,000 square feet,and submitted September 19,2007 reflect a APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 terations to the existing church building this lot after yield calculations measures third-story instead of 2.5 stories,at 14216 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, which will be less than 60 feet from the 102,667 square feet.The proposed dwell- Oregon Road,Cutchogue;CTM 72-2-5. New York 11971-0959,on THURSDAYfront lot line,at 1950 Breakwater Road, ing use is in addition to an existing work- 2:15 P.M.BRIAN and MERRY RE- NOVEMBER 15 2007' Mattituck;CTM 106-9-6.1. ing farm with existing farm building TUS #6094. Request for a Variance 9:30 A.M. ROY W. ARGENT and 10:25 A.M.KENNETH A. and EV- uses,and therefore,two(principal)uses under Section 280-116A(1), based on LINDA ARGENT (LIFE ESTATE ELYNN R. HAMILTON #6089. Re- are not permitted.Location of Property: the Building Inspector's September 28, ELLSWORTH BAYLIS JR.)#6086.Re- I quest for Variances under Sections 280- 26170 C.R.48 (a/k/a North Road) and 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning quest for Variances under Sections 280- '15 and 280-124,based on the Building 5000 Bridge Lane,Cutchogue;CIM 84- a proposed second-story deck addition 122 and 280-1168,based on the Building Inspector's September 10, 2007 Notice 5-4.2. to the dwelling,which new construction Inspector's September 10,2007 Notice of of Disapproval concerning an as-built 1:00 P.M.CELESTE SHEVLIN and will be less than 100 feet from the top Disapproval concerning a proposed new (without permit) deck addition at less PATRICIA BOOKE#6093.Request for of the bluff or bank of the Long Island dwelling.After substantial demolition of than 35 feet from the rear lot line and a Variance under Section 280-124,based Sound,at 235 Soundview Road,Orient; the existing building,the new construe- which new construction will create a side on the Building Inspector's amended CTM 15-3-4. don will be less than 35 feet from the ' yard location for a portion of the acces- October 16,2007 Notice of Disapproval The Board of Appeals will hear all rear lot line,less than 10 feet on a single ' sory garage(garage is entirely in a rear concerning a proposed addition with persons,or their representatives,desir- side yard,less than 25 feet total side yard yard).Location of Property:145 Orchard alterations to the existing single-family ing to be heard at each hearing,and/or setbacks,and less than 75 feet from the Road,Southold;CFM 66-2-26. dwelling,which new construction will be desiring to submit written statements bulkhead,at 6429 Indian Neck Lane,Pe- 10:40 A.M.EDNA McNULTY (and less than 40 feet from the front property before the conclusion of each hearing. conic;CTM 86-6-23. I JOHN C. DILLER and HOLLY M. line,at 1020 Vanston Road,Cutchogue; Each hearing will not start earlier than 9:45 A.M. LAURA SOLINGER i DILLER) #6090. Request for a Vari- CTM 104-12-11. designated above.Files are available for #6087. Request for a Variance under ance under Zoning Code Section 280-18, 1:10 P.M.JON S.RAND #6085.Re- review during regular business hours and Zoning Code Sections 280-15 (A and based on the Building Inspector's July quest for a Variance under Section 280- prior to the day of the hearing. If you B), based on the Building Inspector's 26, 2007 Notice of Disapproval which 15, based on the Building Inspector's have questions,please do not hesitate to March 14,2007 Notice of Disapproval states that the Bulk Schedule requires a August 20,2007 Notice of Disapproval contact our office at (631) 765-1809,or concerning a proposed accessory garage minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, concerning an as-built(without permit) by email:Linda.Kowalski@Town.South- which will be less than 10 feet from the and the proposed lot line change will accessory shed and accessory deck ad- old.ny.us side property line.The Building Inspec- create more conformity by increasing dition in a location set back at less than Dated:October 19,2007. tor also notes that his determination has the size of CTM Parcel 1000-145-02-1.4five feet from the lot line,at 2975 Cedar ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS not been updated regarding the current from 22,151 square feet to 22,936 square JAMES DINIZIO,JR.,CHAIRMAN Beach Road,Southold;CFM 91-1-2. accessory building code, as amended, feet, and will create more nonconfor- 1:25 P.M.PERI HOFFER HINDEN By Linda Kowalski mity by reducing the size of CFM Parcel #60-96 Request for a Variance under 54375 Main Road(Office Location) 1000-145-02-1.5 from 20,877 square feet 53095 Main Road(Mailing Address) Sections 280-14 and 280-122, based to 20,093 square feet. Both properties P.O.Box 1179 on the Building Inspector's October are nonconforming in lot size in the R-40 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Low-Density Residential Zone District, 11, 2007 Amended Notice of Disap- 8575-1T 11/1 -- located at 160 and 240 Great Peconic proval and Zoning Interpretation ZBA -. Bay Boulevard,Laurel. #5039 (Walz) concerning proposed ad- , 11:00 A.M.ILYA and EMILIA KA- ditions and alterations to the existing BAKOV#6091.Request for a Variance single-family dwelling.A front porch is under Section 280-15 (B and F),based proposed at less than 50 feet from the on the Building Inspector's June 19, front lot line,and the second-story ad- 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning dition will be an increase in the degree proposed additions (as-built and new) of nonconformance when located less to the existing accessory (storage/ga- than 50 feet from the front lot line.Loca- rage)building,which is not permitted at tion of Property:1255 Wrilrliff Drive, a height exceeding 22 feet in height and Mattituck;CT M107-6-18; 1111 S totS1 FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: December 4, 2006 RENEWED: March 14, 2007 TO: William Gorman a/c Solinger Po Box 1447, Mattituck,NY 11952 Please take notice that your application dated August 21, 2006 For permit for an accessory garage at Location of property: 13459 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 83 Block 2 Lot 10.12 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds:1 3\ k' � V The proposed accessory garage, on this nonconforming 1.426 acre parcel in the R-80 District is not permitted pursuant to Article III Section 280-15 A, which states: "Such buildings shall not exceed 18 feet in height."And B, which states; "On lots containing in excess of 39,999 square feet up to 79,999 square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than 10 feet from any lot line."and ' The proposed accessory garage is noted as being 3 feet from the side property line and 24 feet in height. Authorized • Li ature Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. • S 1" e *pF SO(/ryolo Town Hall,53095 Main Road * of 4 Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179G 111 Telephone(631)765-1802 Southold,New York 11971-0959 1 ��}�1 1/ 1 COUI l pill BUILDING DEPARTMENT SEP 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1 2007 4kicopt MEMORANDUM TO: The Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector, Building Department DATE: March 14, 2007 FOR YOUR INFORMATION Project: Solinger Location: 13459 Oregon Road, Southold SCTM# 100—Section 83 - Block 2 - Lot 10.12 We have renewed the attached disapproval,but we have not updated it to reflect the new accessory buildings code because it was filed with our office before the code change. Thank you. Michael Verity APPLICATION TO THE.UTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOAIOOOF APPEALS . i For Office Use Only Fee:$Aj') Filed By:45 .?../.444744 Date Assigned/Assignment No. Per 1007 Office Notes: Parcel Location: House No.(3451Street 0teia) RCM, Hamlet GQTGl4O&-o-Fl SCTM 1000 Section g3 Block2 Lot(s) w. /2-Lot Size ! • Ile Zone District Lam'90 I(WE)APPEAL HE TTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED: i2 O for ,dgr.r -280- sA, /. f3LDb. }FT. L• Ser-73*CIC. Applican : LaAtiltA 5OLtttJ &-6R Mailing Address: 13A 5 \ CM-G.6170 Zt-ookb Go?TGMFo(,U C i /i Telephone: (Leal) 154- Fax: P-st) 734-6452- NOTE: If applicant is not the owner,state below if applicant is owner's attorney,agent,architect,builder,contract vendee,etc. Authorized Representative: j ' 2444'1 ( ;t grvlt4-At.) Address: //-- SPC VOK /447 44-Tl ml\ t-bciAsy //7sZ Telephone: (C3) 445---lilt( Fax: 3J 731-645-2- Please specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, from the above listed names: ❑Applicant/Owner(s) 9'Authorized Representative 0 Other: / WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED 1 /lig/BG FOR: 111 M"Building Permit ❑ Certificate of Occupancy 0 Pre-Certificate of Occupancy ❑Change of Use ❑Permit for As-Built Construction Other: Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code. -ii- Article Section 100- Z$O Subsection ISA Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: XA Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map.___ _- ❑A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. ❑Interpretation of the Town Code,Article Section ❑Reversal or Other A prior appeal 0 hastas not been made with respect to this property UNDER Appeal No. Year (for current and all prior owners). • • Name of Owners: Laura Solinge • Appeal al No, SEP 1 1 100' REASONS FOR APPEAL(additional sheets may be used with applicant's signature)::M AREA VARIANCE REASONS: v / (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted,because: The property is secluded from other properties—save the neighbor to the west—and the proposed location would fit naturally in the environment.The alternative possibilities of the garage placement would either block the front of the house in an unacceptable fashion,or place the garage too far from the house for convenient use,or require the removal of mature specimen trees. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance,because: There is no other suitable location on the property to place the garage. (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: It will achieve a semblance of proportionality in lieu of the environmental and physical conditions. 1. There is no other suitable location on the property. Any other location would either block the front of the house in an aesthetically unacceptable fashion,or be located too far from the house to afford convenient use or utility. 2. The side yard setback variance will place the garage close enough to partially block the dramatic elevation of the man-made grade to the west. In addition,by placing the garage close to the 6' high embankment,a trough will be created between the foundation of the proposed garage and the neighbor's embankment. This trough will provide a method of directing the water run-off away from the parking area and into a drywell if required and, 3. By granting a 6 foot height variance to the proposed garage,the neighbor's large house on the 6' elevated grade will not appear so enormous. We're seeking to level the playing field for the sake of visual proportionality. (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: There are no other properties in the vicinity-other than the western neighbor--that would be affected by the set-back or height variance. In addition,the relief we seek will partially rectify the adverse physical and environmental conditions created by the western neighbor's 6' elevation of grade. (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( )Yes,or (X)No. Does this variance involve as-built construction or activity? ( )Yes,or (X)No. Are there Covenants and Restrictions concerning this land: (X)No. ( )Yes (please furnish copy). This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate,and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety,and welfare of the community. Article III Section 280-15 A and B. Check this box( ) IFA USE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED,AND PLE:SE COMPLETE THE ATTACHED USE VARIANCE SHEET: (Please be sure to consult your attornpermgr ,/f y �i � Jr el •gent must submi w i Authorization from Owner) Swor, t before me this ' ' . NANCY r.itl ry Pu,4 Notary Public MILt1�Y-Mk a„ ,N 4 %COUNTY OF SUFFOLK filFCFi VF . • - Nov , � STEVE LEVY ZQ�� SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE IaHipa epq . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING v .LES,A P DIRECTO' NING October 31, 2007 Town of Southold ZBA 53085 Main Rd.,P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Dear Sir: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s)submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is/are considered to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Applicant(s) Municipal File Number(s) Rand 6085 Argent 6086 Solinger 6087 Hamilton 6089 McNulty-Diller 6090 Kabakov 6091 y Witchzak 6092 Hinden 6096 Hume 6097 Very truly yours, Thomas Isles, AICP Director of Planning S/sTheodore R. Klein Senior Planner TRK:cc LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H.LEE DENNISON BLDG.-4TH FLOOR • P.O.BOX 6100 • (631)853-5190 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631)853-4044 /O`i 2rTOWN OF SOUTHOLD/ PROPERTY "RECORD CARD OWNER STREET f ;7)4 l VILLAGE •.. DIST. SUB. LOT 4 -Laura / / /Y J �j !e e. SO ) i'nc5er [//'B� eh IV, C. u'C.Xe24C/C / (S1ewPn;S) M ;HnY "51.th FORMER OWNER J ✓ N ,.-. E ACR. 1- c i . Sour, c Cy 6640 ,-- 14t 1,59 nom'!n *td a c S 1 . S Sift \ W TYPE OF BUILDING RES. 2 IoW SEAS. VL. FARM COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value _ t LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS 39eo re• .SG!re) 9,5' `/`s/f3 r%/13 ,S /e71Iuf-17SOa0 0/Pae),-3 Ta a//h P 3j/7/ 39n0" rz. x` a S T o o i/ a-a sc/�S F3 -341/43-4 L. "'Pd, r70/1 c3 3c10o to coo / 9900 , azill✓ uf/7/93-t-1(059 301f--VDoilrnI44Ano — k at6 /� Jo N)cxll r•v97 ovo Illagiq-7- L11Rte �� ��� '/r/°° 'lip I a7-YYI trii!,'n f w7e 4o .Snl r ries- 434;7 a as 4'1700 al// noa / y74 C9n co s/.len 1�11�37- L S'7 1(84cp \ -s ,(i ,O,R 4rrlsvw S-Feek - t / - r qn binew. . it700 (0 , 400 IS, ‘ ©O 2/27/7 VZ,AV7- L1 ( s82p36i4 - Solinc er k-6 So.tIvlg r -coH Fwi ma—-- ?43/9f SS ,25aon demo/i'hor-, 3 / to 3 P _ J rffr a 73 i ,i , .�, a �. . 32 4172. l Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER /47/6 C5' - Woodland FRONTAGE ON ROAD Meadowland _ DEPTH House Plot BULKHEAD Total � , AI f . . %L h r '--it N ., tiort mIIIIIIIIpaeAIIIIII / I ,ti 'ii? 1. I 1; ; ,f; n -frit `1i7 ly i �t b) K i 3 i v I _ l; M. Bldg. fix/37. 'ry Foundation C a? Bath / __ /rA 27 : 197 e Extension 14 r 7/ .9` /G 7 Lea y 30 'a / Basement % // Floors 77e Sr as _ 7' , ws..I a^� Ext. Walls / ; f Interior Finish 3t,c / Extension 1321-9- 9 c 3 G ,� v? i / o t! ° GL spa �- Extension Fire Place / Heat //ro"; ,`- k3 xic_ = v8 3 I - Porgy i�l < t7 37� 2 ( .25- 2/.5- Pool Attic h ' / 2 A yo t ',/f6 Patio Rooms 1st Floor Deck Breezeway Driveway ' Rooms 2nd Floor '.Garage ;o Y o . . 6 0-n / % d o-o / so/ 4'44o. - 5,or ..ua..&mar /o,o00 • 1i" TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER STREET VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT ACR. REMARKS TYPE OF BLD. PROP. CLASS LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE • FRONTAGE ON WATER TILLABLE FRONTAGE ON ROAD WOODLAND DEPTH MEADOWLAND BULKHEAD HOUSE/LOT TOTAL d ____<-: �j . Ss W3b ��d1S / /, 14141/4(O. C- _ dwr ao �a 01OH1n° g . - Sr IIIIIIIIIIIII ld t � r I 3 umra , . • - ��- 7 ralial ,3 Ilragrall M. Bldg. 3...x/1.-%t i Ky Foundation CB. Bath ;. 3 ' 1 Extension a ' Basement atv �/ floors 77G Ext. Walls / �S Interior Finish /ahCa/ Extension / o t1 GL ,4, 4 Extension SIMINIIIIIIESMIll ea ® US 3 / Z . I.- - - 4.00,t4COLOR LL dy a- , �1 2 n TRIM ''' , , eF 44%621. -04� 4 isr ra- sVti a 7 a a tr F��b .-� s 83-2-10.12 3/03 . . . 1 i I r 1st 2nd 1 2. Btda t 4 Xo'Ill Foundation CY Fin. B. Bath 2 t/Z Dinette tT'f 1 COMBO Extension 3 KtZ-.-..'3(o y (Q C�Qo� Basement SRRAe L PARTIAL Floors Kit.tAANS ✓ Extension , ? t I lnJ _ Ext. Walls (� ej1C�.0 CpP. L.R.30 nterior Finish . / rL'sc. v J Extension _ Fire Place ye (2,) Heat * 0/ Patio Ce t tsr �t to' Woodstove BR. ztid 4 ' 3 Porch ya4 _ Ctz t 40 t SD 20 i Dormer Baths Ce I t9 X t4 ! 1 yZ Z. l Deck ow (kKzs= 2.,..2s— 3`a (i Z5' Dock F im. / A.C. / scot 4-co _ s au Nei Garage +444 2o& 2fl X22= }ore ,t-C wwO _ _ O.B.. \o 'fit Cly Pool • i • APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION (For ZBA Reference) Applicant: LANA 501-4.0 Date Prepared: ) M4K 07 I. For Demolition of Existing Building Areas Please describe areas being removed: i Pc II. New Construction Areas (New Dwelling or New Additions/Extensions): Dimensions of first floor extension: 33' Ne 33 ' MetA) &4X96 t iJNa-'t't dcia{n Dimensions of new second floor: LOV'C— 3 3 'Ne 3 Dimensions of floor above second level: 1 )1 Ps Height(from finished ground to top of ridge): Zip -p" Is basement or lowest floor area being constructed? If yes,please provide height(above ground) measured from natural existing grade to first floor: III. Proposed Alterations or Interior Structural Changes without enlargement/extension (attach extra sheet if necessary)- Please describe building areas: Number of Floors and General Characteristics BEFORE Alterations: !A Number of Floors and Changes WITH Alterations: /v IA IV. Calculations of building areas and lot coverage(from surveyor): Existing square footage of buildings on your property: 242.43 Proposed increase of building coverage: L OSo) Square footage of your lot: (02. I t Percentage of coverage of your lot b 'building area: .03 S EVISTW6 f . 0 it 'PRIVO *s V. Purpose of New Construction Requested: 33' lc 33 G"47-44‘6 E VI. Please describe the land contours (flat,slope %betc.) as exist and how it relates to the difficulty� in meeting the codec requirement(s): (,j to S LDPE' �RDIt& WOW" " -�Gy V� ear o ., �► (714 �,�1�i✓i • • s 7 . • LL gill,i� 4 L _.7 a 6V y ff�ct�\'D .S , 69b'e40G , Please submit seven(7) photos,labeled to show all yard areas of proposed construction after staking corners for new construction), or photos of existing building area to be altered(area of requested changes). 7/2002; 2/2005: 1/2006 SEP 1 1 2007 x(0089 • • QUESTIONNAIRE • FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A. Is the subjec�ttremises listed on the real estate market for sale? ❑ Yes NeHo B. Are there any�proposals to change or alter land contours? • ❑ Yes o C. 1) Are there any areas that contain wetland grasses? • ND 2) Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with this application? 3) Is the property bulkheadedbetween the wetlands area and the upland building area? 0 4) If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you,contacted the office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? .t.3 1� Please confirm status of your inquiry or application with the Trustees: D. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? �O E. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences that exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? LiD (Please show area of these structures on a diagram if any exist. Or state "none" on the above line, if applicable.) F. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? kV) If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department and describe: G. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? POD proximity If yes, please label • the p ty of your lands on your map with this application. H. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel 5 e&L, 1/41.. 465 and proposed use_54414.E. tilt nti 1 (examples: e ting: single-family; proposed: same with garage.) u - . ed S i re and Date 2/05 • TROACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM • ' r APPLICABLE TerOWNER, CONTRACT VENDEE AND AGENT: r , The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information, which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. 60 /t)€t 4(k ab s (Last name, first name, middle initial, unless youapplying in the Sosomemee ls e or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person or company name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Variance Special Exception SEP 1 1 2007 *Other Approval or Exemption from plat or official map Change of Zone Tax Grievance *If"Other"name the activity: Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationshi " includes b blood, marriage, or business interest. `Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or emnlovment bvl a co oration in which the Town officer or emnlovee owns o shares 1 more than 5/o of ihP YES NO '. Ifyou answered "YES'; complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant, agent or contract vendee) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her,spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director,partner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this day of Me t_ Z e 7 C4,/ 7'71Signature: //�/� p ,N�, Print Name: n Nob, gMA tg York Qualified in soften(Colony Commission Expires March 20. • • SEP 11 0J November 14, 2006 From: Laura Solinger 13459 Oregon Road Cutchogue,NY 11935 To whom it may concern, William Gorman of North Fork Permits is authorized to act as my representative and/or agent for all Building, Planning and Zoning processes in the Town of Southold. Sincerely, / Laurfo1'id / • • Office Location: ,��' $VFFO��{ USPS Mailing Address: 41 * GOA Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank p od 53095 Main Road 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) vs ae P.O. Box 1179 ; Southold,NY 11971 O .F t��, Southold,NY 11971-0959 ------ ----- http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631)765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 January 18, 2008 By Regular Mail(and Fax Transmission 734-6452) Mr. William Gorman North Fork Permits P.O. Box 1447 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: ZBA#6087 —Variance Request (Laura Solinger) Dear Mr. Gorman: Enclosed please find a copy of the January 10, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals determination, the original of which is to be filed on January 22, 2008 with the Office of the Town of Southold Clerk. Thank you. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski End. • I,,, ,,,, • ✓/�pFSOUTy- _ ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE ���I % Town Hall,53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK �� ~� l� P.O. Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS * * Southold, New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER G Q ,�� Fax(631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER At) 11 Telephone (631) 765-1800 • FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICERl /• southoldtown.northfork.net COMM*40 - ... .. OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville DATED: September 12, 2007 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 6087 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 6087 of Laura Solinger- the Application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Also enclosed is the Questionnaire for Filing with the Z.B.A Application, Applicant's Project Description, Transactional Disclosure Form, Letter of Authorization for William German of North Fork Permits to file on the owners behalf, Cover Letter from North Fork Permits describing the reason for appeal, Notice of Disapproval, Memorandum from the Building Department regarding the Disapproval, North & South Elevations, First Floor Plan, Second Floor Plan and a Subdivision Map. —��-/� 4614 _ I `n SFE%44000k YC.No.O3 .,w .7 /�``'' 0.1 MATCH Z U' C 1 /(� 11,41% D 90 w ii R_(f3 -a _ 3 45 n.w Y $ V Q staEY^. ,Ll. —N— -a ye4 41 - i/i . 412 4 eT en nsu.l g a N 51 s., / ` _ R.. € w4 go.„, 1 0.. __ �r it 9N61 ' # ,/, . ,® . l ' 1 ,.. 4k, c) . -111 i : * ,,,,: 4:: x EG PQ.M. N SEF SELItl. 096-01-011.5 ja a ** 4,,- it ‘, it _ SSEC.W. FOR PCL.W. EPIC SEE SEC.W. SEEEE SEC.16 SEE SEC.NO. SEE SEC.M. SEE SEC.NO FORPCL.IA. x 095-01-% SEE0.l %5-%-W9 095-01-010 095-0t-011.3 SEC.IL. MS-03-001.1 4 1] x e NA 1-C1 --�� 2 Z 6-- Z u /NN u9,CX --Z _— 7 ix . :.Foo SEE SEC.NO.095 / \ SEE SEC.NO.015 ��..��� � �r w ..,., — - sant...w. —-SC mtrt.L. --A-- ,„� r,. NOTICE ti« COUNTY OF SUFFOLK © �„ SOUTHOLD SECTION NO �„,,. 121) N Iowa '°. a .... © �^�'„ _ m '” M - gni'mem99519 ¢.xrzx.,wll suE aP `� '' . Red Property RWe Service Agency v {I "" a. —- —- ••••• L. — — _ ..TF. osrrcN a wr PmTm�. ... Gaudy Cents 15va'N9oQ N Y 11501 �o+o IUFa a I 083 LAND s011-- ND SURVEY OF PROPERTY IwooD BULKHEAD H AD LONG 2_ SITUATED AT CUTCHOGUE E '� .0 3ER 24. 20064 V R N 7a_1 —pp R, W117141ERW0."°N aMapBLOT'I- SN-E_ .;1oa1Z 8s3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK 0 0 S.C. TAX No. 1000-83-02- 10. 12 ' DE UWE N- -- - Cn 4 - . _- .t; --- --';__ __;—____,;,=%; 3032 SCALE 1 "=30' - -E= - --_- =J- - -__-_�-'i'_ ' 3842 A OCTOBER 21 , 2005 _ _ '4 DECEMBER 4, 2006 ADDED TOPOGRAPHY & PROPOSED GARAGE ON WEST SIDE PROPERTY A, o`•w. 14 -_ --- -'' __- -- _- ----' - ;- ,' - 46 46 JULY 28, 2007 REVISED PROPOSED GARAGE -Y 1618 '- - '� %_.- 5�5z A6,. Zp224-' '_ - -_ —-- - _- "1-_- %-�_' 54 56 NOVEMBER 28, 2007 REVISED PROPOSED GARAGE S3 1619- _,----- 't WF&w --- - - - _'--_'- - - - :- s 5860 TOP OF BLUFF QQ., 351 Sib '�' q'N�" 4.� --- ---__— / -' - ,6b AREA = 62,112.13 sq. ft. p IP 35bOh 444- t•a b� \\\`1 I\ I / / /I //// s� /�- x3S1 // I I l/-/-- /rte SLL4� (TO,TIE LINE) 1.426 OF MSC- 552 \�\\1 `n,l I I 1 / // // / I / I\ \ N:CEIV:1:3::9:::::EALS 54 \ \ / / / II / /O�-0 KI0. I BOARaN po \\ \ .�Y I I \ _/ I /AON \\\ \ 111 1 I 1 I �� / / // �/ // sz,/ \MTO/ \�, r4°rN OJSTPE 155CARPA60.149 \\ \71�2VI I x55.5 / 1I / 7 // / f ba x -\66 ;Ca EryHIYRE0 5 of \\ \ 1 1 I I`-// 1 I / / / e°p fiJ(\ // / N °N L 4 0A FewNOT$S: cO�'N'Exasp'p°bxsT 0s19-A5sH \\ \; / / !_\ I1 / / // io'-`\ a��a / ' s Fo4 e °iv "Oy1. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO N.G.V.D. 1929 DATUM pHam \\ 111 5.3a'� 2x I 1 1 / / / \ .o,�.pNO ery'� yE%ISTING ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN THUS: \\ 111 I 1 1 I / \ / nDo/�\; -c °os P°.1�t�9q E%ISTING CONTOUR LINES ARE SHOWN THUS: ---- -5tt-- --_\�,_ '/ 1I fi90xfi92 /sea /: u V.• \F\0 �nF4,,N,r1.4. O.,4, FFL FIRST FLOOR \ \�\`- I I II \\ / T\�a`aQ �� p t �"N° ear re. TOP aF BUUMPAn/ / G.FL GARAGE FL TE ofT''_� �G_ I I \ �4 " '5' ' V r/O BB TOP1OF W1 BIIL%HFM-3 I I \ Jr. �a d/ 1°04TW TOP OM OFwnNA'// ( \ 9 J / .• $°GNcooBW 60Tr(IM CF W.LLL • '//y,' i I I m1 cT��T.0�3 ab'`eT`� ICY4f�) N,, FINALMAP56' / iii/ / .f'.I \\. x bu\ Y°� 1p-sc "NDilik 6°4.r% e60, _ 5o REVIEWED BYZBA 61fib — . \_\, ) TIM ' ti;����.,� .,:����" 8EEDEISION # ��,,,,o� a9/A�4 1.55 4 4 h i u502 H r) DTE Izo q� xA'`3 Z a '@ 66/ '�? _I /_/ / 4.2.9' /� '� O' f,,Ao44 x fiin x ;Yy/f/ �gO- °9 AA, �� Ny°O�nb "kytP J/4FF ROCK 1].o•.ew 5{`� // 'lP ^1� / x643" 490..? AA- 4c4. 63-Fi o f s 2 -63 d5. 7,<-42 . fi _ . sk9 � 66z aN/ 1 e\-0 fiJ 9 M1 •� / ?`c, a".p0, \\\\ J ��^va` 'gyp \ h)_B , 9 O� O • V OO SO \\*i` \\�I� _ , •Fi& s q ( 6e\\\\fie\'\ • � cy .,,• q� .,,PC : elef/ tel\ \\s o y�H-k l.l•P,�'•., �� ` \ 0.; sr m °/Rr gr e�'a 11 r .112 It \) (5 1� V ' R oy .N A4 /.a' S�1 S2, ENC 05'E SS• °' Y4a WaftE FENCPO✓ \\� COEMON. GOAT pENCE 'N. O SHm a.SN. t<E • F➢ Se 2.1'11 9' 13a'A s3 AO25NAe, s- ' -60.... Lt. LIT. yo -CS Oe ' 41 Y ee f° -let 3B 1 UBAOCOCORSD p w ,� g NjCA CORS 4r,4- ili RIGHT OF WAY & ‘95.55. 9g 55 e r •50 49a Al4f,.. to GMVF}FGAa •• E / IA 1235 O0 NY TFS STEgiE TI H.ti JVA 24 356.24 Y ,(/��60 UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION �'J TO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION OF Y SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE E EDUCATION LAW. 6251 O COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING 69 THE LAND SURVEYOR'S INKED SEAL OR N EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY. CERTIFICATIONS INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVEY pe4p, mssLF TO THE - TALE COMIS PANY.NGOVERNMENTAD ON HIS LRGAGENCY AND N LENDING INSDDON LISTED HEREON. AND OGSFP •P`CTO INST- 'S",�. TUTONE GSIGNRIIFlCATIONS ARE NOT S OF THELENDINIIWNSFEMBLE. O.45 THE 9- AND/OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF Af ANY,SNCE NOT ESHOWNFARE RIGHTAREF G AARANTEED. � ^vO .66 Y•/ �' PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE W@1 THE MINIMUM Nathan Taft Corwin III STANDARDS FOR DRE SURVEYS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE L USE AND APPROVED AND ADOPTED FOR SUCH USE BY THE ATE LAND OTITLE ASSOCIATION ,�E of NEw Y� �.,,v,,,--T pi?:..„F. Land Surveyor ilT. 44 4 ,a5 '- /r ,-"�—� Title Surveys - Subdivisions - Site Plans - Construction Layout OACCTh 4PHONE (631)727-2090 Fax (631)727-1727 C at 404(T �,i OFFICES LOCATED AT MAILING ADDRESS LAND;93 322 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 1931 - N.Y.S. Lic. No. 50467 Riverhead, New York 11901 Riverhead, New York 11901-0965 25-346B_ , f . ZBA TO TOWN CLERK TRANSMITTAL SHEET (Filing of Application and Check for Processing) DATE: 9 / 11 /07 ZBA# NAME CHECK# AMOUNT TC DATE FAM,D 6087 SOLINGER, Laura 1012 $600.00 SEP 1 2 2007 Southo d TOW C eLIf TOTAL $600.00 By Thank you. — vn Of Southold .0 Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 -' * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 09/12/07 Receipt#: 1012 Transaction(s): Reference Subtotal 1 1 Application Fees 6087 $600.00 Check#. 1012 Total Paid: $600.00 Name: Solinger, Laura 13459 Oregon Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Clerk ID: MICHELLE Internal ID•6087 ZBA TO TOWN CLERK TRANSMITTAL SHEET (Filing of Application and Check for Processing) DATE: 9 / 11 /07 ZBA# NAME CHECK # AMOUNT TC DATE STAMP 6087 SOLINGER, Laura 1012 $600.00 TOTAL $600.00 By Thank you. 11111 to pktad,14..*, . app l FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: December 4, 2006 TO: William Gorman a/c Solinger `wNIP:11"; /11_,O Po Box 1447, Mattituck,NY 11952 t-c��� Please take notice that your application dated August 21, 2006 For permit for an accessory garage at Location of property: 13459 Oregon Road, Cutchogue,NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 83 Block 2 Lot 10.12 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed accessory garage, on this nonconforming 1.426 acre parcel in the R-80 District is not permitted pursuant to Article III Section 280-15 A, which states: "Such buildings shall not exceed 18 feet in height."And B, which states; "On lots containing in excess of 39,999 square feet up to 79,999 square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than 10 feet from any lot line." and The proposed accessory garage is noted as being 3 feet from the side property line and 24 feet in height. �. ria �1_ex a iti N. ) 1/Vat J Ilri'�rized Signature Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. 1 • Town of Southold - Letter • , Board Meeting of January 16, 2007 • i t JAN 2 tr RESQLUTION 2007-127 Item # 45 _ ADOPTED DOC ID: 2544 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-127 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JANUARY 16, 2007: WHEREAS there was presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 19th day of December, 2006 a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Size, Height and Setbacks for Accessory Buildings" and WHEREAS the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at which time all interested persons were be given an opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS, the proposed action has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268 of the Town Code and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) and the LWRP Coordinator has recommended that this action is consistent with the LWRP; and it is therefore • RESOLVED that this action is CONSISTENT with the LWRP; and it is further RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby ENACTS the proposed local law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Size, Height and Setbacks for Accessory Buildings" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2 of 2007 A Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Size, Height and Setbacks for Accessory Buildings" BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows: I. Purpose- The purpose of this Local Law is to establish clear standards governing the maximum height, size and setbacks for accessory buildings and other accessory structures, in order to further preserve the character of single-family neighborhoods. These changes will Generated January 22, 2007 Page 65 ` t• • Town of Southold - Letter Board Meeting of January 16, 2007 • reduce the impact of accessory buildings on adjoining residences. These changes shall apply to the Low- Density Residential (R-40) zoning district, as well as the R-80, R-120, R-200, R-400 and Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) zoning districts. II. Chapter 280 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: § 280-4. Definitions. FLAT OR MANSARD ROOF—Any roof that has a pitch of less than 3:12. HEIGHT OF BUILDING, ACCESSORY -- The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the existing natural grade adjacent to the building, before any alteration or fill, to the highest point of the roof for flat and mansard roofs : : •- •• -.- • •. • :' -• • •• _ • • ridge for other type roofs. , and to the highest point of the ridge for sloping and other type roofs. SLOPING ROOF—Any roof that has a pitch equal to or greater than 3:12. § 280-15. Accessory buildings and structures. In the Agricultural-Conservation District and Low-Density Residential R-80, R-120, R-200 and P.-400 Districts, accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such Buildings with a flat or mansard roof shall not exceed eighteen (18)sixteen (16) feet in height and shall be set back at the minimum required for a sloping roof. B. Buildings with a sloping roof shall be subject to the following height and setback limitations: Lot size Maximum Height Minimum Setback-side and/or rear (square feet) (feet) (feet) Less than 10,000 18 3 Less than 10,000 20 5 Less than 10,000 22 10 10,000- 19,999 18 5 10,000- 19,999 20 15 10,000- 19,999 22 20 20,000- 39,999 18 10 20,000- 39,999 20 15 20,000- 39,999 22 20 40,000 —59,999 22 15 60,000-79,999 22 20 80,000 and over 22 25 Setbacks. {Amender 1 1990; 2 5 1991 by L.L. No. 2 1991] Generated January 22, 2007 Page 66 Town of Southold - Letter • " Board Meeting of January 16, 2007 • . . . • . . . .. • . •. . ..•. . ... - .. . - - •.. . - (3) feet from any lot line. ! - . .. . 1,!! - -- . . . . •. . - . .. . . .. . ... - -- ' C. Such buildings shall not exceed 660 square feet on lots containing up to 20,000 square feet, and shall not exceed 750 square feet on lots 20,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet. On lots over 60,000 square feet, no accessory building shall exceed three percent(3%) of the total size of the parcel. D. Dormers are permitted on accessory buildings up to forty (40%) percent of the roof width. E. Any accessory structure that is not a building shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height, and shall be set back at the minimum required in Section B above. . E.F. In the case of a waterfront parcel, accessory buildings and structures may be located in the front yard, provided that such buildings and structures meet the front-yard principal setback requirements as set forth by this Code, and the side yard setback requirements for accessory buildings in Section B above. III. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not effect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. Effective date This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. Strike-through represents deletion. Underline represents insertion. .0,67 Z??..04:414. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Generated January 22, 2007 Page 67 � , i . Town of Southold - Letter • , _ Board Meeting of January 16, 2047 - `'. • • RESULT: ADOPTED [5 TO 1] " MOVER: William P. Edwards, Councilman SECONDER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman AYES: Krupski Jr., Edwards, Ross, Wickham, Evans NAYS: Scott Russell ' Generated January 22, 2007 Page 68 1 2 3 11/15/07 ZBA Hearing #6087 - Solinger 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for 5 Laura Solinger and Ruth, that's yours. 6 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. 7 "Request for a Variance under Zoning Code 8 Sections 280-15 (A and B) , based on the Building 9 Inspector's March 14, 2007 Notice of Disapproval 10 concerning a proposed accessory garage which will 11 be less than 10 feet from the side property line. 12 The Building Inspector also notes that his 13 determination has not been updated regarding the 14 current accessory building code, as amended, 15 concerning the height of the garage exceeding 18 16 feet. Location of Property: 13459 Oregon Road, 17 Cutchogue; CTM 83-2-10.12. " 18 We do have a letter here of opposition from 19 Mr. Charles Cuddy (phonetic) . I'd like to read 20 that into the record: "Dear Zoning Board Members, 21 I am the attorney for Martin Soja, the principle 22 member of the Oregon Cliff, LLC which owns the 23 residential parcel immediately to the west of the 24 applicant's parcel. The proposed garage will be 25 virtually at his property line. I am unable to 1 2 appear at the hearing because I am engaged in the 3 Surrogate's Court in a contested probate matter. 4 I request that this letter be made part of the 5 record. A variance cannot be granted solely 6 because it's a matter of convenience for the 7 applicant to locate a structure in a particular 8 place or in the alternative because the applicant 9 is displeased with the layout of the adjoining 10 parcel. Moreover, the proposed "garage" is a 11 substantial two-story building with 1, 000 square 12 feet on the first floor. The building will be the 13 size of many homes and one cannot help but suspect 14 it will be used for more than a garage. The 15 building's dimensions and location strongly 16 suggest a strain for Ms. Solinger's neightbor. It 17 also apears that the applicant may own property 18 immediately to the east of this lot and certainly 19 can construct a garage at the easterly end of the 20 applicant's property. In fact, the survey 21 accompanying the application shows a garage under 22 the east side of the home. Further, a review of 23 the survey indicates that there is ample room to 24 move the "garage" to the south and east without 25 requiring a variance on the side yard. This 1 2 proposal cannot prevail based on the balancing 3 test set forth by Town laws 257-63 undoubtedly by 4 the applicant by deliberately placing the garage 5 in the side yard and creating a situation 6 requiring the variance. In addition, the 7 requested variance is substantial. There are 8 alternate locations available in this 1.5 acre 9 parcel and the impact on the Oregon Cliff parcel 10 is significant. For the foregoing reasons, I 11 request the Board deny this bold attempt to 12 satisfy the applicant's personal desires. Very 13 truly yours, Charles L. Cuddy" He is an attorney 14 at law in Griffing Street in Riverhead. 15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: State your name and 16 address, sir. 17 MR. GORMAN: Bill Gorman, 45705 Main Road, 18 Southold, New York. I also have a letter from the 19 other neighbor Mr. Timothy Steel. He would like 20 this read into the record as well. 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you want to read this 22 into the record, sir? 23 MR. GORMAN: Yes, please. 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can read it. 25 MR. GORMAN: Oh, I thought you might. Okay. 1 2 This is from Mr. Timothy Steel. He's the neighbor 3 across the street. It's dated November 14, 2007. 4 "Dear Members of the Board of Appeals, my name is 5 Tim Steel. My wife, Jean, and my two sons and I 6 own the 17 acre farm directly to the south and 7 adjacent to the lots above Laura Solinger and 8 Marty Soja. I was born and raised on the North 9 Fork. I'm a nursery man and have been for 33 10 years. It's my understanding that Ms. Solinger is 11 applying for a variance for a two-car garage that 12 will be 3 feet from her westerly property line and 13 2 feet higher than code. I have no objection to 14 this whatsoever. Ms. Solinger informed me today 15 that Mr. Soja is objecting to the variance. I 16 find that ludicrous all things considered. Mr. 17 Soja clearcut the acre and a half on which he 18 built is 6, 000 plus square foot house and his 3 19 car garage. In the process, he removed 95% of the 20 old and beautiful trees including indigenous ones 21 protecting the bluff that apparently obstructed 22 his view. He then imported 10, 000 -- according to 23 his contractor -- 10, 000 cubic yards of film and 24 stone to raise his entire property approximately 6 25 to 10 feet from what was the natural grade. This 1 2 created not only an eyesore but drainage problems 3 towards my property. The house he built on top of 4 the hill is his creation looming very visible and 5 aesthetically unpleasing from all perspectives 6 including as far away as Oregon Road. 7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir? 8 MR. GORMAN: Yes? 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Are you speaking about the 10 property that is the subject of this hearing? 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He's reading the letter. 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I know. Does this have 13 anything at all to do with this particular piece 14 of property? 15 MR. GORMAN: Yes, it does. 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you raised the grade 17 on this piece of property? 18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, the neighbor did. 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So, I'm trying to figure 20 out what that has to do with an application for a 21 garage on this particular piece of property. 22 MR. GORMAN: Well, we're requesting a height 23 variance and a side yard setback variance largely 24 due to the actions of the neighbor to the west 25 which this letter is addressing. He added 6 to 8 1 2 feet in elevation to his property and created the 3 drainage property on Ms. Solinger's property. He 4 built a house on top of his elevated grade so now 5 Ms. Solinger's house is in a bowl. 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't think the subject 7 of this particular application is whether or not 8 you have drainage on your property. 9 MR. GORMAN: Actually it is. 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Jim, it's relevant as a 11 response to the neighbor's letter which could be 12 said by you or your client at this moment as to 13 put the letter of objection in a context as may 14 have something to do with the forcefulness of the 15 neighbors objection. So I think it is relevant to 16 the application before us. 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I no sooner, quite , 18 honestly, accept either neighbor's comments as 19 anything relative to us granting a setback of 3 20 feet from the property line. I feel like neither 21 one of those, this particular letter or the letter 22 that was read by Mr. Cuddy have any relevance to 23 us granting a setback variance. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Nevertheless, it's 25 appropriate to allow in the record testimony by 1 2 neighbors who were notified. We can agree with it 3 or disagree with it. But you have to let it be 4 entered into the record. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It says here "each 6 presentation is limited to testimony relative to 7 this property and the Zoning Code Sections noted 8 below". We're supposed to hear everything 9 relative to what the Building Inspector turned 10 down. Whether or not the gentleman next door or 5 11 blocks down raised his property has no relevance 12 on the fact that this gentleman wants to have a 13 barn, driveway, garage or whatever it might be 3 14 feet away from the property line. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Jim, with all due 16 respect, we ought to hear testimony from neighbors 17 who were notified because it has relevance to them 18 whether or not -- 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm feeling, Leslie, like 20 we're handling a dispute here amongst neighbors 21 that is no business of ours. 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We are not necessarily 23 doing any of those things. We are listening to 24 testimony. 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's not relative. 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Then you can disregard 3 it in your decision. 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, I intend to. 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But it's still 6 appropriate that it be entered into the record and 7 determine relevance after they finish speaking. 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In terms of the way the 9 law is written, there's got to be a reason why one 10 is required to notify ones immediate neighbors. 11 It's precisely so that neighbors can write letters 12 like these. 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Not. Not letters like 14 these. They should write letters relevant to the 15 reason why they don't think a 3 foot variance 16 should be granted on this piece of property. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Cuddy did. His 18 testimony referred to property set backs and the 19 possibility of alternative locations on the 20 premises. There's some very significant -- 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would say -- but I'm not 22 hearing any from this gentleman, from this letter. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You interrupted what 24 he was reading. 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: If you can keep it 1 2 relative, please, sir, I'd appreciate it. 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you suggesting that 4 he should stop reading this letter into the 5 record? 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I am suggesting that he 7 should not be putting into the record a 8 presentation that is not limited to testimony 9 relative to the property in the Zoning Code 10 Sections below. That's what I'm saying. I'm 11 saying that the fact that a relative or someone, a 12 neighbor next door raises his property, has no 13 relevance to a set back variance on his neighbor's 14 property. 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So we could ignore 16 whether we hear it read out loud or whether -- 17 MR. GORMAN: Why is the other letter relevant 18 then? I don't understand. 19 (Everyone talking at one time. ) 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: One at a time. 21 MR. GORMAN: Why is the other letter being 22 read into the record and this one not? I don't 23 know. 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I guess I'm saying to you, 25 sir, I don't think it's relevant what you're 1 2 saying. I read Mr. Cuddy's letter beforehand but 3 if that person came up and starting testifying 4 here, I would stop them because what they're 5 saying is not relevant to the application at hand. 6 I understand that if you have a neighbor and you 7 can't get along, I understand. That is not the 8 meaning of this Zoning Board of Appeals. We're 9 here to hear the relevant testimony. The 10 testimony concerning a garage, a driveway, a 11 garage you'd like to build 3 feet away from your 12 property line. Beyond that, beyond raising the 13 property, beyond having horses and fences and 14 whatever else it has to be, it's just not relevant 15 to this. 16 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: In all due respect, Jim, 17 I think the gentleman here is trying to give you 18 the reasons, whether we agree or disagree. 19 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Well, he hasn't 20 done that yet. He hasn't started his presentation 21 yet. 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. I'll listen. I find 23 so far, sir, it hasn't been relevant and I'm not 24 going to object to you reading -- you can read 25 anything you want into the record. Probably, I 1 2 wish that you had given it to us so we had read it 3 before and even, it's very unusual for someone to 4 read Mr. Cuddy's stuff into the record, quite 5 honestly. We don't usually do that. We usually 6 just read it and take it. But I find, I certainly 7 object to the fact that raising one persons 8 property has anything to do with this and I just 9 want you to know that that's the way I think about 10 this. I hope you can get to something about the 3 11 foot set back. That would be nice. . 12 MR. GORMAN: Okay. 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I know you're not 14 controlling the letter, what you're reading. But 15 please, if you want to start over again, by all 16 means. 17 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: He hasn't started 18 his presentation. Do you want to do that first? 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, he wanted to read that 20 letter and I think you should, it's fine but I 21 just don't find it so far relevant. 22 MR. GORMAN: This is similar -- the issue 23 are similar to the cover letter that I wrote you. 24 This is -- we didn't focus as much on that issue 25 as this neighbor did but it's still very important 1 2 to us and it's important to the reason that we're 3 requesting the side yard -- 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You're argument is fine 5 with me. It's certainly not contingent upon what 6 your neighbor did. What I'm hearing here from this 7 letter is all about what someone else did and it 8 doesn't seem relative to me to this application. 9 That's all. I mean if there's something in there, 10 in that letter, and I'm perfectly willing to let 11 you read the entire thing, but if you can find for 12 me something that is relevant to the 3 foot set 13 back, I'd love to hear that. So please, you can 14 continue or summarize it or however you would like 15 to do. 16 MR. GORMAN: Well, how about I just go and 17 finish reading rather than start over. I'll just 18 start where we left off. 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I apologize for 20 interrupting you. 21 MR. GORMAN: Now, where was I? 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Start at the beginning. 23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Star with the house to 24 the west -- 25 MR. GORMAN: We know we stand in the 1 2 Solinger's property and we're looking at the under 3 carriage of the neighbor's vehicles. How about 4 that? It used to be you would look down and you 5 would look at the top of the cars and now we're 6 looking underneath and we can see the oil dripping 7 into the -- "in contrast, the Solinger's have been 8 environmentally sensitive to neighbors and have 9 done a good job in preserving the natural 10 integrity of their land and trees. They built a 11 home that has low impact on neighbors and the 12 surroundings and is aesthetically pleasing. In 13 fact, all of our guests are amazed that they 14 cannot see the Solinger home at all until they are 15 right next to it. I can understand them wanting 16 to block the unsightly view of the house next door 17 that is visible from anywhere on their property. 18 In addition, from my perspective, the side where 19 they want to put the garage is the only logical 20 place for it. It totally amazing to me that one 21 can build such an unsightly home elevated 10 plus 22 feet as Mr. Soja did and complain about a neighbor 23 building a garage. To me, I'm sure to most of 24 the community, that justifies reason. Sincerely, 25 Timothy Steel. " For what that's worth. 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I found nothing in that 3 letter relevant. 4 MR. GORMAN: Well then, I'm not going to 5 address Mr. Cuddy's letter either just to say 6 that there are numerous inaccuracies and 7 inconsistencies in it. 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, sir, if you would like 9 to address it, you're welcome to but try to keep 10 it relevant to the application. 11 MR. GORMAN: I got to tell you, you're 12 throwing me for a loop here. What I'm going to do 13 is move on to the next issue and that is, we did 14 file on December 4, 2006, we got our denial and 15 then that was reaffirmed by the Building 16 Department that it wasn't going to be, the denial 17 wasn't going to be reissued based on the January 18 27, 2007 code change. So I'm a little unclear 19 whether we're acting on the old code or the new 20 code because the variances are the -- 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's the new code, sir. 22 MR. GORMAN: It's the new code. So then, 23 just for the record, we're asking for a 13 foot 24 relief and a 4 foot height relief. Which, by the 25 way, and this is relevant, had Mr. Soja not added 1 2 6 to 10 yards of fill to his grade and the 3 Solingers built a garage to code height, the 4 building would be 2 feet higher than it is now if 5 we added 4 feet with his 6 feet. For all intents 6 and purposes, we should be asking for a 7 foot 7 increase in height. That would make a level 8 playing field. He added 6 feet to grade, we 9 should be able to add 6 feet to the height to keep 10 the proportionality of the building and to keep 11 the principle of the building heights relevant to 12 grade. Would you agree? 13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, my first question 14 is why would you have to put it in the place 15 you're putting it? You have a lot of room to put 16 a very nice garage on other places on your piece 17 of property that -- I know you're trying to hide 18 the other thing, but that's not our concern. 19 MR. GORMAN: That's a big thing. That's a 20 big thing to hide that other thing. 21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Our concern is the 22 nearness to the -- 23 MR. GORMAN: Has anyone been there? 24 (ALL MEMBERS TALKING AT ONCE. ) 25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, we were all there. 1 2 MR. GORMAN: So you see what we're talking 3 about, right? 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's very apparent. 5 MR. GORMAN: It's pretty overpowering. 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, can I just please say 7 something. Look, we're not that kind of Board, 8 okay? It's not what your neighbor has that you can 9 have. The code is very specific that you can have 10 certain things in certain parts of your property 11 and you must meet certain set backs and the rest 12 of it, what you look at from the other side of 13 your property line, really we have no control 14 over. Including trees. It's not us that does 15 that, okay? So far I've heard, I'm going to be 16 perfectly honest with you, from you, Mr. Cuddy 17 and that person that you want to build this garage 18 so you can hide your neighbors offenses. That 19 they offend you. That's what I've heard so far. 20 MR. GORMAN: That's not true. In the cover 21 letter, the first reason we're asking for a set 22 back relieve is that it's really the only sensible 23 place to put it. It's close to the house. 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's what I'd like to 25 hear. 1 2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, me too. 3 MR. GORMAN: Okay. It's close to the house. 4 We don't have to remove any of the mature trees 5 that -- there's an oak that makes the existing 6 garage into the house inaccessible. We would have 7 to cut the oak down to use the one-car garage, it 8 was grandfathered and really not usable as a 9 garage. They have two cars. It's a one-car 10 garage. It's used for storage now. If we moved 11 -- if we had the garage any farther to the west, 12 it would block the view of the house. You would 13 -- it would look awful from the driveway you 14 approach. You guys saw the driveway -- 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You mean move it to 16 the east. 17 MR. GORMAN: Yes. What did I say? I'm sorry. 18 If we move it to the east, then it would block 19 part of the house. 20 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yeah, I agree. Why 21 can't you move it to the east side? The garage? 22 MR. GORMAN: To the east side of the 23 property? 24 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: To the east side of 25 your property. You can fit it in there. You could 1 2 meet the set backs. You could probably meet the 3 height requirement. Just to have this because of 4 something else that a neighbor has done, to me 5 doesn't make sense when you're looking at your 6 house anyway and you're seeing what the neighbors 7 done period. So what's the difference if you have 8 the garage there? It can be moved some other 9 place. 10 MR. GORMAN: When you were out there, did you 11 see a place that that garage could go that 12 wouldn't involve cutting down large specimen 13 trees. 14 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don't think they are 15 specimen trees but something could be done and you 16 can always replant. But to me, this is so close 17 to that line and it's high and it does obstruct 18 your house. That's a beautiful house. I 19 certainly wouldn't put it smack up against the 20 architecture of your house when you have other 21 room that you can meet the set backs, you can meet 22 the height requirement. 23 MR. GORMAN: Well, you would have to keep the 24 garage in the east/west plain that it is now to 25 make it sensible. Otherwise, who's going to use 1 2 the garage. You'll have to park way down the 3 driveway. 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I didn't say that. 5 MR. GORMAN: So it can only move laterally 6 east to west and anywhere -- move any farther east 7 that you would move that, it would totally block 8 the house. There's just no place really that you 9 can put it. If you look at the survey, as soon as 10 you start moving it east, you start blocking more 11 and more of the house. If you put it all the way 12 to the eastern property line, all the way to the 13 property line, then you will still be blocking 20 14 feet of the house. 15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You're almost doing it 16 now as you drive up. You almost have to get right 17 next to the house to see it and if you put it on 18 the east side, I don't see it would still make a 19 further obstruction of your house. I think your 20 garage is going -- 21 (Members talking) 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can you guys, please. 23 She's trying to get this. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sorry. Trying to 25 understand this. 1 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. You'll all get a 3 chance to ask your questions. 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just think the set 5 back is too close and if we move it further from 6 that, say 4 or 5 feet, you're going to be that 7 much closer to the house. As you go up that 8 driveway, you have to practically get up almost to 9 the house to see it. So therefore, to me, if you 10 move the garage on the east side, I don't see how 11 that's going to block that nice view of that 12 beautiful house from your driveway. It will be on 13 the east side to your right instead smack in front 14 of you as you drive up the driveway. 15 MR. GORMAN: Well, right now it wouldn't be 16 smack in front of you. The driveway starts on the 17 eastern side. And we also have a water problem 18 that was created by the berm, I mean by the 19 elevated grade. The water used to run off of the 20 Solinger property down towards the west and south. 21 Now it doesn't. Now it pools right in their 22 parking area and we're going to have to address 23 that area somehow one way or the other. We began 24 it by placing a berm that snakes around. That 25 takes some of the water on the southern part of 1 2 the property but we still have that collection 3 there where the proposed garage is going to go. 4 It all -- that's the lowest spot. It looks like 5 someone came and dug a crater right in that spot. 6 And that's all due to the grade elevation on the 7 neighbor's property. There was never a water 8 problem on this property until now. So we want to 9 be able to put the garage there. We'll create 10 another trough for the water to run between the 11 foundation and the building and the berm that he 12 made. We'll create a trough. We'll run it down. 13 Hopefully, we can hook up with the berm and move 14 the water down to the south. Maybe we have to put 15 a dry well in. Whatever the cost, the costs of 16 removing water now are on the Solingers now. Not 17 on the neighbor. The neighbor created the water 18 problem, they have to pay to solve it. 19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That's something you 20 would have to settle in court, I think. Not here. 21 MR. GORMAN: We're hoping it doesn't have to 22 be like that. 23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I can make a ridiculous 24 suggestion. If you move that garage over to the 25 east side and you if you still have a puddle 1 2 there, maybe you can make a dry well or maybe you 3 could make a nice pond for yourself. 4 MR. GORMAN: I guess you're joking. 5 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I am. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Run off is creating a 7 pond. You're going to have to berm the soil no 8 matter what you do, 9 MR. GORMAN: Right, no matter what. 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No matter where you 11 put anything, you're going to have to. 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right. Jerry, it's 13 your turn. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The garage is 15 large. There's no question about it and I have to 16 tell you that no one has ever garnered my vote at 17 3 feet from the property line based upon the size 18 of this garage, okay. Personally, I think the 19 architecture is adorable. There's no question 20 about it. But I do agree with my colleague, Ruth, 21 that it should go on the east side. Probably 22 should be turned around coming right off of the 23 edge of that driveway that stops and right over to 24 the garage. And I'm sorry to say, if you have to 25 build a retaining wall in there, you'll have to 1 2 build a retaining wall but that's my suggestion. 3 Trying to snake it around and give us a little 4 shot on where you want to put it, we'll go back 5 and look at it. I'm not speaking for the Board. 6 I'm speaking for myself. It's a magnificent area. 7 It's a magnificent house and it's a magnificent 8 piece of property. But I have absolutely no 9 objection where you're putting it as long as you 10 keep it 10 feet from the property line or as close 11 to 10 feet as possible. 12 MR. GORMAN: Ten feet. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because of the 14 water runoff that's going to come off, and I 15 realize that we can put gutters on. You can put 16 oversize gutters on. You can put anything you 17 want on but it's going to overshoot those gutters 18 anyway. There's no question about it particularly 19 a tin roof. Water runs off a tin roof much faster 20 than it runs off anything else. But it's up to 21 you. I would look for an additional location and 22 that's just my suggestion. 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I understand the 25 siting because of the scale of the building itself 1 2 and how it fits within the existing stone walls 3 and so on and where you've bermed. It's logical 4 in terms of the placement of a building that size. 5 However, it is problematic being so slam dunked up 6 against an already difficult slope. Putting in a 7 trough behind would mediate some runoff 8 particularly when it's a dry well. There is one, I 9 thought it was a maple tree that was actually in 10 front. 11 MR. GORMAN: There is a maple tree there as 12 well. 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: However, with some 14 recontouring and regrading and some reworking of 15 stone, it's possible with some compromise to 16 actually move that building more southerly 17 slightly to the south and then slightly to the 18 east, keep it on that side. It will still not 19 interfere with the front elevation of the house. 20 It may have a bigger impact on the front elevation 21 of the house on the easterly side. And you can 22 then provide, really can provide a 10 foot set 23 back doing that. And that would certainly stop 24 any of that need for a variance there. Then we're 25 just down to a height variance. The cupola, as I 1 2 understand it, is a consequence of being a 3 lightwell. The way the plan is drawn, which is 4 just a freehand scale thing, indicates a clear 5 story up to the cupola for natural light to come 6 through. It is not habitable and it is not 7 accessible to the interior. It is proposed 8 storage on either side. The cupola itself as a 9 consequence can remain as an element but it can 10 also be lowered. It has significant height. 11 MR. GORMAN: You're talking about the clear 12 story? 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. I'm calling it 14 a cupola. It's the element above the ridge of the 15 roof. Whatever you want to call it. So I believe 16 that there are alternatives both architecturally 17 that are only reasonably small modifications and 18 site strategies that can be developed without 19 substantial cost increase that I would like to 20 entertain, I'd like to suggest that perhaps your 21 landscape designer and you would like to talk to 22 your client about and see whether or not you 23 couldn't come back with an alternative plan. With 24 some modifications that creates much less 25 nonconformity and still gives you the kinds of 1 2 things you want. You would probably have to lose 3 that maple, that one tree, but that may be a lot 4 better in the long run. There was another, I 5 don't know what it is. It looks like a cherry or 6 fruit tree or something that's on a slight -- 7 moving that -- you can't move the maple, that one 8 might be movable. Those are two elements, two 9 natural features that would be far less disruptive 10 to the property then on the easterly side where 11 there is a lot more retention of a kind of rural 12 rough feel along with a shed and woods and it's 13 really up to the client to figure out what. But I 14 do think that's a more reasonable proposal. We 15 really can't, the same thing happened to me, by 16 the way, next door. So I understand how you feel 17 and your client feels in terms of the impact of 18 that grade change and the adverse consequences to 19 your property. However, we really can't, Jim's 20 right in this sense, we can't mitigate that for 21 you. It is not substantial enough of a reason to 22 grant a big height variance. The actually change 23 in law, by the way, so you understand, was to 24 create proportionality but not with your 25 neighbor's property. With your own. An accessory 1 2 -- this is a substantial accessory structure on 3 the Solinger's property and it doesn't exceed, 4 because it's a large lot, it doesn't exceed the 5 square footage allowed. But it is still a very, 6 very large structure. So, that's enough. I'd like 7 to see -- would you be willing to come back with 8 some modifications by reexamining the site plan? 9 MR. GORMAN: Well, certainly we'll discuss 10 it. Yes, we'll certainly discuss it. I think 11 Connie Cross would like to say something as well. 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Are you done Leslie? 13 Michael? 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a couple of things, 15 observations. I'm not sure how many questions 16 there are but for the record. My understanding, 17 our principle lawyer is unable to be here today 18 but with regard to the code. Yes, in this Town, 19 if you're building something that does not require 20 a variance, then what your neighbor thinks about 21 it has no relevance whatever. But when you apply 22 for a variance, particularly with something to do 23 with a set back, then not only are the neighbors 24 allowed to comment, they are required to sign off 25 if they are not going to comment. When we consider 1 2 a variance application, we are expected to take 3 into consideration a whole series of points which 4 are outlined in the same part of the code that 5 Mr. Cuddy represented 277B3 with regard to 6 effects on the neighborhood and the environment. 7 So when it comes to the matter of deciding on a 8 variance, then we are expected to use our 9 discretion and they are not entirely limited to 10 what is on the owner's side of the property. 11 That's why neighbors are required to comment and 12 it's also, I think, quite appropriate, for someone 13 to reply to the neighbor's objections. Whether 14 it's done by a letter or whether it's done by 15 testimony. I think this is quite highly 16 appropriate. With regard to this, Leslie, has 17 kind of anticipated my suggestion. If there is a 18 decision to revise the plan to do something 19 entirely within the code that would not require 20 any variance at all, then there would be no need 21 to continue the hearing. On the other hand, if 22 there is going to be some alternative that is 23 going to be suggested which would require a 24 variance but just a different variance, then I 25 think it would be appropriate for us to keep the 1 2 hearing open to allow this. The only reason for 3 closing it would be to say we're going to decide 4 on it as written. I don't think we're in a 5 position to recommend alternative relief on the 6 basis of a whole variety of plans that are 7 proposed. We do not design properties. We 8 sometimes could sight an alternative as we 9 sometimes do. But there are so many alternatives 10 in this case, it's not for us to decide which are 11 the ones that we're going to draft and ask to be 12 considered. So the ball is in your court again, I 13 guess is what I'm saying. 14 MR. GORMAN: Okay. I just want to, if I may, 15 get a clarification. We're establishing a 10 foot 16 set back. 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Not yet. No, don't. I 18 still have to speak. And if Michael's done, I'll 19 start. I know we started off a little rocky but 20 I'm going to tell you why. Sir, I think it's 21 perfectly appropriate for you to put that barn 22 right where it is quite honestly. And there are a 23 history of this Board giving this type of 24 variance, okay, in that location. Maybe not a 25 building quite that size but certainly close to 1 2 it. Now, you need a 17 foot variance according to 3 our code and that's because we have a new code. 4 Before I think it was probably 5 feet. 5 MR. GORMAN: Ten. 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And if you can discuss 7 with me the actual layout and how this water -- 8 how you intend to mitigate that. I understand 9 where it's coming from. I understand the fact that 10 the neighbor was wholly entitled to do, I suppose, 11 what they did and I'm assuming that you would be 12 entitled to do that too. I'm not sure if you can 13 go to the Building Inspector and build your own 14 property up like the neighbor next door but it 15 seams to me like that would be an appropriate 16 thing for the Town to accept. Now, with that not 17 withstanding, tell me, you have a basic water 18 problem coming from this wall that's alongside 19 your property line. How does building this 20 building there mitigate that? How does it help 21 you in some way alleviate the problem that it's 22 caused? 23 MR. GORMAN: We would pour a foundation that 24 extended out of the ground on the south side so 25 that we could continue the berm that has already 1 2 begun so it can set up against the foundation wall 3 of the barn. The other side, the west side of the 4 barn, would then create the trough between the 5 berm, the neighbor's berm, and the foundation wall 6 and hook up with the berm that would run down to 7 the south and hopefully out the property. 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does that go out to the 9 street? 10 MR. GORMAN: I think it starts draining down 11 the line. I don't think we're going to figure a 12 rapid running into the street. 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Would you be willing to 14 throw down a drywell if that were -- would it be 15 possible for you to do that? Is there so much 16 water there that you wouldn't be able to do that? 17 Do you have any idea? 18 MR. GORMAN: We could probably -- a drywell. 19 It may take two. A lot of water seems to come 20 down there now. 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: This building is 30 feet 22 wide? 23 MR. GORMAN: Correct. 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can it be smaller than 25 that? Can it be 22? Now, I understand you can't 1 2 go any further east in that location -- 3 MR. GORMAN: You want to make it 22 to get it 4 10 feet away? 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, I'm just looking 6 to see if maybe we can help you. I can somehow 7 justify you having that thing right there right 8 where you would like it. Quite honestly, if you 9 move it over to 20 feet, you don't need a 10 variance. Really, right? You're on a glorified 11 piece of property. You're entitled to put that 12 thing right up to the property line. So if you 13 can, you know, kind of describe to me or maybe can 14 you shift the building and make it a little 15 smaller so you want to keep it in that same 16 location? 17 MR. GORMAN: I don't think that you can shift 18 the building. I think if anything -- 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Because of the tree, 20 right? 21 MR. GORMAN: Right, exactly and because of 22 the way that it would block the house from most 23 vantages until you actually turned up the driveway 24 and started coming in. 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don't know that's my 1 2 concern. 3 MR. GORMAN: You know and I'm just speaking 4 without any agreement from the owner. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's fine. It looks 6 like you're going to be coming back, sir, quite 7 honestly. I would like to see if you can have it 8 there someway, if you can give me some 9 explanation, like I said, if you can make it a 10 little smaller. Three feet is close by anybody's 11 standards. If you can pull that thing off, 13 12 feet from the property line or 10 feet. 13 MR. GORMAN: I mean is ten feet going to -- 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, I can't. It's not a 15 bargain here. You see. It's very diverse how we 16 -- we'll come to some concern but I think you're 17 proposed location is not offensive to me. 18 However, the closeness to the side yard does 19 present a problem because we're asking for a 75% 20 variance. And honestly I'm not willing to grant a 21 75% variance to anybody unless they have a dire 22 hardship. Now, I have one Board member that says 23 you can just go to the east. Another one says you 24 can shift it. The code says you can build it 25 anyplace else on that lot but there and not need a 1 2 variance. So if you can give me some reasons, 3 maybe we can work something out. I think you're 4 wholly entitled to have it there. It's just a 5 question of -- 3 feet is not going to cut it. I 6 just don't see where -- number one, the water goes 7 after that. And number two, I don't see how you 8 can maintain it 3 feet from the property line. 9 There's a lot of things that come into play. 10 MR. GORMAN: Just to clarify. The water now 11 runs right where the proposed garage is going to 12 go. The water runs right there. That is the low 13 spot. So we're filling the low spot with 14 something with the expectation that the water is 15 going to run down the south between the two berms. 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm concerned about that 3 17 feet. Can we make it a little more land so that 18 maybe it soaks in a little more or doesn't -- it 19 seems to me that you're just going to create 20 another problem somewhere else we might need to 21 mitigate. We're granting you a variance. We're 22 going to want to keep all that water on your 23 property. Dry wells are a standard of our 24 applications now and I'm not opposed to anybody on 25 this Board asking for an estimate how much water 1 2 has to be contained, due to that. If that's the 3 case, seems to me like you got some really large 4 dry wells to put in to contain that. If you want 5 to go back and consider it. 6 MR. GORMAN: Is the -- just to, again, the 7 height variance, are we going to have an issue 8 with that? Is there any objection to the height? 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. Well here's the 10 point I think Jim is attempting to describe it 11 very accurately. Our job is to grant the least 12 nonconformity possibly, okay. And in order to do 13 that, we have to have serious mitigating reasons 14 why those nonconformity -- why that variance has 15 got to be granted. A 75% variance is very 16 substantial. One of our criteria of our 5 17 criteria is to what extent -- is the variance 18 substantial or not susbstantial. If you were 19 asking for 10-15% variance, it's not so 20 substantial. 75% variance is huge. So the 21 question here is, Connie, can you sit down and 22 have another look having heard everything that was 23 discussed and come up with an alternative proposal 24 leaving it on that side attempting to do something 25 about the size of the building, the height of the 1 2 building without compromising its use or site 3 orientation and just come back to us and attempt 4 to create lest nonconformity. If you say yes, we 5 will await the alternative plans. We don't like to 6 grant relief in a situation like this or deny 7 relief without looking at a specific alternative. 8 We could say you can't make it any higher than 9 this, you can't have a set back any less than 10 that. We still wouldn't have your specific 11 proposal before us and then the Building Inspector 12 gets into issues of interpretation. So it's much 13 better all the way around if we grant something 14 yes or no based on -- like this, very specific. So 15 if you think that's possible, then we can hold the 16 hearing open. 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes. We hold the hearing 18 open and you get back to the Building Inspector 19 and let him take a look at it and revise the 20 Notice of Disapproval. It won't be until January 21 24th that we'll be able to hear you again. Anybody 22 else have any comments on this? Anybody from the 23 Board? Just state your name and address. 24 25 MS. CROSS: Connie Cross, Main Road, 1 2 Cutchogue. Hi everybody. I come from Brooklyn. 3 Everybody does everything however they want to do 4 it. I came out here and I have an art background 5 but I really don't have much other formal training 6 as some people do know. But I just think it's 7 beautiful out here. So although I don't see 8 myself as an environmentalist, I think I've become 9 so, I guess, by definition, if you're trying to 10 preserve the natural beauty of the land. So when 11 I meet people like the Solingers, I'm really 12 impressed with their dedication to doing that. As 13 I understand it, there was a former foundation 14 there. They didn't have to stick to that former 15 foundation. They could have put the house 16 elsewhere. They could have raised their property 17 so they would get a better view of the water and 18 also protect themselves because they are very 19 close to the bluff. But they didn't choose to do 20 that. They chose to keep beautiful big trees. 21 When I went there, I said boy, look at those 22 trees. They're unusual. And so, I was called by 23 them for a landscape consultation which always 24 involves many issues and needs. One of them was 25 screening this house. Now, I don't know if we're 1 2 going to ignore the letters from the adjacent 3 neighbor, but if we ignore the letter from the 4 adjacent neighbor, then we're back to the fact 5 that anybody can do what they want which would 6 include us. Therefore, we have to ignore the 7 letter from Mr. Cuddy saying it's too high and 8 it's too close. So I don't think we're going to 9 ignore that because it seems to be from what I've 10 heard that they have to be addressed and I thank 11 Mr. Cuddy for informing me about that Town law 12 that says what is the impact on the community and 13 the residents. Because if it applies to us, it 14 has to apply to them. So I think there is 15 relevancy and that's how I was brought onto the 16 property. So these are issue I always have to 17 deal with. We want to hide this, we want to hide 18 that. And again, coming from Brooklyn where my 19 husband would say how ludicrous. The houses were 20 attached, they were 10 feet from you, you know. 21 So when I went there, this was in May in reference 22 to the fact that could we reconsider. How did 23 this come about to begin with? I was called by 24 the Solinger's to address the fact that they 25 really had an unsightly view, which they are 1 2 entitled. And Mr. Soja was also entitled to build 3 the house he wants. It's not unsightly to him but 4 what we're building is unsightly to him. So we're 5 equal now. So I looked at this thing and thought 6 it was pretty offensive and wondered how in 7 Heaven's name he was allowed to do it. If you 8 look at the bluff in the back -- 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, ma'am, let's keep 10 it relative to the 3 foot set back. 11 MS. CROSS: I realize that. I'm just saying 12 how I started. So I presented to them a screening 13 issue. They also told me they wanted a garage. I 14 said don't put a garage there because you're never 15 going to be able to hide the house. You can look 16 at what I proposed. We did do part of it up by 17 between the two houses at great expense and that 18 was also shared. I think the neighbors got along 19 great. It was fine. When it came time to the 20 lower area to address it. They kept saying I want 21 a garage. I said there is no place to put a 22 garage but over here. But you know what, garages 23 don't grow, trees grow. But they have 3 little 24 kids. Why do people put attached garages? 25 Obviously, convenience and a garage go hand in 1 2 hand. You know, Ms. Solinger says, I don't want 3 to see cars. I'm going to park in the garage. 4 The further away it is, the less likely she is. I 5 don't think she is even now because it's so far 6 from the house. Why can't I put it closer? Well, 7 the grade goes up. 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, ma'am. Are you 9 having a conversation with somebody? Are you 10 having with the Solingers? 11 MS. CROSS: I'm trying to tell you why this 12 is the only place to put the garage in my opinion 13 based on conversations with the Solingers. So they 14 want a garage. Where can we put it? I looked at 15 the property to east, I believe there's 20. 6 feet 16 to the east side and the big tree. To clear the 17 big tree puts the garage really far up from the 18 house. Makes it very inconvenient. To address 19 the set back on that side which you're telling me 20 is 10 feet, correct? You would have to build even 21 a 24 foot garage which goes 14 to 15 feet in front 22 of their house. I think that's reasonable plus it 23 puts the driveway completely dissecting and they 24 have 3 little babies. They don't even like the 25 driveway where it is. They wanted to put it to 1 2 the south but then you have the water problem. So 3 I suggested doing that and impacted it a little 4 bit. I suggested they move their house when they 5 bought the property next door and they actually 6 got a price on moving the house because I felt it 7 should be trees if you want to address that. And 8 I thougth when they applied for a variance which 9 is the only place I think they should put it 10 because it's convenient and because it addressed 11 two issues. One the convenience and storage area 12 because they can't use the one they have without 13 compromising the gorgeous tree and getting it and 14 putting it far from the house. I don't see where 15 it can go anywhere else. If anything, I'm the 16 strongest proponent of putting it there even 17 though I'd rather have trees there. But I can't 18 argue that they need a garage. They have 3 little 19 kids and they need storage and they want to put 20 their cars somewhere. So why is it higher? Okay. 21 We don't want to cut a tree down. And I think 22 it's a significant tree, you know. It's not just 23 this little choke cherry. It's a beautiful tree. 24 And if we move it to the east, as we placed it you 25 could barely get into the garage. We pushed it 1 2 farther to the south. There's a dogwood tree over 3 there. We'd have to take that out. That's the 4 least significant but it's important to the 5 homeowners. I have to listen to that too. How do 6 you put it closer to the house because a garage 7 should be convenient and not block the house which 8 I think is reasonable. And there's a waterview 9 there. So the oak tree and the waterview dictate 10 not moving it to the east. Moving it to the 11 south, the more you move it, becomes more and more 12 unreasonable for them to use with 3 babies. It's 13 just not going to happen. So in answer to what 14 you said, Leslie, I have tossed this around since 15 May '06. In terms of the layout of the building, 16 that was my design and I made it as shallow as 17 possible to accommodate 3 foot off the property 18 line. If you move forward, you have to cut the 19 tree down. That's the reason for that. It 20 accommodates a car with 3 feet of walkway in the 21 back of it which I don't think is unreasonable to 22 get a staircase for the added storage they needed, 23 I added the 12 feet towards the water in that 24 side. And that's how that came to be on that side, 25 to get a staircase in there and some storage so 1 2 they could put all these bikes and stuff in a 3 reasonable accessible place when you have 4 children. Not in a basement. The only garage 5 they had which was poorly designed down -- it's a 6 beautiful house down by Mr. Hallock, I believe. 7 He was very creative. But I have the original 8 survey which shows the driveway on the east side, 9 which you know everything works on paper, correct? 10 When you get there, they would of had to drive 11 around that big tree and not access that garage. 12 So they use it for storage. We talked about 13 closing it up actually with barn doors because 14 it's not accessible in a practical manner. I 15 can't see putting a garage far from your house. I 16 don't know how anybody would use it. So that's 17 really how it got there. You can blame me. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Six feet? 19 MS. CROSS: If you come there, if you move it 20 the 6 feet, if I made it shorter from the deck 21 that I have it, you wouldn't be able to walk 22 around the back of the car. So if you move it, 23 could you move it a few feet? You know I think we 24 can move it a few feet but ten feet? We'd have to 25 cut that tree down. He's completely opposed to 1 2 cutting the tree down and I think that's 3 wonderfully commendable. I'm in agreement on 4 that. I suggested cutting the cherry tree down to 5 give him screening, he almost had a heart attack. 6 If you're going to argue one person's point, you 7 have to argue the other person's point. The 8 opposing letter says it's offensive. We can say 9 it's offensive too. That's our reason. So either 10 it's valid or it's not valid. That part I don't 11 understand. 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What is it that you don't 13 understand? 14 MS. CROSS: In other words, the opposing 15 letter from Mr. Soja finds it offensive visually. 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Finds what offensive? 17 MS. CROSS: The garage, the proposed the 18 garage, the height of it and the location. 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. 20 MS. CROSS: Our position is we also find his 21 offensive. 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What offensive? 23 MS. CROSS: Mr. Soja's berm. 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is that the subject of the 25 hearing? 1 2 MS. CROSS: It apparently is. If you 3 acknowledge his letter, then you have to 4 acknowledge our. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, no because the 6 neighbor does have -- he's commenting on the 7 variance. 8 MS. CROSS: Correct. 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What is the other letter 10 commenting on? 11 MS. CROSS: How this came into being. 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well honestly, we don't 13 need to argue that. We've had that argument 14 already. 15 MS. CROSS: Why am I arguing it? I can tell 16 you why. Originally when Mr. Gorman was preparing 17 us, we all agreed that Mr. Soja did what he did. 18 That's ceases to be anything we can do about that 19 and we should not focus on that at all. And it 20 only came into being with Mr. Cuddy's response, 21 which if it is relevant, I 'm trying to tell you 22 how we got there even though we were not going to 23 present it. To me, whether there was no berm and 24 whether the propery was lower and Mr. Soja's house 25 didn't even exist, that is the most reasonable 1 2 place to put that garage for them to use it on a 3 practical level both storage and aesthetically. 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: All I was suggesting 5 was the possibility for you to consider keeping it 6 on the east side. Keeping it as close to the 7 house as possible but seeing whether you could 8 reduce some of the nonconformity that would be 9 created by your current proposal. 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's on the west side. 11 MS. CROSS: I'm sure it can be a foot lower 12 but that, as you well know, changes the 13 aesthetics. They wanted it to look like a barn, 14 like it had always been there. They toyed with 15 Victorian and we thought that was too cutesy and 16 offensive. We wanted it to be more low key and 17 also where it's bermed, I was tending towards big 18 trees so this can be obscured even from them 19 coming in. And the water problem, I was going to 20 address that with dry wells. Originally, we had 21 some dialogue with Mr. Soja because I said to 22 them, if I make a secondary berm on your property 23 on the Solinger property, that would create, 24 because of where his burn comes down the property 25 line, it would create a trough. Why don't we ask 1 2 Mr. Soja if he lets us join the berm. We will 3 take the rocks off. We'll pay for that. We will 4 redistribute, he can have them back. I'll make a 5 wider berm over there and there wouldn't be any 6 water problem at all. And Mr. Soja originally 7 said he thought he would do that but then he 8 changed his mind for whatever his reasons. So I 9 said okay, then I'll put the burn back because 10 whether the garage goes there or not, I'm still 11 addressing the unsightliness which has nothing to 12 do with you. But I put that berm in there and I 13 will address any water problem if it is needed -- 14 we have sand base on that berm and it may drain -- 15 but there was water on that driveway. So I 16 addressed the water on the driveway by relocating 17 the driveway and the fact that I can get a berm in 18 and put screening and hide the house. So that's 19 why this berm which has nothing to do with the 20 garage. I really looked. I wanted to put trees 21 there real bad but I couldn't think of a place to 22 put that garage that was both practical and 23 aesthetic. I really couldn't. I still can't. I 24 think originally when Mr. Booth bought the 25 property, I believe it's illegal to put a garage 1 2 on the other side, on another piece of property as 3 a primary structure. The reason they bought it, 4 they're sharing it with a neighbor to preserve it 5 because, yes, they should have bought the land 6 next to them if they didn't want somebody to do 7 something that they find offensive. And they 8 learned their lesson so they bought the property 9 to the east for that reason. So we've explored so 10 many different way. Put the driveway here, put it 11 here. You know, you have kids too. Even the 12 driveway where it is is less than desirable. It 13 was nice where it was because because -- but I 14 couldn't make a miracle. So we moved the 15 driveway. They're worried, the kids are going to 16 come out of the house. Well, how do you 17 completely go across? It's scary for them. 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What about attaching it to 19 the house? 20 MS. CROSS: First of all, on the west side, 21 if you attach it, you still have a set back 22 problem because I think there's 30 feet to the 23 west side. I said that too. I think you want your 24 garage as close as possible. So I said what about 25 on the east side? East side they have 20 feet. 1 2 Where would you put it? You can't put it over 3 there plus that beautiful tree. I'm not talking 4 about. If you've seen it. It's a gorgeous, 5 gorgeous tree. You know, I tell you the truth, 6 just putting the garage where it is is 7 compromising the oak tree that we don't want to 8 cut down because the roots you know, when you keep 9 driving over roots, driving over roots, it doesn't 10 help. Years later, the tree loses its stability. 11 I tried with that. Then you block their water 12 view and you can't get around the house if you put 13 it on the west. How can you put it on the east 20 14 feet? There's just no room. So again we tossed 15 this around. There was a point where I said you 16 know you can't put it over there. We argued that. 17 Everyone said what are you doing? I said, well 18 I'm trying to make everybody happy but I just 19 don't see how you're going to -- I see, when you 20 have children -- and their other house is 21 elevated. They have to go up steps. They have 22 babies. We all think we're going to park in the 23 garage. Half of us don't park in the garage when 24 it's attached, let alone -- 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ma'am, if you can keep 1 2 this relevant. 3 MS. CROSS: That's all. I don't have any 4 more. 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Here's the question. 6 Having said what you just said, do you prefer to 7 say this is the best we can do, close the hearing 8 and we'll make our decision based on what you've 9 proposed or do you want to look at alternatives 10 again based on what you've heard and come back 11 with an alternative proposal that reduces some of 12 the requests for variances, the substantial nature 13 of those requests. Then we can agree to that. We 14 can hold the hearing open for you. It's really 15 your call. 16 MS. CROSS: I think Mr. Muth's and Mr. 17 Gorman's decision. 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does anybody else wish to 19 comment on this before we -- sir? 20 MS. CROSS: Thanks everyone, 21 MR. SOJA: I'm the notorious Martin Soja. 22 My name is Martin Soja. Principle member of 23 Oregon Cliffs, LLC. I own the property adjoining 24 the applicant. My address is 13457 Oregon Road, 25 Cutchogue. I have read and reviewed the 1 2 applicant's request for zoning variance and I have 3 several items I would like to bring to the Board's 4 attention. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, can I just warn you 6 to keep it relevant to the application, please. 7 MR. SOJA: Absolutely, sir. I have -- if I 8 can submit this, which is actually what I was 9 going to say plus some pictures of the adjoining 10 property. Can I submit this to the Board? As you 11 know, my attorney was not able to speak for me 12 this morning because of prior legal requirements. 13 He has submitted a letter which you're aware of. 14 I wanted to read into the record some of my 15 concerns regarding the application. The applicant 16 is requesting exemptions to the zoning code. 17 There's 2 issues we're talking about. The first is 18 the side yard set back relief. The proposed 19 building is significantly larger than a standard 20 garage. The footprint is 1, 100 square feet. The 21 total space will have over 1, 600 square feet to 22 the top floor. The building structure purported 23 is to be used as a garage and storage building. 24 The garage portion is for two cars could easily be 25 handled by a 20 by 20 foot area, 400 square feet. 1 2 This leaves an extra 700 square feet of storage 3 for the first floor plus another approximately 500 4 on the second floor for storage. I just want to 5 bring attention that my neighbor, an additional 6 neighbor to the west is building a garage also - 7 the Judge property. They're building a garage 8 which is 20 by 32 for a three-car garage and the 9 second I showed, if they extended that out by 10 another 10 feet which is what this building has, 11 you can fit 2 cars easily into a 20 foot width. 12 You don't have to move back another 10 feet to get 13 2 cars in. Most garages are built 20 feet, 22 14 feet in depth. So if this building was 15 conventional size of 20 foot rather than 30 feet, 16 you don't even need a variance because you can fit 17 it into the area closely. I thought it was ten 18 feet. 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It's 20. 20 MR. SOJA: So that's an alternative which I 21 think was mentioned before. 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I just get this right. 23 You would have no objection to it being ten feet 24 from the property line? 25 MR. SOJA: I have no objection meeting 1 2 whatever the requirement is. I thought it was 10. 3 They said a 7 foot variance so that's what I was 4 objecting to. I'm new to the area, as you know. 5 I'm not familiar with all the requirements of the 6 Town. I think there are other suitable locations 7 on this 1 1/2 acre site. I think there might be 8 other people who can advise on as to how that 9 might be done. I think there are other landscape 10 architects who can come up with something. That's 11 not my speciality and I appreciate Connie's input 12 as to where she feels it should be. But I think 13 there are other places it can be located. As she 14 mentioned, there's an existing garage there. It 15 can be put next to that garage on that side and 16 adjoin that area. Also the applicant is a 17 co-owner of a 3 acre property on the east side 18 directly adjoining them. There's plenty of space 19 there to build a garage. The second issue is the 20 height issue. As I understand it, the Town 21 changed the code to 18 feet the beginning of this 22 year. Prior to that, the limit was 22 feet and I 23 thought they were looking for a 24 foot height. 24 It is interesting to note that the applicant's 25 house is actually higher than my house. Their 1 2 house is up high and it's higher than a proposed 3 garage and I'll address the water issue in a few 4 minutes. Getting back to the height structure, 5 the size of this building is really inconsistent 6 with any other garage in the area. If the 7 building was connected, then I think it would be a 8 20 foot set back but again, I'm not sure of that. 9 The height of the proposed is 7 feet above the 10 Town limit of 18 feet. The building will 11 drastically reduce the value of my property Oregon 12 property. It's effectively a wall 24 feet high, 13 36 feet long and 3 feet from the property line as 14 proposed. The building should be downsized to a 15 reasonable structure and placed a minimum of 10 16 feet to the property line or whatever the 17 requirements are. There should be proper 18 screening with trees to preserve the environment. 19 There's no discussion at all about how am I going 20 to preserve the environment with any trees at all. 21 Traditionally, landscaping with trees is used to 22 block a neighbor's view. Not created a 20 foot 23 high and 36 foot long structure. There are a 24 couple of things that I need to correct that were 25 mentioned in the record. The applicant stated 1 2 that the 6 foot elevation and the height creates a 3 visually overpowering landscape. I like to state 4 that overpowering view of a landscape by trees 5 which are growing and in a few years which will 6 completely block out my house. I think the trees 7 are more attractive than having a large structure 8 to block the view. The applicant complains when 9 having to look at the grade of the landscaped area 10 created by Oregon, which is me. By sloping the 11 grade to this area, I actually shielded the view 12 of my driveway. So instead of seeing my driveway, 13 the land was flat, they would of had to look at my 14 driveway. By having this raised and having the 15 trees there, they no longer see my driveway which 16 is a long driveway coming in. So the sloped area 17 actually improved the applicants view of my 18 property. The applicant named that the sloped 19 grade on the property creates some sort of problem 20 for the applicant's children. The 21 installation of a garage I don't believe will 22 effect if the children are in the yard what 23 they're going to see from my property. I don't 24 think from that site line, actually the garage 25 will be where the play area is. In fact, now 1 2 instead of looking at a landscape slope, they're 3 going to be looking at a 24 foot high garage. The 4 applicant's expeditor implies there's a necessity 5 to build a 24 foot high garage to remedy problems 6 caused by the Oregon 6 foot elevation. Moreover, 7 the remedy is creating a very large building 8 structure in order to shield the view of the 9 structure that is consistent with building code. 10 When I built my property, I did not build, there 11 was a hill. The property was sloped before I 12 built my property. I built it actually 2 feet 13 below the lowest part. In order to build it 14 lower, I had to truck all kinds of dirt out to 15 build it. I built it in the highest part of where 16 it was. It was right at the top of the hill. I 17 had to get from point A to point B. I could 18 either bring it flat and walk up to get there or I 19 could build a slope. I build a grading slope from 20 the bottom to the top. Yes, I had to bring in 21 dirt to do that but that's the only way you can 22 make it work. You build a house at the height 23 that you're allowed to build it on, actually below 24 that height, which was approved by everyone, you 25 have to put dirt to get from point A to point B. 1 2 Not only did I put in landscaping and they mention 3 a water problem. The sloped area is actually 10 4 feet from their property line. It raises up 5 approximately 6 feet. Maybe a little higher 6 towards the back. That sloped area was engineered 7 with building rock with an environmental control 8 blanket which shrubs and with mulch to prevent any 9 water from going down that area. In fact, there's 10 no evidence that any water has ever gone down that 11 hill and into their property. Their low area 12 actually is below their house. There is drainage 13 coming from their own property from the high area 14 on their property which drains into a low area. 15 There is no evidence to prove any water is coming 16 from my property. In addition to that, the edge 17 of that sloped area then slopes to the other 18 direction. So 99% of my property slopes away from 19 the Solinger house. There's only 10 feet that has 20 any slope at all toward Solingers. That 10 feet 21 has the trees, the berm, the mulch, everything 22 else protecting the water that could possibly go 23 down that hill. So in summary, I'd like to say 24 that there is no need for a side yard relief 25 because the building is grossly oversized. It 1 2 could be downsized and still fit in the area and 3 there are other alternatives to where they could 4 possibly put this building structure. Whether it 5 be on the other side of the property or in the 6 other 3 acres they have, there are other 7 locations. Regarding the height variance. The 8 proposed height is at least 7 feet above the Town 9 code. The additional height serves no purpose 10 other than to screen a view which could be better 11 screened with trees. And in addition to that, 12 this creates a terrible view from my property. 13 I'm not going to look at a building that is 24 14 feet high and 36 feet long right at the edge of my 15 property. A blank wall of a build with no 16 shrubbery unless I put it in. I think an 17 auxiliary building of proposed mass and height 18 would significantly reduce my property value. 19 Thank you for you consideration. 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody have any questions 21 of this gentleman? Sir, I have -- you bring up 22 something that thought when I went up there was 23 that. It seems to me like the property slopes 24 from east to west. That whole, like when you take 25 the turn at the right of away to go towards your 1 2 house and the neighbor's house so that you kind of 3 drive up. It doesn't go the other way around. I'm 4 thinking that the berm, tell me if I'm wrong, that 5 was installed where they want to put the garage 6 started at 60 feet and went to 65 and the other 7 side of that. The other side of that, the subject 8 property is at 66 feet high. The slope is east to 9 west on that piece of property. So the water is 10 not coming from your property. That's the jist 11 that I get. Do you feel the same way or did you 12 do something that makes the water go over there? 13 MR. SOJA: There's no water coming from my 14 site. I have the highest point from the back so 15 it doesn't go way in the back towards north. 16 There's no water coming from that end and they 17 have a very big indentation as you saw around 18 their tree there. So that water all around that 19 area, that low spot, is surrounded by their high 20 property. Where's that water going to go? It has 21 to go right there. 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You basically stopped it 23 from coming onto your property, I guess that's 24 what it's come to. 25 MR. SOJA: It wasn't my intent. 1 2 MR. GORMAN: It stopped flowing. It doesn't 3 move off the property. 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My assumption is that what 5 you did there was perfectly legal for you to do. 6 You never asked for a variance. 7 MR. SOJA: It wasn't required. One other 8 issue is that I am the only neighbor, adjoining 9 neighbor, to this property because I have an 10 L-shaped piece of property. I'm the only affected 11 neighbor on both sides. They own the other piece 12 on the other side with someone else and then 13 there's the water. So I'm the only person here 14 that it's affected. I didn't ask other people to 15 come and support this. I felt that this is an 16 adjoining neighbor issue and that's why I 'm here 17 discussing how it affects me. It affects me very 18 much because that is right in my face. You're 19 going to drive up and you're going to see a very 20 big garage. As you see in the sketches, I planted 21 that area. I landscaped it. I spent a lot of 22 money. I spent I can't tell you how much money 23 trying to make that look attractive for my 24 neighbors. This is not something that was done 25 willy nilly, take it or leave it. I went out of 1 2 my way to make this really look very attractive 3 for my neighbors to solve any kind of water 4 problem that might potentially be there. Take all 5 the water -- go to the other side. I put in a 6 50, 000 gallon dry well to collect any other water 7 that would come off the dry well so there would be 8 no water problem to any other neighbor because 9 there was at one time before the house was 10 completed. So I've done above and beyond what can 11 possibly be done to make the house work in a I I 12 community and I 'm just asking for the same I 13 fairness. 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. So no one has 15 any questions, right? Sir, come on up. State your 16 name and address, please. 17 MR. MUTH: Steve Muth, MUTH. My wife owns 18 the property. We live at 13459 Oregon Road. 19 Basically, I just want to make a couple things 20 quick and clear which is the view and that sort of 21 thing, completely secondary. Number one problem, 22 we need a garage and that's it. Yeah, Connie got 23 brought in because we wanted help and ideas but 24 that's two separate things. Number one, we need 25 the garage. So the question is just where? If 1 2 you look on the front of the house because it has 3 to go on that side. It can't go on the water 4 side. There's no room on either side. It's got 5 to go on the front and there are two specimen 6 trees; about a 90 foot white oak and a 70 foot 7 maple. They are beautiful and we love our trees. 8 It's one of the -- if you look around that whole 9 area, it's rare to find a piece of property that's 10 near the water that has those kinds of trees. So 11 we're just really loathe to cut them down. If 12 that maple wasn't there, we wouldn't be here. I 13 wouldn't be asking for a variance just for that if 14 it was just aesthetics, we wouldn't be here and 15 frankly, I'm not going to cut that tree down. No 16 matter what. It would mean we have to move the 17 garage south so instead of walking 60 feet, now 18 we're walking 80 or 90 feet. That's what's going 19 to end up happening and I just think the impact on 20 him because his land was raised higher, the height 21 is the impact of that building envelope is 22 substantially less because he's 6 feet higher. 23 The building is going to be 6 feet lower visually 24 to him anywhere on his property unless he walks 25 down into the ditch next to the property line. 1 2 Everywhere else it's 6 feet lower so the impact is 3 not going to be that great. We're definitely 4 flexible on the size of the building. I really 5 just want the two-car garage with a little room 6 for storage. So we're definitely flexible on the 7 size. The only constraint is that east/west. Is 8 between that maple tree and it's root structure 9 and the property line and I think it's about 36 10 feet or something like that. I can check it. I'm 11 told that a minimum for driving into the garage I 12 need at least 22, that's the absolute minimum. 13 Everybody says you should do 24, 26. I don't 14 care, I'll go with the minimum. And whatever that 15 is left over between the tree and the property 16 line, I'm fine with. That's it. So that's number 17 one. I just feel like the other stuff can sort of 18 get in the way. So that's the main thing. The 19 aesthetics thing, I think Connie said it right. 20 Whatever he wants to do, that's his property and I 21 don't think he broke any code or anything like 22 that. I mean, I don't know. Apparently he 23 didn't. But bottom line is, our property where our 24 car tires sit where we've parked for 10 years used 25 to be, although the low point on our property, it 1 2 was, it continued for 75 feet in every direction. 3 So there was never any drainage problem at all. 4 Generally speaking, there isn't a drainage 5 problem. There is on in the winter. Now, most of 6 his property is properly graded and slopes away 7 but you can't get a way from the fact that there 8 is a 10 foot by 6 foot berm. So it's 10 feet in, 9 6 feet high and 150 feet long. That's a mass and 10 when that freezes and there's a rain like happens, 11 where's it going to end up. There's only spot for I 12 it to end up and it's right there. That's a I 13 problem. We're going to have to address it. We'll 14 have to put in a dry well or something but we're 15 going to have to do it. Whether there's a garage 16 there or not, our idea was if we're going to be 17 doing it, do it all at once. Do everything. We 18 need the garage, put it there. That's not really 19 the important part and also we would pay for 20 solving the drainage problem. So I sort of felt 21 like it was a good deal for all around and the 22 fact is, from his property, if you stand on his 23 driveway, which is where the view is, this thing 24 is not going to be big. He has planted stuff 25 right in front of it. So there's 6 feet, 6 foot 1 1 2 trees that are going to grow and then there will 3 be a roof. Four or five years from now you don't 4 even have to see this thing at all. So for that 4 5 or 5 years he'll have to see a roof. For that we 6 don't have to cut down this 70 foot maple. I just 7 feel like that's a pretty, that would be a fair 8 deal all around. I don't want to do something 9 negative at all. In fact, we've gotten along in 10 the past. This is not that kind of thing. Not 11 about that at all. We just need the garage and 12 I'm not going to cut down one of those two trees. 13 I'd move the dogwood. It's a beautiful tree but 14 that can be moved. But the other ones, I'm not 15 going to take them down. 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Hold on. 17 Anybody have any questions? I have to thank you 18 for your presentation. Quite honestly, you made 19 it crystal clear. I mean I just want to reiterate 20 or would like to clarify what you said that I 21 heard you say was that you can go with the 22 standard garage which is 22 feet. li 23 MR. MUTH: Yes. 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That's going to lower the 25 height so you may not need that variance if you so 1 1 2 choose. You're problem is you don't want to take 3 down those big trees and I understand that. This 4 Board has granted variances because of that in the 5 past. It would get you a little further away from 6 the property line and you understand that you have 7 to take care of the water. I certainly, looking 8 at the properties, understand about how the flow 9 goes and the neighbor doesn't necessarily, you 10 know, he's worried about his property, not 11 necessary yours. In the beginning, that seemed to 12 me all superfluous and it was right up until the 13 moment you stood up, sir. If you can consider 14 that. If the Board would like to have some 15 questions from this gentlemen concerning that, 16 perhaps we can close the hearing and come to some 17 conclusion instead of making them wait until 18 January. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think we 20 have the plan to be able to do that Jimmy, and 21 that's the problem. If they want to come back 22 this afternoon with something after they go -- 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can do that and we can 24 close the hearing and get a plan from them or hold 25 it open until our next meeting that we have to 1 2 make decisions and do it then. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then close the 4 hearing then? 5 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: How much time 6 would you need to get another plan? Would a week 7 be enough time? 8 MR. MUTH: Yes. 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How are we feeling about 10 that? 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think these are two 12 very reasonable people who have both been very 13 thoughtful and cooperative and I think we should 14 give them a reasonable time to take all of this 15 testimony into consideration, come back with an 16 alternative for us and then we should be able to 17 act with as much speed as to make it convenient 18 for all of you and cost effective for all of you. 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, you would rather 20 have it in January? 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I'm saying if they 22 feel they can get it to us within a week, an 23 alternative, then we can close the hearing subject 24 to -- 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Which is 22 foot building 1 2 however long I guess. 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A point is, he can have 4 more than a week because our next special meeting 5 isn't until 3 weeks. 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right but if he says a 7 week, that's good. 8 (All Members Talking) 9 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: The reason I said 10 a week is because if for some reason there's no 11 agreement and the Board doesn't accept either 12 plan, then the Board do a motion on their own to 13 reopen it and we can maybe schedule it for the 14 December meeting or January meeting without losing 15 a lot of time. If we wait more than a week, we 16 lose that month. 17 MR. MUTH: We won't miss it. 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Good. I'll entertain a 19 motion to close the hearing? 20 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No adjourn it. 22 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI: Close the hearing 23 subject to receiving -- 24 (All Members Talking) . 25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Ruth, 4 seconded by Michael. Motion so moved. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor. 6 (See minutes for resolution. ) 7 **************************************** 8 Draft prepared by Erika Nadeau (excerpt from entire Transcript) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ��� i,�I''SUFFO(,t�= Office Location: ii ��® COG% Mailing Address: t r4 Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank 53095 Main Road 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) 0 ^' �t_ P.O.Box 1179 i�� Southold,NY 11971 4* ®lSouthold,NY 11971-0959 iNg "V' iii http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631)765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: 041 C-(?1e41 Fax# )Oo21t.I k 4empis /3+/— zc40---0Q Date: TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: *14/ SENDER'S TELEPHONE NUMBER: 765-1809 (press 1 at voice recording) REFERENCE,: 0 URGENT 0 FOR YOUR UPDATE 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 AS REQUESTED 0 _ NOTES/COMMENTS: Please find attached copy/copies of the following: �T,a i7)5 //&3/vim/ . _ 6:()) y) E S ., CirbieL)67 _Qv Irk Thank you. Sender's Initials: ��,i%S�FF04 Office Location: d,�0O. O > Mailing Address: Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank y 53095 Main Road 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) 0 rrt t P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 •4 X40 1 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Jgg i hup://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631)765-9064 October 18, 2007 Mr. Thomas Isles, Director Suffolk County Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Dear Mr. Isles: Please find enclosed the following application with related documents for review pursuant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code: Appl. No. 6087 Solinger Action Requested: Height and Setback Variances Within 500 feet of: ( ) State or County Road ( x ) Waterway (Bay, Sound, or Estuary) ( ) Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State, Federal land. If any other information is needed, please do not hesitate to call us. Thank you. Very truly yours, James Dinizio, Jr., Chairman By: Enclosures ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS— MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: Town Hall Annex at North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor 54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold website: http://southtown.northfork.net October 16, 2007 Re: Town Code Chapter 55 — Public Notices for Thursday, November 15, 2007 Hearing Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Times Review newspaper. 1) Before October 23rd: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office located at Southold Town Hall, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability, and to confirm how arrangements were made in either a written statement, or during the hearing, providing the returned letter to us as soon as possible; AND not later than October 24th: please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, and furnish it to our office with the white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board during the hearing and provide the card (when available). These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) Not Later November 5h: please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at your property for seven (7) days (or more) until the hearing is held. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard. Please deliver your Affidavit of Posting prior to November 15. If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff Encls. , OFFICE OF ZOOffice Location: North Fork Bank BuildingING—FirstFloor,��APPEALS Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box atYoungs Southold, NY 11971-0959 htt ;//southoldtown,northfork.net Email: Linda.Kowalski • Tow .South• _ • J. 'ne• a in • Town.Southold,n .us (631) 765-1869 (ext. 5012 or 5011 during recording) office fax (631) 765-9064 VIA FAX 73q - (p Li s)- • • MEMO TO: DATE: Q2 /(e, &-a O7 RE: /A/ / 3% 07 Pu_, 1- 'g -.-. r ,gym :r. . _ . J _� t y ;(- i . �:» Y` Townof Souo�d ZBA w. r .,.,.,-----v_...... ,._._.__— .... % .-.... , m -..... i a Appa;Name. ;,O,'Tax,Map File No. Q i. II sEQ' '— B©aird;Member Ruth D. Olivae - e - : ,,. o 1'1-1 ' , w r ._ .. .._ l ,Xl i ' 0 Other ear 8 51 P M Hearing.,Time: € File Number:'6087 Il' -Tax;Map.b 83. 2-10.12 ,- . , _. . - t,. f App. Name: SOLINGER, Laura I., ~ReceiVed Date:` /11/2007 is Tot.,Fees:; ,'$500: u1CiT1E 61-• HEARINt' "he following application will be heard by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold: NAME : SOLINGER, L. #6087 IJIAP # : 83-2- 10 . 12 APPEAL : Height and Lot Line Setback BEQUEST: Accessory Garage DATE : THURSDAY, Nov. 15 , 9 :45 AM If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM . BONING BOARD-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765- 1809