HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/09/1989 HearingAPPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD ' STATE ROAD 29 P.O. BOX 1179 $OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
FAX NO. (516) 765-1823
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY~ MARCH 9t 1989
Appeal No. 3814:
Application for RYCK KOKE for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III-A, Section 100-32A and Bulk Schedule for
approval of swimmingpool with fence e~closure in the side yard
area. Zone District: R-40. Location of Property: 245
Kimberly Lane, Southold, NY; Paradise By the Bay Subdivision
Lot No. 2; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 70, Block 13,
Lot 20.2.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Member Serge J.
Doyen; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Joseph H. Sawicki;
Member James Dinizio, Jr.; and Board Assistant Linda Kowalski.
Principal Building Inspector Victor Lessard, Building Inspector
Curtis Horton, Building Inspector Thomas J. Fisher, and
approximately 50 persons were in the audience during the public
hearing.
The hearing commenced at 8:08 o'clock p.m.
CHAIRMAN GERARD P. GOEHRINGER: At the time of the last hearing
on this application, we had only three Board Members present.
This is the Koke Application, Appeal No. 3814. We are basically
reconvening that hearing. That is the situation. There is
really no need to re-read the Legal Notice because it was read
at the time of the inception of the first hearing. So we'll ask
Mr. Bruer if he has anything he would like to add?
RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board.
At this point, and Mr. Tip Henderson will speak in behalf of the
Kokes, so counsel to myself in respect to this matter.
CHAIRMAN: Surely. How do you do, Sir.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
TIP HENDERSON, ESQ.: Good evening. Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Board, as indicated by Mr. Bruer, my name is Tip Henderson.
I'm with the Law Firm of Chase, Henderson and Chase at 48 Forest
Avenue in Glen Cove, New York. With me tonight besides
Mr. Bruer is the applicant, Ryck Koke, her husband A1 Koke,
Mr. Norman Reilly, of A. Reilly & Sons Construction -- the
gentleman who put the pool in that we are here discussing
tonight, and Mr. Roy Haje of En Consultants and
Environmentalists.
The property as you well know is in the A-Residential and
AgriculturalZone, or now the R-40 Zone, as of January 10, 1989,
and is approximately 48,600 sq. ft. and is located at 245
Kimberly Road in the Town of Southold, and I believe it's known
as Section 70, Block 13, Lot 20.2. We are here seeking
variances from this Board as a result of a denial of a Building
Permit by the Building Inspector for a pool, which is, an
indicated in the denial, three feet from a -- or, not more than
three feet from a lot line, and a pool which is not in the rear
yard, being in the side yard.
We submit to the Board that we will suffer practical
difficulties, undue hardship if we are not granted the variances
they're seeking tonight.
Briefly, a history of this matter. The Town Board of the Town
of Southold on July 27, 1987 granted a Wetlands Permit for this
particular project. It was a house and a pool along Jockey
Creek within 70-- not within 75 feet -- of the bulkhead at the
Creek, and the Town granted a permit for the construction of a
one-family home and a swimmingpool.
On Septe~ber 4, 1987, a Building Permit was issued by the
Building Inspector for the Town of Southold, a construction
began that Fall with the Town inspecting as construction went on.
In April of the following year, April 12, 1988 to be exact, an
application was submitted to construct the pool in question. It
was submitted to construct a pool in the side yard to be
connected to the house, and to be 15 feet from the side yard lot
line, all of which would have obviated the necessity of any
variances to be granted by this Board.
This permit was verbally ok'd by the Building Inspector,
Mr. Lessard on April 12, 1988 as indicated by his handwritten
note on the application. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Reilly
returned to Mr. Lessard -- when I say shortly, I would estimate
within a week's time, and requested to be allowed to move the
pool further from the house and closer to the side yard lot
line. It would have put the pool closer than three feet to the
side yard lot line, and it was indicated to Mr. Reilly that this
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
TIP HENDERSON, ESQ. (continued):
would need a variance and that he could not grant an application
on that basis. This was discussed between Mr. Reilly and
Mr. Koke, and at that time, Mr. Koke was purchasing the lot next
to his together with a Mr. Corranachia, who lives presently two
lots away, Mr. Koke living in what is lot 2 in this particular
subdivision; Mr. Corranacchia living in Lot 4, and Lot 3 being
between.
Mr. Koke's and Mr. Corranacchia's intention to purchase Lot 3
together and then to divide that property between them so that
they would each getting an additional approximately half-acre to
add to their lots. This was indicated to Mr. Lessard and
represented in a letter dated April 20, 1988. I believe that
should be a part of this record; if it's not, I would like to
make a copy or hand up a copy of that to the Board, wherein
Mr. Koke represented that he, intending to purchase that lot and
that it would obviate again the necessity for any variance, this
pool being any closer than three feet to the side lot line.
With his representation to Mr. Lessard, he indicated once again
that it was okay to build the pool, and construction on the pool
proceeded thereafter, the pool being built basically in the last
two weeks of April, or the last week of April and the first week
of May.
The Town was out at this project, according to their records, on
May 23, 1988 for an inspection. And a final insl~ction on or
about June 7, 1988, when a Certificate of Occupancy was issued
for the house but not for the pool, Mr. Lessard indicating that
a separate permit and C.O. would have to issue for the pool at
that time. The house was granted a C.O. on June 13, 1988.
Between the point that the pool was being constructed and
Septe~r 27, 1988, the date that the Building Department denied
the application for the construction of the pool, Mr. Koke and
Mr. Corranacchia's plans to purchase Lot 3 and divide it fell
through. And Mr. Corranacchia basically deciding that he did
not wish to share that particular lot with Mr. Koke and wanted
to purchase the entire lot himself. And Mr. Koke was now left
with not having that additional land that he had expected to
have, and that he had represented to Mr. Lessard that he would
have; and again which would have obviated the necessity for any
variance here, assuming the pool were connected to the house and
beyond the 15 feet from the lot line.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
TIP HENDERSON, ESQ. (continued):
That being the case, the Building Department, as I indicated,
issued their denial of the application on September 27th.
Thereafter in December, an application was made to this Board
for the variances. A hearing was held on January 12, 1989 and
three members of the Board, as the Chairman has indicated, were
present, and the vote was two-to-one against the particular
application.
I assume, Mr. Chairman, that the previous hearing, the record
from the previous hearing is being made a part of this hearing,
is that correct?
CHAIRMAN: That's correct.
MR. HENDERSON: Ail right, thank you.
I would submit to the Board that the variance that we're seeking
here is not a substantial one. The pool is in the side yard. I
think this Board would agree with the Kokes that that is the
best place for this pool to be. It should not be in the rear
yard between the house and the creek and the bulkhead. I think
there are some environmental concerns there. There would be a
variance necessity there anyway because the pool would be within
75 feet of the bulkhead and logically, practically speaking, the
best place for that pool is in the side yard, connected to the
house and 15 feet again from the side line--there would be no
necessity for a variance, and I think that's where this Board
would like to have seen done, and that's what we hoped would
have been done if we had been able to purchase this property.
Because we weren't able to, we're now in this
practical-difficulty situation. But basically, the two
variances for which the Building Department had sent us to yo~,
we believe one, or either of them, maybe obviated very simply.
We have a side yard situation. The pool itself is eight feet
from the side line. There is a deck, or a walkway if you will,
just about even with the ground there, that extends out within
three feet of the lot line. If we were to cut that deck back,
we could easily make it more than three feet from the lot line,
obviating the requirement for a variance of being within three
feet of the lot line. We would still, of course, need the
variance for the requirement of having an accessory building in
the rear yard. We don't have that, it's in the side yard. But
we would at least obviate the necessity for that variance.
OR, we could connect the pool to the house and then request only
a variance of having the pool within 15 feet of the side line,
the pool being part of the principal structure. So one way or
the other, I think we can obviate the necessity of one of the
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
TIP HENDERSON, ESQ. (continued):
We would suggest to this Board that the best way to obviate that
situation would be to remove the deck or a portion of the deck
to get it back beyond the three feet of the side line. Whether
this pool is connected to the house or not, I don't think is
substantially significant. And we all, I hope we can agree,
that the pool should be in that side yard and not in the rear
yard. So I would suggest that that would be the more
appropriate way to go, and that we are prepared and represent to
the Board that we will cut back that deck so that it will be
back more than four feet from the side line-- more than three
feet, excuse me, from the side line.
We submit to you that the pool being where it is does not have a
detrimental effect upon the neighborhood as this Board is well
aware from their examinations and surveys of this particular
property and the properties in the area. We are right next to a
tennis court on the adjoining lot, which was put in, I believe
in approximately the mid-1970s and I believe a variance was
granted by this Board to allow that particular tennis court to
go where it is. I think it makes sense to have these
recreational facilities, if you will, in one particular area. I
think it has less of an impact on the neighborhood. Also,
you're very familiar with the fact that the backyards that
border the creek do not have any accessory buildings or uses in
them. There is nice rolling lawn down to the bulkhead on the
creek, and I think that has a very favorable aesthetic affect,
and I think requiring accessory uses or buildings in the rear
would destroy this.
On the other hand, if we are required to move this pool whether
to the back yard or closer to the house so that it's connected
and at least 15 feet from the side line, we submit that we will
suffer a severe economic hardship. Mr. Reilly is here to
testify with respect to the fact that moving the pool and
putting it closer to the house to meet the Code would cost
approximately $59,000.
We submit to you that there is no other practical way to avoid
the necessity of the variances that we seek here tonight. At
least we're not aware of them. If the Board has any ideas, we'd
be happy to listen to them and abide by a less impact -- a
variance with less impact on this particular piece of property.
We feel that the interests of justice would be served by
granting the variances with all the history and circumstances
Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
TIP HENDERSON, ESQ. (continued):
surrounding this particular development of property. It's an
unfortunate evolution, but it did occur. I don't think it was
anybody's fault. That's my personal opinion. But certainly it
was not the Kokes' fault. It was not a self-created hardship
in my opinion. They did not-- They truly expected to have the
additional property that would have avoided any necessity for a
variance from this Board. They proceeded with that
understanding. I believe the Building Inspector proceeded on
that representation made to him. And unfortunately it did not
come about. And I don't think the hardship that would be
imposed upon the Kokes by having to move this pool is justified
in view of those circumstances.
I have a letter from the next-door neighbor, Mrs. Corranacchia.
Unfortunately she was not in the neighborhood, or in this State,
excuse me, and she had to fax it to us. If the Chairman would
allow me, I would like to read it into the record and hand it up.
CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MR. HENDERSON: "...Dear Southold Zoning Board of Appeals.
Dated March 5, 1989. Memo from Vivian Corranacchia. I am the
sole owner of Lot 3 on the Map entitled, 'Map of Paradise By the
Bay' and filed with the Office of the Clerk of the County of
Suffolk on Nov~er 4, 1976 as Map 6463. A1 and Ryck Koke are
my immediate neighbors. They have a beautiful home and maintain
it to the highest standards. I have no objections to the
placement of their pool as it stands at this time. It is in the
most logical place and only enhances the beauty of this
property..." May I hand this up, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN: Surely.
(Fax letter from Mrs. Corranacchia handed up for the record.)
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. HENDERSON: Thank you. We had hoped also to have an
engineer with us this evening to indicate some of the problems
that might exist in putting a pool in the rear yard.
Unfortunately, he was hospitalized. I would request the
opportunity or slight additional time to submit a report of the
engineer to the Board prior to its decision. Whatever time the
Board might feel it would be reasonable.
CHAIRMAN: Two weeks.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
MR. HENDERSON: Ok. With that, I would respectfully request the
opportunity to have Mr. Norman Reilly come to the microphone--
the gentleman who put the pool in to indicate the financial
circumstances involved in moving that pool and a little bit
about the history of the pool going in. Mr. Reilly?
NORMAN REILLY, JR.: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Members of the
Board. My name is Norm Reilly, representing A. Reilly & Sons as
President at this time. In coming up with an estimate to move
Mr. Koke's pool, either five feet or 50 feet, it's very
substantial. Things must be done. First of all the present
pool, deck, fencing, walkways, landscape, plantings, and
everything must be removed from the present pool area. The
custom fence out front would probably have to be torn down.
There's very little left to be used from the present pool
besides the walls themselves to construct a new pool. The deck,
wood, around it would have to probably be taken to the disposal
area because it couldn't be reused. We'd have to relocate all
underground backwash, cesspools for the pool that's in the way
of moving it closer to the house. We'd have to relocate a
500-gallon underground propane tank that's also in the way of
moving it closer to the house. The underground electric service
comes by around the corner where the pool is, now it's about 10
feet from the wire. To move it closer the whole service wire
would have to be uprooted and moved closer to the house to be
away from the pool area. We'd have to excavate obviously for
the new pool location. We'd have to de-water the hole again.
The groundwater is about 7 feet below grade. Another company
would have to come in to do that. If the pool was moved closer
to the house, the wall that would have no virgin ground to sit
on would have to be put on pilings, which is an added expense to
the owners to support the wall itself. We would have to
install the new pool, as their specifications and we would have
truck in additional fill to backfill the pool because of the bog
condition of the soil that's there. You can't backfill the pool
with what's there. So we'd have to truck in additional fill.
We'd have to reconstruct approximately 1700 feet of CCA and
Cedar deck around the new pool, reconstruct all the fences to
the original specifications, re-landscape the grounds, restore
the grounds, the air-conditioner from damager from the
machinery, so forth and so on, all the brick walkways, the
plantings and so forth would have to be restored. And the
approximate cost from that would be about $58,980.00.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
~IR. HENDERSON: If I might, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reilly has
prepared a proposal indicating those items he has just testified
to. I'd like to hand that up if I might.
CHAIRMAN: Sure. Thank you.
(Handed up original estimate of proposal from A. Reilly & Sons,
Inc. dated March 8, 1989 for the record.)
MR. HENDERSON: One thing I failed to mention and Mr. Reilly
will give testimony to is the fact that of the reason why the
pool was being moved in the first place, when Mr. Reilly went
back to Mr. Lessard to ask if the pool could be moved away, it
was because the pool was cramping the house. There were
electrical outlets. There were air-conditioning units, and the
electrical cable was coming into the house in that area and it
was a very cramped and tight area with the pool equipment there
as well. So it was for that particular reason that Mr. Reilly
went back on behalf of Mr. Koke and requested if the pool could
be moved away from the house somewhawt so it would provide more
room and a less cramped feeling. That was really the only
reason. There was no great gain here except to have that
additional living area.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. REILLY: As far as the history goes of the pool, it's just
like he said before. The permit was permitted by myself. The
pool was to be 15 feet from the line as according to Town Code.
We went to stake out the pool. Other variables came into effect
which we mentioned-- electric cables, the cesspools, and so
forth and so on. We felt--The Koke's felt that it was too close
and that they were going to buy the lot next door. I went back
to Mr. Lessard and said we wanted to move the pool closer to the
side yard line. He said that's impossible because of the Town
Code. But if they have the letter of intent and were going to
buy the property next door, which was submitted as an Exhibit in
your folder, certainly if they were going to join the property,
there would be no line there. So it was tentatively verbally
approved to go ahead and go ahead to put the pool in, and that's
why it is where it is now. It's unfortunate that the deal
didn't go through where they got the lot next door, but every
intent was made and conveyed to the Town Building Department
that that was the case.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
MR. REILLY: Putting the pool in the back yard -- the water
table is about seven feet below ground-- where the pool is now--
as you get closer to the bulkhead, it's probably going to come
up a little bit. It was our feeling not to try to put it there,
excavating in front of the bulkhead, having the ground water
running into the hole as you're excavating would have to be
de-watered, pumped out a little more extensive than would be in
the side yard; and it could threaten the existence of the
bulkhead, undermine the bulkhead--it may let go, not knowing how
long it has been there or how it's constructed. And that
certainly would be detrimental to the environment. So that's
why it wasn't put there, or even thought of being put there,
plus the 75 ft. setback from the bulkhead and so forth would
need a variance from this Board, even being there.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you again.
MR. HENDERSON: Next, I would like to introduce Mr. Roy Haje,
who will briefly indicate the environmental aspects of putting
the pool in the rear yard. Mr. Haje?
ROY HAJE: Thank you. My name is Roy Haje. I'm President of
EN-Consultants, 1329 North Sea Road in Southampton. I am a
previous employee of the N.Y.S.D.E.C. having served with that
agency for 11 years as the Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands Permit
Agent. I have had my own consulting business for nine years and
we are primarily involved in the preparation of applications to
undertake projects in or around the water. I was involved in
the preparation and submission of applications to the New York
State D.E.C. and to the Southold Trustees for the original
construction, which took place on this property. In laying out
the design of the house and the pool, the proximity to the water
was taken into account. It was decided to construct these
various improvements. The primary and accessory structures in
excess of 75 feet from the edge of the water and bulkhead since
this would then place us beyond the jurisdiction of the Trustees
and also beyond jurisdiction of the D.E.C. In this case, due to
the presence of a bulkhead. We felt that this was desirable
since construction closer beyond placing us within their
jurisdiction is somewhat environmentall~ less preferable in that
there is a greater potential for flooding should there be
extremely high tides on a storm or hurricane condition. Some of
that water from the swimmingpool has the potential of entering
the waterway of that canal off Southold Bay. Therefore, to
place it back further we felt was environmentally preferable.
That is one of the reasons that it was placed in excess of that
which was necessarily required.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
MR. HAJE, continued:
Again the D.E.C. would have jurisdiction and would have
similarly requested us to construct that in excess of 75 feet
had the bulkhead not been present and had the bulkhead not met
certain criteria. In this case, it did and they were able to
issue their letter of no jurisdiction.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Haje.
MR. HENDERSON: The applicant and her husband are here in case
the Board has any questions of them regarding the statements
that have been made up till this time.
With respect to the deliberations and decisions of three members
of the Board previously, I would just like to again address the
question of practical difficulties and a self-created hardship.
I submit to the Board that this was not a self-created
hardship. This is not something that Mr. Koke was doing to in
any way mislead the Town or to gain an advantage. He didn't
gain an advantage. He simply got a little more space between
his house and his pool so he could provide for the -- or allow a
little more room for his air-conditioning units and his other
electrical services. Certainly not a reason to create all of
this commotion. And I would submit, however, if any member of
the Board does feel it is still a self-created hardship, that
that in and of itself does not require a denial of the requested
variances. There are circumstances such as these, I believe,
which will override even a self-created hardship, and the Courts
have upheld that. So I would respectfully submit to anyone does
believe that this still is a self-created hardship, that still
under these circumstances can be overcome. (Changed to Tape
#2) Alternatively, in the decision to locate the pool closer
to the house and provide for a 15-foot side yard is not a
practical way of dealing with this problem. It is going robe
very, very expensive for the Kokes to move that pool, and their
going to suffer a substantial financial hardship if they're
required to do that. Once again, I feel that in the interests
of justice, variances should be granted --as I've indicated,
we're happy to cut back that walkway--wood walkway on the far
side of the pool along the lot line, so that it will be more
than three feet from the side yard lot line, and we would
respectfully request a variance to allow the pool to remain in
the side yard. I would like to note for the record, and not to
be argumentative, however, but I would like to note that the
zoning code initially, Section 100-32 Accessory Buildings, I
don't know if that's the new number under the new code, by my
reading does not require an accessory building to be in the rear
yard. That's just my reading of the code. I know that this
Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
MR. HENDERSON, continued:
Board and the Town has enforced or has followed the policy of
requiring accessory buildings to be in the rear yard; however, a
reading of that language in my mind does not require it. Number
One, it says it "may be in the rear yard" and Number Two, it
talks about a "required rear yard," not a requirement that the
accessory building is required to be there, but the accessory
building may be in the "required rear yard." It's subject to
interpretation, but I'm only making it for the record. I
appreciate the opportunity to do that, and once again, if there
are any questions of me, or Mr. Bruer or anybody else that's
here with us tonight, we'd be happy to answer them. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to
speak in favor of this application? (None) Anybody like to
speak against the application? (None) For the record, during
the deliberation, my "yes" vote on this particular application
was conditioned on two things: it's conditioned on cutting back
the deck to a minimum of three feet from the property line, and
we do have a problem in this Town and it's not necessarily with
this application, Mr. Henderson, but just so you're aware. For
some reason, the Board has always the position about allowing
access to the rear yard of a person's property. More
particularly in the fact that we have waterfront property. And
we've usually taken that position so that there is usually
always ingress and egress to the rear yard. And that is
somewhat precluded in this particular application because we
have the cesspools and the septic tanks over-shadowing the other
side yard. In making my determination of a vote on this
particular issue, it was also conditioned No. 2 that the
remaining area, in between the deck and the existing dwelling,
which is a new dwelling, remain open and free so that if the
Kokes or any successive owners of this property had to gain
access to their rear yard, either for the repair of the bulkhead
or for emergency procedures either by the Southold Fire
Department or any other organization, that they would be free to
do so and that was the reason why I dealt with it on that
particular basis. And now I'll ask my collegues if they have
any particular questions of you or the Kokes. Anybody? I'm
sorry; I'm not putting you on the spot. Go ahead. Jim.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm a little hazy as to how -- what type of
agreement you had with your neighbor as far as buying that
land. I mean, she didn't seem to mention it in her fax or
anything like that. Was there anything written, or was it just
an agreement between the neighbor and yourself?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
MR. HENDERSON: At the time the letter was written, there was no
written agreement between Mr. Corranacchia and Mr. Koke. At
that time there was nothing written. However, the property was
in contract to be purchased by Mr. Corranacchia, and ( )
represented to Mr. Koke that he could come on in the contract
with him and purchase that property with him, and take half of
it. And the reason that it didn't go through basically --well,
I don't know if I can address that -- but one of the items that
was in question was the right-of-way that goes from Kimberly
Lane or Road back to the Creek. There is a required
right-of-way. Is that 20 feet--
MR. BRUER: Ten.
MR. HENDERSON: A 10-ft. right-of-way. And part of the problem
was initially Mr. Corranacchia and Mr. Koke were going to run
this 10-ft. right-of-way down the middle of Lot #3 between their
properties because Mr. Corranacchia had a right to move it if he
wished. He decided he didn't want it there. He wanted both
lots, and was going to put that right-of-way between Mr. Koke's
lot on Lot #2 and Lot #3. And he did not want it closer to him
and that was one of the main reasons why they never finalized
their particular deal. But there was a very clear understanding
between Mr. Koke and Mr. Corranacchia that Mr. Koke was going to
be purchasing that property with him from Mr. Mohring. I
expected Mr. Mohring to be here tonight to validate that.
Unfortunately, he is not. But that right-of-way, as you've
indicated-- I don't know if that is of any assistance, Mr.
Chairman, that 10 ft. right-of-way as far as access back to the
Creek, but there is that 10 ft. right-of-way that exists between
the two lots, but we would be happy to accommodate anything this
Board might require to allow that type of access.
CHAIP/~AN: Is that right-of-way going to exist inbetween the
Corranacchia tennis court and the Koke lot?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: It is.
MR. HENDERSON: In fact I have a picture-- I know many pictures
had been handed up, and I do have the picture of that area that
has been left open. Which I would be happy to hand up if you
don't have one of those.
SECRETARY: We should have it.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
CHAIRMAN: Will that 10 ft. right-of-way be solely on the
Corranacchia lot or will it be--
MRS. KOKE: Yes.
HR. HENDERSON: Yes, solely--
CHAIRMAN: On the Corranacchia lot. Ok.
MR. HENDERSON: That picture you're looking at. The fence
around on the pool is on your right, and the tennis court is on
your left.
CHAIRMAN: Ok.
MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Bruer just indicated it's a buffer between
the two lots in the sense that aiding or adding to the distance
between the pool and the lot line.
CHAIRMAN: That right-of-way is for all the property owners on
the other side of the street to be able to get to the beach, is
that correct?
MR. HENDERSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Does that answer your question, Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Somewhat. I understand. I understand, you
know, what I was really looking for was perhaps a contract of
some sort.
MR. HENDERSON: If I had a written contract, I would have had
it here for you to see.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, as I saw the hardship the last time
was that it was a pool and all they would have to do is attach
it to that house and no one would be here tonight, so I saw the
hardship; and it's still -- I still see it as being more or less
self-created. Understanding the circumstances that that-- I
don't see it as being all that big of a deal, and certainly I
don't know about chopping off the deck. I don't really see that
that's going to help it or not. My whole problem with making a
decision on this is that if I make a decision on this, then
somebody else comes up to me and says, up to this Board, that
has the same thing with the pool already built, em I going to
have to say yes to that person again. Or even if they don't
have it built, are they going to be allowed to have that. That
was my way of thinking the last time. ( ) I'm thinking
of the same thing now--
Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
MR. HENDERSON: Well, certainly as you're all well aware, every
application stands and falls on its own two feet on the
particular circumstances there involved. I think you can
understand that the Kokes knew that they would run into this
t!rpe of situation, they would have been just as happy to leave
the pool closer to the house and had their 15 ft. and never had
gotten involved in this mess; but unfortunately, in the real
world, people do get involved in situations that sometimes turn
out messy. And we try to put them back together again and in
this situation we need the assistance of the Board. I indicated
we'd cut back the deck. We'll connect the pool to the house,
too. You know. That leaves us -- We connect the pool to the
house, take the deck off that side, which gives us eight feet
between the pool and the side line, and we need a 7-ft. side
yard variance in that situation. But there's no way to get
around not requiring some sort of variance from the Board.
MEMBER DINIZIO: As it stands right now.
MR. HENDERSON: As it stands.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But if it had been submitted as the pool was
submitted on the plans--
MR. HENDERSON: If it had been done as originally planned, it
would not have needed the variance. And the only reason we
wanted to move it was because everything was so cramped in that
area, with the air-conditioning units, and the power cables
coming in, and the pool--electric units there. It was just
very, very cramped and tight. And we thought we were going to
get that additional property, which obviated the necessity for
the sideyard setback there, or the variance.
M~AMBERDINIZIO: Sure I understand. So I'll just ask you one
more question. When you applied for the wetlands permit, was
the plan that you have up here the same plan that you submitted
to them? Did the pool exist?
MRS. KOKE: Yes, it was on the original plan.
MEMBER DINIZIO: In other words, it was that close to the-- it
was four feet?
MRS. KOKE: No, it was 15 feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It was 15 feet. So the house was there and the
pool was there?
MRS. KOKE: Yes.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
MR. HENDERSON: Yes. They got the plans as originally submitted
which took the pool back more than 75 feet from the bulkhead.
So that made-- for the Town Board that was a much better
situation. I think everyone should agree that it's much better
in the side yard than back in the back yard closer to the Creek
and the bulkhead.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Henderson, is there any possibility that we could
get a written statement from Mrs. Corranacchia? Possibly it
might help a couple of the Board Members understand that there
actually was some sort of type of an agreement between the two
parties that they were going to purchase this property.
Certainly, Mrs. Corranacchia has given us a letter indicating
she has no specific problems with it. But it would help us.
MR. HENDERSON: Well, certainly, you know I can't speak for her,
but we will do everything in our power. I will represent to you
that I believe that we can provide that to you.
CHAIRM;%N: There appears to be a communications between the two
parties, and they are going to be neighbors, so we're not really
asking for anything other than that.
MR. HENDERSON: I'd be happy to do, and I'm sure the Kokes would
be happy to do anything within their power to get that and get
it to you as soon as possible.
CHAIRMAN: Ail right. So what we'll do is recess this hearing
with no further written evidence other than what you're going to
submit to us, which is I believe an engineering report and
possibly a letter to the next regularly scheduled meeting (April
13, 1989), so that will extend your time exactly two more weeks
for the engineer's report.
SECRETARY: No written or oral?
CHAIRM3%N: No oral testimony. We will allow just written
testimony. And we'll close the hearing as a matter of formality
at the next regularly scheduled meeting and have all that
information at that particular time. We will then make a
decision thereafter, if that's all right with everybody.
MR. HENDERSON: That's fine.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
(Hearing continued: Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke)
CHAIRMAN: Ok. And we personally would like to thank everyone
for coming in tonight and bringing the consultants and the
contractor. It's very nice that we now have most of the data
that we need.
MR. HENDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I'll offer that as a motion.
The motion was seconded by Member Grigonis, and duly carried.
The verbatim portion of the hearing was concluded at 8:50
o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~IJinda F. Kowalski, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- r::TATE ROAD 25 5DUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 119'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICK[
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MARCH 9, 1989 REGULAR MEETING
Appl. NO. 3785SE - Matter of RAYMOND NINE and CHARLES ZAHRA.
Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section
100-30B(16) for permission to establish "Bed and Breakfast Use," "an
owner-occupied building, other than a hotel, where lodging and breakfast
is provided for not more than six casual, transient roomers, and renting
of not more than three rooms. Location of Property:
North Side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District
1000, Section 114, Block 11, Lot 20.
Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Serge J. Doyen;
Member Charles Grigonis, Jr., Member Joseph H. Sawicki, and Member James
Dinizio, Jr. Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and
approximately 65 persons in the audience.
9:02 p.m. The Chairman opened (reconvened) the public hearing. (For the
record, it is noted that the previous hearing on this application was
held on October 26, 1988.)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next Special Exception is basically what we
are granting a rehearing on, and so therefore there is no necessity to
continue with the Legal Notice, so I will discontinue (reading) with
that; and I'll ask any representative of Mr. Zahra and Mr. Nine, or
counsel, if they would like to say anything. Mr. Bressler.
ERIC J. BRESSLER, ESQ.: Yes,
Wickham, Wickham and Bressler,
Eric J. Bressler.
thank you, representing the applicants.
P.C., Main Road, Mattituck, New York.
We are here tonight, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, on a rehearing
on the application for a Special Exception for what's known as a Bed and
Breakfast. Tonight I have here with me Charles Zahra, Raymond Nine, and
Pamela Nine, the three persons who represent all of the interested
people in the property and the Bed and Breakfast.
Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing
Appl. No. 3785SE - NINE & ZAHRA
ZBA March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
MR. BRESSLER (continued):
The status of these three individuals is as follows:
The property upon which the Bed and Breakfast is sought to be
located is currently owned by Raymond Nine and Charles Zahra. Pamela
Nine is the daughter of the aforementioned Raymond Nine, and her
relationship to the property is as follows. The Board has before it on
this application, I believe, a copy of the Agreement for the Operation
of a Bed and Breakfast. A careful review of this agreement reveals it
serves two functions: (a) it functions as a Contract of Sale with
respect to one-half of the interest of Raymond Nine, and I believe I
directed the Board's attention to that particular provision of the
Contract in response to the Board's latest correspondence which
expressed a concern that there was no Contract of Sale. I believe that
this misunderstanding may have arisen from the fact that the Contract of
Sale is contained as a part of the Agreement to operate the Bed and
Breakfast, and did not take the form of a Standard NYDTU Form of
Contract of Sale for the property. Nevertheless, a review of that
Contract does indicate that there is an agreement by the parties to
convey one-half of the interest of Raymond Nine to Pamela Nine,
contingent, of course, on the Board's action on the application
tonight.
The second portion of that agreement, of course as indicated by the
title, relates to the operation of the Bed and Breakfast in accordance
with the Southold Town Code, both -- in the Zoning Code, beth before and
after the amendment since in this particular zone there is not a
difference between the former Code and the present Code.
Now, pursuant to that portion of the agreement, Pamela Nine again
contingent, of course, upon your approval, Pamela Nine is to come into
title and she is to move in, occupy and operate the Bed and Breakfast in
accordance with the provisions of the Town Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed deed has been submitted to the Board, and I will
represent to the Board that the applicant, Raymond Nine, is prepared to
execute and deliver that instrument of conveyance, if and when the
application is approved, thereby putting Pamela Nine into title, thus
Ray Nine, Charles Zahra, and Pam Nine are or will be the owners, and Pam
Nine, the operator, will be the occupant of the proposed Bed and
Breakfast, thereby satisfying the dictates of the Zoning Ordinance.
Page 3 - Hearing Transcript
Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No.
March 9, 1989 ZBA Regular Meeting
3785
MR. BRESSLER (continued):
Now, I take it that the Board has been out to the subject premises
and has examined the location. I'm prepared at this time in addition to
supplement the Board's personal examination of the premises to submit
three photographs which show the condition of the premises and the
changes that have occurred thereto since the original hearing on this
matter.
I have here three photographs, which I'll label on the back at this
time "A," "B" and "C", which depict three views of the subject
premises. (A) The Board will recognize represents the extensive
parking area to the rear of the premises, which I gather from an
examination of the transcript in the initial hearing in this matter did
not present a problem to the Board. (B) Indicates the view from the
street looking toward the rear of the premises. And (C) also represents
a view from the Street which includes a greater portion of the
premises.
(Three photographs submitted for the record.)
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. BRESSLER: The Board will note that these photographs exhibit that
since the date of the last hearing, one of the issues which was raised
at that time would appear to have been resolved; and I refer
specifically to the presence of a stockade fence along the property
driveway -- the property line -- on that side of the property, between
the neighbor Mr. DeReeder and the subject premises. A review of the
minutes indicated that Mr. DeReeder expressed a concern with respect to
the use of that driveway and his privacy. I believe that the
substantial stockade fence there has served a multiple purpose. It has
preserved privacy. It has added a decided measure of safety, which
Mr. DeReeder also expressed a concern about, and at the same time it
also eliminated the overlapping use of the driveways on the property,
thereby effectively separating and segregating this property from the
neighbor's property; and I think that that quite properly addresses that
concern.
Of course, as you will hear, this Bed and Breakfast will be
operated in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, that
is the renting of not more than three rooms for more than six transients
and adequate off-street parking, I think the Board has examined and has
illustrated in the photographs; and of course it will be owner
occupied. I think by way of just one more note of brief background
before I ask the participants here to speak briefly to the Board, I
think that this application highlights a rather unique problem that our
community is facing. The Board I am sure will have taken note of the
familial relationship here between Raymond Nine and Pam Nine. Pam Nine
is 21 years old. Pam Nine has been living at home. Pam Nine needs
Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No.
March 9, 1989 ZBA Regular Meeting
3785
MR. BRESSLER (continued):
a place to live on her own. I'm sure as everybody is aware, on the
Board and in this room, this presents a very great problem for the young
people of Southold Town. And I think that this particular application
affords her an opportunity to move out of the home to establish a home
on her own in an economically viable means which would otherwise not be
available to her. I think that this type of activity ought to be
encouraged. I think that it is a proper incident of the growth of this
town, and I think that you'd be doing everyone a grave disservice to
turn down this particular application. The property location is ideally
suited for a Bed and Breakfast. It is within walking distance of the
central area of the Hamlet of Mattituck, and I think it presents a
unique opportunity to utility the provisions that have been placed in
the Zoning Ordinance.
At this time, I would like Pam Nine to step up to the mike over
there.
MR. BRESSLER: Ok, would you tell the Board your name, address and your
age, please?
PAMELA NINE: Pam Nine and I'm 21 and I live at 855 New Suffolk Avenue.
MR. BRESSLER: With whom to you live with?
MISS NINE: My parents.
MR. BRESSLER: And do you feel now that it's time to move out and look
around for someplace to live?
MISS NINE: Definitely. I've looked around, but I can't afford anyplace
around here. It's very expensive.
MR. BRESSLER: And have you currently entered into an agreement with Ray
and Charlie with respect to the property next door?
MISS NINE: Yes, I have.
MR. BRESSLER: And I've correctly described that agreement to the Board?
MISS NINE: Yes.
MR. BRESSLER: And if the Board were to grant this Special Exception and
permit this Bed and Breakfast, what would you to at that point?
MISS NINE: I would live there and run it.
MR. BRESSLER: You would run the Bed and Breakfast?
MISS NINE: Yes.
Page 5 - Hearing Transcript
Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No.
March 9, 1989 ZBA Regular Meeting
3785
MR. BRESSLER: Do you have experience with cleaning and cooking?
MISS NINE: Definitely yes. I cook a lot. I like to cook. And I could
definitely run a household well.
MR. BRESSLER: Are you currently employed?
MISS NINE: Yes I am. I work at Nine and Jessup Stationery as a sales
clerk.
MR. BRESSLER: And would you continue to keep that job?
MISS NINE: Yes, I could do both of them.
MR. BRESSLER: Now if the Board were to grant this application, you
would of course move in an occupy it as your principal residence, would
you not?
MISS NINE: Yes.
MR. BRESSLER: What would your timing be, can you tell the Board what
your thoughts were on this matter?
MISS NINE: Well, we were going to start around June 1st, but because of
all the delays, we're not too sure now when we could move in because we
have a lot of work to do to it.
MR. BRESSLER: Thank you. Wait a minute, before you sit down, do any
members of the'Board have any questions from Miss Nine?
CHAIP/~AN: Well, I was going to let you run it and just come back, but
if -- Pam, at this particular point we would normally swear you in, ok
and we would have sworn in Mr. Bressler and we would have sworn in your
father, and we would have sworn in Mr. Zahra and so on and so forth.
But I don't think there's a necessity for this. I think there's a clear
intent here that you are a contract vendee of this particular piece of
property, is that not correct?
MR. BRESSLER: That as a matter of law, I believe that to be correct,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: The only particular problem that I have with it is that there
is really no disclosure on consideration. It may be the consideration
at this point is a gratuitous consideration, I have no idea. Ok? Am I
correct in understanding that?
Page 6 - Hearing Transcript
Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No.
March 9, 1989 ZBA Regular Meeting
3785
MR. BRESSLER: At this particular point, we take the position (a) that
since the agreement is in writing, there is no consideration required to
make it binding; and (b) that matter is still somewhat up in the air.
Certainly the contract is binding as a writing between the parties and
is enforceable.
CHAIRMAN: Could we assume for the purposes of this hearing that the
consideration is at least a dollar?
MR. BRESSLER: I think that's certainly a fair assumption, and I think
that a fair reading of the agreement that is before the Board would
certainly reveal that with respect not only to the money that is to come
in but to the money that is to come out. Absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. And I sincerely, I am only telling you that normally the
procedure would be, and we're not putting you through that procedure
because I am sure you are sincere in stating what you are going to do.
And so for that particular reason, I just wanted to mention so far as I
sit here feel that you will definitely own one-quarter of this
particular piece of property, both residential one-family dwelling frame
construction-- whatever phrase you want to use to describe it, and if
there's anything that I may mislead about, I can't see it at this
particular point to be perfectly honest with you.
MR. BRESSLER: I think, Mr. Chairman, that this is a fairly straight
forward application in spite of all that has transpired before this. I
think it's a fairly straight application. We have two people in title.
You have a contract vendee, whom I believe as a matter of law and has
been recognized by this Board, has standing to make the application. I
think it's fairly straightforward. I think that Article 6 of the
Contract addresses the issue of the consideration flowing in each
direction, and I don't think there's any reason why it falls out of the
ordinary by any means.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
(RAYMOND NINE AT MICROPHONE AT THIS TIME)
MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Nine, you have heard me describe the basis of the
transaction to the Board. Has it been described accurately to the Board
tonight?
MR. NINE: Yes, it has. Everything is exactly as Eric has stated it.
And at this time I would like to ask the Board if any of the Board
Members have any questions to me as to operating the Bed and Breakfast.
CHAIRMAN: The only question I have is, do you have any idea when Dr.
Mercier will vacate the premises?
Page 7 - Hearing Transcript
Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No.
March 9, 1989 ZBA Regular Meeting
3785
RAYMOND NINE: Well, basically, he is using the property for nothing.
His house burned down last August. They were supposed to be rebuilding
it right away, and Charlie and I told them that they can move it in the
area and live there until their residence was ready for them to go back
across the street. And so far the project has been delayed, so we
haven't pushed because we haven't had the permission either. We've been
delayed in getting our approval so I would say this, we were certainly
hoping to get open by the first of June, and with the delays now, it's
probably not going to be June but we'll certainly will do it as soon as
possible. And it wouldn't be any problem for the Merciers. They said
that if anything happened, that we needed the house, that they would
vacate the house. So I don't see where that would be a problem. Once
we get our approval, we should be able to get in there and go to work.
CHAIRMAN: Ray, the last time I know there was a question on the fence.
The only other question I have is, for some reason, some time it takes
-- you have to put yourself back into the prior hearing, ok, and that's
what I want to do, but I thought you said you would elongate the asphalt
in the rear of the dwelling so as to permit five parking spaces.
MR. NINE: I said, that if need be, yes. You said you had inspected it,
and that there was adequate space at the time because I had mentioned at
the first hearing, that we actually have more off-street parking than
any of the other Bed-and-Breakfast's that I visited. We have, I would
say there's probably room on the blacktop to park ten cars, and we would
only be allowed to rent out three rooms. So I really feel that we do
have adequate parking.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have no other questions.
MR. BRESSLER: And Ray, if this is approved by the Board, I take it you
will go through with the Contract and convey the interest to your
daughter and see that she moves in there and fulfills her part of the
bargain, and occupies that as her principal residence?
MR. NINE: Exactly. Right. We intend to do it. We're not trying to as
we were accused of in the first hearing by Mr. DeReeder. He said that
we were trying to get the Bed and Breakfast to increase the value of the
house. Well, right'now, the house has been on the market for $225,000.
And if we get the Bed and Breakfast approved, and he would like to buy
it before we get a change to operate it, I'll still sell it to him for
$225. So I'm not doing this to increase the value. My daughter is
interested in running it and we certainly would like to give it a shot,
and we intend to follow through and run it.
CHAIRF~tN: Thank you.
MR. BRESSLER: Unless the Board has any further questions, I have
nothing further at this time.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a question. I was reading the Contract, and
Page 8 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of RAYMOND NINE and CHARLES ZAHRA
ZBA Regular Meeting of March 9, 1989
MEMBER DINIZIO, continued:
the last -- I believe it's the last paragraph, kind of -- it stated that
if Pam didn't run the Bed and Breakfast any more, ok, that she would
have to sell hers back to Ray and Charlie.
MR. BRESSLER: Absolutely.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What would then happen as far as - I need to be clear
on this -- as far as the Bed and Breakfast would be concerned?
MR. BRESSLER: As far as the Special Exception goes, as the Board is
well aware, the Condition is in the Zoning Ordinance is that there be
owner-occupation. It is my understanding of the law that should one of
those conditions cease, that the Board's approval for a Special
Exception would necessarily cease. Since one of the Conditions of the
existence and continuance of the Special Exception would no longer be in
effect.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Is it also your understanding then that you could not
sell that quarter to somebody else and operate a Bed and Breakfast?
MR. BRESSLER: Well, now, that's a different question. Now whether or
not an ownership interest in a Bed and Breakfast can be sold to a new
owner occupancy, I think is a different question. And the answer to
that question is cleared "Yes." I think according to existing law,
that the granting of a Special Exception is based upon the factors in
the ordinance. One of those factors is not the identity of the person
operating it. It is the status of the person who owns and occupies the
property. It has come to my attention that a Bed and Breakfast that had
previously been approved by this Board is currently on the market, and
if that Bed and Breakfast is sold to someone, and that person occupies
and owns and does not change the conditions under which your Special
Exception was granted, I believe as a matter of law that your Special
Exception continues. And I think that any attempt on the part of the
Town to condition approval to a person, based on personalities rather
than status or condition of the property, would clearly be
unconstitutional. I don't think there's any doubt about that. So we
are willing to satisfy the owner occupant requirement, we have built a
safeguard into the agreement that if she does not occupy and run the Bed
and Breakfast, she's got to reconvey. At that point the Special
Exception would come to a halt unless, of course--I don't know what kind
of a cook he is, but unless of course you figure Charlie would actually
move in there and own and operate the thing. And I think that's really
the point of the Zoning Ordinance, that you want an owner-occupant in
there, and you don't want to look at personalities. So the answer to
your question is--if they sold this to somebody else,
Page 9 - Hearing Transcript
Matter of NINE & ZAHRA _ Appl. No.
March 9, 1989 ZBA Regular Meeting
3785
MR. BRESSLER, continued:
yes. If they didn't change the parking and they didn't change anything
else. Absolutely. You have a preexisting house and you sell it to
someone else, it's preexisting. So that's the answer to your question.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We're going to do something a little different at
this particular point. We do have opposition on this, and I'm going to
ask for the -- and I realize that a great amount of you have come for
the last hearing -- it's just that we have been up here a little better
than an hour and a half, and we would really like to take approximately
two minutes recess before we hear opposition if you don't mind.
MR. BRESSLER: Could we bargain for a minute and a half, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: I'll make that motion.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Second.
Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, to
temporarily recess for approximately two minutes. Vote: Ayes: All.
9:35 p.m. Hearing reconvened. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Grigonis, the meeting reconvened. Vote: Ayes: All.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this
application? I notice Mr. Bressler is not in the room.
CHARLES ZAHRA: He'll be right back. He went to the men's room.
CHAIRMAN: Is there any opposition on this application? Mr. DeReeder?
JOHN DeREEDER: Yes. My name is John DeReeder. I am an adjacent
property owner to the subject premises. The application is before you
for - personal affairs have kept me from addressing this application,
with all consideration, I feel it warrants. I don't believe this is a
simple application as Mr. Bressler has it appear. My family and I have
not yet been able to meet with our attorney regarding this new
application. I request of this hearing tonight to afford me an
opportunity to consult with our attorney, and subsequently prepare my
comments to the Board. I further request that my opportunity be heard,
avoids the second Thursday of the month, so that our attorney who has
advisory obligations with another municipality on that night- he won't
be able to attend the hearings should he deem his attendance here to be
proven to be necessary. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Bressler, a rebuttal?
Page 10 - Transcript of Hearing
Appl. No. 3785SE - NINE & ZAHRA
ZBA March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
MR. BRESSLER: In the first instance, and am I correct, since this is a
rehearing that the content, that is the minutes and the exhibits of the
first hearing are incorporated herein?
CHAIRMAN: That's correct.
MR. BRESSLER: That's correct, all right. In that event, I certainly
oppose the application which has just been set forth before the Board.
Given the fact what has transpired at the prior hearing, it is part of
the record, and given the fact--at least from my reading of the prior
record--that the objections of Mr. DeReeder were aired to say the very
least fully in the prior proceeding, given the fact that this matter has
been advertised for a substantial period prior to tonight, given the
fact that no contact was made with me--I take it with the Board--or with
any of my clients with respect to the current request. I think that
there is no basis whatsoever for the granting of any further delays
here. The Board has heard tonight from the applicants due to the delays
which have already occurred with respect to this project without
pointing the finger at anyone or attributing them to anybody or any
entity, nonetheless my clients' schedule has been set back, and I don't
believe on what has been presented to the Board briefly by
Mr. DeReeder that there is any reason whatsoever why this hearing should
not be closed and a decision be rendered.
CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down, Mr. Bressler, the only-- we'll address
that issue by the way. We're not going to address it at this time.
We'll address it right after the next hearing (tonight), so we are very
simply going to do is recess this hearing until after the next hearing
and then we'll address the issue. The thing that concerns me basically,
and I did not consult with counsel, is the period of time that we have
in which this particular application has run. I would hope that we
still have an appropriate amount of time to make a decision on this
application, and does not prevent the 60-day period; although we are
probably just close to that period right now anyway from the inception
of the first hearing that we've had. As I am aware and I don't know if
the public is aware that an Article 78 was served on the Board, and so
that there is the nature of litigation on this particular hearing -- or
on this particular hearing. It may just have to be that we might have
to recess it until our next regularly scheduled Special Meeting so as to
deal with counsel to see what he wants to do concerning this anyway. Or
they want to do. I haven't decided which way, which tact to take at
this point with the Board, and I'll be discussing it before we start any
deliberations. If we do any, we probably won't get to any tonight, but
we'll definitely be the last item on the agenda.
MR. BRESSLER: After this hearing would be satisfactory.
Page 11 - Transcript of Hearing
Appl. No. 3785SE - NINE & ZAHRA
ZBA March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
CHAIRMAN: Yes. Ok. Hearing no further comment on this hearing, I'll
make a motion recessing this hearing to the end of the agenda this
evening in order --
BOARD'S ASSISTANT L. KOWALSKI: At the end of the last hearing.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, after the last hearing, for the purpose of dealing with
that particular issue of a recess. And I'll make that a motion,
gentlemen.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Sawicki
and Dinizio. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
The hearings following were Browers Woods #3829 at 9:43 p.m. until 11:10
p.m. which were prepared under separate cover.
See transcript of Nine and Zahra Bed and Breakfast on page 12 hereof for
continuation of hearing at 11:10 o'clock p.m.
(Continued on Page 12)
Page 12 - Transcript of Hearing
Appl. No. 3785SE - NINq~ & ZAHRA
ZBA March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
11:10 p.m. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, to
reconvene the hearing in the Matter of RAYMOND NINE, CHARLES ZAHRA AND
PAMELA NINE under Appl. No. 3785SE at this time. Vote: Ayes: Ail.
CHAIRMAR GOEHRINGER: Mr. DeReeder, the Board would like to know the
name of your attorney if you so engaged him or her.
JOHN DeREEDER: His name is Joseph R. Attonito, Esq., 227 Middle Country
Road, Smithtown, New York.
BOARD ASSISTANT L. KOWALSKI: How do you spell Attonito please.
MR. DeREEDER: A-t-t-o-n-i-t-o.
CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. We didn't mean to cut you off. What did you say,
the Firm name of what?
MR. DeREEDER: Scheyer, Jellenik and Attonito. They're at 227 Middle
Country Road, Smithtown. Phone 265-8500.
CHAIRMAN: Do you plan at the next hearing, assuming when we set this up
if we so choose to give you the recess, to present any new information
that you might have concerning this hearing, or do you intend to-- I
don't like to use this word -- e~ellish what you've said before, but
restate what you said before?
MR. DeREEDER: Mr. Chairman, there were some things that happened since
we heard this affair. I think we are all aware of them: Number One,
there is a suit filed against this Board. Frankly, it's beyond my
understanding as a layman to know just what these changes mean. As well
there has been a change in the Master Plan. Despite what Mr. Bressler
says, there is a change in this ordinance regarding this property. And
I'm -- it's just beyond my understanding of the law as a layman to
confidently say that what I've said is sufficient, or whether something
needs restating, or something new should be brought to light.
CHAIRM3~N: Thank you. Mr. Bressler, can I ask you what the nature of
the lawsuit is going to be assuming we close this hearing and render a
decision favorably in your behalf?
MR. BRESSLER: I discussed this matter with Mr. Berntsson, Mr. Chairman,
and I discussed it with Mr. Schondebare as well in fact. It was the
subject of a meeting some number of weeks ago. And the discussion
essentially went as follows. This was prior to the matter being set
down on the rehearing. There is an application pending for a rehearing;
there is an Article 78 proceeding commenced obviously to comply with the
30-day time limit. A question was put to me in the event that a
rehearing were to be considered by the Board in its discretion and
granted, what would be the disposition of the Article 78. At that time
Page 13 - Transcript of Hearing
Appl. No. 3785SE - NINE AND ZAHRA
ZBA March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
MR. BRESSLER, continued:
I indicated to Mr. Schondebare that I picked a good long return date,
but in the event that that return date were not satisfactory, that an
adjournment would be granted. When this Board decided that a rehearing
would be granted, it became apparent since the rehearing date was two
days after the initial return date of the Article 78 proceeding, that
is, two days ago an adjournment was granted. It was discussed with Mr.
Berntsson and agreed to and granted. And that was the bargain. And the
lawsuit is pending and, of course, were there to be a favorable
decision, of course, the lawsuit would clearly be dismissed; and that
was my agreement with the Town Attorney.
My request at this point is as follows. I think this hearing has
exhausted itself quite frankly. I think we heard from
Mr. DeReeder last time. I think we've just heard from Mr. DeReeder that
he has no new facts to put before the Board. Mr. DeReeder has instead
told the Board that there has been a change in the Master Plan that may
very well be, although the Board can look at the Ordinance under the old
Code and under the new Code, and compare the line to the Section, and I
think that it's apparent that the requirements are the same. That's a
matter for the Board to consider. Mr. DeReeder can read; Mr. DeReeder
can see in the Section that three rooms are the same. Mr. DeReeder can
see that the owner-occupant is the same. He can see that six people are
the same and he can see that the parking requirement is the same. If
he's unclear about that, that's the job of the Board and that's the job
of the Courts. I haven't heard anything new by way of factual testimony
that ought to pursuade this Board or any offer of factual testimony that
ought to pursuade this Board that there are any more facts that ought to
be taken. And what I'm suggesting is that this hearing be closed; that
this Board begin to deliberate; and that this Board make a decision. In
the event that the Board cannot or does not reach a decision prior to
the return date of the Article 78 proceeding, that the Town Attorney
promptly contact me to discuss the matter and I'm sure that a suitable
resolution will be worked out. And I think that the Board is cognizant
that these hearings are for the making of a record and the taking of
testimony, and that the legal import of the Code and what's been put
forth is a matter for this Board to decide, and I would urge the Board,
in light of what Mr. Nine has -- are you getting all this?
BOARD ASSISTANT L. KOWALSKI: Yes, I am (adjusting tape).
CHAIRMAN: I'm surprised her hand hasn't fallen off. To be honest with
you, really.
MR. BRESSLER: In light of what Mr. Nine has indicated and the delays
that everyone has suffered to date on this project, the hearing be
closed, you start your deliberations, and if something is still burning
that it needs to be said, that an application be made to the Board for
whatever is deemed advisable. It has been through a hearing. It's been
published. We heard no reason why there ought to be additional facts.
We've heard no reason why nothing else has been presented. I think
enough is enough, and that is what I urge the Board to do.
Page 14 - Transcript of Hearing
Appl. No. 3745SE - NINE AND ZAHRA
ZBA March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
JOHN DeREEDER: Mr. Chairman. Should the Board choose not to grant me a
recess tonight, again I don't know what the matter of law is regarding a
recess or not, I would like an opportunity to speak on the things I have
put together while listening to the other appeals tonight, and I don't
think it to be authoritive again because I'm not an attorney. But I
think I can, perhaps Mr. Bressler feels that what I may have may not be
substantial or new. However, I would prefer as I asked earlier this
evening so I may meet personally with my attorney, follow his
instructions, and should he so decide either make my own testimony here
on my own behalf or have him make it for me.
CHAIRMAN: Well, we've done several things in these types of
situations. And I'll offer many of them, a couple of them to the Board
before we close. One to whom we have given a recess for 15 minutes
(time limit) in basically presenting their case, and we could do that.
We could recess this hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting or
to the meeting thereafter for basically 15 minutes. Then of course the
other side would have the same 15 minutes. We could close the hearing
at this particular point or we could listen to you tonight. I dare say
that my attention span tonight is much better this late than it has been
at other times; I have no reason why -- it has been very interesting
tonight and my attention span has been good all the time, but tonight
for some particular reason at 11:20 p.m. I'm in pretty good shape. I
really don't know how Linda is (jokingly), but that's neither here nor
there. I'm in a quandry at this point. So I'll go to my fellow Board
Members and ask them what they suggest.
MEMBER SAWICKI and BOARD ASSISTANT: Another alternative would be to
close the (oral part) of the hearing and recessing for submission of
written briefs.
CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to that, Mr. DeReeder?
MR. DeREEDER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear it.
CHAIRMAN: Closing the hearing pending your submission in a brief.
MR. DeREEDER: Frankly, if that is what is being offered to me--
CHAIRMAN: No, that's not being offered to you. That's just a matter
of--
MR. DeREEDER: It's not wholely satisfactory. No. I have some things
that should be said, and I would like to have they said either by myself
or by my attorney.
MEMBER DOYEN: Can he say some of it tonight?
CHAIRMAN to BOARD: Because he doesn't know the law, he said.
MEMBER DOYEN: But he can still say things.
CHAIRMAN: Oh, he can still say it. He's welcome to say whatever
Page 15 - Transcript of Hearing
Appl. No. 3785SE - NINE & ZAHRA
ZBA March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
CHAIRMAN, continued:
you want tonight, sure.
MR. DeREEDER: Is it a matter of law that I cannot have my recess?
Is there some compelling reason that this recess cannot be afforded to
me?
CHAIRMAN: Mr. DeReeder, we have ~- I'll be honest with you. I have
never not granted at least one recess to a person who has asked for one.
MR. DeREEDER: I mean a recess of this size what could be one meeting
seems to be slightly less of a granting than, and I'm not sure which
this is, rehearing of an application or submission of an application
basically duplicate to the one that had been denied. But please let me
know what I can have.
CHAIRMAN: I'll offer a resolution to recess it to the next regularly
scheduled meeting (April 13, 1989). I really think that it's not out of
order to be honest with you.
BOARD ASSISTANT L. KOWALSKI: And that would be April 13th?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. DeREEDER: Is that the second Thursday of the Month? In which case--
BOARD ASSISTANT: We had the meetings set up back in December. We had to
reserve the Meeting Hall ahead of time. We can't just pick any day and
expect the Meeting Hall to be available.
MR. DeREEDER: My attorney does have other municipal obligations in a
Town that has a meeting on the first, second Thursday of each month.
BOARD ASSISTANT: That is the day of the next Regular Meeting.
CHAIRMAN: I have a resolution that I've made.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Seconded (the motion).
VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Doyen, Goehringer and Grigonis.
BOARD ASSISTANT L. KOWALSKI: Are you both voting Ayes to that
resolution?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not voting for that.
BOARD ASSISTANT L. KOWALSKI: You don't want to recess it--
MEMBER DINIZIO: Not for that long, no.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Not for that long.
Page 16 - Transcript of Hearing
Appl. No. 3785SE - NINE & ZAHRA
ZBA March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
CHAIRMAN: That's our next Regular Meeting.
MR. DeREEDER: Is there any opportunity two weeks from tonight, or is
there no scheduled meeting.
CHAIRMAN: There's no meeting. It is a Special Meeting. We have three
votes. So that's basically the situation. I don't know what to tell
you if your attorney can't make it that night, ok?
MR. DeREEDER: I'll have to have him send a partner or something.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Eric?
MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that what we've got here is
a delaying situation for delay's sake. This came on for a hearing
originally. No request at that time for made for adjournment or a
recess to bring in an attorney.
MR. DeREEDER: None was needed.
MR. BRESSLER: Then this matter came on and it was duly published and
advertised. But the lawyer had other obligations. He's got other
obligations on the regularly scheduled Board meetings, so he didn't show
up. And the application is made for a recess. "Uh, my attorney can't
make it. Oh, on the other hand, maybe I'll have one of his partners
come down here." But why wasn't his partner here tonight? Now we've
got another 30 days. The summer is coming up. There's no reason why in
a firm of at least three named partners, one person couldn't be here.
When pressed, we find out, well he can't make it but somebody else will
be here. I don't normally oppose adjournments, but this is not a first
adjournment type of situation. This is the second time it has been on
before the Board. It has been advertised twice. When pressed by the
Board in response to the cogent that my lawyer can't make it, now all
of a sudden he can't on an adjourned date a month, more than a month
from now.
MR. DeREEDER: Mr. Bressler, I don't want you to miscontrue my words.
MR. BRESSLER: Excuse me! You'll have your opportunity. What I am
saying is this thing has been pending since October; we've gone through
one full hearing. Now we've gone through a rehearing on this matter.
Now all of a sudden an attorney is needed. We haven't heard any new
facts. We haven't heard any offer of proof. We haven't heard any
reason why what is going to be offered couldn't be put on a piece of
paper. I just don't see it and because of the timing of this matter, it
is extraordinarily important to my clients that this thing be resolved.
Like I said, ordinarily I feel the way the Board does about
adjournments, but don't come in at the llth hour, after two
advertisements, two hearings, and then say, he can't make it but maybe
somebody else will a month from now. I don't think that's fair.
Page 17 - Transcript of Hearing
Appl. No. 3785SE - NINE & ZAHRA
ZBA March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
MR. BRESSLER, continued:
If there are additional facts that the Board needs to hear, let's hear
them. If there's legal argument that has to be made, we can deal with
that some other way. Let's hear it. Let's get it over with. Everybody
is awake. If there are any new facts, fine. If it's just argument, I
don't think this Board needs to hear an argument as opposed to reading
argument. We can all read and write. If there are facts, let's hear
them. That's my position.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. DeReeder?
MR. DeREEDER: Do I have my recess by this Board?
(The Chairman and Secretary reminded everyone that the hearing was at
this point recessed with the required minimum of three votes, and
therefore the additional comments made after the resolution are not
necessarily a part of the hearing record.)
CHARLES ZAHRA: I would just like to say something. With respect to
this hearing tonight, it was my understanding that we granted this
hearing more or less out of the goodness of our heart.
CHAIRMAN: No. Out of the goodness of our hearts, Charlie.
MR. BRESSLER: They did.
CHAIRMAN: Charlie, let me just say-- go ahead. Go ahead, you continue.
MR. ZAHR : I felt that we had the option or the opportunity to go to
Supreme Court rather than come here.
CHAIRMAN: You're perfectly correct, and that's the reason why I asked
Eric the question about what's happening with the lawsuit. John? So
far as I'm concerned, you have it granted. You have three votes of the
Board and that's basically the situation. April 13th and we'll give you
the time.
MR. DeREEDER: I'll have to make arrangements.
BOARD ASSISTANT L. KOWALSKI to MEMBER DINIZIO: Did you want to make a
motion to recess it for another date?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to make a motion, but --
BOARD ASST. L. KOWALSKI: To make it a sooner date?
MEMBER DINIZIO: But can we have a meeting sooner?
BOARD ASST. L. KOWALSKI: I do know the Meeting Hall is available on
March 16, 1989, which is next Thursday.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, then I make a motion that we have a meeting then.
Page 18 - Transcript of Hearing
Appl. No. 3785SE - NINE & ZAHRA
ZBA March 9, 1989 Regular Meeting
BOARD ASST. L. KOWALSKI: Jim has a motion on the floor to recess until
March 16th, which is next Thursday, because we have a meeting-hall
reservation.
CHAIRMAN: We do?
BOARD ASST. L. KOWALSKI: Yes. Remember I asked for it earlier on
another matter.
CHAIRMAN: Basically what we have to do, we can't have two hearings at
the same time, so we have to rescind one if this one carries.
BOARD ASST. L. KOWALSKI: Yes. He has a motion on the floor. If this
one carries, you'll have to rescind your first one, I would guess.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Let's hear what we have to hear. He needs a different
day, and that's a different day also. Right?
CHAIRMAN: I have no objection to that. But since I was the initiater
of the other motion, I really don't think I should second it.
MEMBER SAWICKI: I'll second the motion.
VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: All. This resolution was unanimously
adopted.
CHAIRMAN: I'll make a motion to rescind the resolution for the April
13th meeting.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: All. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
CHAIRMAN: Is that all right with you, Mr. DeReeder?
MR. DeREEDER: March 167
CHAIRMAN: Next Thursday.
BOARD ASST.: March 16th, 7:30 p.m.
MR. BRESSLER: Thank you, gentlemen, for doing that. I think that does
two things. Number One, it's going to bring this thing to a conclusion
one way or another, and Number Two, I believe that it relieves Mr.
DeReeder's disability that he was suffering with respect to dates. And
I think that serves both sides, and I thank you for that.
BOARD ASST. KOWALSKI: It'll be at 7:30 or a little after that.
Respectfully submitted, __ _
Concluded 11:42 p.m. ~da ~.-KoQ~ki, Board Assistant
Southold Town Board of Appeals
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
JAMES DINiZIO, JR.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE Rr'tAE) 25 c:nUTH~LD, L.I., N.Y.
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MARCH 9, 1989 REGULAR MEETING
Appl. NO. 3829 - Matter of BROWERS WOODS ASSOCIATION and BARBARA
REITER for a Reversal of a Determination by Building Inspector
to Grant Building Permit No. 17508Z dated October 6, 1988
concerning a proposed "steel building for indoor storage of
boats" to be located at premises referred to as "MATT-A-MAR,"
now or formerly owned by Wickham Road Marina, Inc. Zone
District: Marine II. (Previous Zone District: B-Light
Business.) Application was filed citing the prior Zoning Code,
Art. VI, Sections 100-60 and 100-61, and Art. XIV. New Zoning
Code citations refer to Sections 100-121 and 100-122, and
Article XXVII for the same or similar provisions for this M-II
Zone District. Property Location: W/s Wickham Avenue,
Mattituck; 1000-114-3-1.
Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Serge J.
Doyen; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Joseph H. Sawicki;
Member James Dinizio, Jr.; and Board Assistant Linda Kowalski.
Principal Building Inspector Victor Lessard, Building Inspector
Curtis Horton and Building Inspector Thomas J. Fisher, and
approximately 65 persons were in the audience during the public
hearing.
9:43 p.m. The Chairman opened the public hearing
CHAIRF~tN GERARD P. GOEHRINGER: This is an application of
Browers Woods Association and Barbara Reiter.
The Chairman read the notice of hearing and appeal application
for the record.
CHAIRMAN (continued): My copies of the actual survey, which is
not necessarily a survey, are basically this, which is what was
submitted with the Building Permit, and I won't cite that, but
we are talking about Lot No. 1 to be a 9.0-acre parcel, better
known as Matt-A-Mar Marina, and the nature of this application
again the reversal of a building permit. I will cite at the end
of this hearing my particular feeling that I may be addressing
Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
CHAIRMAN, continued:
in future hearings concerning this application. I have not
discussed this with the Board in any way, manner or form, and
they will be free to do the same. For the purpose of this
particular hearing, we ask everyone's courtesy. We realize
there is some upsetment, and we ask if there are spokespersons
representing groups, as the gentleman I just met out in the
Hall, who represents the Browers Woods Association, I would ask
you please to speak. I will, if everybody does and we are not
restricting anybody from speaking here--will be restricting you
to items that are specifically germane to the reversal of this
Building Permit. Ok? And that's basically what we have in the
file, and I may put a finger up or ask you to stop or whatever
the case might be, and I'm doing that only from the point of
view that we may be running into subjects that may be the nature
of another application, not necessarily germane to this
particular issue that's before us tonight. So I just ask your
indulgence in that area. We'll go on to Mr. Ross. I think you
are representing the Association.
DANIEL C. ROSS, ESQ.: Dan Ross of Wickham, Wickham and Bresster
in support of the application to reverse the decision of the
building department to issue the building permit to Matt-A-Mar.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be referring to documents, and I'd
like to hand you up copies of them, so that you'll have them
before you.
(Copies handed to the Chairman for the record with cover list of
Exhibits.)
CHAIR/~3%N: Thank you.
MR. ROSS: The application is made on three bases. The first is
that no site plan approval was obtained. In addition to that, I
think there's a good question of whether this building was
actually allowed in the zone at the time the permit was
granted. The second basis is that at the time the permit was
granted, the building as proposed was too high for that
particular district. The third is that it was too close to the
wetlands, the permission not have been granted, the applicant
should have been sent to the Board of Trustees. There is
another point that should be made tonight and that is whether
the building, if it is an accessory building, is in the front
yard and thus should have required a variance on that basis.
Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. ROSS, continued:
There is a history on this particular piece of property, and
it's a history of an expanding marina in terms of the percent of
the area that's being used and in terms of the uses being made
at the marina. We don't want to get into the history as you
mentioned, but we would like to get into a short piece of the
history, a small piece of the history which deals with the
marina's efforts to build a building on the premises, which as
we know has presently been built. First there are some general
points, and at this point, I'd refer to the documents. The
application which is sworn to July 20, 1988, and was approved
October 6, 1988, states that the premises are in a B-1
District. It also states that the height of the building is
going to be 36 feet. That the dimensions are 125 by 200 feet.
The second document is the building permit issued on October 6,
1988. The third document before the Board is a certified copy
of the old zoning map indicating that in fact the premises are
not in a B-1 District, but in a B District, and we'll get back
to that in a moment.
The Board has before it pictures of the structure that is being
put up on the premises. Four pictures, and they are also true
pictures showing the south side of the premises that borders the
tidal wetlands of which we will address when we reach that
subject. I would just like to bring to the Board's attention
Section 100-271 of the Southold Town Code which specifically
provides that the Board has the power to hear and decide appeals
from and review any order, requirement, decision, or
determination made by the Building Inspector.
Finally, I would bring to the Board's attention, I just, for the
record would note the Board's memo of February 1st, 1989, and
the last issue where you're requesting from the Town Attorney
certain advice. And the advice basically is whether or not to
stay further construction. I think that is clear for the record
that request was made, and the Assistant Town Attorney's reply
of February 2, 1989, not to read it into the record but it's
here for the record, where basically he indicated the stay is
not for use or construction of which is the subject of the
controversy. I really don't understand why a stay was not put
into effect. Based on this memo, I still don't understand why,
but it's there for the record, and I think it should be noted as
your memo requesting that and you looked into it, which is
appreciated.
Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. ROSS, continued:
And finally on the more general subject is a memo to the Town
Attorney from the Board of Appeals dated March 2, 1989
addressing accessory buildings, and it does state "...in the
R-40 Zone and all other zone districts are not to be affected
by" and you refer to an interpretation and then go on to say,
"...and therefore accessory buildings in all other zone
districts are to be located in the required rear yard unless
deviated in the future by further interpretation .... " So with
respect to this particular building and its placement in the
rear yard, I think the Board should address that issue also.
Getting to the first basis for the appeal is the issue of
whether site-plan approval should have been obtained. I direct
the Board's attention to Section 100-60 of the old code which
deals with the B-Light Business District, which as noted
previously, these premises are in a B-Light. And at Part A it
says:
Permitted Uses subject to site plan approval by
the Planning Board.
So even if this was a permitted use under the old code, site
plan approval should have been obtained. References made to the
new code, Section 100-251A:
No building or structure and no parking lot or
outdoor use of land except those used as a one-
family or two-family dwelling, or for farming
purposes and their accessory uses, including home
occupations shall be used, constructed, enlarged
or moved until a site-plan meeting all applicable
requirements of this article has been approved by
the Planning Board.
I think that it's clear when you look at the old code or the new
code that site plan approval was required.
I would like to digress a moment to some history regarding the
attempt to put a building on these premises and our first stop
is at a Z.B.A. Hearing on June 1st, 1978 under Appeal No. 2420
Page 5 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. ROSS, continued:
by Matt-A-Mar Marina, Inc. And the Appeal was permission to
construct a boat-storage building. And I quote from the
transcript:
CHAIRMAN: This application is to construct a storage
building in the front yard area. (And then he asks the
question: You thought you could construct a building?
(And) MR. NOYAK replies: That was my impression from
speaking with the building inspector.
The Chairman then states:
Under C-Light Industrial, Item 16, Boat Buildings, Boat
Servicing, Boat-Storage Facilities, that is what we are
talking about. You're operation is not in a C-Light
District. This was denied to the Strong Marina on the
other side of Mattituck, it was appealed to the Appellate
Division. They upheld us, so we have clear authority.
And there are some other trancript, and the Chairman then speaks
a little later and says:
It's irrelevant because you would not be permitted to
store boats in a building, and you may withdraw it if
you wish.
And the applicant, being represented by Gary Otsen at the time,
did in fact withdraw the application for a boat-storage building.
Next we find in the files a letter dated August 25, 1980, from
Edward Hindermann, the Building & Housing Inspector, to
Matt-A-Mar Marina. And he states to Matt-A-Mar Marina, your
marina is located in a B-Light Business District, this zoning
does not permit the servicing and repair of boats. On down in
the letter he states, "The use that you now propose must be
Page 6 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. ROSS, continued:
located in a C-Light Industrial District, therefore we cannot
issue a permit for this structure .... " On January 28th, by
correspondence dated January 28th, 1987, Victor Lessard, the
Executive Administrator of the Building Department, wrote to
Henry Raynor regarding Matt-A-Mar:
"...Reviewing the property, I find that at the time the
question of constructing a storage building was discussed,
Appeal 2419, June 1, 1978, the Chairman ruled then and
correctly so that a storage building for the storage is
an industrial use and the property is zoned business .... "
So what we see here is from 1978 up until 1987, it was basically
the Building Department's position and this Board's position
that a storage building was not allowed on those premises.
We have a memo to the Board dated January 23, 1987 from the
Building Department indicating Matt-A-Mar desires to construct a
large boat storage facility on their property. Matt-A-Mar, Inc.
is presently situated in a B-Light Business Zone, but what they
propose is listed in a C-Light Industrial District.
Next I refer the Board, to the Board a memo from James
Schondebare, Town Attorney, dated July 15, 1988, where
Mr. $chondebare states it is the position of this Office that
any building to be constructed in all Districts except A-R
require site-plan approval regardless if the proposed building
is called principal, or accessory, and regardless of the use of
the proposed building. Attached to that is the transcript from
your hearing of August 18, 1988, your regular meeting, where you
would address the issue of site-plan approval for accessory
buildings, and I will just refer the Board to your own
decision. Finally, we have at my request -- I requested the
Planning Board to inform you if Matt-A-Mar obtained site-plan
approval, and by memo dated February 17, I989, the Planning
Board stated: "It is the Planning Board's determination that a
site plan is needed for the 200' by 125' structure at Matt-A-Mar
Marina. The site plan on file does not show this proposed
structure .... " So it's the Planning Board's opinion that site
plan approval should have been obtained.
Page 7 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. ROSS, continued:
From a review of the Planning Board files, which were quite
surprising, we found that in fact, an application for site plan
was made. By letter dated January 14, 1987, Henry Raynor sent
to the Southold Town Planning Board a long environmental
assessment form and $100 filing fee of Dr. Ali Agaraba,
Matt-A-Mar Marina for the construction of a storage building.
And a review of the Environmental Assessment Form, the last
page, which is signed by Mr. Raynor, as agent for Agarabi and
Matt-A-Mar Marina. There's a checklist of other approvals
required, and it says Village Board "no," and Zoning Board "no,"
Health Department "no," local agencies "no," there's a few
others, but next to the Village Planning Board there's a "yes."
So by there own knowledgeable agent, they basically stated prior
to the application that they did need site plan approval. I
refer the Board to other correspondence and notations from the
Planning Board's file which I think, in understanding what
happened, it's important to see these, to see that there was an
effort made to get site plan approval. In fact there was
negotiations in effect going on for some time. Until June 27,
1988 when Mr. Cocks, who is the manager of Matt-A-Mar and signed
the Building Permit application, stated to the Planning Board,
we would like to withdraw our application with the Planning
Board for the boat storage structure that was submitted in 1987:
"...At this time, we were studying other options."
That was just a few days before the application for the Building
Permit was made. Something that's hard to understand, to say
the least.
I would also direct the Board's attention to a Certificate of
Occupancy No. Z12550. It begins, "this certifies that the
building, accessory building "B," for another individual, and on
the bottom you see "Planning Board approval." So we see it a
Planning Board approval for accessory buildings has been
required in the past, and in cases in question on that point,
here's an application for a Building Permit dated October 29,
1986, and at the top, it's for a storage building and Mattituck
Airport. At the top, there's a notation "needs site plan
approval." So we see there's a history, there's support in the
Code, the old Code, the new Code, and by their own admission
Matt-A-Mar basically conceded that site plan approval was
required.
Why they did not go through with the site plan, why a building
permit was issued, is a question that I think the Board has to
address and deal with.
Page 8 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
CHAIRMAN: Are you finished, Mr. Ross?
MR. ROSS: No, I'm not. I would just note that the bulk and
parking schedule of the Old Code for B-Light indicates that the
height of the building in a B-Light District is 30 feet. On the
application itself, they stated it was going to be 36 feet. So
at the time the permit was issued, it was too high for the
District.
As a last item, I would like to address the wetlands issue. It
is our position that the Building Department should have sent
Matt-A-Mar to the Trustees for Trustee approval. And I direct
the Board's attention first to the map that was found in the
Building Department's file indicating the distance between the
structure, and as you can see from the map, the line goes to
what's been labeled approximate shortline. And they say 75
feet. If you look at the pictures and if you know the area
between the building and the shoreline, there's a retaining wall
or a bulkhead. I believe when it was put up it was put up as a
retaining wall, it's labeled bulkhead on this map. But if this
is correct, and it is 75 feet between the structure and the
approximate shoreline, I suggest that Trustee approval should
have been obtained because the wetlands goes up to the bulkhead,
goes up to the retaining wall, and I believe the exhibits before
you will bear that out. The first exhibit being a DEC area
photo, which is basically their inventory map. I shows in the
area in question that the DEC has designated this into tidal
marsh. I would refer to the DEC regulations indicating that
inter-tidal marsh, and that's regulation 661.4hh2, in an
inter-tidal marsh, the predominant vegetation in this zone is
low marsh cordgrass, spartina alterniflora. And that's
important because in that area between the bulkhead and the
shore, by the DEC's records there's cordgrass, so if you look at
the Town Wetlands Ordinance, cordgrass is a species used to
identify wetlands, and reference is made to the Section 97-13A,
which defines tidal wetlands, all lands generally covered or
intermittently covered with or which border on tidal waters or
lands lying beneath tidal waters. There's additional language
there under Item II, it's all banks, bogs, meadows, flats and
tidal marsh subject to such tides that upon which grows or may
grow some or any of the following: salt hay, black grass, salt
worth, sea lavender, tall cordgrass, high bush cattails,
marsh-mellow and low marsh cordgrass, and/or under Item III, all
land immediately adjacent to the tidal wetland as defined in the
previous sections and lying within 75 feet landward of the most
Page 9 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. ROSS, continued:
landward edge of the tidal wetlands. So by the Town's
definition, the wetlands goes 75 feet in-land, landward, and I
think by taking the DEC map, the definition, we see that the
wetlands goes right up to the retaining wall, or bulkhead. I
would also at this time ask Paul Murphy, he lives in the area,
and for him just to say a few words about the water in that area.
PAUL MURPHY: I'm Paul Murphy, living in Mattituck, near the
place in Browers Woods. On numerous occasions, I have noticed
water spashing against a retaining wall there, tidal with the
creek waters on many occasions ( ).
MR. ROSS: So we see, even though that area between the
retaining wall and what is labeled the shoreline may not always
be covered. It is from time to time in the definition, talks
about intermittently being covered and on top of that you have a
species of plans indicating that it is wetlands. Now,
understand that I didn't go out and measure the distance between
the bulkhead and the structure, but the Matt-A-Mar's map
indicates that, if the wetland does go to the bulkhead, then the
structure is within 75 feet and thus within the Trustee
jurisdiction. I know the Board may have some problems with
addressing Trustee jurisdiction, but we see that the Board has
jurisdiction with respect to Building Inspector decisions, and
one of the decisions in granting this permit was basically that
a Trustee permit was not necessary. And it was in effect a
negative decision, but it was a decision nonetheless that this
Board can reverse, and I would ask the Board to address that.
There was some question raised, and I don't know if this Board
is aware of it-- I believe there's a memo in your file,
indicating that Trustee approval is not necessary behind
bulkheaded areas. And I would first direct your attention back
to the wetlands act of which clearly it says nothing about a
bulkhead exception, although we know that the DEC has such an
exception. And I would also draw your attention to the
application of John Newman with respect to his property on
Sailors Needle Road in Mattituck, and the Trustees exercised
jurisdiction. This property, and before you is his survey, just
Page 10 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. ROSS, continued:
completely behind bulkhead and seawall, and the Trustees
indicated they had jurisdiction. I don't think there's any
question. The Trustees always have, and according to the Code
do have jurisdiction 75 feet behind the bulkhead. So I just
wanted to address that point. Basically, that's our
application. We realize the building is under construction. We
believe that in fairness to the applicant his building permit
should have been pulled. Although in fairness to the applicant,
it's apparent from the documents in the Planning Board and in
your file that they were aware of the necessity to get site plan
approval. We appreciate the Board addressing the question to
the Town Attorney to pull this permit and I'm somewhat concerned
with the response that was obtained. And I don't think the
fault lies with this Board, and where to put the fault, I think
we can only put it on the people who are in charge--the elected
officials of the Town. So with that said, I would ask that this
Board pull this permit, and make a decision on this items. I
think that based on what I put before you, this applicant should
have gone to the Trustees, should have gone to the Planning
Board and should have had to come here, before getting a
building permit. And I request that you issue that decision.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ross, let me just ask you a question. When you
refer to pulling the building permit, you're referring to the
nature of the application which is actually the reversal of the
building permit and --
MR. ROSS: Correct.
CHAIPu~L~/~: And not necessarily the staying the Building Permit
but actually the reversal of the Building Permit.
MR. ROSS: Correct. It was issued a Building Permit and I've
provided the Board with a section provided a building permit
would he given only when all other permits that are necessary
are obtained. And here all other permits weren't obtained. The
building permit simply shouldn't have been issued. It's as
simple as that.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak in
favor of this application? (None). Would the owner or his
representative like to speak?
Page 11 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
DON COCKS: I'm Don Cocks. I'm the Manager of Matt-A-Mar
Marina. I've been associated with Matt-A-Mar now for almost
nine years. There as a mechanic for about eight years, and
since then have become the manager. When I became the manager,
I started to look into the needs of the building. The agent who
was working at the time for securing the permits had no
information for me. When I went to see him, he gave me a file
that was about three or four pages inside of a file. I figured
I'd start from scratch and I'd go to each agency, introduce
myself, plead my case, plead my ignorance and the whole aspect
of the political going on. The way to do things. I went to the
Zoning Board. I went to the Planning Board. I went to the
Building Department. I went to the Trustees. Each time, once
again, I did plead that I was looking for help-- I was very
grateful for help. Asking what to do, where to go and each time
I was given advice on what to do by the Town Board and town
people. This building is a necessity from our stand point to
survive. We have to have this building. Most marinas around
have storage buildings. We don't have storage buildings.
It's-- if we don't get this building, there probably isn't much
change for the marina to survive, in which case outside
speculators would come in and under the new Master Plan, I don't
know what would happen at that time. There are some items that
would be brought up so far about-- I'm going a little backwards
on it, but there was a problem that the attorney had brought up
about the wetlands. So far to date, I've had Phil Obenauer of
the Conversation Department (DEC) come down and check out the
area. I've had Mr. Kujawski and Chuck Hamilton come down and
check out the area. I've had Henry Smith, Trustee come down and
check out the area. And I've had a conversation just this week
with Mr. Bredemeyer on the property, and each time I was told
there's no problems with the wetlands involved in it. The
agencies that I have seen to date-- I've started off, as I
explained, after I wasn't getting any sufficient answers from
the agent who he'd had hired-- I started off by going first to
the Zoning Board, Mrs. Kowalski. I had gone to her and asked if
I could look into the record and familiarize myself with the
background--what had been happening with the marina. I got all
the information that there was. From there, I went to the
Planning Board. While in between there, I went to the Building
Department to ask them again, what I should do, and each time I
was advised by the Building Department at the time to get rid of
some of the old boats that we had in the yard, clean up the
yard, which we did -- we hired a contractor with a bull dozer to
come in and clean up the area. We hired a beat mover to take a
Page 12 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MA'rr-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. COCKS, continued:
bunch of old boats that we had-- got rid of them. So we cleaned
up the yard. Then I went to the Planning Board and spoke to Ms.
Scopaz. I had approximately three meetings with Ms. Scopaz on
the building. I drew at least six drawings for Ms. Scopaz. She
had us pretty much all the way around the marina with the
building. The last place that she had us with the building was
pretty much on the northeast corner with the peak of the
building running north and south, parallel with Wickham Avenue.
Also had us 75 feet from Wickham Avenue.
At the time, it wasn't a great place for us to have a building.
It was far away from our travel lift, and all I had done after
that, I had contacted Mr. Goehringer at the time. I spoke to
you about it. And I recall a conversation we had was, I had
told you where the Planning Board wanted to put us. You told us
about the 100 feet setback, which I was more than glad to
acco~m~odate, but unfortunately where the setback would have
happened would have been over wells. We have a problem with
water on our property. The only water that is sufficient, we've
had many tests done to find good water; and one area where there
is water, the building would have been sitting on it. Once
again, the Planning Board wanted a new road installed in the
marina, and the road would have been on the northern most
section of the Marina. The old road would have been closed up
and this would have been a new entrance. With the new entrance
road coming in, the building also couldn't go back that hundred
feet, so Mrs. Scopaz was happy keeping it 75 feet away from
Wickham Avenue. The long part of the building, running parallel
with Wickham Avenue, and at that time it just wasn't sufficient
for us to drive a travel lift all the way up and park. We
didn't think it was a good idea for the neighbors. We're trying
to live with the neighbors in the area. We didn't think a
building that close to the road would be a good spot. At the
time when I was speaking to Mr. Goehringer, he came up with, we
discussed the fact of the 100-ft. setback. I showed him the
original drawings at one time - that we had sketched an area
where the building would go - and you said that you couldn't
comment on it but it would be a better place than up in the
corner. After that I went to the Building Department and told
them what the Planning Board wanted me to put in. At the time
they weren't too crazy about the spot where the Planning Board
had put us also. They were fearful of the fact that the
neighbors were going to be very upset with having the building
that close to the road.
Page 13 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. COCKS, continued:
They positioned this in such a spot in such a way that we
wouldn't be able to-- our driveway wouldn't be blocked--we would
pretty much be not seen directly from the driveway. We would be
in-between a tree barrier that we have there. They also
suggested we build up a berm and landscape a berm. These are
things that we have started to do to date. Also as far as the
water goes, I was told at the time that we should go 75 feet
from the high water mark, and at the time Mr. Lessard had paid a
visit, and we checked out the entire area, pretty much staked it
out where it would be, and that's pretty much where it ended up
to be.
To date so far-- I also want to say that we have never kept this
building a secret. We have customers who live in Browers
Woods. One is a member of the Association. These people have
known about this building. It has been going on for quite a
while. We have been doing some of the work on the outside along
the sidewalk and so forth for about a year now. We never kept
this a secret from anybody. Everybody knew that a building was
going up. We started-- pre-building fees on this building so
far are $30,000. The construction costs that we have -- we're
locked into a contract, a scheduled payment contract. So far to
date, we've spent $244,000 on the building. We still have
another $192,000 to go, and after that we'll have about $18,000
in additional expenses that would be landscaping, bulkheading
area up and along the sidewalk. We agreed with the Building
Department. One of their neighbors across the way from us was
upset at our gravel road--he kept on getting dust over on his
house. We agreed to the fact that we would pave the driveway.
These are all items after the building was finished.
I've just done everything that I have been told to do. I
contacted each agency. They've given me the direction on which
way to go, and at this point, I didn't hear about this meeting
until it came up in February, when the first opposition came up
to this building. We had cement poured by then. Excavation had
been done since December, the excavation was done. It was --
and all of a sudden in February there was a great opposition to
this building. It's just my feeling that I've been pushed and
pulled all over the place by each agency. Ail we're trying to
do is survive. We have six full-time local employees, and their
dependents who work there. We have about 25 in the summer time,
which are all local people that we employ. We're just trying to
make a living there and like I said, we've done everything in
the open on this. I've just been by the book by this whole
thing.
Page 14 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MA'~i'-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cocks, when I saw you last year some time at this
time, you asked me to come down and we had a similar--you know,
I can't give you word for word because a lot of the information
has gone by since then--but you told me that the purpose of a
building of the nature of which is now being constructed on the
site is to be used for the maintenance of large boats or boats
that you would be housing in the building for the purposes of
repair, to my knowledge from what I remember. Is that still the
case?
MR. COCKS: No, to tell you the truth, I really don't--it has
been a storage building from the beginning. It was made very
well-known to us that this has to be a storage building. We
agreed; we have done everything we can to work with the town.
CHAIRMAN: What would be the nature of the storage? Would it be
dry storage during the winter, and then the boats would be taken
out of the building in the spring?
MR. COCKS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN: Would the boats be worked on the building itself?
MR. COCKS: No. If we get these boats inside the building,
we're guaranteed a certain amount of work in the spring time.
The building won't be heated or anything. So what we plan on
doing is, at least we have knowledge of we're getting a certain
amount of work from each boat that is going to be going in that
building. In the springtime when we pull them out, due to work,
put them back in the water, they leave. ~nis building also will
not--there's a lot of people going around saying there's going
to be bringing more boats in the area. It's not going to bring
in any more boats in the area that have been at the marina. All
it's doing is bringing a better class of customer who can pay
for the services and keep our mechanics and our carpenters going
who are all local people and trying to make a living.
CHAIRMAN: So there would be no actual work on the boat in the
building?
MR. COCKS: No. Just a storage building. Ail it is is a
storage building. Mattituck Inlet has storage buildings down
there--they were zoned differently from us, but most of their
buildings they have are just for storage. Most of the time,
like I said, without any kind of heat or anything like that, not
much work could be done inside of a building, so this is all
storage. It's pulled out in the springtime.
Page 15 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
CHAIRMAN: Are you saying that if you didn't have a building of
this nature, that people would be forced to go to other marinas
that have a building?
MR. COCKS: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN: Is that what you're in effect saying?
MR. COCKS: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN: So you're--
MR. COCKS: Guaranteed to get the customers--there's nothing
wrong with-- I feel for a customer who, just being able to
afford a boat--but we're also trying to make a profit, period.
We have never really been able to make any kind of a living
there. In fact, Agarabi has spent a lot of money in keeping
this going through the years. He's had a lot of people who had
been interested in buying the property, but he's convinced that
he loves the area; he wants to retire out here and he wants to
see this place go. And so I think we're all interested in it.
CHAIRMAN: So there will be no expansion of the boats?
MR. COCKS: Working of the boats. Inside the building.
CHAIRMAN: There will be no expansion of the marina itself--
MR. COCKS: No, no. The same amount of boats will be there as
there is every year.
CHAIRMAN: Do you concur that the building is approximately 36
feet high at this time?
MR. COCKS: Thirty-five feet.
CHAIRMAN: Thirty-five.
MR. COCKS: These are all things that I -- I went to each agency
and this is what I was told by the agency -- I was told by the
Building Department to go 35 feet high. I was also told how far
to go from the water. Like I said, I have had the three
Trustees, the Chairman Mr. Kujawski, and Mr. Smith, come down
and physically look at it. I had Mr. Obenauer was sent down by
his Lieutenant who lives, I believe in Browers Woods, and he had
a little bit-- somebody had pressured him to have the D.E.C.
come down and check us out. About a week after he came down,
Page 16 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. COCKS, continued:
Chuck Hamilton, who is the head of the regulatory, came down
along with Mr. Kujawski and checked us out, and I was not issued
any kind of summonses. There was no problem whatsoever. Aside
from some hay bales. I have to put some hay bales in this one
little area.
CHAIRMAN: Would you be painting the bottom of the boat within
these buildings?
MR. COCKS: Most of the bottom painting has to be done before
the boat gets in the water, so.
CHAIRMAN: Would there be any drains in these buildings, that
would drain within the soil? Is the floor flat? I don't mean
to cut into your--
MR. COCKS: Yeah, it would be a flat slab.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. There's no drain, no draining at all?
MR. COCKS: No.
CHAIRMAN: What type of utilities would be in the building?
MR. COCKS: The only utilities that we actually need is a
three-phase electrical system to operate the doors. The doors
are going to be very heavy, and you can't mechically lift them
up. It would take, according to the people who are selling us
the doors, would take probably 20 minutes to open up the door
with a chain because of the gearing that would have to be on it.
So it is a three-phase motor, five horsepower motor that has to
run it. So that's what we need right now. We need a 220,
three-phase power going into it. At this time, we have LILCO--
we have discussed with LILCO about bringing in a three-phase
line, just for the building.
CHAIRMAN: Can you give us some idea on how many boats you store
on the site presently?
MR. COCKS: We store about 100 boats -- well, we've never gotten
up to a 100. About 80 boats, 85 boats that we have. And we
have some in the water and we have some up on land.
Page 17 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
CHAIRMAN: I went by tonight and in fact I did stop and take two
pictures. I was over there last weekend, but I didn't have a
camera with me. I noticed a stake toward the road a little more
towards the south of the property line. Is that actually the
stake that we're using as a property line marker? I mean I'll
go over there with you--
MR. COCKS: Was that on a telephone pole?
CHAIRMAN: No. This was one that was a stake actually in the
property itself.
MR. COCKS: I don't recall. We had a stake out, we had a gas
line that was running out so we had marked the gas line.
CHAIRMAN: Maybe that's what it was. You do concur that
(interrupted).
MR. COCKS: Oh, no, electric.
CHAIRMAN: Electric?
MR. COCKS: Yeah, we have an inground electric that serves our
docks.
CHAIRl~3%N: Ok. You do concur, however, that that building is
approximately 100 feet from your property line?
MR. COCKS: Yes, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN: And 75 feet from the--
MR. COCKS: Seventy-five feet from the highwater mark.
CHAIRMAN: Ail right, at this particular time I'll come back
after any rebuttal and just give two ideas that may be something
in the future. And I thank you, Sir. Is there anybody else
that would like to speak? Mr. Lark?
Page 18 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, for the
Dr. Agarabi, the owner of Matt-A-Mar Marina, Inc., which is the
fee owner of this Marina. I've just become involved in this
matter and from what I've heard here tonight is somewhat of a
lawyer's delight with all the legal issues involved, involving
the Building Department.
The very first issue you'll have to decide before you is the
standing issue as to whether or not the people who have brought
this application before you are aggrieved parties within Section
267.2 of the Town Law, and whether or not it is proper for a
party to resign from bringing the petition, but whether the
substitution of an Association the way it was done with letter
form on March 1st was proper, especially if you all have your
attorney, you've heard of Douglaston Civic Association v.
Galvin, which is a Court of Appeals case at 36 N.Y. 2d, page 1,
where the Association has to present certain criteria in order
to be qualified as an aggrieved party to bring such an
application. So that's one of your first issues which will be
your standing issue.
Probably the main issue here is whether or not the building
inspector had authority to issue a building permit without
obtaining what the applicant's say a site plan approval.
I read your interpretation request concerning Accessory
Structures dated August 18, 1988 addressed back to the Town
Attorney. I was pretty surprised reading it because it's the
first time in zoning history that the Town Attorney has asked
the Board of Appeals for an opinion. Usually the Board of
Appeals asks the Town Attorney for an opinion. I thought that
quite interesting. Your predecessor, Mr. Gillispie, would also
have been quite surprised at that.
However, besides some of the technical deficiencies and the
syntax difficulties in your opinion and memo, I basically
endorsed its intent and overall philosophy. I thought it was
excellent. And I thought it was an excellent idea.
Unfortunately, as a matter of law, the memorandum is just an
opinion and I don't believe has any force in the law. The Town
Board should have taken your que, or the Town Attorney should
have presented to the Town Board and they should have amended
the ordinance accordingly to take care of that little bit of
loophole.
Page 19 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MA'I'I~-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. LARK, continued:
The history, this-- I was of the understanding that it is zoned
what we called B-Light or 100-60 of the Zoning Ordinance. That
seems to have been some issue along the way.
CHAIRMAN: At the time of the inception of the permit.
MR. LARK: At the time of the application, yes, and what went on
back in last year. In looking at the history of that section,
it was interesting to note that originally Section A, which was
the permitted use section, did not have or call for site plan
approval. They did at the time of the application for the
building permit. It said: "Permitted Uses, Subject to Site Plan
Approval" in accordance with blah-blah, and then they listed all
the permitted uses. That had been changed in 1976 by Local Law,
and then again in 1983. Right from the inception of 100-60, the
B Section, which provides for uses by Special Exception always
required Site Plan approval. That was right from the inception
of the Zoning Ordinance. Any use that had Special Exception
approval also had to have site-plan approval. But when they
amended the ordinance, and they also amended the accessory
section in 1975 and again in 1976, but the curiosity is when
they amended it, they never provided for an Accessory Use to
have site plan approval. In accordance with your memo, they
should have. And hopefully that loophole has been closed in the
new zoning, hopefully. And we won't have that again. But
that's always been a loophole, and it always-- I was always
surprised that the accessory use provision didn't have it,
because he talked about front yard -- Mr. Ross did. With the
exception of the A Zone, the accessory uses are not limited in
the front yard. They could be in any yard in any of the other
districts. And for that reason, I think prompted you when you
wrote to the Board when it wrote its memo, to put "Hey, the site
plan approval" because of the parking and a lot of the other
requirements should be taken. But unfortunately it wasn't
legislated. So therefore it isn't a requirement, and the
Building Inspector could be very correct in issuing a Building
Permit without site plan approval on that issue, if in fact he
deemed it, and it is in fact an accessory use.
CHAIRMAN: That's the issue.
MR. LARK: Yes, I realize that. I just point that out. They
attacked it that they shouldn't have done certain things before
it but that's the real issue here. I think so.
Page 20 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. LARK, continued:
Mr. Ross then brought up the wetlands problem in the Trustees
jurisdiction. I don't think there's any question that because
of the retaining wall, a bulkhead as the case might be, and if
you're at a 10 ft. elevation, the D.E.C. doesn't have a linear--
to get a D.E.C. permit it doesn't have a linear foot
requirement.
The Trustees, as he pointed out in a memo from the Town Attorney
to the Trustees said where the property had an existing
bulkhead, they didn't have to inspect or take measurements
landward. So if the Building Inspector had that information at
the time, he could have very well properly -- Mr. Cocks said he
had been at the property, he could very well have taken the
position that they didn't have to go to the Trustees, our Town
Trustees to get any type of permit. Again you have some factual
information that will have to be probably developed from the
Building Department on that as to what the facts situation was
at the time.
As to the height of the building, it is true that at the time of
the permit application, the height of the building in the
B-Light, it is true that at the time of the permit application
the height of the building in a B-Light, which is the 100-60
section should be 30 feet. But where you have a building such
as this {pause, end of tape} measured from the top of the
building. The definition of 100-13 calls for height: "the
vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the
finished grade," which we don't have. As you said, you visited
the site, you notice that the foundation did come out of the
ground a couple of feet on both the north and the south walls
there. And "of land immediately adjacent to the building to the
highest point of the roof or flat or mansard roof, and to the
mean height, between the eave and the ridge for the other type
of roofs." So in this type of thing, it would be halfway up.
Now I can't tell you without a calculation as to what that is.
I know Mr. Cocks was referring to you, he was measuring it from
the floor of the building to the top, or to the ridge line to
get when he said it would be 35 feet. But under the zoning
interpretation, that's not the height. It will be somewhere's
in-between. And that depends also on how they finish the grade
off, so I don't know that that can be determined at the present
time, but it is true. In that zoning district at the time, that
should be 30 feet without a variance. You know. Under the new
zoning that went in, which puts this in the Marine II, it's 35
Page 21 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
feet. So I don't know whether that issue is academic or a
real-life issue. So I just wanted to respond just to point out
to the Board that I think you're going to have to get some more
factual data as to just what went on as to why the Building
Department did or did not certain things on this, and I guess
your best evidence of that would be getting something from that
Department itself. But if there's any other questions, I can
answer, as I say, there's a wealth of legal issues in this one.
Not to mention the economic issues. I don't think there's any
question that the applicant was operating in good faith, and it
was only since February when the rumbling started that this
might not be such a good idea and, of course, as you indicate
and I think the Town Attorney told you correctly, there's cases
on it, you cannot issue -- the Board of Appeals has no authority
to issue a stop work order stay in the building when that's the
subject of the dispute. There are several cases on that.
However, prior to that, as he said, he bought the building and
you know, has ordered, the foundations were put in, and so I
don't think there's any question he was in good faith until this
thing came up in February.
CHAIRMAN: What's your opinion, Mr. Lark, referring to the
possible being a principal use as opposed to an accessory use?
MR. LARK: As I understand, it has been deemed an accessory use
because the storage, they refer to it as dead-storage, I don't
know what that word means, but the storage of the boats in
there, in the winter is incidental or accessory to the operation
of the marina. It's not part and parcel, where the principal
activities of the marina go on, and that would be of course the
whatever repairs they do make there, the sales and services of
the boats and so on and so forth. So if the building is truly,
and I note it in your memo that there could be many abuses by
using this as a ruse or a facade. But if the building truly is
just used for that, you might not agree with the Building
Inspector's interpretation, but it does have--that is a
reasonable interpretation of accessory-use-building for this
type of thing. I realize the size makes it somewhat a problem.
But if it was a Sears and Roebuck storage shed, you know, 9 by
10, nobody would question it. It's a question of degree, I
suppose.
CHAIRMAN: Well, a marina in general derives a certain amount of
income from the storage of boats.
Page 22 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. LARK: Yes. Whether outside, inside, or water--
CHAIRMAN: This is now a dual income. Ok.
MR. LARK: (Agreed).
CHAIRMAN: So we now have basically three incomes. We have the
storage of boats in the water. The storage of boats out of the
water. And now we have the storage of boats in the building,
ok. That's basically the area that will have to be addressed in
reference to its possibility as being either principal or
accessory. All right? And that's brings me to a big quandry
here on what to do with this hearing tonight, and we will recess
prior to the closing tonight and discuss it and kick it around a
couple of moments up here. And get back to the audience. And
of course we now will go, if you have anything else, go into
rebuttal.
MR. LARK: Unless you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN: Let's see what develops. I appreciate it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ross, do you have anything you would like to
add? Oh yes, how do you do? Would you kindly just state your
name?
WARREN BRADY: My name is Warren Brady. I live on Bergen Avenue
in Mattituek on the Sound bluffs. I've been there for 44 years,
and I wanted to give you the point of view of yachtsman. We
seem to neglect it some times. Taken thousands of acres of land
and covered with asphalt to park cars, made roads, make every
provision for that. It's true that our case here, most of the
boating in Mattituck Inlet is pleasure boating. Of course we
have some commercial fishermen also, you'll notice the line in
the Inlet. But on Mattituck Inlet, Mattituek Inlet Shipyard,
devotes all their attention to power boats. They won't even let
a sail boat in there. Now I happen to own a sail boat. So if
it wasn't for Matt-A-Mar, where would I go along the Sound?
Would I go to Port Jefferson? Or would I go out to Plum Gut and
back down to Greenport? So you know, we have limited storage
facilities now and when you own an expensive boat--I'll tell you
today, boats, you know, $100,000 to $500,000 to nothing. So
Page 23 - Transcript of Hearing
Matter of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. BRADY, continued:
when you figure the costs of maintenance, it pays to put a boat
inside if you have a lot of varnish work and everything else.
It really pays to keep it inside, so that's why people need
indoor storage. And I can see, and by the way, I've been
sailing here-- I sailed through the Peconic in '39 on my way to
Block Island, and I've owned the boat since I've been out here
also and sailed all around, and am very familiar with the Bays
and Sound. But none of like to see progress here. We'd like to
keep it exactly as it is, but it seems as though it's not going
to work out that way. We're fighting down-zoning on Bergen
Avenue, and everywhere you live, it se~ms you have to keep
moving in pristine area. But --and that building, of course,
maybe it looks better without it, we don't know how they'll end
up with landscaping it, but I understand they have plans for
landscape and they do have a fringe of trees--tall oak trees
that when the leaves are out, it will certainly hide the
building I think to a great degree. And also when that wind
blows from the west in the winter time, that building is going
to block a lot of the wind, and it does pick up some dust from
the gravel area where they store the boats, so that might give
them a little relief across the street from dust and the size of
that building, blocking it. But also this man has a big
investment here now, and I feel that if people wanted to say
something, I know that this building has been planned for many
years. When they started digging back in December, you know,
they should bring it up then before the man had all this money
invested. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brady. Mr. Ross? Is there anybody
else, by the way that would like to speak? Yes, Sir.
FRED RANGANESCI: My name is Fred Ranganesci, President, Browers
Woods Associations. A couple of points I would like to make.
The point about we knew about this months, or months or months
or however long, that is not a fact. The only time we came to a
realization of what was happening was when we saw the bulldozer
and the piles of sand of dirt along the road. When I saw some
work going on relative to landscaping, I felt that it was very
nice that they were cleaning up, but that didn't appear to be
the case.
Pag~ 24 - Transcript of Hearing
Mat~er of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
March 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
The iother point I would like to make, I hear that we're talking
abo~t a storage of boats. And I hear nunfoers that we're talking
abo~t $400,000 just to store boats. When you equate the
difference between outside storage to inside storage, how much a
foo~ difference does it have to be before we come back and make
a $400,000 investment. I mean it's got to be 30, 40, 50 years
before that happens. So I personally feel that there would be
som~ repair work done in that area, and now we shed a whole new
light on it. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Ross.
DAN iROSS, ESQ.: Just a few quick points. First on the standing
issue, from Day One, Barbara Reiter, who is here tonight was.an
applicant. She owns property on the northern arm off the main
Mat~ituck Creek, which looks across to the marina. Is that
correct, Barbara?
BARBARA REITER: Yes.
MR. !ROSS: And so I think the standing issue is not a true
issue. To say we're not aggrieved, if the Browers Woods
AssOciation is not aggrieved, it is obvious when you drive down
the:street past the structure, and people going to the houses,
tha~ they are aggrieved and the Association speaking in behalf
of ~he residents in that area certainly would have standing.
As ~ar as the question of keeping it a secret, passing the point
every day, to this day, there is not a building permit posted on
the{public street. Correct if I'm wrong anyone, there are many
people here who pass. The association learned very late that a
building was going up, and I suggest that in fact that it was
kep~ a secret. If you consider the fact that a building permit
was!not presented to the public.
On
poi
thi!
posJ
acc(
con(
and
he question of accessory use, I think there are a number of
~ts to make, the first being, I don't think it matters. I
~k that the Board's position was clear. The Town Attorney's
tion was clear, and the Code was clear. Whether it is an
~ssory use, site plan approval was still required. This was
~ededbyMatt-A-Mar when they applied for site plan approval,
on their long-form environmental assessment stated, "Yes,
site plan approval, we have to go to the Planning Board .... "
Page 25 - Transcript of Hearing
Mat~er of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
Mar~h 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
MR. ROSS, continued:
Again we haven't heard the reason why that was withdrawn. And I
read the Board the letter of where it was withdrawn, indicating
that they were investigating other options. It hasn't been
answered. And I suggest that this is not an accessory use.
This is for the storage of boats. Or that's minimally what it
is for, for the storage of boats, which is what a marina is
for.I So I question whether this is an accessory use, and in any
event either way, it seems clear site plan approval is
required. And finally on the height question, the application
itself states what the height of the building is going to be. I
thi~k this Board-I think the Building Department and the public
have a right to rely on a sworn statement by an applicant.
Just a moment on the Association. It is a corporation. It was
formed under the law. It has been in existence for quite some
time. There was a meeting held, I was caltedby notice mailed
to ~he Association Members and attended by quite a few of the
Assgciation members, and a vote was taken as to whether to
present, whether to endorse and join in this application made by
the iindividuals, and as I say, it's an association of people
that live close to the marina and a legally existing entity.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Cocks.
MR. ~COCKS: The reason for the withdrawal of the building
permit-- I take that back, the reason for the withdrawal from
the iPlanning Board is that I was told that because it is going
to ~e an accessory building, it's not necessary for a site plan
and ithat I don't have to go to the Planning Board. As far as
the ipermit being posted, I tried copying the original permit
tha~ is supposed to be posted. I tried copying it and hanging
it UP on the tree. Unfortunately, it's orange, and when you run
it ~hrough a copier and we have a pretty big copier, it comes up
pretty much black. It didn't last very long. I was told that I
could put it-- our office it very clearly states general offices
of Matt-A-Mar and it's right in the window, it has been there
singe Day One. It has been posted in the window. I was told
tha~ as long as it's the general office of the company, that is
where you put your permits, and that's where I have them.
Page 26 - Transcript of Hearing
Mat~er of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
Mar~h 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cocks, do you have any problems with furnishing
us a foundation survey of this particular building, within the
nex~ month or so? Do you have any problems with that? I'm sure
you'!re probably going to be required to have it any way.
MR. ~COCKS: No problems.
CHAIRMAN: We would appreciate that if you wouldn't mind.
MR. COCKS: Ok.
CHAIRMAN: Ail right. Yes, Doctor, how are you?
DR. iAGARABI: I'm Dr. Agarabi; I'm owner. In response to your
(faCing the audience).
CHAIRMAN: Doctor, you have to position everything to the
Board. Go ahead.
DR. iAGARABI: With response to that $400,000, taxed on American
Government, I lose money here but I deduct my taxes. I have my
boo~s. Any one of you or the members, they can come and I show
them. From 1979 when I bought this marina, I have been losing
money up to there. Not a few dollars. From $90,000 a year up
to S0,60, 40, 20 thousand dollars. I'm sure, like you see the
reccrd, you don't believe this unless you see my income taxes.
At this time, the purpose of the spending is not really money
making. That is true, you said that how much you can get from
inside to outside. The amount of money I put into this marina,
doesn't make it sense to make money. Because really I'm not
interested in money. It is the marina I like. Some of you have
beer there, the amount of money that I spent for grass and
water, the amount of money that I used for safety there,
cleaning, is more than half of what I make some time. Not only
tha~, what I want, I want to live here. I have a house out
her~. I had hoped that I moved and I lived there, and I like
some place that the people, they come. Do you feel that this
pla~e is better to be marina or a night club or a restaurant or
so qn? Right now, they're spending $400,000 or $500,000, I
could make a beautiful restaurant in there and I'd make money.
It's much better to make money for a restaurant than to store
boa~s, but I like to store boats. I like the place and I enjoy
it.! The people in that neighborhood, the area enjoy that to be
Pag~ 27 - Transcript of Hearing
Mat~er of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-Mar
MarCh 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
DR. AGARABI, continued:
theze. Of course as you know, the zoning has changed right now
and I can sell it. Anybody who wants to see, I have an offer.
Sev~n million dollars. Ok? Everybody, some of you, you think
maybe I'll not stay there-- but I'm losing money. Suppose I do
geti$7 million. I don't need money. I enjoy my work. I'm a
physician. I'm not having this marina to make money. My
manager and other people, they work, you talk to these people.
The~ do. They work. They do what they want. They-- I'm happy
tha~ they may eventually have a wife, they have the children,
andisome of them have their kids working there. Essentially we
wan~ a place to run and some people they live in there, they
mak~ some money. What I enjoy is a nice place--I come out here
three months in the summer time. I live in small house next
doo~ to that. I enjoy walking there, my kids, my wife, my
frignds. They come up here. That's what I enjoy. I come here
every weekend. I come here. I don't do anything. They know.
I c~me just to enjoy, to be here, so as a resort is not money
making business. It's just to have a decent place, a nice place
tha~ the people enjoy and that I enjoy myself. The purpose is
not:money.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Cocks, so you'll supply us --
can~you supply us with a plan of the whole marina with that
building shown on it with its distance from the bulkhead, its
distance from the road, and preferably a set of building plans
that are not all cut up and so on and so forth?
MR. iCOCKS: I'll try and get it by the first of the month.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. That maybe answers my question. At this
particular time, we'll take a short recess to discuss the
possibility of closing this hearing, and we'll be back in a
mat~er of a couple of moments.
The!hearing was temporarily recessed at this point. The time
was 10:58 o'clock p.m.
11:~7 p.m. Hearing reconvened. Motion was made by
Mr. iGoehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and duly carried, to
rec~nvene the hearing at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, on the Matt-A-Mar - I
apologize, on the application before us to reverse the building
peri, it which concerns Matt-A-Mar, the Board would like to extend
this hearing to the next regular meeting with no oral testimony,
Page 28 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing
Mat~er of BROWERS WOODS/MATT-A-MAR
Mar~h 9, 1989 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting
CHAIRMAN, continued:
very simply pending receipt of the maps that we will hopefully
get!in a timely fashion from the agent of Matt-A-Mar, and we of
course when we receive them, we will ask the party that
initiated this to come down to look at them, review them and
co~ent them in a written form, if they so choose to. And we
wil~ close this hearing, as a formality at the next regularly
scheduled meeting pending the receipt of those particular maps.
Do ~ou have a problem with that?
DAN iROSS, ESQ.: Besides commenting on this, I'd also like to
lea~e the comment on the standing issue that was raised.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. You want to add something.
MR. :ROSS: Just some comments on that.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Can I ask you, is there some sort of charter of
lncarporatlon.
MR. iROSS: A Certificate. We will provide it.
CHAIRMAN: Oh, you will provide it?
MR. iROSS: Yes.
CHA~RM~.: Thank you. So I'll make that motion, that we're
recessing with no oral testimony until the next Regular Meeting.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
VOTE: Ayes: Ail.
Verbatim portion of hearing concluded at 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~nda~F ?~~~t ary
Southold Town Board of Appeals