Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/14/1988 Hearing TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF~.~AP~EALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 198~ Appl. NO.: 3705 Applicant(s): ARTHUR V. JUNGE Location of Property: N/s CR 48, Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No- 1000-96 - 1 - 19 Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis and Sawicki. Absent: Doyen and Douglass. Also Present: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. cHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ...... in the legal notice indicating a pro- posed industrial building of 44,000 square feet and a proposed building in the rear of that 33,350 square feet. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard? I should mention for the record that we did have an appalication before us on... Actually the same application .except that the notice of the isle was different. And in the interim, Mr. Junge has gone to the Town Board and received a change of zone. And there- fore is back with special exception rather than a use variance which was the last applicatoin. My only question to you sir is; are you planning on building a second building right a way? MR. JUNGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you're going to be building both build- ings. Do you have any intended use for the second building, what you intend to do with that? MR. JUNGE: Well, since I've made the application back in Febru- ary, my business has grown and I need the additional space. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically one may be storage and the other one may be an active building. MR. JUNGE: Primarily two thirds of the whole thing is going to be storage. ~ge 2 - January 14, 1988 PUBLIC~ HEARING - Arthur Junge S©uthold ?own ~oard of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from Board mem- bers? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD .TOWN BOARD OFAAP~EALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 198~ Appl. No.: 3697 Applicant(s).: WILLIAM AND PAULA TUITE Location of Property: S/s Midway Road, Southold CoUnty Tax Map ID No. 1000- 90- 2 - 6 Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis and Sawicki. Absent; Doyen and Douglass. Also Present: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:40 oUclock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application fOr the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Smith & Young. The most recent date is December 10, 1981 in- dicating this porch area of approximately 7 feet by 11 foot three which is the proposed addition. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? MR.'TUITE: There's nothing to say. It's all there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea how far the existing porch is (Mr. Tuite) from the bulkhead approximately? MR. ~UITE: I believe it's about between 30 and 35 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I realize that this is a kind of tough time of the year and I have to admit that. I was down to your houes on New Year's Day.. and I would not pull a tape out on New Year's Day. I very simply looked at it and I had some familiar thoughts about the house anyway. I've been down there before. But could you just give us a call some time and do a little mea- suremen5 for us from the inside of the bulkhead to the actual porch so that we could put it in the findings? If you wouldn't mind. MR. TUITE: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this going to be fully enclosed and part of the living area of the house? Page 2 - January 14, 1988 'PUBLIC HEARING - william and Paula Tuite S~utn61d Town Bba.~d of Appeals MR. T'U~.~: No. It's fully enclosed. It will have the way it is now. It has glass windows on it now. I'm going to upgrade the Windows but it's not goi~ to be for anybody to live it. It's not going to be heated. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's just very simply a sun porch. An unheated sun porch. Alright. I thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to be heard on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD ~OWN BOARD OF~AP~EALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, .JANUARY 14, 198~ Appl. NO.: 3676 Applicant(s).: ANTHONY ROBUSTELLI Location of Property: 5 Hayw~ers Road, Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No. 1000-113--1 -19 and 18 Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Members: Grigonis and_Sawicki. Goehringer, Absent; Doyen and Douglass. Also Present: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary'.and approximately persons in the audience. The-Chairman opened the hearing at 7:45 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:- I have a copy of a sketch here indicating the approximate size of the deck which I Will ask the applicant again and a copy of a survey which is dated August 20, 1976 which reaffirms the size and configuration of the property from Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on Robustelli? Are you here sir? Can I ask you a couple of questions? I didn't have any spedific sizes on the size of' the deck here. Maybe you could just give .me an idea. I have 15 feet by approximately 41 foot 6 inches variable and it actually wraps around the eas5 side of of the house, the'deck. And approximately how high off the exist.ing bulkhead woult it be? MR. ROBUSTELLI: Approximately 2 feet, 2½ feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it going to be as high coming out of the floor area of the houes or will there be steps going'down to it because the house is a little elevated? MR. ROBUSTELLI: it. There will probably be one step going down to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: roofed at all times. And the deck will remain completelyl un- MR. ROBUSTELLI: Yes it will. Page 2 - January 14, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING - Anthony Robustelli Soutn~ld TOwn B6ard of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you I was down there in the severe high tide and I noticed that the water does come up rela- tively far. It almost overlaps over the top of the bulkhead. So there is, my opinion, definitely a kind of a need for this. To be honest with you. But that was just an observation that I had made. We'll see what develops throughout the hea~ing. I thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. I thank you for coming in. Ail in favor - AYE. 368~ R~ULAR M~,E~,~NG OP ~HURSDAY~ JANUARY. 14~ ~98'8 ApPl:Lcant(s).~ ANTHONY AND ANGELA LEONE ' :.'LO¢&.~iOa Of P=Ope=~y,$ E/s Deep .Hole Drive, Mattituck Tax Map ~'U No. 1000-115-13 '12..1 B0a d' ember 'P e ent:'Cha rSan Goehringer p; Goe = nger, He e :i.i .rigonis.and. Sa.wicki. . Absen~';..Doyen and D~uglasa. Also Present: Victor Lessard (Building 'Dept.), L&nda Kowalskt, :._. Z.B..A,. Secregary.'.and approximately persons in the audience. The'Chairman-opened the hearing at'7:50 o'clock p,ml and read the not,ce of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I haVe.a CoPy6f a survey. The most recent date is September 16,.1987 indicating the house lot of 15,059 square feet and theltot with.the one-story framed building on it of 13,630 square feet..i 'And I havens copy of. the Suffolk County Tax Map indi- cating this and surrounding propertieSin the area. Mr. Ongioni would you like to be heard. ~ ~ : ~: . MS. ONGIONI:_~I have'a memorandum which'i Would like to submitttoc the Board for their review-in conjunction with this application. I have sufficient for all the members-. Asthe 'applidati6n states and as the survey detects, my client would like to re-establish two separate lots for this parcel. The reason h~ Wishes to create separate'buildable parcels because he is planning for the future of his children.. What he plans to do st..some point in the future 'when his children are adults, is.to construct a dwelling for one of th~n to use. That will prevent him from. leaving the area. As wehall ~ow,, affordable housing is very scarCe~and all too many of our young peo- pleare being forced to leave the area. And Mr. and Mrs. Leoni would like to prevent that from happening to their family. They would therefore, like to have their separate lots in order that they will be able to construct a dwelling sometime in the future. Now, as you can see from the survey, these two lots are quite substandard. Admit~dty, they are~very s~bstandard.viewing today's zoning codes and the requirements for lot slze. However, when taking in the context of this particular community and the fact that there are many many lots comparable in size to the proposed lot. I think that's encum- bant on the Board to grant this"area variance. The~memorandum that Page 2 - January 14, 1988 P~O~BLIC~ HEARING - Anthony and Angela Leone So~th°~d Town Board of Appeals MS. ONGIONI (continued): I've just submitted to you outlines the considerations that the courts have set forth for Zoning Boards in considering area variances and whether an area variance should be granted. The~major consideration is the practical difficulty of that of a property owner will be con- fronted with, weighed against the hardship to the public and the detri- ment to the public. And I submit to the Board, that in this particular instance, there is no detriment to the public, to the neighbors, to the town as a whole if this area variance is granted. In~act, I found a survey of lot sizes in this particular subdivision. I've analyzed lot 12, 13 and 14 in this particular district and section of Southold and I've found that the vast majority of lots range between 10,000 and 30,000 square feet. In. fact, over 90% of the lots in this particular subdivision range between 10,000 and 30,000 square feet. Well below the current code requirements for lot sizes. The p6int being, that all of these lots are part±6ular substandard giving today's standards. However, the community was designed in a ~time when the lot sizes were substantially smaller. For that reason and the fact that these two lots were separate lots and only because of someone's in~dvertness to their merge, it would be in the interest of justice to re-establish these two lots as separate parcels and it certainly would not be con- trary to the character of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS. ONGIONI: Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not right at the moment. Only the fact that there is an euxisting building on it and it appears that the building is an accessory building. It does not meet any of the.setback re- quirements of a principal building. ~o therefore~ if the Board did approve the application, there would be restrictions placed upon that particular building so as it remained as an accessory structure and not a principal dwelling. Just so you're aware. Thank you. MS. ONGIONI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak: in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the ap- plication? Any questions from Board members. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF H~.ARIN~ .S,OUTHOLD BOARD THURSDAY,~_JANUARY 14, 198~ Applo No.= 3706 Applicant(s).= MANFRED E. KUERNER · Looat~on of Propert¥~ E/s Carole Road, Southold County Tax Hap ID No. 1000-52 -2 -3 Board Members present= Chairman Goehringer P. Goe~r~nger, Hembers;']'Grigonis~and. Sawicki. .Absent';. Doyen and Douglass. Also Present=''Vic=or Lessard (Bu£1ding Dept.), Linda Kowalsk£, Z.B.A.. Secre=ary'and approximately persons in 2he audience. The'chairman opened the hearing at 8:00omclock p.mJ and read =he no=ice of hearing and .appli~a2ion for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: · have a copy of survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated (most recently) April 3, 1981 indicating two penned in areas approximately, o~ the so~thLside which appears to be a garage addition of 10 by 22 and a rearyard addition of 7 by 28. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would youLlike to be heard Ms. Moore? MS. MOORE: I'd like to introduce Mrs. Wuerner and James Kuerner Mr. Kuerner could not be here and he apologizes for it. I do have a package of material that would be easier rather than my walking back and forth. As the application states, the Kuerner family would like to expand t~eir:28 by 31% foot house by adding a garage and their addition. The~difficulty encountered here is due to the fact that part of the lot is only 50 by 100. You can see by the first exhibit which is a map of Old Cove Colony which shows the original subdivision. I circled in red the correct lots because the tax 'lot number and the subdivision number do not corroiate. So it's lot number two of the Old Cove Colony subdivision. In_addition to having a 50 by 100 lot, it is also reduced by a twenty-foot wide right-of-way that crosses along the length of the subdivision. So in addition to having less room fore, actual living area, there is tess room for setbacks and so on~ They are faced with limitations in the expansion because of the physical condition of Mrs. Kuerner o She allowed me to explain to the Board that she is suffering from arthritis of the spine and can not use stairs. The exhibit which is the second exhibit of a survey. which Was already in your file. The third exhibit is a copy of the Department of Environmental Conservation original ·appliCation which is dated December;~:-16,- 1982. They had originally hoped to expand up-- ward. and therefore, not needing this. setback variance or at least not Page 2 - January 14, 1988 PUBLI~ HEARING - Manfred E. Kuerner Southold Town Board of Appeals MS. MOORE (continued): the one that is applied for. And because of the physical condition of Mrs. Kuerner , they found that they could not expand upward. The only alternative to them at that point was to expand t~wards the water. What I then did was I applied to the D.E.C. and we received a non-juris- diction determination September 23, 1987 and that is the fourth exhibit that is in the package. The variances that we request are not unreason- able and are ink. conformity with the character of the neighborhood. The fifth exhibit which shows, I drew out what would be the subdivision and the properties along Troul Road. You can see that the Stewart property received an addition of 8 by 22. We are asking for an addition of 7 by 22. So we are asking for less than what the adjacent property received. The Reebok application which I was before this Board on, requested a garage extension of 10 by 24. Mr. and Mrs. Kuerner would like a garage of 10 by 22. So a~ain, that is less than what adjacent properties are asking. Mr. and Mrs. Reebok were able to get a second story and there- fore, did not need further necroachment towards the water other than just a deck. Then again, Mr. and Mrs. Smalczewski applied for a garage ex- tension as well and that was a 10 by 24 garage extension. Again, less than what we are asking for. Excuse me. We are asking for less than what the Smalczewski's property owners received. The Potts again, also asked for a garage extension and received their approval for a 10 by 24 garage. And finally, Eppalito which was here before this Board approxi- mately a month ago, ~wo months ago, received an addition at on point, of 12 by 28 and that was going further toward the water than we are along with a garage addition that had been given a previous appeal. So we are in conformity with the neighborhood. We are not asking for anything that is more than anyone else asks. In fact, we are actually much more reasonable than what other applications had requested. What I did, the following exhibit is a drawing showing a 31 by 28 foot house with the addition of 7 by 28 and the garage of 10 by 22 to clarify the request. For those of~you who were not able to go up and make an inspection of the property or if all of you.have made inspecti6n of the property, I point out that the following photograph or photocopy of the photograph shows that all the properties are in line a!~ong the frontyard. So that are request is, again, similiar to and at the same distance of all the other properties in the area. And]you can see that by my label, ling of the various property owners and looking down from the Reebok's home do~n along the north side seeing that all the properties w~re at the same setback line. And finally, there are two letters here. One from each adjacent property owner that says they support the Kuerner application. This application is one of the last ones of the area. Everyone else seems to have expanded their property. Mr. and Mrs. Kuerner at this point, have requested this variance. And again, it is in conformity with the neighborhood. We have needed a variance from the lot coverage requirement due to the width of the garage, the house and all other structures. All together, all structures, all ex- isting and conforming structures will be only be 26% lot coverage and that's only 6% over what is the requirement. So again, that is rea- sonable. That is all I have and we hope that you will grant the vari- ance application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, there's always questions. MS. MOORE: Of course. Mrs. Kuerner is here. You know that. Pag~ 3 -.January 14, 1988 PUBLIC H~RING - Manfred E. Kuerner Sbuthold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How much do you excced the lot coverage by? MS. MOORE: Based on my calculations, 6%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it's a 26% lot coverage. And with some of the prior appli~ati6ns, we had discussed the possibility of two ga- rage doors. There's no problem with that? MS. MOORE: No. They were aware of that and it was agreed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would there be an existing foundation under the addition or would it be a crawl space? MS. MOORE: It would be a crawl space. crawl space under the existing house. It's already a twelve foot CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You'd just carry that through. making the addition a living area though? You will be MS. MOORE: Yes. I have a plan which I hesitate to submit for the record because it may not be the plan~that they use. In other words, it's drawn up by one builder. They may not be using that builder. So if you would like to see as far as what their plans are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just let me take a look and we'll give it back. MS. MOORE: As it states on the plan, it's for the use of this builder only. There was one other question I wanted to ask you. First, I want to thank you for giving us the other appeal numbers so that we don't have to look th.em up manually. And secondly, is the 7 foot~ do you need all of the 7 foot Mrs. Kuerner in reference into the depth of the addition? Do you need a full 7 feet? MRS. KUERNER : Well, originally we were going to put in a sliding door on the side. So we asked for 7 feet so we would have 6 feet ac- tually which we'd put in a 5 foot slider. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In.the corner here right adjacent to the garage. MRS. KUERNER : But then we thought it wasn't such a good idea to come out right there where the garage door would be. So I would say no. It's not absolutely necessary. MS. MOORE: However, it is less than all the other appeals. I think you'll see that 8 feet has been the general rule of thumb and we are asking for less than that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only thing is that as you progressively go out the peninsula, it appears that you end up with less property on the parcels that are physically there. I realize that we have a sur- vey here but the peninsula appears to narrow as it goes out farther. So it gives you the impression that when you're looking at it as Page 4 - January 14, 1988 PUBL~ HF~ARING - Manfred E. Kuerner Southold Hown Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued): actually having less property than the neighbors that go down a little farther to the north. MRS. KUER~ER : It does look that way because the Baron's house is not built the same as all the others. It's built the other way around. It does look that way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we'll go down and check it out one more time before we make a decision. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. "~652 * $ODTHO~* BOARD OF kAPi?EA~$ ~HDRSDAY, JANUAR.Y 14, 198~ · .:. Appl~cant(s).~ GUIDO AND ANNA CIACIA .).. .. .Loca.~on of Propert]f~ S/s' Main Roa.d and E/s Kerwin · :,.'.: ',.]',/.Count~ Tax Nap ZD.No. 100.0--5~, .2 . 20 Blvd. Greenport embers,: .Grig0nis.and,S.awicki. , .. oehr~nger~ Absent'l..Doyen and D~uglass. Also Present: Victor Lessard (Butld~ng 'Dept.), Linda Kowalski, ~:.,.... Z.B..A.... . ,. Secre~ary'and'approximately.,.~ * · - Persons in ~he audience. The'Chairman*opened the'hearing at' 8:20 o,clock p.ml and read the no,iCe of hearingand application for the record. CHA-TRMAN~"GOEH'RINGER.: ........ I have a copy of a survey dated. May 14j 19*87'(indicating.parcel number one which CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated May 14, 1987 indicating parcel number One which is thehhouse lot which includes approximately a one-car garage and the lot which is the nature of this application which is file lot number 177. And I have a copy of the Suffolk CountyTi~Tax Map indicating this and surrounding prope=ties in the area. ~o would!like to be heard concerning this application. Mr. Bruer. MR. BRUER: On behalf of the applicant. Basically the applicant is not asking for any change in the existing use of the property° The property where the ho~secis, I've been. informedjby Mr. ~.aac.i~., was a residence built by his parents prior to 1929. He was a boy grow- ing up there, living there. He eventually bought the premises where the house is from his parents in 1941~2, he-~tel'lS..me~,and the ad- joining piece which~contains the workshop, in 1947. He is not here today. He can't be here because of his age and his health. ! have an affidavit from him pretty much setting forth what I've just stated. It also states that he has used the shop continuously since 1955 as a workshop. Again, this is an area where, if you look at Mr. Ciacia,S. house and the next three pieces of prope=ty on Main Road, I believe they're all residential uses. They,re very small lots. As you go further east on the property. Excuse me. It's going from'Mr. ~iacia,s house east, you have a welding shop and thereafter, you have what was at one time (I think) a school house° To give you a feel. What you have here is a situation that was developed prior to zoning. The ownership was created prior to zoning, The buildings or the uses as ~hey were established, were established prior to zoning. It is true ahat in 1960 and '68 the applicant was back to the town to apply and got building permits for '(I guess) with respect to additions to the Page 2 - January 14, 1988 PUBLIC 5EARING - Guido and Anna Ciacia So~thold Town B6ard of Appeals MR. BRUER (continued): property. As you can see from Mr. C~c~i'a~ affidavit, the structure where the residence is was built prior to 1929 and the workshop in 1955. He remembers it distinctl~y because that's the year of his fa- ther's death. I have here a (somewhere) map of the area. Well, may- be I should address (I gather) the only negative comment that you re- ceived with respect to this application. Possibly, is from the Plan- ning Board. And the Planning Board came up with a so called fact of which I take deep issue with. It submitted that the property was il- legally subdivided. The property was cut up prior to any zonin~ what- soever. And the same paragraph referred to in the' Planning Board's letter, acknowledges that they were two separate pieces mn 1943 and '47. The map from whence the property was subdivided came from one I think was filed in 1933. If you would bear with me, I have a copy of it. Here it is. It's the only one I have if you could hold on to it. It kind of shows what the property (at that time) was intended to be. Our subject property is (I guess) up here. This was where Mr. Ciacia himself bought from his parents in 1941. This was a lot back here of another subdivision. And at that time, it was cut up and split between two neighbors. Alright. There's no question in my mind that the division was properly done and there's not any il- legal subdivision as per the Planning Board memo of September 9th. I believe you have copies of the deed even in your files. With re- spect to the zoning, as to their paragraph number two; light busi- ness, I don't know about the 1961 application and I won't comment on it. And three, I'm sure Mrs. Scopaz is correct. The survey, I be- lieve you have copies of the survey in your file. But for the pur- pose of our discussion here, I have a couple that you can observe as we look at the property. Again, showing you that what we'~re asking is nothihg more than what the use is presently there. Mr. CiaciaL li~ed in that premise and he worked in that shop. What's going to happen is Mro Ci~cia. is 72 years old, he feels that'he can not work there. 'S6meb0dy~ else will be working in the shop. He will living in that residence. This isa situation where we have existing fa- cilities. The electric is there. It has been there forever. The cesspool is there. The water supply is there individually for each lot. It's not something where they are sharing a common well or water source or even cesspool. They have separate facilities. Go- ing along with the Pl&nning Board's letter, they talk abo~t that, and I think the key of their argument or whoever wrote this memo. The argument is that they are not permitted uses under the ordinance. Well I take issue with that inthat non-conforming uses are a permitted use under the ordinance under section 100-1$.~which specifically authorizes non-conforming uses. And as a matter of fact, that sec- tion is over a page long. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that where he built his boats back there? Or did he build them acr~oss the street? Page 3 - January 14, 19'88 PUBLIC HEARING - Guido and Anna Ciacia So~thold Town Hoard of Appeals MR. BRUER: He ~uil~ them there and I-guess across the street. And I have some photographs here which I took around 4 o'clock. By the way, this is Mr. and Mrs. ~Ciacia' if you'd like to know what they look like. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think I know Mr. ~iacia. MR. BRUER: I took these shots at 4 o'clock, so the lighting is pretty poor. He's actually working on a boat in there presently. There's another shot of that boat. This is some of the equipment in that shop and it's presently a working arrangement. Here's another shot of that boat looking in the other direction. This is a picture if you want it for the record, of the shop itself. This is a picture of the residence which is a brick residence. Again, I can't dispute, as you can see from the survey, the area is what it is. It is perfect for what the purposes it is being used. It's in an area that is approximate across the street from a restaurant which is next door to a lumber yard which is next door to an asphalt plant. There's no question here, I think, that the property could continue to be used as a residence. And if Mr. Ciac~a wanted to continue use the premise as a workshop, it would still be his doing. There would be no question and he has a right to do so and i believe you have in your file, a non-conforming with re- spect to this matter. Again, I would respectfully request that this is an appropriate case to grant relief. Mr. Ciacia would suffer some financial hardship inthat he needs the money. He'll be the first, I think in that affidavit, to reflect the fact that he's going to use this towards his retirement. And it's not that we're creating some- thing new in the neighborhood. We're not. It's there. It exists. It would actually promote the policy of the town as to have areas or we'd like to have areas where trade people can actually do their work rather than in a residential area. This is zoned business~ Ths Plan- ning Board recognizes that. And again, if denial possibly could elimi- nate from the town an area where a trade person can work. Mr. ~iac~a has contracted to sell the property subject to the division of the property. He's going to sell it to, if the Board agrees, Mr. Schoen- stein who is here. He is in the same type of work. He has built boats. He is in the boat building business. He does carpentry. I have (if I may) a letter, a copy of a letter. I have the letter that Mr. Schoenstein gave to me to submit to the Board which kind of tells you his line of work, what he intends to do and it's basically a con- tinuation of the present use of the.b~ilding. If you have any ques- tions with respect to it, he's here. I don't know what else to ad- dress you with. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is here any relation to Mr. Schoenstein that owns the welding shop? MR. BRUER: Yes. His brother. MR. : If this is granted, does he plan'to hire anyone or is this just by himself? Page 4 - January 14, 1988 P~BLIC NEARING - Guido and Anna Ciacia SQuthold Town Board of Appeals MR. SCHOENSTEIN: I intend to operate by myself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: With that Size of property, of course Mr. Schoenstein, I doubt seriously would have much outside storage. would have to be primarily use. It MR. SCHOENSTEIN: There wouldn't be any outside storage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No outside storage. MR. SCHOENSTEIN: None whatsoever. It would be basically the same as you see right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: then taking it out. Just putting the boat in, working on it and MR. BRUER: There's plenty of room in that building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? MRS. SCHOENSTEIN: I would just like to add that Mr. Ciacia came to my husband and asked him if he would like to buy the property because he knows the work that he does and he would like to see this in the same use that it was all along. He didn't want anything to bus~ there. He approached my husband about buying this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only reason why I asked you the question if you were Joey's parents is just because of the name. That's all. It really had no bearing on the situation at all. They,re hardworking boys and we were happy to take care of their impending needs the last time there wasa real problem. But we managed to get it taken care of for at least a little while anyway.. Pleasure to meet you both and we'll see wha~ we can do. Thank you very much. Is there anybody who would like to speak against this application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ALi in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1988 Appl.: 3704 Applicant(s): JAMES MESKOURIS Location of Property: 1400 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. County Tax Map ID No.-1000-106r 1 -35 Board Members: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis and Sawicki. Absent: Doyen and Douglass. Also Present: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:33 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated April 17, 1986 indicating the concrete patio which is on the north, the west and the east sides of the house and is encompassed by a cement block wall which runs from pretty much the street all the way to the bulkhead within maybe 10 feet of the bulkhead which encompasses most of the property in general. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Now you can be heard Jim. MR. MESKOURIS : I think I said a lot of it in the letter there. This is the shaded part here which shows you (I don't know if you have a copy of the map there.) exactly where I want to put the deck. And underneatk that area the~e$ it's all.~concrete from east to west and the north side of the building. And the thing is; the way the house was constructed, it's built in about three feet bel6w ground level. And what happens~is when you have to come down out of the house, you have to walk down those extra steps and then the patio and then there is a concrete wall. And beyond the concrete wall, there's like a lit- tle sand area. It's about 20 feet by 50 feet. And we're trying to connect the house, the level of the house, with that sand area to avoid all those steps. So the only steps we would have to deal with are these steps off the wood bulkhead which a few of the houses have that bulkhead in the area there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How high above the existing grade would you be going? In other words, would it be even with the stoop? Pa~e 2 - January 14, 1988 PUBLIC HE~iRING - James Meskouris South61d Town ~oard of Appeals MR. MESKOURI$ : Yes. In other words, the deck would be exactly even with the top stoop. And we don't really want to go higher than the ad- joining neighbor's party walls. We want to stay with that level. And whatever it takes... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's just underneath that part. MR. MESKOURI$ : Yes. In other words, we want to be level. We want to come right to it and not make it any higher than what it is. It's just about level. Maybe the stoops might be slightly higher. What we might dO is remove part of the stoop in order to maybe just create, as you're coming out of the house, one step. CHAIP~N GOEHRINGER: The only thing; I have the size of the square footage of the house. I have all the square footage in general. I just don't have the actual size of the patio. MR. MESKOURIS : I have it right here. It's 1,380 square feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's that? MR. MESKOURIS : The square footage of the wood deck that we want to install. It's 1,383 square feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is all drawn to scale. it if we want to know tbs approximate sizes of the wings and so on and so forth. MR. 8ESKOURIS : This is just the property. This is a regular sur- vey. All I did was color it in. It is drawn to scale. If you want a full size survey, I have one here for you to take a look at. I xeroxed that one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's probably the same scale though. MR. MESKOURIS : Yes. It'rs just a larger... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I .don't think it's necessary. MR. MESKOURI$ : I even drew on the diagram how it was going to be constructed. I think you should have a copy. I was going to use cement block as the base. Then I was going to use .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is going to be CCA construction? MR. MESKOURI$ : Yes. Ail CCA construction. Everything is 8-inch cement block. I mean 16 by 16 and 32 inch high would be the base. 4 by 6 beams on top of the cement block and then I'll use 2 by 6's, a frame of 2 by 6's going on top of that and I'm going to use my flanking on top of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was this one drawn to scale that you gave us? Page 3 - January 14, 1988 PUHLIC HE~RING - James Meskouris Southold %~own Board of Appeals MR. MESKOURIS : No. I think I just drew that. I drew that myself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. The deck will remain open at all times? MR. MESKOURIS : The deck is open. Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There would be no overhead lighting that would cause the neighbors any .... MR. MESKOURIS : spotlights. No. I think there's already lighting there. Some CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No problem shielding it to the property line so the neighbors aren't disrupted with it. In other words, we don't want any spotlights going into thelneighbors house. MR. MESKOURI~ No. Whatever lights are therev~are going to stay. We are not adding any .lights. The lights that are there were existing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We'll see what we can do. We thank you very much for coming in and you'll hear from us by mail. You can call the office'in a couple of weeks. Thank you and have a safe trip back. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against this ap- plication? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGUEAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1988 Appl. No.: 3698 Applicant(s): THOMAS ZIMMERMAN Location of Property: 265 Rochelle Place, Mattituck County Tax Map ID No.: 1000-14~4 -9 and 8 Board Members Present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer Members: Grigonis and Sawicki. Absent: Members Doyen and Douglass. Also Preesnt: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:45 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application-for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of an actual site plan of the property here including the plan which includes the ad- dition that was previously granted and the existing residence which has been completely, renovated. You should know that this is the second building on the property. And based upon our prior appeal, which was mentioned in the application which was the day of March 5, 1987 which the conditions stated that in granting the appeal, the building in question shall be continued to used by family mem- bers only and not. be rented or used for income or gainful purposes. And number two, the matter of relief granted herein is limited to 91 square feet. The extension of this structure is to be used by family members on a seasonal basis. And I have a copy of the Suf- folk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Mr. Zimmerman? Would,you like to be heard? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you. I'd like to thank the Board for granting me the opportunity to come here tonight. Basically what I guess euery thing is really explained in the letter. But in going through this again, the replacing'of the existing-structure which I guess is the main concern. Again, since I didn't think I was going beyond what was necessarily required permission, I did replace it and did use the materials and kept the same theme which the house previously is. It is really the same in terms of where the rooms are located and the house was originally constructed. And that's why I proceeded to do that and I did have the Building Department come Over and in- spect it. They originally didn't have a problem with what was done. But then they discovered that the part I did, because I guess i was under the appeal, had to have a further permit and also an appeal by. Pace 2 - January 14, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING - Thomas Zimmerman South~A~T~owD Board of Appeals MR. ZIMMERMAN (continued): by the Board. And the other thing was definitely no de~ire on my part which is my fault. And that is; that when I submitted my second plans to the Building Department at the beginning of the day, I did not follow~ithrough that in my appeal to the Board at the time. I lost sight of that because my concentration was ba- sically on the extension of the house. And when I obviously com-~ pleted that, they made note of that to me that I would require to have an appeal done in order for me to (I guess) conclude the work of the house that's basically been repaired up to the point of where I was allowed to ( thought I was allowed) go by the Building Depart- ment and that is to have the structure ~approved and the be able to finish up with the'insulation and the sheetrock. I, of course, went through with my wife and we did buy the appliances and the cabinets that were required in the kitchen which I (of Course)~ac6epted to take which I've been holding back the last couple of months pending this hearing because of the fact that I will own those appliances and cabinets as soon as they can deliver them to my place that's there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only question is; when I was in the struc- ture that is very tastefully done by the way, did you have to re- place the entire foundation on the east side? Or was that original- ly there? MR. ZIMMERMAN: On the east side there were parts that were there and there were parts that were not there and the structure in itself, d~d not warrant to be able (as I wa~building it because I did the work myself) to support what I was trying to accomplish. And there- fore, I felt if I' didn't do it then, I would probably have to d6 it later on which would be a greater cost to have that thing constructed if it was to collapse or ravicate in some fashion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Apart from the original footprint which is the same I assume, did you have to replace all the floor beams and every- thing in that particular area? MR. ZIMMERMAN: By the time I got done, I started doing one piece at a time and it was to a point where I just had to keep raising and lowering to try and keep the structure the same. And so therefore, I thought it less costly to do it then while I had that chance be- cause the beams, the floor joints were rotted out. There was signs of termites. And because it was built so low to the ground, I guess over the years unbenoticed to me at the time I bought the property, that it wouldn't pay to just leave it that way I had to replace it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you very much. 3~e'll see what else develops. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the appli- cation? Questions from' Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion reservin~ decision until later. I thank you very much for coming in. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF.HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1988 Appl. No: 3688 Applicant(s): ANTHONY AND SALLY PIRRERA Location of Property: N/s CR 48, Greenport. County Tax Map ID No. 1000-40 - 1 -20 Board Members Present: Chairman Goehringer P~ Goehringer. Members: Grigonis and Sawicki. Absent: Doyen and Douglass. Also Preset: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.), Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:48 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated September 17t 1987 indicating lot number one at 2.522 acres and lot number two at 2.686 acres and both of which are approximately 125 feet in width. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard Mr. Bruer? MR. BRUER: Yes. I belisve the application pretty much speaks for itself. I believe an examination you have of the Suffolk County Tax Map shows that the adjoinging properties as per the application shows that most of them are within the 100 foot width situation, other than that, the property is more than adequately big enough to handle two residences, iWe would certainly b~Willing to build far enough back from the bluff to comply with the bluff ordinance with respect to the town. And I'd like to make a jpoint. The D.E.C. approved the appli- cation as it was originally submitted to the Board i.e. one lot be- ing wider than the other. And we.have resubmitted to them to con- form to the map. And I would see no reason why they would change their mind in this specific instance and the change was made at the request of the Planning Board which I understand has e~en issued a favorable letter with respect to this application. And since we are in agreement, I would ask that (at least the Planning Board and I are in agreement) the Board actually grant the application. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. If I don't have the answers, I will get them. January 14, 1988 PL ~ {EARING - Anthony and Sally Pierrera S~oUth~ld ~o~ Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Would you believe I don't have any questions? MR. BRUER: Thank you'very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against this application? Don't raise your hands all at one time. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN t~-~ ~,~ Town Ctez!~, ToWn of Southold