Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/14/1988 Hearing TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1988 Appl. NO. 3719 Applicant(s): Southold Savings Bank Location of Property: 1400 Railroad Avenue, Southold County Tax Map ID NO. 1000- 60-£-]0.4 (prey. ]0.2 and ]0.3) Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer p. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also present were approximately 40 persons in the audience, and- Linda Kowalski, Secret. ary of Zoning Board of Appeals. (Mr. Lessard Administrator for the Building Department was absent.) ' The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:32 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The first item off the agenda is the interim decision of Charles Zahra which is a series of public hearings tkat we have had and I'll read exerpts from that before we vote on it. It reads as follows: that the Board hereby finds that serious fac- tual and legal issues exist regarding the validity of the Building Permit under section 100-118 the Zoning Code and the State Building Code. These issues go to the very heart of the permit and should be resolved at this juncture. Since no vested rights have been ob- tained under the illegal permit, it would appear to be in the appli- cantSs best interest to have these issues resolved now in addition to the limited questions the applicant formerly presented to the Board. Nor can this Board close its eyes to the issues revealed in the record concerning the appropriateness of a permit to this. The Building Permit is Southold Savings Bank, appeal No. 3719. The Legal Notice reads as follows; a site plan produced by Donald A. Denis. The mos5 recent date is August 28, 1986. Penned in is the approximate location of the sign, approximately 6 feet from what appears to be the approximate edge of the property line and approxi- mately 14 feet from the curb cut or the curb that's being installed in front of this building. 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? How are you Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: Good evening. I represent the applicant, Southold Savings Bank. As indicated by the petition, the sign as proposed, does not follow the strict requirements of the ordinance on the one respect that it has to be four feet above the ground. But as indicated in the petition, to locate it four feet above the ground keeping with architecture and landscaping of the building. If the Board has seen Page 2 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - Southold Savings Bank Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. LARK (continued): the building, it is a two-story structure. And due to the land- scaping in the front of the building by putting some of the hum- mocks and stuff the landscaper has, it's trying not to create the raising of the building but the lowering of the building from a perception of standing or riding in the street. As indicated in the application, the variance of two and a half feet, is not sub- stantial in relationship to the requirement of four feet. And the purpose of the sign is an identification sign as you can see in the exhibit which is attached to the petition. The granting of the variance will produce no change in the character of the neigh- borhood which is, as I indicated, mixed in nature of both business and residential. And the applicant has explored other ways of lo- casing this identification sign. And due to the way the architec- ture of the building, it was decided it would not be a good idea to fasten it to the building but to put it in the area which is indicated on the site plan. Originally, it was thought by the ap- plican~ when the~ ~ha~ ~he~P~ann-ing Board's ~pproval foX'it, that it was all encompassed in their approval when they found out later from the Building Inspector as you see in the notice of approval, that because it was not four feet off the ground, it would not pass ap- proval without Board of Appeals. So that's why we're here and I respectfully move that the interest of justice would be served by granting the application. Because the applicant can see no benefit of putting the bottom of the sign four feet off the ground. It will draw- more attraction to it and be more hideous. And when I inquired of the Building Inspectors of the rationale of having the sign four feet off the ground, especially an identification sign like this and not an advertisement like billboard or something like that, he could not explain the rationale for it. Initially, he tried to tell me that so you could see under it if you're in the car and it wouldn't obstruct vision. But then when I pointed out that that presupposed it would be on one or two posts. That would be the only obstruction. It doesn't have to be. It could be a solid all the way to the ground and not part of the sign itself. He just threw up his hands and said you'll have to go to the Board of Appeals to get a variance. But I, respectfully, I think it fits in the criteria of an area variance that there are practical difficulties in that it would detract from the building to elevate that sign four feet in height and there is no practical place without taking away from the building that you could fasten it to the building. And as indicated in the application, it is already existed. It's only been open a month, the building, a little less than a month. A confusion of directing people that need to go to the loan center end up in the main office. So that was the whole purpose of the sign. Originally, they were going to try maybe not to do it but then again, it created--- the public, where is it, where do I go routine_and it's creased a lot of confusion. So they feel they do need a sign out in front and that's the reason for the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record Mr. Lark, this would be the third sign of this nature that we would be granting. The first one was the Southwind Condominium Project on the North Road, County Road 48 between Southold and Greenport. The second one was North Fork Bank Corp. So this would, if my mind and memory is correct, the Page 3 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Pubic Hearing - Southold Savings Bank Southold Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued): third one that we would be dealing with. The only question that I had and was that based upon, and I understand that these signs are extremely expensive to produce, the applicant does not feel that there will be any obstruction of traffic. MR. LARK: No. That was looked at quite carefully. And the ap- plicant with the custodian, Mr. Wheeler, put up like two by fours and stuff like that. And where it is located coming in and out of the driveway, more likely out of the driveway, it does not obst~u~c any vision looking to the north towards the railroad tracks at that point. It does not. In fact, one of the considerations was that if we raised it higher, it would. So the North Fork sign people said no, 18 inches won't interfer with the maintenance of the lawn and you can clear off and you can see over even in one of the European type cars.. You can see beyond that. Besides the fact of where it is situated, you have clearance on either side of it too to see any kind of oncoming traffic to the south which is the main concern° That was one of my concerns initially, would it obstruct it and it does not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand there is some timeliness involved in reference to the granting of this application. MR. LARK: Yes. If the Board would move on it one way or another, they wanted to have their grand opening and to get the final coo. approval. The Building Inspector has only given temporary approval. And so rather than do it half baked, they felt if they could get the whole thing in, so if the Board would if they haven't seen it, go out and take a look at where the proposed area is. And if they have, we would respectfully move that you do pass it at your earliest conven- ience. CHAIRMAN GOE~RINGER: Thank you. MR. LARK: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think so. It's pretty self explana- tory. Thank you very much for all your time. 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 reserving decision until later. Ail in Favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1988 Appl. No. 3716 Applicant(s): Robert E. Waldron, Jr. Location of Property: 2980 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck County Tax Map ID NO. 1000- ]22-4-]7. Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also-present w~ere approximately 40-persons in the audience, and .. ~ Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals (Mr. [essard~ AdminJstrat0r of the Bui]din§ Department was absent.)' The Chairman opened the hearing 'at 7:46 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Peconic Surveyors, most recent date is February 26, 1987 indicating a two - story framed house with a tworcar garage I believe with an existing stoop and existing wood deck. "The purpose of this application is to encompass primarily that stoop, that existing wood deck. And I'll ask the applicant the approximate size. And I have a copy of the Suf- folk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Are they present? Could I just ask you to use the mike for one second. What is the ap- proximate size, sir, of the new proposed project? MR. ROBERT WALDRON : It would be 12 feet by 38 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And this will be approximately 39 feet from the edge of the wetlands or the edge of what we would refer to as the bluff so to speak. I mean there is no bluff. And 46 feet from mean high water. Will this deck be roofed at any time? MR. WALDRON : No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will there be any extensive lighting so as to cause a problem with the immediate neighbor across the street or the neighbor on the ..... ? MR. WALDRON : No additional lighting will exist. the same lighting that exists now. It will be CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what really is the purpose of the deck. To encompass everything? MR. WALDRON : To take into both sets of sliding glass doors along the rear of the house and to replace the existing deck which is severely deteriorated and not in too good of shape. Page 2 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - Robert E. Waldron Southold Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.very much. 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 close the hearing reserving de- cision until later. Ail in favor - AYE, TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1988 Appl. NO. 3575 Applicant(s): Rosa J. Hodgson Location of Property: N/s Pine Neck Roand and S/s Lighthouse Lane. County Tax Map ID NO. 1000- 70-6-33 Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer p. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Approximately 40 persons ih ~th~-~aud}6rme and .... Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals., were present. (Mr. Lessard, Building Dept. Administrator, was absent,) The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C., the most recent date is January 2, 1979 and a copy of a site plan of the entire parcel from Garrett Strango The most re- cent date is September 26, 1986 indicating the existing cottage in rather an irregular type of lot of approximate 45,000 square feet to be set off. And I have a copy of the Suffolk Counsy Tax Map indi- cating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard Mr. Strang? MR. STRANd: Good evening. The application, the reason for the ap- plication was such that well over a year ago, maybe even a year and a half ago, I had spoken and met with the Building Inspector, the Building Office or Administrator, Victor Lessard to get the title right not to offen~ him. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Executive Admins~rator. MR. STRANG: With respect to the fact that we wanted to put an ad- dition on the cottage that is referenced in our application. His position was that he could not allow there to be any further con- struction on that building since it does not meet the zoning in the town whereby you are not permitted to have more than one residence on a particular piece of property. That being the case, he denied our application and it was referred to your Board in a round about way. We had to go through the exercise of presenting to the Plan- ning Board an application for setoff. The nature of the setoff is in a little bit in excess of an acre. This is totally compatible with the surrounding area and is also compatible with the intended zoning under the proposed Master Plan. The grant of the site is somewhat irregular in configuration. That was predicated by many of the existing conditions that are there on the former estate. The nature of our application to you is such that we're looking for relief from the present two acre zoning to allow us to have a lot less than two acres. And as the application reads, is approximately 45,000 square feet. And we submitted various back up documents to your office as well as the Planning Board. I had received, some time back, a letter from the Planning Board indicating that they were in favor of the lot of substandard lot with present zoning. Page 2 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - Rosa J. Hodgson Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. STRANG (continued): Since that time, there's been some back and forth correspondence between your Board and the Planning Board and my office as well. At this evening's hearing, I'm hopeful that we'll be able to ad- dress any questions this Board may have and thereby be able to move once your decision is granted or rendered, be able to move appropriately with the Planning Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you didn't want to go the 80,000 square feet? MR. STRANG: Several reasons. One in particular is for the most part, this Particular setoff is going to be on paper, if you will, because the addition and the use of the cottage is going to be for the son and daughter-in-law, the owner of the property. It is go- ing to remain in the family. It's really a vehicle by which we will be able to be permitted to put the addition on the building. The other situation here has to do with the access to the site or the site of the main house. And the way it's configured presently and the 45,000 square configuration, it would permit the existing driveway to be relocated if it ever had to be to still provide easy access to the main house. And again, one of the reasons if we were to delete a larger lot, it would encompass more of the existing driveway and necessitate more of it to be relocated CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there a pre-existing c.o. on the cottage? MR. STRANG: There is a pre-existing c.o. on the cottage. a copy of it should be in the file. I believe CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's been no alteration of the driveway at this particular point. It's going to remain the same. MR. STRANG: The driveway is as shown on this survey. been any relocation of the driveway at all. There hasn't CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What type of an addition are you going to deal with in reference to the cottage? What's going to happen to the cot- tage assuming? MR. STRANG: We are adding to the east side of the cottage, approxi- mately 24 by 36 one-story addition which will provide a living room, dining room and kitchen area and a bathroom facility which will ser- vice one of the bedrooms which will become the master bedroom. The cottage is presently very small for the occupants. That being the owner's son and daughter-in-law and their children. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINER: Alright. Thank you very much Mr. Strang. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this appli- cation? 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. Page 3 -' Public He~ Southold MR. S~RAB hearing? with the~ file ther, cates tha' and acces. page 2 an~ I could s< way which able cond CHAIRMAN ~hursday, April 14, 1988 {ring - Rosa J. Hodgson ~oning Board of .Appeals Could I just add one more point before you close 'the believe there was some question that arose to respect iccess of the setoff site. And I believe you have in the a copy of the deed to the property which clearly indi- the right-of-way is granted to the property for travel from Pine Road. Actually, it's defined more clearly on 3 of that document. And I also have some pictures 'that bmit to the Board whiCh show the nature of the right-of is paved, it's asphalt and certainly in more than service- Ltion. ~OEHRINGER: Thank you. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1988 Appl. No. 3707 Applicant(s): Joseph Fo Citardi Location of Property: 56225 C.R. 48, Greenport County Tax Map ID NO. 1000- 44~0]-22 Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also present--re appr~)~ima%el~y 40 persons in the audience~ and Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. (Building Department Administrator, Mr. Lessard was absent.) The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:00 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Peconic Surveyors. The most recent date is October 8, 1987 indicating the proposed new reconstruction and indicating, as it pertains and it is actually superimposed over 'the above existing one-family, one- story cottage that's there now. 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? Just state your name for the record sir. MR. HADJI: My name is Roy Hadji and consultants for the appli- cant, Joseph Cita~di who is also present. My apologies for ap-- pearing instead of Merlin Williams who was called away at the last moment on a conflicting matter. The applicant, Mr. Citardi, has owned the property since 1964. At the present time it is im- proved with a small cottage and a shed which iM joined by the deck on the n@rth side facing Long Island Sound. The parcel itself, con- sists of a stable rock and cobble beach, then a broad band of woody begetation primarily with rogosa rose followed on the south by a lawn grassed area which extends all the way to the shoulder of CR 48. The owner intends to remove the existing structures and erect a new larger home which is more suitable to his needs. As you will see from the survey and site plan which you have been provided with, the existing structure is extremely small. You have also been pro- vided with a foundation plan showing the configuration of the pro- posed structure. The house will no5 extend any further northward than the existing deck which is in back of the woody band of vege- tation. There appears to be no defined bluff line as there is a gradual slope up to the beach to where it levels off upland. The house will be setback, again, as per the survey, 70 feet towards the west side and 90 feet towards the east side from the current line of mean high water. The shore line is stable. We have a 1964 survey which shows the same depth of property. In fact there is a slightly greater depth at the present time by about two feet. So it does not appear that it is eroding. On the south side of the house towards the east side of the property, a two-car is proposed Page 2 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - Joseph Citardi Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. HADJI (continued): which would extend approximately 9 to 10 feet from the property line. A variance from the specified frontyard setback of 35 is requested. While this would sound like a significant variance, we would point out that there is a large grassed area still re-. maining between the property line and the actual pavement which consists of 25 feet further beyond the property line to the road pavement itself. We feel that the variances are warranted due to the configuration and relative narrowness of the lot and the na- ture of the existing development in the area. If you would refer to the aerial photograph which I believe had been provided to you, and note to the west of the property, virtually all the homes are closer than the requested setbacks from both the Long Island Sound and from the CR 48. The easterly side is not so. We can not claim that that helps us. However, the situation there is that the shore line bulges northward so that all of those lots are significantly larger than the subject parcel and others to the west. So that they do not have the similiar size constraints. The structure, the main section of the house would be virtually the same setback as the exist- ing cottage and shed, again, except for the garage which extends in an L configuration. The neighbor immediately to the east, is pre- sent tonight and has indicated to us that she does not have any objection to the project. We feel, again, that the project is rea- sonable and necessary given the constraints of the property and would urge your approval. We would be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only thing that I find different from the, Mr. Hadji, plans for the house is that the garage doors on the plans that I have face the road. MR. HADJI: Again, I don't know exactly what has been provided to you but I can supply you with this showing that the doors face west- ward. That is a previous layout for that I suppose. That is not the case. There would be no direct necessity for backing out onto the road which would be an obvious safety hazard. The driveway will not come up in to this area and provide back up. I also have a series of photographs which I could present to you indicating the existing structures, yard areas and the setbacks of existing homes very close by to show that they are similiarly to what is proposed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any indication, Mr. Hadji, of how close the neighbors are in reference to their proximity of County Road 48 or to either sideyard? MR. HADJI: The immediate homes? East and west? The home to the east is virtually the same and I am referring to the aerial photo- which, again, I believe is in your file. Also, a similiar setback from the sideyard, I recall, so that we would be increasing that sideyard setback. To the west, again, very similiar setback. Per- haps that home is slightly more than what is proposed here; the setback from the road. However, the setback from the water is less. Again, if you travel further west, you'll find that the setback from both decrease. Page 3 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - Joseph Citardi ~Southold Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you tell me how far the applicant's property is to either fresh water or salt water in reference to depth? MR' HADJI: Are you talking about groundwater? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: in general. Right. Not potable ground water but water MR. HADJI: I would have to refer to a test well... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is no basement in this house. strictly a crawl space. Right? It's MR. HADJI: .Fortunately with the last minute shuffling, I come up with a test well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I have this? The only question at this particularly time, that this Board has concerning this application, is basically the protrusion of the garage into the frontyard area. The purpose for asking for this very simply to ask why the appli- cant can't put the garage underneath the house or can somehow bed the garage into the existing proposed-- I'm sorry. The proposed line, not the existing line. I should say into the existing plan. Now, we can do one of two things here. We can either alter the garage ourselves or you can come back to us and tell us which way you want it altered. Ok. I can close the hearing pending a let- ter from you but I assure you that we have not granted accessory buildings nor have we granted garages in the frontyard as close as 9 feet to the County Road 48. So I would ask you to please~. go back and I'll give you that option. You're welcome to speak to the applicant. But myself and another Board member tonight~ just as we sat down, had mentioned that we felt that it was fairly close to County Road 48 and we feel that it's too close for us to deal with in reference to the 9 feet. But as for the rest of it, I haven't discussed it with the rest of the Board but I'll be honest with you. I don't have a tremendous problem with the rest of the house. I can understand that there is a deck in the rear of the garage and I assume that's probably to capture the view or whatever the case might be. But as I said, we can either alter it based upon our wisdom, so to speak or you can get back to us and tell us what you would be willing to move it back to. Yes. Mr. Short, certainly sir. MR. SHORT: It's not my feeling to put it 25 feet away from the pavement and the houses that are not even 300 feet away from this, are 10 feet from the street. I'm 25 feet away from the street. If you go west as you go from that piece, they can't even park their car. They park it right on the asphalt and then their house sets back. My house is 25 feet from the pavement. I think you have to look at it. It's 25 feet to the property line. Page 4 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - Joseph Citardi Southold Board of 'Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: not. County Road 48 is a fifty foot road, is it MR. SHORT: Yes. So it's 34 back from the edge of the shoulder. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I'm aware of that. I mean the people that are down from me, they are not even 300 feet down from me~ I would say west of me, they don't even have a place to park their cars. They park them right on that black asphalt. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know. Well, that's only two members of the Board. I'm just telling you what our feelings are concerning the application. It would be unfair for me not to do that. And so if you want us to deal with it, we'll deal with it to the best of our ability. MR. SHORT: Would you do that please. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: of this application? Ok. Would anybody line to speak in favor Yes, in favor ma'am? MRS. WILCOX: I am a neighbor directly to the east of Mr. Citardi. I've known him for over 25 years. He's always been a very good neighbor. I know he wouldn't be doing anything that was not going to be helpful. I have been over the property and it's all staked out and I can see from where my house is situated looking at his house and the proposed house and garage that the way it is situ- ated, there is no problem as far as traffic goes. Also, as he had stated, many houses to the west of us nearby about four or five houses down to the west of us, they are so close to the road and there is no way... And they do have to park on the pavement. He would not have anything like that to contend with. And also, the way that the large doors are situated facing the west, he would be coming in at an angle so that there would be no way that he could have a problem. I know the people to the west of him feel the same way I do. They are not able to be here. They live in Kansas. I'm speaking on behalf of my mother who owns the house and I live there all year around. So we are for him to proceed, Mr. Citardi, as he wishes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you ma'am. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? For the record, let it be known to the audience that if there was an assumed frontyard setback, meaning if the surrounding houses in the immediate area had had a setback or an established setback, then they would not be denied by the Building Igspector. Or in effect, be turned down. And so this particular application is denied or turned down for the purposes and that's why they had come to this hearing; for the purpose of this frontyard setback. Is there any- thing else that would like to be said before I close the hearing gentlemen? Ok. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY', APRIL 14, 1988 Appl,-No, 3709 Applicant(s): EDWARD A. HANUS Location of Property: 635 Lupron Point Road, Mattituck, NY County Tax Map ID No. 1000-115 _ 11 _ 3 Board-Members present were: Chairman Goehringer Po Goehringer, Members Serge Doyen, Charles Grigonis, Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.). Also present were Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and 25 persons at the beginning of the meeting. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:20 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have ~ recessed hearing from the February 18, 1988 meeting. And it's concerning an accessory apartment in Mattituck at Lupton's Point. The applicant's name is Edward A. Hanus and I'll ask Mr. Cuddy if he would like to present the case. CHARLES R. CUDDY, ESQ.: Charles Cuddy. I appear in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Hanus. As the Chairman indicated they own a single-family dwelling on Lupton Point Road, and they would like to put in that single-family dwelling an accessory apartment. As the application indicates, they meet basically all of the requirements of the ordinance, and I would ask the Chairman if you have the "Certificate of Occupancy" in your file for the house~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRo CUDDY: So it's a part of the record. Their house is in excess of 2,0'00 sq. ft. The apartment would be approximately 650 feet and thereby, would meet the 40% limitation of the ordinance. Mr. and Mrs. Hanus, of course, will remain at the house since it's their home and it's a requirement under the ordinance. There has been some concern expressed as to parking, and I'll get to that in just a minute. I think we have some plans here that we can show the Board. But there is a tenant who has expressed an interest in the house who rented the home for a year subject to the approval of this application, and I would offer up a letter from that tenant. (Letter submitted dated April 12, 1988 from Janet Gibret concerning a one-year lease of the apartment.) CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir, - Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of EDWARD A. HANUS #3709 Regular Meeting - April 14, 1988 MR. CUDDY: Members of the Board, I have with me two alternate plans, which I'll offer up in just a second, for parking for three vehicles. Before doing that, I would like to say that this is a relatively narrow right-of-way-type road. All of the people that live on this road essentially have their driveways close to the road, but one of the exceptions is Mr. Hanus has an 80-ft. long driveway that's relatively wide and has parked some of his cars in that particular spot. The Hanuses understand that they have to have three additional spaces. They would like to have them in a certain configuration and I would offer these up to the Board to show you their property. This is Number One. Number One would show three spaces coming off the right-of-way. Number Two would show three spaces coming off the driveway. One of the problems with the second approach is that there's a tree, a big tree that would come down as a result of that. One of the reasons for the first approach is that basically all of the parking in the neighborhood is essentially similar. That is, the people park relatively close to that right-of-way. And I would offer a series of pictures and ask that they be made part of the record, just to show additional driveways in the neighborhood, and also it shows the Hanus driveway so you can see its length and depth. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. CUDDY: I would ask the Board based upon the application that's b~en submitted and based upon the information sub- mitted tonight, together with the pictures and the exhibits, to grant approval to the Apartment Accessory Use. If you have any questions, Mr. Hanus is here. Mrs. Hanus is here. We would be delighted to respond. CHAIRMAN: In dealing with the application, it appears that it's fairly self-explanatory, so I don't have any immediate questions so we'll see what happens during the hearing. We thank you, sir. Would anybody else like to speak in favor of the application? (No one) Anyone like to speak against the application? Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of EDWARD A. HANUS #3709 Regular Meeting- April 14, 1988 MR. JACK DROBET' I'm Mr. Drobet and I'm a property owner on the east side of Mr. Hanus. And I don't choose to speak for it or against it really. I'm not against the apartment. But I'm concerned about access to our property. As he says, stated the driveway is very narrow, the road itself is only ten feet, Mr~ Hanus has used the other t6n feet, which as you can see on the map, this exhibit that you mailed us--he's been using that as his parking area. And the tenant he has in there right now has parallel parking in there--he has the one, two, three, proposed--they're all in the parking plan that he has outlined here. It's now parallel to the road, and actually jets out into the right-of-way. Practically taking up the~ ten feet that's in the white area there: So that's the only thing I object to, is that he has adequate parking and parking-off the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else like to speak against this application, or comment on the application? Anything further, Mr~ Cuddy? (Negative) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT. OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL i'4, 1988 3715 Appl.-No, App.licant(s): BERNARD KIERNAN Location of Property: 1605 North Parish Drive, Southold, NY County Tax_Map ID No, 1000- 71 ~ 1 - 15 Board Members present were: Chairman Goehringer Po Goehringer, Members Serge Doyen, Charles Grigonis, Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.). Also present were Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and 25 persons at the beginning of the meeting. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:28 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 VanTUy! P.C. indicating the existing two-story framed house-witH attached garage and circular driveway. The most recent date on that survey is November 27, 1987. I have a copy of a site plan indicating an extensive deck, gazebo and planting area along with an extensive stairwell to the beach produced by Garrett A. Strang, Architect--most recent date is March 8th, 1.988. We have others in the file that are dated before this, the most recent one. 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, sir? GARRETT A, STRANG, RoA~: Thank you. The application and need for the'variance, I think, speak fo'r themselves. We have an existing house which I believe was constructed sometime in the early 1960s. It was constructed obviously relatively close to the top. of the bluff to take advantage o-f the vista that's aff6rded from that particular site and neighboring sites, The present owner at this time, after having lived in the house for almost 10 years, I guess, at this point, would like to construct a deck right off the living room area of the house as well as-- he presently has it shown on the survey, a platforms on the one corner of the property I guess it would be considered the northwesterly CO,her--again at the top of the bluff. He would like to enlarge upon that, although the platform that is there presently is elevated somewhat--the proposed reconstruction of that platform and the enlargement would be a platform at grade, and it would be l'andscaping around it, too~ and there are some existing trees and landscaping there that we intend to work around., a sculpture platform around this. Sort of a quiet little area in the property Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of BERNARD KIERNAN #3715 Board of Appeals - April 14, 1988 MR. STRANG (continued): that's enclosed by the trees to prot winds except those that come directl a place where they like to sit and h' they want to enlarge upon it a littl presently. The present access to th quently to the beach is somewhat, is form of terracing along the easterly and it really isn't good access. It' it's terraced and inclined and it do proper access to the beach. They'd and install a more permanent type of form of series of steps and landings cent and ascent on the beach Part although we're not certain i~ this B< to do with the dock and the access t( which would be in the Bay. The last item that's shown on the ap to as a gazebo, which they would lik again to have a place to sit and takt The size of the gazebo is approximat~ It's a small garden structure. It's scale of what we see developing at tl corner (in Southold). CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask=- that is MR. STRANG: gazebo. That is the only roofed CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. STRANG: The deck is approximate approximately'15 feet total out from of that 15 feet will be encomp~s6d bench to act as a g.uardrail, so it'l ~ct it from some of the off the Bay, and it's tve a quiet time. So bit from what's there bulkhead and subse- afforded by a makeshift side of the property~ s not a step per se-- sn't really afford i ke to forego that a structure in the to divide a safe, des- f the application, ard addresses it has a floating dock, lication ~s.referred to place up there advantage of the view. ly 9' It's small. nothing the size or e park here on the he only roofed structure? structure~ It's the fy--it will project the building. Part ~y a platform-type of be about maybe 12½ feet of usable deck area. So it's n t projection out from the building. Plus the deck runs nearly the full width of the house. I wanted to call to your attention the area that's depicted on the site plan that I provided as a pathway may be Page 3 Transcript of Hearing Matter of BERNARD KIERNAN #3715 Board of Appeals - April 14, 1988 MR. STRANG (continued): misleading in that it's depicted as if it may be elevated and which it isn't, and further conversations with the owner-- the pathway is their respect more desirable to be a land- scape feature--possibly display ( ) with the existing lawn as opposed to a -type of an arrangement. So the extent of the structures that we're really dealing with=- the deck, the landing from and connecting the deck to the stairs which would descent to the beach-=there is a secondary intermediate platform which takes you from the deck down to grade, gazebo, and the other platform on the east side-- I don't know if that would be considered structure or not but it's to be at grade. CHAIRMAN: The deck on the north side or the-- are you referring to the lefthand side? MR. STRANG: ]['..m talk~i, ng to you--yeah--the area I refer to on my'site plan is the .proposed wood platform at grade. Yes. CHAIRMAN: Ok~ MR.C SIlRANG~-L~ We have a relatively limited area in which to deal with between the house and the top of the bluff if the Board has visited the site~ CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. STRANG~ I'm sure they are familiar with it. Obviously the deck working on that side of the house--there's no way to alleviate the 75 ft. setback requirements since the house itself is only about 64 feet back from the highwater mark. CHAIRMAN: The only thing that reminds me of a similar appli- cation was, of course, a much higher cliff on the Sound, of which we had placed in the decision if the Board so desires to grant this _application. Extensive findings that there be no erosion caused 'by the stairway, ok~ And since you have told us that you are going to place plantings in that area anyway, we assume that's just a supportive covenant basically or restriction~ Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of BERNARD KIERNAN #3715 Board of Appeals - April 14, 1988 MR. STRANG: We have no problem with that. The bluff, if you will, may be a misnomer in this case. It's an incline that has been landscaped over the years and maintained with vege- tation that has shown absolutely no evidence of deterioration or erosion at all. CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much, Mr. Strang. It's a very nice plan. Would anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the applica- tion? (No one) Questions from Board Members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I~ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBERS SAWICKI AND GRIGONIS: Second. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All~ Respectfully submitted, ~~ F~.~o~r~tary Southold Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1988 Applo No. 3772 Applicant(s): Manfred Kuerner Location of Property: E/s Caro!e Road, Southold County Tax Map ID NO. 1000- 52-2-3 Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also present were approximately 40 per. sons, in the~aud-ience & Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Ap~)eals. (Building Department Administrator, Mr. Lessard was absent.) The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:38 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick YAnTuyl, P.C. as mentioned in the application. The most recent date is April 3, 1981 indicating this particular one-story dwelling. I have a sketch copy of proposed additions as requested by the nature of this application. 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? '-.. PATRICIA C. MRS.~OORE.: Before I begin, I'd like to thank the Board for sche- duling us so quickly. The Kuerners are anxious to start construc- tion and this appeal is going to be part of the complete construc- tion. I also request that appeal number 3706 be incorporated and be made part of this hearing so that I don't repeat and resubmit all the exhibits yoh have in the file. They have .... The Kuerners have reapplied with a lesser variance. They have come back and ap- plied for the addition in the rear which I'd like to correct my statement that there were two bedrooms. It's my error. It's one bedroom and a living area. So in fact, it still remains a five foot addition in the rear. I'd like to point out, as you know from inspections, 'that this area, Carol Road, is only approximately 600 feet in length from one end to the other and it's primarily de- veloped all along the east side. All the properties are less than ten feet from each other. So that when one appeal is given, for example~ the Deletto case, the Kuerners feel very strong that in a case that is identical, that they should receive similiar treatment. They, in fact, did apply for something less than what other appli- cations requested. They have come back to the Board of a two foot enlargement of the garage addition that was granted. It was their error when they were submitting the papers that they just did not calculate the lack of storage on the property and the fact that they are reducing the addition in the rear to five feet, they felt it would be reasonable to request that the garage be made 12 by 22. I have some numbers of the variance of the house sizes .... I have to apologize. As you can see... I know the Board questioned where the num- bers are coming from on this property. The house is 28 by 31. That's Page 2 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - Manfred Kuerner Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE (continued): not a problem. The garage as has been requested, 12 by 22, I have a square footage there. Assuming a 50 by 110 foot lot which is a 5,500 square foot piece of property, there was a discrepan- cy when I went back and looked at the papers, that the old sub- division map showed a lot of 50 by 110. The survey showed a 5G by 100. The discrepancy was that when the bulkhead on the property, it was shown at i00 feet. The deed description which I have a deed here for you and I'll submit, is 110. So that in fact, it's plus or minus 110. As you can see from the size of the garage that the height of the garages that have been granted in the past, are 15 feeS. It was quite a surprise to Mr. and Mrs. Kuerner that when the decision came back, that they were being limited to 12 feet. That was unusual that in all the other properties that had received similiar variances, in fact, all the properties that have garages now improved, are 15 feet in height. The 12 foot created an additional difficulSy for them, practical difficulty because they have so very little storage. That that additional space was going to be used for storage. They have agreed to a one-story ga- rage. That is not a problem. And they have agreed to two garage doors in conformity with the zoning decision and with the other appeals that have been granted in the neighborhood. Again, the increased width of two feet to the garage, makes up for the dif- ference that the depth of the garage is all along this area, 10 by 24. Eppititto is 12 by 24. The other two properties are 10 by 24. The Kuerners had originally requested 10 by 22. Now they request a 12 by 22. They're still equal to if not less than the requests that have been made in the past. There are only four homes here. The fifth home which is right next to the Kuerners, we can get the dimensions. However, the house is situated in such a way that it faces the water differently. So the setbacks would not really be clear and the size of the house would just not be consistent with the other just because of the positioning of the house. But if you'd like that information, we can provide it to you. I'd also like to emphasize that the neighbors in this area are very much in support of the Kuerners. They provided this information that you have before you and they recognize that this community is being developed and is being developed consistently. Each application is coming in similiar if noE the same relief requested. I'd also like to point out that in the previous ap- peal, I did emphasize that they could not go up as an alternative request. Mrs. Kuerner does suffer from a physical disability and she, as you know, the Board does not ordinarily does noc consider the individual's practical difficulty. However, her physical dis- ability does present a family member with a problem. Then the Board can consider this in determining practical difficulty. Just to re- cap very quickly from the previous appeal, the property is subject to a 20 foot right-of-way, is only 50 by 110 plus or minus. The neighborhood is entirely non-conforming. So this property is not substantially different than any property in the neighborhood. In fact, Eppilitto is the one that we emphasize, is identical, abso- lutely identical. The neighbors have supported the request. And we request that in fairness, based on the facts you've received, based on the record that we submitted, that you please grant Mr. and Mrs. Kuerner the requested variance. If the Board has a prob- lem with any of the issues, Mrs. Kuerner would be happy to address Page 3 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - Manfred Kuerner Southold Zoning board of Appeals MRS. MOORE (continued): any concerns you have or any questions you have or even any con- ditions you might impose on them. Because after the fact, is very difficult for them to deal with it and know hQ~ t¢ ~esp~n~ to it. So they don't want to come back again. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to ask you, Mrs. Moore, we are now dealing with 17 feet from the bulkhead. Is that correct? With the proposed rearyard addition. MRS. MOORE: From five .... I believe so. I believe that Mr. Kuerner provided a sketch which shows the difference. I don't have it in front of my. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had thought it was 19 that we had. do the measurements on it. We'll MRS. MOORE: There may be some inconsistency there because that survey was so small. It was difficult to get an accurate descrip- tion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As for the 12 feet, from the Smalczewski and the Riebock and all the rest of the applications that we've had, we run into a problem with one-story, two-stories. We found that one-story buildings ended up to be two stories. In fact, we found a two-story building and it ended up to be three stories. So there- fore, we had one garage that was still two stories and it ended up to be 28 feet in height. -So therefore, we're now talking one-story at 12 feet. So we understand the purpose or the need for 15 but... MRS. MOORE: area? Are you talking about this problem occured along this CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's occured in all the areas. MRS. MOORE: Because I believe that in this particular area, that all the heights have been maintained at one story or 14 feet. I believe the code allows for 18 feet on an accessory structure. And unfortunately with the attached, there is the limitation that you can go up to 35 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. I'm just telling you that it was nothing personal towards this applicant that we have changed our policy in reference to height of garages. Regardless if they are attached or unattached and that was basically limiting them at 12 feet unless the applicant has some particular problem with that. So that was the reason for the 12 feet and I do understand the rea- son why they need 15. So at this particular time, I can't grant your request because I have no idea how the Board feels. So there- fore, there's really no reason to discuss anything with Mrs. Kuerner at this point. I'll be honest with you. So we'll just go on the basis of what you'Ve present,do Page 4 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - Manfred Kuerner ~outhold Zoning Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: If you do have a question, I understand you do not take additional testimony. However, if you do have a question that is unclear in the paperwork that you have this evening, I~d be happy to clarify. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 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 re- serving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1988 Appl. No. 3687 Applicant(s): Jon C. Kerbs Location of Property: County Tax Map ID NO. 1000- £7-2-5 Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also Present: Linda Kowalsk, i~.~_Secretary to the Board of Appeals~,r~a%d approkimately 50 per,sons in .the audience ~ (.Bu.i 1 di ng~Department Admi ni strator, Mr. Lessard._was absent.) The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:5~ o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ..... on behalf of Jon Kerbs. We've taken a significant amount of testimony on this particular hearing. The Board had felt that there was additional things they wanted to look at. More particularly, a request of the applicant concerning additional information on the survey which we have received. And we'll ask'the applicant or the agent or his at- torney if there is anything they would like to add. MR. STEPHEN ANGEL : There's 'nothing we want to add to our case. We're here to answer any questions and to respond to any comments. CHAIRMAN G~EHRINGER: We're really not taking any verbals so we ap- preciate that and we appreciate your showing up. Actually, it was very nice of you to come down. Is there anything that the opposi- tion would like to place in the record before we close the hearing, in writing? Seein~ no... Excuse me. Yes. MRS. WEXFORD : I'd just like to ask because it was un- clear in the notice of the Suffolk Times, not knowing what state you're at with this. It said that the applicant was asking for an interpretation and if necessary, a variance. I'd like that clari- fied. In other words, I don't know what to respond to because I don't know where you are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MRS. WEXFORD Were you at the last hearing ma'am? : No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The particular problem that we have at this time is the difference of setback lines from mean high water, spe- cific areas of marsh grass so on and so forth. Under 119-2 of the Zoning Code which is a similiar section and probably more enforce- able under Section 97 that the Trustees deal with. We deal with 119-2. It requires a 75 foot setback from basically the wetlands. In this particular case we have an application before us which deals with a setback that was established or a line that was established by the D.E.C. which is the Department of Environmental Conservation and we have other evaluations that were done by members of the ~Page 2 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Pubic Hearing -Jon Kerbs southold Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued): Trustees and the Trustees in Toto and by other organizations which we had taken significant testimony in. Based upon the information that is being placed in tb~ record, I can not go any farther other than give you my feelings. And that is, the applicant at this par- ticular time, is definitely wants to set, basically, the one-story structure back 75 feet from this particular established line. The purpose of the word "interpretation" is very simply a word to mean is it in our jurisdiction or isn't it. And we have a similiar spe- cific interpretation for another application tonight which is the second part of the hearing. I will inform the applicants, I will inform the public that at the most recent co-committee meeting the Z.B.A, so as not to have overlapping jurisdiction in these areas, will be taken out of 119-2B and give that jurisdiction to the Town Trustees. Alright. So the nature of this hearing, in three or four months may be mute. And that's basically the situation. And I thank you for asking because there are certain questions that people don't really understand and it's very difficult to keep abreast of everything all the time. MRS. WEXFORD : Is the applicant then not asking for a variance at this point? It's matter of you having decided that the inter- pretation is with the Baerd of Trustees and therefore, the appli- cant is not asking for a variance now at this meeting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's not particularly true because at the last hearing we had taken significant testimony to say that there were wetland grasses or indicating grasses that were within this 75 feet. And it's up to us to make the determination if we feel that it is within our jurisdiction or not based upon the testimony that we've taken and the particular information that has been placed in the record. So I'm not trying to be evasive. I'm just trying to tell you that we haven't made that interpretation. And based upon the fact that there are other circumstances involved here. MRS. WEXFORD : I'm asking because if it's a question of ask- ing for a variance, I'd like to address that general term. It that's appropriate but I can't tell whether that's appropriate. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, interestingly enough, you really can't address it anyway because we had asked that there be no verbal tes- timony tonight. But if you felt you wanted to address it, you could tell us that you felt strongly enough about doing that that you could place something in the record tomorrow and we have to ask you your name for the record anyway. MRS. WEXFORD: I'm Betty Wexford and I'm Vice President of the Orient Association. ,Page 3 - Thursday, April 14,. 1988 Public Hearing -Jon Kerbs $outhold Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok~ And if you felt that that was the case, that we would close the hearing pending the receipt of something from you. Hearing no further questions,... I'm sorry. Receiving no further testimony concerning this hearing, I'll make a motion closing reserving decision until some time in the immediate future. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING APRIL 14, 1988 REGULAR MEETING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3633 and 3636 Applicant: TARTAN OIL CORP. Location of Property: S/s Main Road, W/s Marratooka Lane and E/s of Sunset Avenue, Mattituck County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-115-3-9 Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting all five members of the Board of Appeals. Also present were: Linda Kowalski and approximately 20 persons in the audience. (Mr. Lessard was absent.) The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 9:00 p.m. was previously heard on February 18, 1988.) (This matter CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This was a recessed appeal with no particular date and then the Board cho5.~ to put it back on the calendar for tonight. It's not necessary to read the legal notice° However, it is concerning a gas, I'll mention it for the record, station in Mat- tituck. More importantly I believe, the Mobil Station on the corner0f ~Miar'ra ~tooka Lane and Main Road in Mattituck and we'll start with Mr. Moore. MR. MOORE: Good evening. William Moore, the office is in Mattituck. As you said, we're here to discuss the Tartan, Mattituck Mobil Sta- tion. I'm here tonight for two reasons only. One is requesting the special exception permission set forth in 100-70B 4 and 5 which has to do with the self-service use of a gasoline station, the partial self service. I believe at the last hearing I went through each and every item set forth in five of that section or subsection explaining that each of those requirements and criteria to permit a self-service station will in fact or are in fact, ready to be in place there. Those sections deal with having an attendant on duty, no lock on de- vices on the pumps and how those pumps have to work. Each of those criteria are or will be satisfied if you do grant the special excep- tion use. In considering their request for this gas station as a self-service, I'd like you to remember that, of course, is an exist- ing gas station. When applicants typically come into the Zoning Board for a special exception use, we're often looking at vacant land and a special use that because the zoning code is written in such a way, we don't want to give that use as of right. And the code is for the whole variety of criteria considering whether or not this use which is permitted in that zone should be put in this particular lo- cation. We have an existing gas station there. So that a lot of those more generalized concerns that go along with a vacant land con- sideration of a self-service gas station going into a heretofore va- cant piece of property, don't really apply tonight. We're there. We have an impact as we are and we exist and work. Going from a Page 2 -Thursday~ April 14, 1988 Public Hearing -Tartan Oil Co. $outhold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. MOORE (continued): full-service station to a self-service station, I submit to you, will have no impact at all as we are already there in an operating fashion. That's the most important point I'd like to make con- cerning the approval for the self-service use. We did get a let- ter or a letter put to the Board about some noise from the speakers there and they have been turned down. So it's self-service be- cause it requires an intercom system between the inside and out- side. Those are required and does have an impact there. We've cut the volume back on that as an attempt to resolve that problem. If there are any questions on the self-service portion of the ap- plication. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not at this time. MR. MOORE: I'd like to move on to the question of the convenience store which we discussed at length and I submitted a memorandum for your consideration as well. And pointed to your specific de- cision in the Ocean Holding Corp. case which is a Texaco Station up there in Mattituck where you expressly stated a number of place- ments or decision or that you acknowledge or recognize the con-- venience store use as an accessory use customary and incidental to a gas station. I would suggest that the same rationale in that decision applies here as well. In fact, at the time, we went ahead and did convenience store uses, I felt strongly enough about that it was considered an accessory use that we were surprised to get a notice of disapproval calling this a retail shopping center. So our first request here was to suggest that, number one; we are not a retail shopping center and I think that your prior decision and the Texaco Station supports that conclusion of mine. And that even if you disagree with me, we then seek the variance. Call us a re- tail shopping center. I disagree with that characterization and grant us the variance because we are 36,000 square foot parcel. The Texaco Station I believe, was an 11 or 12,000 square foot par- cel. I do believe we are an accessory use and not a retail shopping center and I believe the memorandum notice I submitted suggest some other examples of stores in Mattituck and the Town of Southold. But I do not believe this Board would consider a retail shopping center simply because there are two uses going on the property which at first glance may or may not be related as you consider them. And I think the examples were a hardware store selling televisions and washers and a Marine Supply store selling lawn mowers. And I don't believe we consider those retail shopping centers either. To give an indication that in fact, the convenience store is an accessory use, I put together at the last hearing, I believe I quoted them to you but I put them in writing. The sales receipts, the gross sales from this applicant's Mobil Station zn Peconic. I have for you to- night, these were for two days in February and I've listed the store sales and the gasoline sales so you can get an idea that we're talk- ing a ratio of ten to one. Ten in gasoline for every one in store sales. So we're not approaching a duel use or another principal use. ,Page 3 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - Tartan Oil Corp. Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. MOORE (Continued): The next comment I'd like to say about an accessory use is the definition in the code and that which is customary and incidental to the primary use. I've mentioned the prior decision you've made. I think it was an appropriate decision. I think the Board's own experience has been that the gasoline station which had the service bays and the full-service of the automobile, is going away at least at this time in history. The gasoline industry seems to be changing over time. We had general stores with gas pumps out front and those went away. We had gasoline stations with full-ser- vice bays and a Texaco man came out and washed your windshield and checked the wipers and checked the oil and those seem to be going away. So the customary incidental is a changing definition. And if you go up and down Long Island, I think you're finding gasoline stations widely giving up the service aspect of their jobs, pumping solely to gas. And in many cases, picking up the convenience stores as well and the mechanics are being done by other shops. So I sug- gest that you're right in your prior decision. It is customary and incidental. I'd like to also submit to you a petition of approxi- mately 390 names of people in support of this application. Typi- cally when you get up to speak for a variance, you are responding in many cases, neighbors or those who speak generally in opposition with the application. I'm glad to submit 390 names of people who support both the self-service aspect and the _.nvenience store. Finally, the February meeting, the Town Planner, Yalerie Scopaze, submitted a memorandum which I have had the opportunity to read and consider and she makes many interesting points in the memoran- dum. I was interested that in the application as it is submitted and the criteria that you must consider as a Zoning Board, none of her comments are particularly relevant. Many of her comments re- spond to the legislative act of zoning and whether certain uses are appropriate and designations and whether zoning in a particular area of town is appropriate. She questioned for example, the business zone and where it's located. That's not a discussion that's appro- priate for this Board. That's where it is. It's on the map. We've got it and that's the zoning of that property~ The proposed Master Plan, we don't have to discuss it. It's not in effect. I'll said it on the side, it retains the business zone on this property but it has no relevance. You, yourself, decided in th Ocean Holding decision that a convenience store is incidental, customarily acces- sory use to a gasoline station. I agree with you totall y. She raises the question of floral shop or video store. You pick any type of store you like and I can take the position and say no. Those are not customary and incidental. The trends have not come to suggest that video stores or floral shops are at this stage in- cidental and customary to gasoline stations. So I think that's a red herring to suggest that they all fall in the same category. I think you were right in deciding that the convenience store is cus- tomary and incidental accessory use and I suggest that the decision tonight as you consider it to be the same. Page 4 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Pub~lic Hearing - Tartan Oil, Corp. Southold Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only question I have Mr. Moore is, I think you had given us some testimony at the last hearing con- cerning the diesel fuel pump in reference to requesting that that be self-se~vice also. MR. MOORE: That was a request I made. Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only question to you is; and of course we had been in ndated with hearings in the last couple months, but I don't know if we talked about the Mobil one and I didn't reread the transcript of this hearing prior to asking this question. I don't know if we were talking about the Peconic one or if we were talking about the one that we presently have before us. But my question was; and I believe it was the Peconic one, that you told me that you required a roof over, for the purpose of suppression systems. For the purposes of putting out a fire if it was to occur concerning this self-service aspect of this. I did go down to the Mattituck site and I did notice that the suppression system for the diesel pump is not supported by a roof. That it is in effect, placed behind the pump in whatever manner or form it is placed. So there- fore, really a roof is not required for a suppression system. Is that correct? MR. MOORE: I'm not sure. And if I did so state that it is required, I certainly did not intend to make that statement. And I think the only discussion we had with respect to the self-serve that I took ception to the denial of self-serve at the station at Peconic for in- terpretative definition of petroleum products in gasoline. And that was all. One of the justifications I gave for allowing this Board to grant diesel/kero self-serve here, was that in fact, the distinc- tion between Peconic and Mattituck was that at Mattituck they had in- stalled pursuant to the fire code which apparently changes when site plan review and those things going on at Peconic and now, I think Mr. Lessard can verify that, at Mattituck there is suppression. There was no discussion by me nor intent to be a discussion of the roof and the need to have a roof to support a suppression system. It was solely a question of one of the interpretations in which it was sug- gested in the decision in Peconic. That when a code permitted par- tial self-serve gasoline stations, this Board found a distinction between gasoline and diesel/kero. I found that a distinction that I didn't think appropriate. I thought it was reading too narrowly into the intent of the code. In my petition here at Mattituck, I suggest that perhaps in rethinking that, I don't challenge Peconic. I don't ask you to throw that decision aside and change it. We live with it. But at Mattituck, we have fire suppression, that was one. And two, that diesel goes beyond the trucks-that includes the Rabbit V0]ks~a~0n and some of these other types of Mercedes. And then if you ask them to insist~ upon full-serve, you don't give that particular car driver the benefit of a reduced price which accompanies the self-serve~ And by the way, the other point which I wish to mention is that the self-service picks up at Peconic at leasc 90% of the gas sales. Every- one wants the nickel or the dime off that they get by pumping it themselves versus having an attendant come out. That seems to be a Page 5 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - Tartan Oil Corp. Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. MOORE (continued): universal trend up and down. We're all saving that nickel a gal- lon. We give up a lot of service that way as I suggested before. But that was a distinction I make between Mattituck and PeConic solely the definition given to partial self-service. I like the word gasoline station and then I gave you a second justification for granting self-service at Mattituck which is at Mattituck. We do have it in place. It's a suppression system. I have made no discussion or intend to make any discussion. If I did I'd like to withdraw that because no discussion of a need or absence of a roof. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Comment on it. Yes, Mr. Cuddy. C. CUDDY: I live on Marrat00ka Lane about 800 feet south of this particular gas station~ I stand here alon. apparently but I don't think I stand alone in my neighborhood, not from the voices of vari- ous neighbors. I have a 10t of concern with the application as it stands before this Board. Certainly, a very fine presentation was just made. But I think one of the key words was an existing station. It's an existing station but it was not an existing sta- tion in the fashion that it now exists. I would ask the Board to consider what lawyers talk about as clean hands. I find it odd that there's an applicant before this Board that went in and ef- fectively asphalted over part of Southold. I'm sort of annoyed that he would do it as he did. There are lights that are there that were never there and I've lived in the neighborhood for more than 20 years. There's a structure that was never there before. That was a community gas station. It was a small station. It served the local populas. It's true. It was in the business dis- trict but it was not of the size, it was not of th dimension, it was not of the scope that it is now. I ask the Board to consider some site planning. There is no real buffer zone. There's no landscaping. It's simply asphalted over the area and opened the store. The attorney for the applicant has indicated that this should be an accessory type of use and that you've done this be- fore. I think that you all know that there is no precedant binding on this Board in that respect. The Court of Appeals in New York says that if you have a zoning application that stands on all fours each time before the Board. So you're not bound by what's been done before. I have trouble to the store being an ac- cessory use to a gas station. I think that's expand it too far. Whether you agree or disagree, I don't know but I think that you should know that there are people in the community who have a prob- lem with an applicant coming here and doing what this applicant has done. I would ask the Board, most respectfully, to allow a gas station which of course, is permitted. But certainly, to do some- thing about the site plan. I think the lights should be limited. Page 6 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 ,Public Bearing - Tartan Oil Corp. Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. CUDDY (continued): I think there should be a restriction of noise. ~ hope there is a restriction on hours of operation. I've lived there. I'm con- cerned with this happening and I like the Board to really take a hard look at what they're really asking for. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Cuddy. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in opposition of this? Mr. Moore. MR. MOORE: We do have a site plan before the Planning Board and I don't know whether they're waiting to see how this Board responds to the application before it where it's been before the Board since I believe the first part of January of this year. At least in a variety of forms. The latest submission, I believe, was January of '88. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not to tell tales out of school sir. Let: me just ask you this question. We assume that, or I assume, that based upon what... I think what may happen is you may have to put curb cuts in on this particular site and excavate some of this asphalt. Is that correct? MR. MOORE: That may well be. Not wanting to tell tales out of school, that's a topic for discussion that hasn't been discussed yet. But I'm not ruling that out at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, as you know that the problem that I had at the last hearing was the roof which was never part of a variance from this particular Board. And I don't really want to go into that at this particular time. nt MR. MOORE: And rightly~so because it's not before the Board to- night. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. However, it may be back some time in the near future. I have... My problem basically is how these things materialize over night. And move from, I don't want to paraphrase what Mr. Cuddy says, a country gas station to immediate modern struc- ture as it is now which I have no problem with by the way in reference to the way it was built. The structure itself except for the roof or the portigo. But I really wonder if... And as I said, I don't know how it got to this point but I really wonder how these things happen. I really do and Itjust really amazes me to see how fast that was done. MR. MOORE: Well, speaking on a theoretical level for a moment, I think we ought to understand that the property owner has certain rights. That when looking into the code, one tries to read inter- pretation as best they can for their client or as a property owner themselfo That any restriction enforced by a code on the use of one's property is always narrowly construed. That's to understand that a certain foundation is the person's property rights. We then impose restrictions upon those rights. If you can find a way or think you have found a way in which to mitigate or make yourself, Page 7 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 ,Public Bearing - Tartan Oil Corp. Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. MOORE (continued): that the regulations inapplicable to you by building within an existing footprint for example. There's a lot of ways it hap- pens in many applications before this Board. When we convert summer time bungalows into full time year around residences and they become palaces on the water. That's a tremendous difference on a piece of property that happens before a Board by granting a difficult variance but we sit there and work very had to build an existing footprint and things like that. The same time of thing goes on in a commercial district or business district as well. You work very hard to find a way to work within the confines of the regulations that are appropriately imposed to see what you can do as far as you can go without having to come before various Boards. And obviously, the code is written such that there are times when the case of a special exception for self-service gas- oline station your approval is required and we are here for that. Arguing over whether one is an accessory use or not and then being surprised to being called a retail shopping center. We have some unusual decisions at times that surprise property owners and per- haps Board members as well when one is told something that seems very very unusual and beyond belief. So we're speaking theoretical- ly now but I think the idea is to work as a property owner as far as you can and seek to do what you can with your property° Not to harm neighbors or communities or otherwise. But certainly, you have every right as a property owner to use your property up to the point to where somebody has got to approve what you're doing. I think that's perfectly appropriate to try and do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. The motion was seconded, and unanimously carried. Ail in favor - AYE. Prepared by Nadia Moore (from tapes) iS'inda Kowa~lskq' (as corrected) - TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1988 Appl. No. 3703 Applicant(s): John and Evelyn Keating Location of Property: 19995 Soundview Avenue, Southold County Tax Map ID NO. 1000- 5]-4-006. Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also present .were appro3~im~tely 50 persons in.{he audience~ and Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. (Building- Department Administrator, Mr. tessard was absent.) The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:35 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I 'have a copy of a survey produced by Peconic Surveyors and Engineers. The most recent date is November 5, 1987 indicating the proposed dwelling. And I have a copy of a plan indi- cating the slope of the bluff and so on and so forth produced by Ward Associates. The most recent date is 3/88. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map'~i~ndicating this and surrounding proper- ties in the area. Would you like to be heard? PAIRICIA'C. MRS./MOORE: I'd like to submit this revised house section because of the amending of the application as requested. Wifh your permis- sion, I'll turn this around because it's easier from here. Mr. and Mrs. Keating wish to demolish the existing house which is there and it is an older hom~. Probably about 40 year~ oldo Demolish that house and rebuild a new home. The application as it was submitted, would set back the~house at 40 feet and the deck was going to be built ten feet out to the 3'0 foot line. Mr. Keating wishes to amend the application to reflect the construction of the house remaining at 40 feet. However, there will be~no deck. It will be a~. grade, patio which I believe does not require the Bo~.~d's approval. The existing house is 21 feet from the top of the bluff and from this cross section, I do have an engineer today from Ward Associates, Mr. Wood,rd who will be here to testify as to the slope and the con- struction. The slope is stabilized. Ithas vegetation on it and it is bulkheaded at the toe. The construction will be in confor- mity with the character of the neighborhood. The-neighborhood along Soundview Avenue is primarily year around residential which has been approved one by one. This is really one Of the few houses remaining which are unimproved. The Keating hdme will be set back at 40 feet as I said. The adjacent properties are located on the west at 25 feet and on the east at 42 feet. The~request that's been made is a compromise between the two and actually set back further than what would be permitted if Mr. Keating were to reconstruct the summer.' bungalow, summer~ home. I'm not sure if it is a summer bungalow. To reconstruct it and make it conform to code.~ We did receive a letter from the Soil'and Water Conservation District which supports Page 2 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 ? Public Hearing - John and Evelyn Keating Southoid Zoning Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE (continued): the fact that .this slope is stable, that the property is sloped torwards the road so that there will be no roof runoff onto the slope which will jeopardize the vegetation or the slope itself. The new construction will be in accordance with the code. You've received various let~ters which discuss the~type of construction, the depth of construction. It'~w±ll meet all New York State safety, energy and building code requirements which.will certainlF be better than to improve 'if not heat the house that is currently at 21 feet. The original request was to remove the existing house and make the existing house, into a garage. That was again amended because the Keatings are finding that to remove the house and move it as a garage, would be very costly and it makes more sense to demolish the house that is there with the most current revision, in a sense, use the foundation as part of the terrace. We can not avoid the variance and this request. We have to move back 100 feet from the top of the bluff and the construction area, the~>b~ilding envelope that would remain would only be 20 feet by 70 feet which is imprac- tical to build. I would now ~introduce Mr. Woodard who is from Ward Associates to present testimony as to the construction or any ques- tions that~you may have. MR. WOODARD: I'm a licensed engineer. I'd like to submit to you the house drawing which is the same with the extension of the patio masonary instead of a timber deck. I think the setback difference has been covered. The slope is abo~t a one on two. It is covered primarily with established vegetation. Tkere is a three sided tim- ber bulkhead at the toe of the slope. It looks about 15 or 20 years old. It is slowed~.down in one spot but it still has structural in- tegrity to it. I would say there's no problem of instability of the slope as the timber bulkhead stays at the toe of the slope. The stability is indigent on the toe. It's in. a reasonable area on the beach. There's a lot of rocks. It's not mostly sand there. And the general area looks fairly stable. S~bstituting the ~brick patio aids the situation because you're not digging holeS.closer to the bluff to put in posts and supporting a timber deck. That's one of the reasons we're substituting.a brick patio. The~ grade is away from the slope so that if there's a failure on the slope like this, usually the grade is toward ths Sound which starts erosion which gets larger. I would say probably ice damage and the~ Spring or Winter stormy .'northwest storm would probably Cause the.~most possibility o£ damage. But lika-I say, ~the stability of the slope is contingent to greatly maintaining the bulkhead at the to~ of the slope. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. MRS. MOORE: swer them. If you have any questions, we'd be happ~ to try to an- CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: No. I think just for the record, in mY opinion, I think the removal of the de~k has helped us understand ths entire project a little bit. It has helped me understand the project a lit- tle bit better. And I have n~t a particular problem with it. We'll see if any of the other Board members have any problems. Page 3 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hearing - John and Evelyn Keating Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: I would request that the variance be granted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.. Is there anybody else who would like to speak-in ~avor 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. All in faVor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1988 Appl. No. 3710 Applicant(s): The Cove at Southold Location of Property: B~vie~ Road, S0uth0]d~ County Tax Map ID NO. 1000- 87-5-20. NY Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also present were approx~imately 60 per. sons in the audience, and Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals.( Building- Department Administrator, Mr. hessard was absent.) The Chairman opened the ~hearing at 9:50 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a hearing that is reconvened from the last regularly scheduled meeting concerning approximately 12 units. It's basically an interpretation similiar to'other hearings that we've had of this nature. We"~e taken significant testimony to the tune of 2½ to 3 hours at the last hearing and we asked that anybody that had spoken .then to please not to speak tonight unless there is some specific issue that has been brought forth. We ask also that any discussions that you have, deal mainly, with the setbacks, that are basically areas that are germaine to the setbacks which is the nature of our disapproval. And not necessarily tO areas that the Town Trustees ~ave dealt with. Although, the present Trustees have spent a.great amount of time at the la.st hearing explaining specific issues along with the applicant or the agent for the ap- plicant, Mr~ Klatsky. I think everybody at the last meeting did understand the application and the purpose for it towards the end of the hearing. I would ask also~that if specific questions are asked concerning, that were redundant from the last hearing, and I know this ~s basiCally a paraphrase of what I said before, that pos- sibly those questions can be asked of the applicant oUt in the 'hall at the end of the hearing if there is redundancy. And I'll open the heating to anybody who would like to comment on this particular ]pro- ject and anybody who might not have particularly been here at the' last hearing. Yes ma'am. Could I ask you to use the ~ike and state your name if you wouldn't mind. MS. HALSEY: I do have a financial interest in some property..on Hardneck. And of course as a resident, I have a great deal of ~n- teres~ in the welfare of the area. One thing I did notice and that is; some of the land in this particular situation is filled land. I believe that was done in the 1950}s. It has been my'.... How Shall I say it. I have noticed that often times, in ~hose days, people did not necessarily get all the permits for the filling that they should do. The federal government does have a thousand foot Page 2 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 PubLic He~aring -~T~'eCovs at Southold Southoid Zoning ~oard of Appeals MS. HALSEY (continued): jurisdiction in the natural defense interest from.navigable water. And I believe in th6se days, this was navigable meaning you could float a boa~ in it with a soldier in it or a sailor perhaps if you preferred. If the' Board is considering that fill as actual land surface that is legal and Perhaps it is, I don't know, perhaps it shouldn't. And~if that is the case, I hope you will go into the files of the Corps of Engineers and'find out whether indeed this land is actual legal land that you should think of as land rather than some sort of intrusion that perhaps should be removed by court order. Thank you. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: like to speak? Yes. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would MS. WACKER: I had spoken at ths last h~aring but I had some other thoughts if permissable and I~m representing the Northfork Environ- mental Council. I had-talked to one of the developers, Joe Boschetti who I consider more environmentally aware a builder~than most. And be~ides, he lives here ~n town. If he could eliminate the last three buildings, those actually within what we're discussing here of course, 75 feet of the wetlands line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you referring to 17 through 20, Ronnie? Are those the buildings? MS. WACKER: 75 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No I mean number 17 through 20. Is that the ones directly to the west that's closest to the wetland? MS. WACKER: Yes. I had asked whether he would consider not b~ild- ing those, buildings and he said no. That he had permission to build~ them and he would take~ as much of a loss if he-'were not to build them. And we can appreciate that. But at the same time, the Trus- tees have set a line that should be law and not be negotiated away for fertilizers and pooper scoopers. But .~each has the?l~w on his side. Joe has an investment in his property. The.~Trustees have an investment .or an obligation to ma~ntain.the quality Of %his creek for generations to come. Joe has been given permits to build on the creek. Just because other town agendies have granted him the right to build so close to the wetlands line, ~ think does not mean we should continue to mak'e the same mistake. Two wrongs don't make a right. And we've been given a second chance now to correct that miStake, let's take it. The Zonin~ Board of-Appeals should not permit those three buildings to be buil~ in our opinion. Not only to. ensure the quality of these shellfishing waters for our baymen- and other residents but to protect those people who will be buying the houses in ths development. They are lookin~ forward in years to come, 'to swimming, clamming and boating in clean waters. This will be much more likely i~ there are 21 condos instead of 33. Cer- tainly if there are fewer of them, they will be more exclusive, have better views and increase value which can be reflected in higher Page 3 - Thursday, April 14, 1988 Public Hea~ing - Th~ ~Cove at Southold S~uthold Zoning Board of Appeals MS. WACKER (continued): sales prices. Now, if it is still an economic hardship even with higher-prices for fewer houses, for the developer to give up the three buildings, then we would like to propose that the Town Board, rather that the town assume a share of~the loss it has helped to cr.eate. The town has voted the money to buy open space. Couldn't this be.a part of that open space? Or if this isn't feasible, shouldn't/we find another means, perhaps tax abatement to indemnify the developers.fo~ some Of their loss. I wish we Could think about this as a town. And gentlemen'.of the Appeal.'~Board, we would like to urge upon you that legally and ethically,'?.~i~!~s.your right and yourS'duty to deny this variance. Now, I've also been asked to repre- sent the Citizen-Advisory Committie of She BrOwn Tide Task Force which at its regnlar meeting of April 7~h, ~oted on.~his resolution and I'll read to~ you. Considering the potential of pollution of Cory Creek and ultimately Peconic Bay from 33 families, their pets, their use o.f lawn fertilizers and swimming pool chemicals, the Citizens Advisory Commit- tee of the 'Brown Tide Task Force recommend that the Southold Zoning Board of Appsals deny a variance to bUild i2 ~housing units within 75 feet of the wetlands line established by Southold Town Trustees. NOw · ~his is approved eight in favor with five abstentions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. like to speak? Yes ma'am. Is there anybody else who would MS. HEACOCK: I hadn't planned on saying anything tonight. ~I was just g6ing to come and sh~w my face.. It's my first time at a town meeting. I haven't no numbers to give you. I'm not sure what I'm going to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sometimes that's better. MS. H~ACOCK: I was just struck by what you were saying before about the gas station. I'm amazed how things happen. I-feel o~% of eon- trol. I.'m the one who wrote to you saying; is there anybody there at-all? I~feel like I'm calling out into the darkness wondering if anybody's thinking, if anybody's aware of what in fact we are doing to. our town. Sometimes I feel like T'm powerless. I don't want to be disrespectful %o developers but I do feel like. I'm powerless to people who have money. I'm just a person who has a little house on the end of Cedar Beach and I'm just watching my community destroyed. It hurts my heart. It's going to hurt my drinking water I fear. It is going, to hurt the beaucolic meandering roads that I feel is just tUrning into suburban~ sprawt. 'And I just hope that someone is lis- tening to us little ~eopie who don't know too much but do care about what's going On in the~community. Thank you. CHAIR~tAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? For the record, I'd just like to add,what I said con- cerning the Kerbs application. And that is; the nature of this appli- cation before us was basically an example of ~v~rlapping jurisdiction. And althouqh I feel the Trustees have done an adequate job in this particular area, i have no idea how my fellow Board members feel. However,-I just want to men~ion again for the record, at the last Co-Committee-Meeting and the Co-Committee is a series of Town Board Page 4-- Thursday, April !4~ 19.88 Public Hearing - The Cove at Southold Southold Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued): members, ~epartmen%.heads and ~we drum out and we change and modify which then ultimately comes to a pUblic hearing, modifications to the Zoning Code. We will, in the very near future, be modifying the Zoning Code such that the Trustees are the'only organization that has these specific powers with setbacks and they will be deal- ing with it based solely on their expertise and the environmental issues that they deal with. So that if this particular application was submitted or if the Building Inspector chose ~ to deny it at this particular time, I should say at a time two months from now, then the application would not have come before us. It is primarily an interpretation and we will do the best we possibly can to deal with the feelings and-emotions that most everyone has. As we deal with most of the applications'and that was the reason why we don't vote on this applica~ion~ right after t~he hearing. We usually have some- times, two and three meetings before we actually render a decision. So I appreciate everybody coming down tonight. The~purpose of this second~hearing was to hear anyone that was unable to attend the first one and was mainly at the request of several people that felt that particular way. And I feel that way also. Everybody should be heard. So we thank you all ~ery very much for coming out and I~m g~ing to make a motion closing this hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. RECEIVED AND Ft~LED,.DY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CL~K DATEI 'ik HOU~ Town Clerk, Town of SOuthold