Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/02/1988 Hearing TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS _SP5~g-~A5 MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1988 ApPl. No. 3718 Applicant(s): Patricia Stegner Location of Property: S/s Main Bayview Road, Southold County Tax Map No. 1000- Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also Present: Victor Lessard, Building Inspector and Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. -~' ~c_T~.~ Chairman opened the hearing 7:35 read the_legal notice for the record. o'clock p.m. and Motion was granted to waive the reading of the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: if nobody has any objection, I'd like to forego the reading of the actual application in an attempt to just speed the meeting up a little bit and I'll offer that as a motion gentleman. Motion moved and seconded to e~iminate the reading of the legal notice. Ail in favor - AYE. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody have an objection to my not reading the application? Ok. Seeing no hands, I'll start with the first application. The first appeal_ is on behalf of Patricia Stegner. It is appeal number 3718. It's one dated January 22, 1988, the most recent date from Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicating a proposed house approximately 30 feet from the line which would be the property line under water. It appears that the property has raparian rights and I don't see the actual line footage from the right-of-way. And i have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on this one? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I'm here of council to Esseks and Brewer on be- half of the petitioner. Basically it's a petition for a variance from the 75 foot setback requirement. The Stegners have obtained basically all the other approvals. They had a setoff granted by the Planning Board back in '84. They have received Health Depart- ment approval for the well and the septic system. My understanding is, I believe today that the Town Trustees have issued a waiver which I believe you now have in your file. It was supposed to be delivered to you today. And there is also, the D.E.C. has issued a non-jurisdiction letter. As you can see from the survey and the file, it's kind of a unique shaped flag type loto And in order to be able to build any kind of single family residence on this proper- ty, this type of variance is going to be required. Anybody who has ~Page 2 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - Patricia Stegner Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. MCLOUGHLIN (continued): gone out and taken a look at the property, can easily see that most if not all the surrounding properties are located at least this close to the dredged canal. So I don't believe by granting this variance from the setback requirement, is going to have any impact on the character of the neighborhood. I think you've got pretty much everything in the file that you need to make a deci- sion on this and the Stegners are here and I'm here to answer any questions that anybody might have° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's start with the setback from the bulk- head, not from the property line. Do you have a figure for me there? MR. MCLOUGLIN: What date did you say you have on your survey? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a January 22, 1988 survey. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I think that's an old one. I believe it shows the 30 foot setback from the ~existing bulkhead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Stegnero Now we're showing 30 feet from the bulkhead. Let me just ask you this question, you're actually incorporating the right-of-way lot with this lot now. Be- cause at one time there were two separate parcels° Right? I can remember when this particular application before us probably when you bought the premises in 1984 or prior to that. MS. STEGNER : We bought the premises in 1976. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Whenever it came before us, I think it was '83/'84, whatever. I think you asked us to divide it into three separate parcels at that time wasn't it? MR. STEGNER: It was three parcels. We asked you to combine the 50 foot road with the waterfront parcel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. So that's the reason why the pools are actually going into the other parcel which is now incorporated as one and that's the reason why we're calling it on the application 10.3 or whatever we call it in the legal notice. Now 10.3. So that's the reason why it's 10.3. So we're going to go 30 feet from the bulkhead, not from the property line which is out in the dredged area. Ok. So it has a vast change in reference to the. setbacks be- cause the setbacks, although they are transverse by a right-of-way or by other people using the property, that the setbacks are much greater. That makes a big difference. Because I was down there on Saturday and it was kind of difficult to understand it based upon what I had. I'm just concentrating on it for a second Kevin. I'll be right with you. The question basically is; where does the trans- versing of the right-of-way exist? Farther to the north or farther to the south? Is it closer to your house. Page 3 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - Patricia Stegner Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. STEGNER: I think if you notice, the 15 foot right-of-way is between the border line on the house across the road and I can't get north and south. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not really north and south. MR. STEGNER: I guess it would be closer to the east. So if you go down that road, you drove on that 15 foot right-of-way which is all the way east of the other property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: bors have over that? Ok. And what type of access do your neigh- Is it only 15 feet or is more than 15 feet? MR. STEGNER= Wel.1, we had the road improved and I think the town wanted a 15 foot right-of-way for emergency vehicles. So we had the road widened to 15 foot. It had been less. It was like 12. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: My understanding is though that the right-of-way itself is 15 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So in other words, the rearyard or the side- yard in this particular case is going to be not diminished any more than 15 feet. I'm sitting here with 57 feet to the balcony on the back. So that's really minus 15 feet. It's not going to be more than 15 feet. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: No. It's our position that that is still our property to the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that. It's not really minus be- cause they own the property but it's being transversed by other peo- ple. Well, it's not a right-of-way to them° Other people have a right-of-way over it. Ok. Alright. Now the house would be a year around house? MR. STEGNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I guess the only question we have on this Board, I don't know what floodplain zone it's in but any decision that we'll deal with, will be subject to the federal floodplain law. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I believe on the proposed plot plan that we handed in, it's designated by Mr. Fischer to be in the A-4 zone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I think that about answers it. I thank you very much. We'll see if there's anybody else who has any ques- tions. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? MR. tfSSARD : What about the shed there. There's no question? ~Page 4 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - Patricia Stegner Southold Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: About the existing shed. sidering that to be frontyard. Now you're con- MR. LESSARD : I would consider it, yes. If we got pushed real hard, we would say it was a corner lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: if you don't mind. Kevin, why don't you just show this here MR. LESS as the fro it up so w CHAIRMAN G yard now. MR. MCLOUG the sideya MR. LESSAR consider t MR. MCLOUG bulkhead. MR. LESSAR to that pr MR. MCLOUG MR. LESSAR I'm saying come back CHAIRMAN G facing the MR. LESSAR CHAIRMAN G, two are si sory build MR. LESSA It's an ac MS. KOWALS MR. LESSA~ MR. MCLOU¢ MR. STEGNEi MR. LESSAF MR. MCLOU¢ ~RD : Even so, I think it said the right-of-way ntyard. It still would be the sideyard. We should clear don't get no flack from the road owner. DEHRINGER: Mr. Lessard is considering this to be I don't know how he makes that determination. ~LIN: I don't understand why the .... What I would call fd where the shed is, would be considered a frontyard. Suppose I consider it a sideyard? Where would you frontyard? iLIN: I would consider the frontyard to be facing the D: No. There's no way in h--- that you're going to get Dperty over that bulkhead. That won't fly. ~LIN: Then the frontyard is facing the right-of-way° D: Ok, fine. Now we're in the sideyard. That's what · Let's clear this thing up because I don't want it to ~nd haunt anybody later. DEHRINGER: So the frontyard is basically the area that's existing cottage across the street. 3: Ok. We'll rule it that way. ,EHRINGER: The rearyard is the bulkhead and then the other ~eyards. And your question is that we now have an acces- lng in the sideyard. {D: Right now you have... The thing don't belong there. 2essory to nothing. II: How long has it been there though? ): Beats the h--- out of me. ~LIN: Was the shed there when you purchased it in '74? {: Yes. I think it shows it on the original survey° : That was before the property was cut up? LIN: Yes. ~age 5 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - Patricia Stegner Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. LESSARD: You see, we've got an animal here we've got to do something with and I don't know what to do with it. Where it's sitting by itself now, it's doing fine° The minute you put a house there knowing technically you've created something that needs an answer. That's why I was asking. MS. KOWALSKI: Was it disapproved for that? MR. LESSARD: I doubt it. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: should be done? No it wasn't. Is there a suggestion as to what CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How's that shed attached? MR. STEGNER: It's just sitting on three inches of concrete. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How is it anchored into the concrete? MR. STEGNER: With bolts. C~AIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's not make more out of this than what it is. It's consnrued to be close to a pre-existing shed. We really don't know how long it's been there. These people have bought the property with the shed there. So we'll mention it in the decision that the shed is there and we'll leave it at that point. MR. LESSARD: asking. As long as we put something down. That's all I'm CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And there will be a normal restriction on the shed that it not be used for any living quarters or any habitability at all. No castle or whatever the case might be. Thank you very much. Hearing no further questions, I'll offer a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF gEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ;~SP,E'~ MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1988 Appl. No. 3723 Applicant(s): Angelo Spetsiotes Location of Property: Budd's Pond, Southold County Tax Map No. 1000- Board Members present: Chairman Go'ehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also Present: Victor Lessard, Building Inspector and Linda Kowa!ski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. The Chairman opened the hearing 7:50 read the legal notice for the record. o'clock p.m. and Motion was granted to waive the reading of the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating the deck which is really a portion of the squaring off of the rear of the house approximately 32 feet from the bulkhead. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map ~ndicating this and surrounding proper- ties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on be- half of this application? I have a little problem just finding the house in respect that the survey said that it was a one-family house. It's really a two-story house. Is it not? Because what I did was I went across the creek and looked at it from the opposite side be- cause I didn't really want to bother you because I was over on Me- morial Day and that's when I looked at it. I just wanted to make sure I had the right house and that was the thing. Now, let me just ask you a couple of questions if you wouldn't mind. This is not to be a specific addition to the house. It's going to be an open deck and unroofed? MS. SPETSIOTES: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not going to be made part of a living area or anything of that nature. And the actual size 'of the deck is how large? MS. SPETSIOTES: there° 15 by 18 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. thing that will cause your lighting? MS. SPETSIOTES: No. Onl~ side lights by the door. believe, depending on the building And will there by any lighting or any- neighbors any problem, any overhead the existing lights which are the out- Page 2 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - Angelo Spetsiotes Southold Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I 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 make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS SPECtA~ MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1988 Appl. No. 3732 Applicant(s): Robert E. Bidwell Location of Property: S/s C.R. 48, Cutchogue County Tax Map No. 1000- Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also Present: Victor Lessard, Building Inspector and Linda Kowa!ski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. The Chairman opened the hearing 7:55 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice for the record. Motion was granted to waive the reading of the a'pplication. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a site plan in front of me. i'm not going to pull it back but I will read the survey. I have a copy of a survey dated May 16, 1986 indicating the entire parcel and I have a copy of the site plan, as I said, in front of me. .And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on behalf of this-application. Could I ask you to use the mike sir and state your name for the record. MR. BIDWE~L: I'm here to speak for the proposed winery. My engi- neer is also here. We hope we can answer all your questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, originally when you started this, you built the cemen: ~lock building? MR. BIDWELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is that used for right now? MR. BIDWELL: One, it was laid out for a men's room and a ladies room and a utility room also. Electricity comes in there, a water pump right outside. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: or anything? And you use that for storage of equipment now MR. BIDWELL: Yes. storage. Ladies room, men's room, utiliSy room and just CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that really has nothing to do with the ac- tual processing of grapes or the production of wine. MR. BIDWELL: No. That was the first five years. My three sons really run it and that was to have an indoor laboratory and some- place to get warm during the winter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now you have the steel building attached to it and that is primarily the entire winery operation. MR. BIDWELL: Yes. ~< Pubiic Hearing - Robert Bidwell Southold Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Except for the facade and a few the later part of this plan which you are going to do. MR. BIDWELL: We'd like to get permission to do that. We woula also like to get permission to build a cellar in the front of the existing building there as shown on the plot plan so we can put the wine that must be aged in the oak down beneath the ground level where the temperature is constant so it will lead to better aging, better quality wine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. And that isn't specifiCally the na- ture of this application tonight though. Is it? MR. BIDWELL: I'm pretty unfamiliar with this. have to help me. You're going to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The purpose of one of this law was, and I did the same with Dr. Damianos when he came in from Pindar and was so that the town had an idea of what was occurring on the premises. That was the purpose of the special permit.- Any changes would re- quire your coming back and applying for additional permits. Not to supercede the existing permit but to work along with the existing permit. Now, and I'm not the Building Inspector, I would assume the construction of the cellar would require a permit. And since we don't have that already built, you might have to come back eventu- ally. He has it in here but I have a first floor, second floor. Then I have the front and I don't show the cellar in this plan. MR. CHALLIS : It's drawing number F-lo It's the second sheet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: it's the second page. Is that correct? MR. CHALLIS : Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now where is this going? Is that going in the actual opening that exists now adjacent to the cement block building and the steel building? MR. CHALLIS : That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So if I was facing the building from the road, I would be looking directly at an open foundation if it was excavated and that's where it's going to be built. Ok. MR. BIDWELL: I have a photo of that if it might helpo CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just have your name sir for the record. MR. CHALLIS: Frederick 0hallis. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Page 3 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public gearing - Robert Bidwell Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. BIDWELL: Right in the center where that truck is is where we'd like to put it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. That's where you want to put it. Now, what will be the platform effect? What kind of roof will you have over it? MR. BIDWELL: I think it says on the ..... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's all the way in the back. That's the facade I was referring to. Thank you. Can we keep that. MR. BIDWELL: I'll make a copy and then I'll give it to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you pick that up from us tomorrow? MR. BIDWELL: I'll pick it up next week as long as I can get it back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, this entire front will then be a one-story or two story building that will be placed on top of this foundation? MR. BIDWELL: The high ceiling is one-story. The ceiling height is more than one story° It's about double. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But it will only be a one-story structure? MR. BIDWELL: Yes, one-story structure but the inside is a mezanine towards the back. It would be a short floor and another half floor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What you have right now since we didn't enter your building, is now a two-story structure. Is that correct? MR. BIDWELL: Well, the ceiling height is two stories. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is the second story built in that structure now at this time? No. It's all open° The whole thing is open. MR. BIDWELL: It's open as in the photo. That photo is accurate. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically~ you're asking the.special excep- tion to encompass all of this that's in this plan at this particular time? MR. BIDWELL: Yes. That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And how much square footage are we talking about in total? Do you have any idea? You don't have to tell us tonight. Page 4 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 P~u-b~ic Hearing - Robert Bidwell Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. BIDWELL: It's on the drawing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's okay. MR. BIDWELL: We broke it down room by room.' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. I did see the square footage in each room° Right. What will be used for retail sales? Will that be the part of the building that you are going to construct? MR. BIDWELL: Yes. struct. That would be the part that we're asking to con- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. You're not asking permission° You've got to get a building permit for it anyway. You're asking the special exception on a special permit to operate a winery for the entire thing, the entire structure. And we, of course, have worked off the plans. If you~had nothing here, we would be working with totally off the plans° So that's basically the reason why I'm asking the question° So the entire area with the wine cellar will be the part that's used for retail sales° Everything else will be used for the production of wine. MR. BIDWELL: Right above the cellar there is a main floor. And the main floor towards the rear we wanted to us~%c that for tasting and wine sales for the public. And then we had a thought of in the front of making little roulletes of wine memorabilia and making the .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's basically a part of retail sales~ That has nothing to do with the actual construction of the wine or production of the wine I should say. · MS. KOWALSKI: area? Does he know the square footage for the retail sales CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we have to read that off the map. This goes back to the last page. It goes back to the proposed sketch. Could we just ask you, I guess to make the thing a little more br f. Maybe you can give just an analysis of what is there ~.~ now in refer- ence to square footage and what you propose in reference to square footage and just the total retail sales area. In a letter. Just add it up for us. No problem. As long as we get it within two weeks, we'd appreciate it. If you wouldn't mind. This way we know exactly what we're talking about here. And we appreciate you coming down with this information. I'll see if anybody else has any questions in the audience. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the appli- cation. Hearing no further questions, .... MR. LESSARD: I just wondered how many people he intended to handle at one time in reference to the public. Are we talking 49, 1007 Maybe you didn't even think about it. Page 5 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 ~,,Public Hearing - Robert Bidwell Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. BIDWELL: I did think about it. I pray every night about it. We're hoping it will be something like Dr~ Da~ianos at Pindar. We'd love to be that successful~ We have to handle some cars. You have to handle some retail sales or you really can't make it as a winery. There has to be something there~ I hope it's 30 or 40. That would be great. MR. LESSARD: You're shooting for 30 or 40 people? MR. BIDWELL: Well~, I'll never get that much° love it. I wish there was that much. Thirty cars, I'd CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: basis. It would be like 30 or 40 people on a daily MR. BIDWELL: If we're lucky. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I'm sorry I almost forgot. Again, hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Thank you again sir for coming ino Ail in favor - AYE° TRANSCRIPT OF gEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~-FLC~[~L% MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1988 Appl. No. 3717 Applicant(s): Frederick Koehler, Jr Location of Property: 575 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000- Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also Present: Victor Lessard, Building Inspector and Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. The Chairman opened the hearing 8:08 read the legal notice for the record. o'clock p.m. and Motion was granted to waive the reading of the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the plans from the applicant~ And I just wanted to mention for the record that there has been a prior appeal on this and we're talking about a parcel just under 3 acres. Mro Gray, would you like to be heard? MR. GRAY: My name is Jim Gray and I'm going to represent Mr. Koehler because he's in China '~nd he wanted to build this as an accessory building for boat supplies, boat sales. Whatever you want to say. And the place for the kids who are entertaining have a place to change downstairs° That's about it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. In reviewing the plan, we nosiced that it is really the same plan as the last plan except that they changed the word Cabana to Boat Storage and deck. It is my opinion, no5 the Board's because I am the only one... I'm speaking, I'm not speaking for the Board. I'm speaking for myself now as a member of this Board, that a building does not specific represent a boat storage building. We have most recently granted boat storage build- ings. Not a heck of a lot of them but we did one in Nassau Point for a person by the name of Mazzo. It was quite a bit smaller than this. There wasn't as much deck area and this just doesn't give us the effect of being a boat storage building. It looks more like a small house to be honest with you° ThatWs just my opinion on the situa5ion. I don't know how the Board feels about it. MR. GRAY: Well, he's going to do a nice job on it. It's not going to be house. There's not going to be living quarters. They are not going to do no trucking at all down there. There will be no bathrooms down there. It's going to be a place where people can change and sit and relax. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know you're at a disadvantage here with him being in a foreign country and so on and so forth. TAPE ENDED CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know what to suggest to you at this point. I really don't. I don't know how the Board feels about it. If you want us to go with it, we'll go with it and see what happens° Page 2 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - Frederick Koeh!er~ Jr. Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ~R. GRAY: It's going to be a beach house where they can come down and sit around on chairs and put their umbrella. There will be no living quarters° There will be no cooking, no laboratories. So it's going to be a storage building. When they close up, they're going to put everything in there and slam the doors shut. It will be very attractive on the outside° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alrighto We'll go with it and see what hap- pens. We have the application before us so we'll see what happens. MR. GRAY: I just want to say that if you do feel favorably to it, this Mr. Koehler is a very generous man. He started a school 25 years ago for young boys, nine years through eighteen years of age on the streets. It's called" of the Angels" in Syosset. And he has quite a gathering of sisters and priests out there once a year. And if you're going to favor it, I'd like an okay as soon as possible so they can build it. They have a deck down there and they'd like to put that up so the sisters can have a place. There will be no boys out there. Just the sisters that do all the work in the school. The school has been built up. He's very generous. So I'd like the Board to consider that if they do feel in favor of it, to give me an okay as soon as possible so we can get it up by July 15th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Well, we thank you for coming ino We thank you for representing him° We'll see what we can do. MR. GRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the ap- plication? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further ques- tions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS SP[CtAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1988 Appl. No. 3729 Applicant(s): George R. Furse Location of Property: Bell Hill Avenue, Fishers Island County Tax Map No. lO00- Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also Present: Victor Lessard, Building Inspector and Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. The Chairman opened the hearing 8:15 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice for the record. Motion was granted to waive the reading of the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 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? MR. HAM: My name is Steven Ham of Matthews and Ham, 45 Hampton Road, Sout-hampton. I had prepared a statement to read into the record but I think it might move things along if I just answer your questions~ As noted on the application, the purpose of the application is to enable the owner to give one of these houses to his children. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's lot ~2 right? MR. HAM: It's 2.7 acres. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The 2.7 acres he's giving to his children. MR. HAM: That's the main house, yes. And I have a copy of a pre- existing certificate of occupancy. It covers the second dwelling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just understand something here. have two year around houses. Is that correct? We MR. HAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the cottage? a pre-existing sleeping area or what? What is that? That is MR. HAM: It's a maid and domestic quarters. It has no kitchen fa- cilities. It has a bedroom and a bathroom and it's not covered by the c.o. as issued today. This is my affidavit and the cottage is mentioned in number four. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead. You want to continue? Page 2- Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - George R. Furse SoUthold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. HAM: If you have any further questions. The fact is that these structures are already there. So there will be no impact at all on the neighborhood if the variance is granted. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only question is; why did the applicant so choose to make one lot 2.70 acres and the other lot .94'? MR. HAM: It has to do with the lay of the land. is a small ridge that provides a natural boundary. Doyen... Apparently there I think Mr. MR. DOYEN: That's not quite the case but anyway, I know why they want to do it. It's the same situation that we had in another hearing here. The reason why they want to divide it in this man- ner is because; see over here or anywhere along the shore, people want the greatest view they have. The view from this house is this way. The view from this one is like this. If you divide it any other way, your family starts fighting. And if you want to get even with them and put trees in there, you don't have a view any more from this house. So they want to divide it up so this house is always assured of a view and that house is assured of a view and that's the only way they can do it. MR. HAM: George didn't inform me of that reason. is not a natural ridge there. Apparently there MR. DOYEN: No. The ridge is on the other side of this house. There is a ridge that goes down but it is over here. This is all relatively flat across here° He didn't explain it to you. That's a good prac- tical reason. If you or I owned it, that's what anybody would want. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: strictions? But don't you do that with covenants and re- MR. HAM: I guess you don't know the law very well. restrictions don't .... Covenants and CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we thank you Mr. Doyen for your words of wisdom~ Thank you Mr. Ham. Alright. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this? MR. DOYEN: You should note for the record there that the Planning Director recommended to the Planning Board that this be divided more equally. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that was the reason why I asked the question. Let me just ask this question. Assuming that the Board is not happy with the way this property is divided, what would we do? Would we deny it and then have you come back with a more fa- vorable equitable division? MR. HAM: If you substandard in your determination that you would consider another division, I would take it back to my client. I'm sure he does want to give the benefit of this to his children. Page 3 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - George R. Furse Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. DOYEN : Looking at this, there's no way that you can gain and meaningful hit or add to it and still have two lots with the view objective that I stated before. MR. HAM: I haven't been to the property° MR. DOYEN: No, you don't have to. There's nothing you can do. You can't gain anything and achieve what they want. There's no significant increase in the land area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Well, we'll thrash that around and we appreciate .that and we'll see what developes here. Is there any- body else who would like to speak against the application? There is no one here from Fisher's Island? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1988 Appl. No. 3730 Applicant(s): Estate of Dorothy Russell Location of Property: N/s Beach Avenue and W/s Heathulie Ave., Fishers Isl. County Tax Map No. 1000- Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass~ Grigonis and Sawicki. Also Present: Victor Lessard, Building Inspector and Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. The Chairman opened the hearing 8:21 read the legal notice for the record. o'clock p.m. and Motion was granted to waive the reading of the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated July 17, 1987 indicating lot number one at 1.34 acres approximately and lot number two at .88 acres° 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 on this one Mr. Ham? MR. HAM: Yes. I have a copy--~of a pre-existing certificate of oc- cupancy which covers both but ~t refers to one as a guest house. However, I'd like to advise the Board that I've been informed that .they are £ndependant dwellings each with separate kitchen and bath facilities that pre-exist zoning. I did not see that until today. Mr. Horton inspected Tuesday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, which one is the guest cottage or the one he refers to? Lot number two? MR. HAM: I assume that the .88 parcel would be considered the guest cottage because this is a more substantial... MR. one that's B. If you have the photograph there, it's the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the garage is shown as a garage to your knowledge. Is that a garage there? MR. HAM: Yes. It's a garage, loosely. It's four walls. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean it doesn't have a .... MR. HAM: It has no facilities of any kind. MR. : It forms a horseshoe around what we call South Beach which was quite heavily travelled in the summer and there's a horseshoe shaped road. It goes right around this proper- ty starting here and goes around this way which is here. So that's why these two views look so odd here. These two views are taken from the horseshoe from one side of the horseshoe and the other. So you see looking back at the two houses, this is all you see of those shrubs and bittersweet. Page 2 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - Estate of Dorothy Russell Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. HAM: I might just add for the record, this is a case where Mrs. Russell who~s estate this property is in~ left a will did a subdivision. She left one house to her two daughters. The other house to her son and there is concern that if one was to be de- stroyed, it would be difficult to reconstruct it. Because then you'd have one house on one lot and of course that would be sub- stantial economic hardship. And of course, just as with the other application, these structures are in place and have been in place since 1957, since prior to 1957. In fact, they're much older. So there's no impact on the neighborhood by granting this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. But we do have a little more equitable of a split here even than we had.°. MR. DOYEN: We had the same reasoning with this one~ Not quite because no matter how you divide it~ they both have a reasonably good view in this instance? MR. HAM: These parcels were described by meets and bounds in the will. So although there is a piece that was acquired from Eliza- beth's husband after the will was created, they just extended the line into that piece subject to the lot line change approved by the Planning Board in 1982. However, it does basically follow the intention of Mrs. Russell as expressed in her will. MR. DOYEN: You see what I mean with the horseshoe here? That's it. So no matter how you come, I'm addressing the next question here. How we want to address the Planning Board's suggestion that another road service to each house° A driveway° From the public or town road here~ MR. HAM: Most Planning Boards prefer one point of access to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you for this one too sir~ Is there anybody who would like to speak against this application? 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 ~$~P~CI~[ MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1988 Appl. No. 3731 Applicant(s): North Fork Country Club Location of Property: 25650 Main Road, Cutchogue County Tax Map No. 1000- Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also Present: Victor Lessard, Building Inspector and Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. The Chairman opened the hearing 8:28 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice for the record. Motion was g~anted to waive the reading of the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a site plan done by Donald Denis dated November, 1986 indicating the tennis court area and the nature of this particular application. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard on behalf of this? Mr. Locke. .~ MR. LOCKE: I think most of the reasons for the application are stated in '~he petition. As indicated in the petition, the building committee thought that this tennis court accessory structure had already been approved as shown on the site plan and prepared by Donald Denis. Unfortunately, that was null on the investigation after the fact tha~ it was never really followed up with the archi- tect and the Planning Board. And inadvertedly, the accessory struc- ture was placed where you see it on the survey and the attached ~photograph which is in any event, the petition is positioned that this accessory structure meets the requirements as set down for an area variance by the courts in defining practical difficulties. And it is a proper place to place a structure such as this on the west side of the tennis courts. You can't place it on th east side beacause it would interfer with the t8th hole. There would be the sand trap and the rough in that area. And there's no question that it's not in the rearyard area. It's either in the side or frontyard. You have a situation here where the club building when it was recon- structed, faces now the Main Road. However, the main entrance to the club is off Moore's Lane. However, the Planning Board set it in that location. And with the parking areas and the ingress and egress to the clubhouse itself. It has indicated in the petition to be no increase in population density to certain governmental facilities. These are not substantial changes in the neighborhood. The club feels it can't place it in the rearyard area and I brought that up about just where the rearyard area is because it will either be in the 18th rough and fairway if you take Moore's Lane as your frontyard. Or if you take the Main Road portion, the north side as your frontyard, then it will be in the practice screen and close to the first tee and first fairway. So obviously, it's impractical to put it in any of those places since the ~tennis courts have been curiously enough, in that exact same location since 1912. I did look up the el_~_~..r~.~, that and they!_ye been right in Page 2 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - North Fork Country Club Southold Zonign Board of Appeals MR. LOCKE Ccontinued): same area since then° So considering everything and the interest of justice, the Board would grant the area variance to allow the location of this accessory structure and you'll have to determine whether you want to cll it the rearyard, I mean the sideyard or the frontyard area. I don't know what. You talk to the Building Inspector, he'll give you a different view on just what is the frontyar there. I really don't know. I'm not trying to be wise about it but it's clearly not the rearyard. So that's why i ap- plied for it either in the front or the sideyard area. If there's any questions, I have Mro Talbot here as the President of the club to answer any questions the Board might have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any lighting in the building? MR. LOCKE: No. The gazebo and that thing, nOo None at all. It's just strictly a daylight situation. It provides some shelter pri- marily from the sun to be perfectly honest with you so they can get out of the sun. It's all open in that area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I really don't have any other questions. It was clearly stated. It's 200 feet from Moore's Lane and 64 feet approximately from Main State Highway. MR. LOCKE: That was measured by tape by the green superintendent. So we have an accurate fix of just where it was for the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's see if anybody else... I don't have any other questions. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this? Anybody like to speak against it? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion approving the application as applied for. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~E~k~ MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1988 Appl. No. 3727 Applicant(s): Dorothy Abbott Location of Property: Rocky Point Road, East Marion County Tax Map No. 1000- Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also Presenz: Victor Lessard, Building Inspector and Linda Kowatski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. The Chairman opened the'hearing 8:34 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice for the record. Motion was granted to waive the reading of the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey d te 88 right off the press indicating this particular parcel which is of irregular design. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Wagner would you like to be heard? MR. WAGNER: Good evening members of the Board. I'm John Wagner from Essesk, Hefter and Angel i~ Riverhead. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Dorothy Abbott. The applicant is here as well. They are right over there. And I will make my presentation. If the Board has any questions of the applicant, feel free to ask them. I'd like to start off by giving you a little bit of history of this parcel. The applicant purchased the parcel in early 1971 as is reflected in the deed that was submitted with the application. In view of the fact that it was purchased prior to November of 1971, it is our po- sition that the bulk and parking regulations set forth in subsection A of section 100-31 apply to this parcel. I would like to hand up at this time, a single and separate search prepared by Aquebogue Ab- stract Company verifying that the property has been held since 1971 in single and separate ownership. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGEAR: That's the entire parcel in toto. MR. WAGNER: That's the entire parcel which is parcels one and two on the survey. Now subsequent to the purchase of the property, in 1978 there were some modifications made to the existing house on the premises. The house dates back to the 20's or 30's. So it is a sub- stantial pre-existing structure. In 1978, there existed at the north east corner of the house a covered porch. At that time, an applica- tion was made to the town to place an addition on the structure in the northwest corner of the structure. Now, I have here a copy of the sketch that was submitted to the Building Department and is in fact, contained in the Building Departmen~ files which I'd like to submit to the Board so you can see the state of affairs at the end of '78 on the property. Now, you'll notice on the sketch in the northwest corner of the property appears the word addition and a dotted area. Page 2 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public gearing - Dorothy Abbott Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. WAGNER (continued): That is the area that was added in 1978. To the right of that in the northeast corner of the property is the pre-existing covered porch that was attached to the house. Now, the work was performed in '78 and a certificate of occupancy was obtained. I will submit a copy of the certificate of occupancy as well. Moving forward once again, in 1981 additional work was performed on the premises. At this time, William Beebe contractor, added a deck to the pre- mises. What the deck did was it added a triangular cantilever section extending outward from where the pre-existing covered porch had been. The covered porch was replaced with a deck. A cantilever section was added bringing the deck to a point facing the Sound° In addition, the deck was wrapped around the eastern side of the struc- ture and you can see the current state of affairs out there on the current survey which shows the deck wrapping around the side of the premises and extending about 72 inches out from the eastern side of the building. Now, unbenounced to the applicant, the builder did not -.obtain a building permit for the work that was done on the deck. The applicant assumed that all the required permits had been obtained. The first knowledge she had of any kind of problem with it was when earlier this year, she attempted to get a certificate of occupancy for the building as it exists now. She was in the process of selling the property. At that time, the Building Inspector advised here that he could not issue a C.Oo and I have the notice of disapproval here as well. The notice of disapproval that the Building Inspector saw that there was a problem with the easterly setback° He did not indicate any problem with a setback from the back. However, after that time~ I was advised by Linda Kowalski that we would also have to make ap- plication to clear this matter up before a bluff setback variance as well. So, in summary, we are here tonight to try to get a c.o.. is- sued for this property. We require two variances from the Board° The first variance is an easterly setback variance to allow the deck to remain in the current position which is 6½ feet from the boundary line instead of the required 10 feet. The second variance is a vari- ance to the 1985 addition to the Town Code which requires 100 foot setback from the bank facing Long Island Sound. I'd like to handle both the variances in sequence. We will start with the easterly set- back variance. As you know, to make out a case for that variance, I have to demonstrate criteria for practical difficulty. These criteria are set forth in the case law of Lutzburger v. Vitalis which you are probably familiar with. I will go through the five factors indivi- dually as they proceed. The requirement here is for a ten foot set- back. We are seeking a 6½ foot setback. Therefore, we require a variance of 3½ feet. I'd like to submit to the Board that 3½ feet is diminimous at best. It is substantial in terms of the 10 feet on a percentage basis. In actual terms, 3½ feet is not much of a dif- ference. The difference in the appearance of the house as the Board probably knows, is substantial° It's a large area on the side of the house for access to the deck from the side of the building. The second factor would be the effect if the variance is allowed, a decreased population densitY thus produced on available governmental facilities° What we're talking about here is a deck. It does not provide for any additional occupancy of the building. Therefore, it's not going to Page 3 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - Dorothy Abbott Southold Zoning Board of3Appeals MR. WAGNER (continued): result in any strain on governmental facilities at all. The third factor is whether a substantial change will be produced in the character of~the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to adjoin- ing property be created. Now, on this point, I would like to point out first of all, that the structure on the property has been there for approximately 50 or 60 years. It's been there a long time. It has been sitting there. The adjoining properties are similiarly de- veloped with existing structures. I ~act, if the Board has had a chance to inspect the property, they might have noticed that there is a bungalow on the westerly parcel ~ight at the edge of the bluff which is a substantial nonconforming structure. I also have here tonight, an affidavit from the adjoining property owner on the east, Grace Raymond. The affidavit is to the effect that she does not have any objection to the variance as opposed here tonight. I'd like to hand that up to the Board at this time as well. The next factor to be considered is whether the difficulty can be obviated by some method feasible for ~the applicant to pursue other than a variance. There's really only one option available to the appli- cant if they don't get the variance tonight. And that is to loft the deck off. If you'd had the chance to examine the 'building and the structure, we'd have to take off enough space so that the deck would only protrude 2½ feet from the Side of the building which is a very narrow area for passage to the side of the building from the deck. In addition, taking off that side of the deck would require placing new pilings into the subsurface to support the edge of the deck. The pilings right now are pretty much out t~wards the edge of the deck. So they would have to be removed and be replaced by a new set. This would result in substantial excavation and distur- bance of the soil. 1 submit that that's counter productive in an area of high erosion. The fifth factor is whether in view of the matter in which the difficulty arose considering all the above factors, the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance. I'd like to,submit to the Board that what occurred here was really an innocent mistake on behalf of the applicant. The builder put something up. It's been there now for several years, innocently. She sought the c.o. just recentlY for it and ~as to her surprise, denied the c.o. I think that it was an act of good faith on her part. She relied upon the builder. There's nothing to'indicate that anything was tried to be put over on anyone here. We just have a situation where the homeowner got caught. And'in view of the fact that none of the neighbors have objected to the variance, the~'interest of justice would call for not imposing any kind of hardship on this applicant by forcing the removal of ths deck. That said, I'll move along on to the second variance which is the bank setback variance. The requirement is for 1~0 feet from the bank. There shall ~ no building within 100 feet of the bank. This is a very laudical requirement in view of the serious erosion that occurs along the Sound beach.. ~owever, we s~hould p~int out tha~ this particular structure, the building itself is pre-existing. And if you look at the setbacks that appear on the survey that has been submitted, the building itse~'f was'located only, the corner of the building notwithstanding a deck, is only. 38 feet from the edge of the bank. With the deck included, it's 30 feet from the edge of the bank. I submit that we already have Page 4 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - Dorothy Abbott So~thold Zoning Board of'Appeals MR. WAGNER (continued): a substantial nonconformity in the existing building. We have in- creased~the nonconformity somewhat but you should also note~that there was a covered porch on there that was also a pre-existing condition. I've been out to the site myself and I can tell you that from my measurements, all that's been done is we have added 68 inches of cant~l~m3 deck out from the pre-existing structure That 68 inches is purely cantilever. It. does not come in con- tact with the ground at all. So if there's any safety motive be- hind the 100 foot setback, it~ is not violated by this particular projection of the deck. I would submit that the projection on this deck is a~ attractive addition to the deck. To remove it would cause £t to look ~ little odd. It's not increasing any safety problem out there. I would also submit that in the in- terest of good faith as well, this ordinance requiring the 100 foot setback, was only enacted in 1985. So if the proper pro- cedures had been followed in 1981 when 'the structure was built, there would have been no requirement to comply with 100 foot set:- back at that time. Another factor i~'the ordinance is saying it is a deck. It d0es not increase the occupancy. Thsrefore, it has no impact on governmental facilities.~ There is also no in- creased population densfty. Substantial change to the character of the neighborhood, 1 can't see any. We have just a small piece of a deck projecting out. There is nothing that can been seen from the road or anything of that nature. So it's not obtrusive in any way to the general public. Can the difficulty' be obviated. The only way again, is to loft off the deck resulting in something that is rather unattractive and it's a very' costty thing to loft off these decks as well. .Again, the interest of justice was an innocent mistake. It doesn't hurt anybody to have the thing there. It's a very attractive deck. I would submit that it should remain there. I should make one more point before I close respecting the sideyard variance. If you had had a chance to observe the property, you will see that the neighboring property right across the easter- ly boundary line, is substantially unusable. There"s about 10 feet of property beyond the llne. After that there's a cliff that goes right down to the beach. I don't think that's ever going to be used over there. Th~ref0re, the setback 'requirement of this par- ticular deck in its present location, doesn't seem to have much of a purpose as far as the neighbor is concerned. Thank y~u very much. If you have any questions, we're available. 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 ~S~P~E~iLALL MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1988 Appl. No. 3726 Applicant(s): Cliff & Phill's Lobs5er House Location of Property: S/s C.R. 48, Southold County Tax Map No. 1000- Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also Present: Victor Lessard, Building Inspector and Linda Kowatski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. The Chairman opened the hearing 8:50 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice for the record. Motion was granted to waive the reading of the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey of Mr. Coster's property which is dated December 13, 1968 indicating the sign placed in approximately 15 feet from-~the, I guess that's more or less, the easterly boundary ah~approximately 10 feet from the more northwest boundary. And'a~'~opy of the sketch of the sign which shows the sign approximately 4 by 6 indicating the letter- ing and a~proximately 4 feet above ground. My question is, is there anybody here? Yes. Sir, is the sign going to be lighted? MR. KARLIN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It will not beilighted.i. Will there by any directional? juSt left. No arrows or anything of that nature? MR. KARLIN: No sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in~avor of this? Against it? Hearing no fur- the~ comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing~'reserving de- cision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~CLAE MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1988 Appl. No. 3721 Applicant(s): Russell E. Planitzer Location of Property: Wilderness Point, Fishers Island County Tax Map No. 1000- Board Members present: Chairman Goehringer P. Goehringer, Members: Doyen, Douglass, Grigonis and Sawicki. Also Present: Victor Lessard, Building Inspector and Linda Kowalski, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals. The Chairman opened the hearing 8:53 o'clock p.m. and read the legal notice for the record. Motion was granted to waive the reading of the application. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey produced by Robert A.M. Stern Architects, the most recent date May 12, 1988 received by us on May 16, 1988--~indicating this parcel. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax.'~- I"-m talking approximately 5.6 acres. We'll ask if there's anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I was asked by Mr. Bruer's office to stay around for this hearing. And if the applicant or I believe one of the ar- chitects were supposed to be here to make 'a presentation and I was to be here to give them any' advice that they might have. I've never seen the application. I know nothing about it. I would be happy to take any' questions back, however, to Mr. Br~er's office and if they can be answered by the applicant or someone, IWd be happy to trans- mit them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see how it goes. I thank you Kevin. Serge:,~would you like to say something about this application? MR. DOYEN: Yes I would because this has been worked and reworked as Linda can testify to. I don't thinkl she's probably had any more communication with an applicant since she's been here. The neighbor, this has been as the letters in the file indicate, the neighbors have voiced their opinion pro and con. And to the best of my/knowledge, now the neighbors are in agreement that this is the very best presen- tation that it can be in the very instances. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: who .... Are you referring to Dr. Gaducion or is that Page 2 - Thursday, June 2, 1988 Public Hearing - Russell E. Planitzer Southold Zoning Board~of Appeals MR. DOYEN: W~ll, Dr. Gaducion and there's another letter. Dr. Gaducion had a few remarks and his principal objection was the view he might see from the road and asking for a fence. Then when I sug- gested that maybe shrubbery, evergreens, whatever the landscapers or architects used to close the view off from the road to the pool. And so he was much happier over that idea rather than having fencing. So when I spoke to him, he said he had .no more objections. And the other neighbor that you have a letter in the file, said that he thought this was the very best situation as applied for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. What is this progodo area that they're referring to? What is that? MR. DOYEN: You've got to thank Linda for the correct pronunciation. She nailed it down. It's a pierogula. You.~have all the photographs there. There's a number c~ photographs that I've taken. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In order to take the persons, people and the neighbors in the neighborhood,, two adjoining neighbor~s~feelings,. how much fence, evergreen'area are you referring to? MR. DOYEN: This area along here:to block the vire from the road. Maybe from here to here. From where his property starts here to back to this area. They may want to do this. When I spoke to the architect, he was very happy. As a matter'of fact, I think he was very happy that it came to this. Because after all, they want~to be shielded from the road as much as Dr. Gaducio~ doesn't want to see them when he-goes by. So this is a pretty good presentation after.working it over after how many drawings did they have. How many_updates and they changed the pi~n~a, little bit, this little bit there and'they'd s-end Linda another set of drawings. You see, this area here, see the house up here? That drops off. Well, here is the'elevation map. It drOps off about 30 feet every way around. This is just sitting on'top of a knoll, a hill. Everything drops off. This is the only flat area they have. Everything else around 'the house drops off about 30 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to .take a look at this one Kevin? It's.just a minor little, One of the normal little one~s~.that they build over..' MR. DOYEN: Look at the view there from the upper part of the struc- ture. You can see almost over to watch hill. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Quite impressive. MR. DOYEN: It certainly is. It impressed Gaducion down below. looks like it's going 'to overtake him. It CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no... Is there"anybody here... The~e's nobody left. Mr. Boschetti doesn't want to come. and he's worried about the Co~e and that's all he's here for. So we'aSked the queStions and there was no one here. SO' we'll close the hearing. Hearing no fur- them-comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing. Thank you. Ail in favor - AY~. REOE[PED AND FILED BY T~E SOUTHOLD TosvN CL~BK DATE