Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/18/1988 Hearing TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3740 Matter of CAROL P~GUIRE Location of Property: 2500 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No. 1000-1'04-12-i4.1 Board Members Present: Gerard Po Goehringer, Chairman; Charles ~rigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawickio Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman oppned the hearing at 7735 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy.of the survey in the p~ior owners name dated May 5, 1970 on behalf of-Robert VanTuyl and Son. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map as indicated. Is there somebody who would like to speak on behalf of this applica- tion? This is the Maguire application. How do you~do? MS. MAGUIRE: I'm Carol Maguire. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there something you would like to say? MS. ~IAGUIRE: First of all, I've never been to a Zoning Board be- fore. So I don't know what the procedure is. Secondly, I'm sorry that i'm first on the agenda. I would like to have seen somebody else come up first. But since I'm number one, I'm here. I would like to say that the fence and the storage accessory building there is already in place. And I wo~td like to preface it with an expla- nation of why I'm going for a variance after the fact. We purchased our house three years ago, placed themetal storage building in its present location. W~re unaware that it was illegal for a variety of reasons. Number one, if you look at the map, you'll notice that we have three frontyards. Well, we ~didn't know that when we bought the house. When we bought the house, we figured the front of the house is the frontyard, the back of the house is the backyard and the sides of the house is the sideyardso So we placed it in what we considered our backyard. And where we us~ to live, you only needed a building permit that was on a permanent foundation, on a cement foundation. So these are metal sheds that are not on a per- manent foundation. So therefore, we did not apply for a building permit. The fence also was ignorant on our part. The fence is well witt~in the property line. It's anywhere from 38 to 84 feet within the property line. And where we lived previously, you only needed a building permit for a fence that was'on the property line or ob- structed the view of traffic like on a corner plot. So the first that we knew that we were illegal was when we got a letter from the Building Inspector in May and our ~irst reaction was that he Page 2 Matter of Carol Maguire Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CAROL ~GUIRE: Continued meant the accessory building that was ~here~when we bought the house. Because when we bought the house, that had not gotten a building permit or a c.o. and money was left in escrow until that was cleared by the previous owners. So we said well, they didn't get that information. So my husband came in with a c.o. and a building permit for that building. Then of course, we fodnd out that we have three frontyards and that we have a build- ing · ih the ba'~k frpnt~ard. Now, wet call it~the fro~t frontya£d',~he side frontya~d and the back frontyard. First we were just g~ing to correct it and then we thought we'd apply for a variance.'..And up until this past Monday, I did not expect too many problems with the variance. But on Monday I was given a copy o~ a letter from the Nassau Point Property Owners Association .which you probably have. And I think that a lot of the things in here are a little misleading and I would like to address myself to that letter. May i do that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MS. MAGUIRE: The first statement there, number one is correct. Number two, they have words in here that I'm not quite sure what they mean. It says after numerous complaints from association members on the'property. Now, -I don't know if ~numerous complaints are many people or the same people giving the complaint many times. Is it ten people or a hundred people? I was never contacted by anyone from the Nassau Point Property Owners Association to advise me that there was complaints being registered. Then it says in- volving storage sheds. Well, the accessory building that is in our front frontyard has been cleared and okayed by the previous owners. The accessory4building that's in question on the variance, is in the back. And when I came in to apply for the variances, I explained that it was two buildings attached to be one building. So therefore, it was pu~ through as one accessory building. So we're really only talking about one,accessory building here. And it's 20 feet wide, 10 feet deep, 7 feet high.~ And then we have storage of numerous boats. Well, we have a Boston Whaler and an Oday Marinar which we use. The Oday Marinar has not been used for various reasons for the past two summers but they are boats that we use. They've been in our possession for over 25 years. We're not storing other peo~te's boats by any means. It also says numerous automobiles. We have two vehicles. My husband has a pick-up truck. I have a station wagon. My daughter lives with us, has a car but she's not home all the ~ime. I would call'her only like semi-per- manent. So there are three cars. I don't know if that's numerous vehicles. My son comes home from college. He lives with his brother in the summertime that comes out On.weekends. So occasionally, his car might be there. The recreational vehicle is not a bi~ motor home. It is one of these square high low things with a box. We did store it outside under a blue tarp. And in May when we found out we were so objectionable to the area, we stored it in the ga- rage. It's been stored in the garage since May. I'm going on to number three. Again, they said that we are in 'full view of every- one that's entering the point. That's true. We live on a little P~ge 3 Matter of CarOl Maguire Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CAROL MAGUIRE: Continued piece of~la~d that's between Vanston and Nassau Point Road. So anybody that comes on to the p~int either has to pass the front front or the back front.' And the boats are stored year around and not .just-seasonally. I really don't understand what that means. These are our personal boats. We do use them. We don't just .... The Oday Marinar was originally kept at our summer ]Rome up in Maine and we brought it home two summers ago and it may go back up to Maine again. It says here also in point number three, the last sentence;, tke application for variance states that this is not practical but it certainly is if the stored boats would be legally relocated ahd moved off the property and so forth to · make room for the shed. Now, I don't think it is practical for us to move it into what is the side backyard. It's a very small area. It's presently a ~,~.~asberry patch which we're going to do away with because we find out now that we'need that ar~a. It's possible to move the shed but to me, it's more practical where they're situated.. That's where we choose to put them in the first piece before we knew. it was illegal. Comment number four; it says that the fence is not compatible with property in the immediate area. On Monday after I received this letter I just took a ride down Nassau Point Road and I found three properties that have over 4 foot stockade type fences. Not just on their property in the way ours is but actually on the boundary of their property in'~he--frontyard. What would be considered their front- yard. So our fence is barely vi.sible.'~'~I think it was more visible when it first went up last April ~because it was new wood and the new wood stood out amongst thetrees. As i~'s .weathering, you ca~ barely see it. I'took some pictures Which I put in the folder there and those pictures were taken. I had to walk into the property on to the woods to get those pictures. Because from'the road, you can't really see it. On point number five, they make reference to a wood pile. Yes,~we do have a wood pile. We had gotten some free wood which we're seasoning' we use a lot of wood for our fireplace. And in order for~it to air-dry, we piled it in a very neat pile. I see piles of wood still from HurriCane Gloria just in a mess. Ours is piled very neatly, very evenly. And it is 42 inches. We measured it after we got this letter'. And the wood will be used eventually. I would say there's about two inches worth of wood in that pile. The summation paragraph, I' took ex' ception to because I think it really makes our property sound as if we have j~nkyard there. I would be ashamed.~to live there if it really looked like this. It says the general~' result of the condi~iohs described above,, is a property which is being used' as a storage area with all sorts of flimsy storage sheds, unattrac- tive fencing and a collection of motor'vehicles and boats. That is pretty strong. And ~then the fin~t paragraph, the association hopes that the Board of Appeals ~ill.deny this variance request so that the Building Department, the association and the owners of the property may confer and reaeh agreement as much as possible. Pgge 4 Matter of Carol Maguire Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CAROL MAGUIRE: Continued May I say that ~ am a member of the Nassau Pdint Property Owners Association and never once did I get a phone call from these num- erous and many complaints. I am very hurt by that. I think it would have been a courteous and neighborly, if when the associa- tion received these complaints, ~ had been notified. I certainly don't want to disturb the neighborhood or offend anyone. And I would have gladlY complied with whatever they ha'd suggested. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you a couple of questions? What is the purpose of the fence which encloses the .... ? MS. MAGUIRE: As a privacy screen around that building there. My husband uses that building that was put there by the previous own- ers as his worksh6p. He's a hobbyist. He makes picture frames for me and repairs lamps and so forth.. He has his machinery in there and tools. And he just wanted to put up a little fence around there for no particular reason other than his o~ benefit. He did not think it would offend anyone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the storage .... MS. MAGUIRE: The only thing that I must say to be very very 'truth- ful; we had on our boats, these blue tarps which I don~t like these blue tarps. And when my husband put the blue tarps on the boa~, I said gee. The blue tarps are terrible. He says; well, I hunted all around for khaki colored ones or beige and they don't make them. They just have the blue tarps. And he said he didn't .... We have a very wooded piece of property and the boats are underneath 'the trees and he didn't want the oak trees staining the boats and so forth and thatls why we had the blue tarp. Now in May when we found that this was offensive, we put them in-the rasberry patch. So hence, the'boats are now in the rasberry patch where I don~t think they can be seen too easily because of the woods around. So they have been relocated. CHAI~.~N GOEHRINGER: As for the storage building, do. you have any objection of screening those from the road with either plantings or anything of that nature? MS. MAGUIRE: Not at all. Actually, if you look at the pictures... If you just drive by down the road without trying to really look for something, you really don't take notice of those buildings. If you slow your car down and you strain and you look, then you can see them through the trees. They're in quite a bit from the road if you look at the dimensions on the map there. They're about 29 feet in from the property line and there's like a buffer zone between the property line and the road of about 4 or 5 feet. So it's like over 30 feet in and it is wooded. The front of the build- ings face our backyard. I look out my kitchen window at them. I don't consider them flimsy or unattractive. I look at them all the time. I had made a list of what we store in there if that's of any interest to anyone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can give us a copy if you wouldn't mind. Page 5 Matter of Carol Maguire Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MS. MAGUIRE: Well, I just wrote it by hand but I can turn that in. CHAIRMAN ~OEHRINGER: Ok. That's fine. MS. MAGUIRE: I just have the contents of these buildings. I hope you can read my writing because I just jotted this all.-down this afternoon. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing.. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Is there a spokesperson from the Nassau Point Property Owners Association or whatever? How do you do sir? MR. BAKER: .I"m the person who signed that letter. I'm sorry that Mrs. Maguire feels that we're being harsh on this issue. We have had numerous complaints'. What numerous is is that in upwards of 20 calls that we have received, directors have received regarding this. And admittedly, at thiS time of year, the sheds and the fence is less noticeable than it is in the Fall. It is a wooded piece of property. When the Spring and Summer is her.e there is foliage around, it is less noticeable. It is in 'the Winter and the Ehll that the storage buildings, there are three of them. And individual- ly if you look at these things it doesn't sound like it's very very important. But when you add three storage.buildings and four boats and four vehicles that are immediately at the access of Nassau Point, it really does become an eyesore. And I think that's what the property owners have been complaining to me about and that's why we asked that the variance be denied. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In total the variance be denied? What is your feeling regarding the fences or the fence? MR. BAKER: The fence really didn't do anything as far as helping the property. We assume that when the fence went up, it was used to disguise the boats or the sheds or hide them. Our sense is that it just made matters worse. The same thing could have been accomp- lished with plantings as somebody had suggested. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. like to speak. Yes sir. Is there anybody else who would MR. SLATTERY: Vice President of the Association. And I'd like to speak to Ms. Maguire's point about not having contact with us. Be- lng a long standing policy of the association to ask the town to enforce the zoning laws and that's exactly what we attempted to do in this case. From the complaints that I received, the straw that seems to have broken the camel's back is the arrival of what I would describe as a 30 foot panelled truck about the size of the George Braun oyster truck whi6h remained on the property for an extended period of time in excess of 90 days. That brought rumors that busi- ness was being conducted on the site. As to one of the buildings Page 6 Matter of Carol Maguire Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 198~ MR. SLATTERY: Continued that was spoken about by Mrs. Maguire be temporary in nature and not having a foundation, i would hasten to add that the building has a chimney on it, has electrical service and has outdoor and indoor lighting. And I think that that should be brought ou~ and considered as part of the application. CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: Slattery. But that's the building-that's legal Mr. MR. SLATTERY: I'm not exactly sure what is legal and what is inot. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's the'one that she claims she has the c~o. for and I'm looking at one right now. I didn't review that. But again, the nature of this particular hearing is the fence and the two storage buildings which I would basically refer to on the west side of the property. The storage building. So, thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? In rebuttal Mrs. Maguire. I have to ask you. I don't know why I'm so tongue tied tonight. I've got to apologize. MS. MAGUIRE: I'd like to explain that panel truck. That is my son's truck. He lives in Jericho. He was bringing the wood out for the wood pile and he broke down in Riverhead by Carl's Nursery there. We towed him as far as our property and it took him about two weeks to get the truck running and it was not there more than three weeks. The idea of 90 days is ridiculous. He needed that truck for his business. He's in the trucking business. He could not have afforded to have left it on our property for that length of ~imeo He would have been out Of business. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody who would like to say anything either pro or con regarding this hearing? The only question that I would like-to ask the president if I might, where do you propose-the storage sheds be placed or relocated? MR. BAKER: Where the boats are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: house supposedly? That's in the rasberry patch in back of 'the MR. BAKER. That's the side that's least visible. CHAI~.{AN GOEHRINGER: Sir, you had a question. MR. ROMMAN: I'm a neighbor. I live down Vanston Road. It seems to me.that we have a long series of procedures that we have to go through to get a legal building permit. Just adding on to my house I went through 9 billion inspections and had a building permit, cer- tificate of o~cupancy. If you can just walk into this committee and make everything legal by moving a building around or talking about a fence, then what's the point in the rules. And we all do it that way. The remedy is to take it out. Move it. Page 7 ~atter of Carol Maguire Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CHAIRMAN GOEPRRINGER: Thank you sir. 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 AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3750 Matter of SEYMOUR AND MERLE LEVINE Location of Property: 460 Private Road %8, East Marion County Tax Map ID No. 1000-23-1-3.2 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles grigonis, Jrt, and Joseph H. Sawicki. AbSent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (dUe to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman op~ned~ the hearing at 8:00 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated July 13, 1983 by Robert VanTuyl & Sons, P.C. indicating a parcel of propecty along the right-of-way of Main State Highway with a storage bl~ild- ing off of the right-of-way approiimately 100 feet in, 15 feet off of the west property line. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is the~e somebody who would like to be heard on behalf of this? Mrs. Levine. How do you~do? MS. LEVINE: I'm also nervous. I've never done this. And we did place that shed where we understood was a legal placement and we also had this problem, I know it sounds a little strange, about what is the front and back of t~he house~ We face on.to Dan Pond. So therefore, we feel that is the front of our house. The shed, I think'is sort of cute and it is new and it's tucked in among trees. We did confer with our neighbors. And as far as I'm aware, there has been no complaints. They certainly didn't complain to us. As you can see from the pictures, it's not visible from the rear property in back of us, from the Campbells in front of us and the new homse which has just been built facing this. But it's their garage that faces that shed. If it were to be moved to what someone might call the back, the pond side; it seems to me that that would be very offensive because then it would be in full view of the three houses that are at the head of the pond and look do%ma towards it. We were able to camflouge it better placing it here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGERi~~. I was just looking for the size. Do you hap- pen to know the size? I didn't measure it when I was out there. Page 2 Matter of Seymour and Merle Levine Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MS. LEVINE: 'W~ bought it from the North Fork people. size it is that they make. Whatever CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe you can call us with the size. It's not on the building permitl If.you wouldn't mind. When I was up there last Sunday morning I was up kind of early and I did take a picture of it. But I did not want to bother you that early, iIt wasn't early early. Ir'was.about 10 o'clock.' ~But I didn't get out.' But if you would call us with just the size, we would appre- ciate it so that we can write it into the findings. And we 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"m~mbers? Hearing no further, questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. BY TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3751 Matter of JEAN C. HOLLAND-LONGNECKER Location of Property: Sunset Road, Beach Lane, and Lowland Road at Nassau Point, Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No. 1000-111-10-18, 1 and 2. Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants, the Applicants' Attorney, Anthony B. Tohill, P.C. and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:05 p.m. and read the notice of hearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we have a survey, most recent date June 29, 1987 indicating Lot 9327 of approximately 47,500 sq. ft. without Lot 9 36, which is on the Other side of Lowland Road, and Lot ~328, which is Parcel B, approximately 40,000 sq. ft., again without the lot on the other side of the road. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the properties in the surrounding area. Would you like to be heard, Mr. Tohill? ANTHONY B. TOHILL, ESQ.: My name is Anthony B. Tohill, and I'm an Attorney with Offices at 12 First Street in Riverhead, and I represent the applicant before the Board this evening. And as you earlier indicated, this is an application for a resubdivision of Lots 327 and 328 on the Nassau Point Subdivision Map filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in 1922. Part of the new subdivision process is the attachment, I believe, historically, at the Board's suggestion, of the two seaward small, unbuildable parcels across Lowland Road with each of the upland parcels. This process began on December 9, 1983, when Mr. Lessard rendered a Notice of Disapproval to the property owner indicating that in ~Page ~ Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 his opinion, the parcels had merged. I'm not sure that Mr. Lessard was then correct, or would be correct today, to the extent that 100-112 of the Zoning Code would appear to except this subdivision map as to lot area and width requirements under the language of the Zoning Ordinance, and 100-31, adopted in 1983, or at least Subdivision b of that subsection of the law, would appear to continue that exception. And that was done by design, but that's the plain reading of the Ordinance, therefore, the property owner, during 1983, when the Board will remember, there were a flurry of local laws dealing with upzoning in the Town generally, one adopted in the Spring and one adopted in the Fall, later to become 100-31 and 100-31.1 of the Zoning Ordinance--the property owner had two alternatives: 1, either to agree with Mr. Lessard and come here and attempt a set-off, which they're doing, or 2., I believe they have the option of moving the house that straddles the line between 327 and 328, as a result of which they would have probably fallen back within 100-12 as one of the exceptions. As I mentioned, they chose to come here, and by appeal 3230, decided on December 5, 1984, the Board denied the application. The reason for the denial as stressed in that determination is that the Board did not like the series of lines, the multiple lines, that were used to divide 326 and 327. The Map, and I think everybody would agree, appeared to be too busy, too many lines, and not following the sense of expectations with respect as to how a line would be drawn to divide two lots, certainly wasn't consistent with the original 1922 subdivision map, and so as a result, the Board said, "this is a denial without prejudice to a new drawing." Thereafter, and under Appeal 3361, a further appeal was made to the Board, a line was redrawn, the line is essentially the way it is tonight, and at that time the Board highlighted in its denial, again without prejudice, that there was some concern for water quality in that particular area, that that concern had been expressed by the Nassau Point Property Owners Association, that had filed a written letter of protest as part of the proceedings, and so the Board at that time and on June 27, 1985, denied the application without prejudice to resubmission until the applicant were able to obtain Suffolk County Health Department approval with respect to the sanitary systems and water-supply system on the parcel, in other words, with respect to the subdivision. On March 7, 1988, after effort that reminds me of that gentleman's zillions steps to obtain the approval of municipal government, the property owner was able to obtain after a Board of Review hearing, a determination from the Health Department, which says that they will approve the subdivision and the sole condition of the approval of the subdivision is that those two lots seaward of Lowland end up merged effectively with the two lots landward of Lowland. I have here in my hand and will hand up as part of the proceeding tonight both the letter of the Health Department approving that and an original signed copy of the subdivision map that's before the Board tonight which bears the original stamp '~age ~ Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 and signature of Aldo Andrioli of the Suffolk County Health Department approving this subdivision as it stands before the Board tonight. In addition to the Suffolk County Health Department approval, we also have the approval for this subdivision as it appears before the Board tonight from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation; and that approval continues to be in place. It has been in place right now three and one-half years, and still in place expiring at the end of this year, at which time it is going to be renewed by the Department of Conservation again. I also have in my hand, and I'm going to hand up as part of this proceeding tonight, a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map which shows the subject parcel and shows the area of the four lots as well as Lowland Road. The intention of handing up the subdivision map is to make clear a number of points. One, the character of the area is established by the Tax Map. People can write letters to the Board all they wish but the character of the area is established by the Tax Map. That's what the Supreme Court of the State of New York has ruled on, repeated occasions, and we will stand with the character of that area as it is set forth on this tax map, and there is simply no question that to the naked eye, not to a surveyor's eye, the parcels that we're talking about, all four an constituted together, are somewhat out of place with the original scheme of the 1922 subdivision map, mapped with its various (changed tape) ( ). The Board has received, and I assume it's part of the record, a letter which was not delivered to us, by the writer, a Peter J. Stahel, but was kindly sent on to us by the Board, and we've had an opportunity to review it. The letter is dated August 16, 1988, and it makes a number of statements with respect to this application, which I'd like to comment upon. The first statement is that somehow we have misrepresented any intention of building on the set-off parcel, on the new parcel, or at least the short or long term of a building intention. We've been before the Town of Southold since December 1983. We had no intention in 1983 of building, and we have no intention in 1988 of building, and we came to the Town because in that year, as everybody will remember, there was a great deal of activity in this building with respect to upzoning and changing what people perceive to be their rights with respect to vacant lots adjoining existing houses. That's why we came. That's why we're here. That's why we are pursuing what we perceive to be our rights, but we have no intention of engaging any builder or any lumber company or anyone else to build a lot on which we hope will be the vacant lot as a result of tonight's proceeding. So I don't know where Mr. Stahel got his information, but it wasn't from us or anybody who has personal knowledge of anything. It's news to us. ~Page ~' Matter of Jean Co Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 The second problem is that Mr. Stahel is raising the point that there are water problems in the area, and he wishes to obtain with respect to the salinity intrusion. I am going to hand up and make part of the proceedings here tonight the Suffolk County Health Department records, which include a report dated July 14, 1987 from Peter Acryss, which says that our water quality is acceptable under N.Y.S. and Suffolk County Health Department standards. I'm also going to hand up and make part of the record here tonight a complete water sample, including the location of the test well, including the chemical examination of the water by the Suffolk County Health Department on June 12, 1987 and including a trace organic analysis of the water, all as a result of which the Suffolk County Health Department ought to know something about water quality, as said that the water quality on our property is completely acceptable under current, legal standards. Now, the third question that Mr. Stahel raises is that "Mrs. Holland has self-created her hardship. She self-created her hardship by buying a parcel of land where the house that's already on the two lots straddles and is too close to the southerly line of the northerly of the two parcelS." I'm going to hand up and make up part of the record here tonight a copy of the deed in 1967 into Mrs. Holland. That's a few more years than Mr. Stahel, who in his letter says that he just bought in the area 18 months ago. That's three years after we started this process of getting to the zillion that that gentleman mentioned of getting our approval for our set-off. Also, in addition to that deed, I'm going to hand up and make a part of the record a true copy -- I have the original in my file here tonight if the Board or anybody else wishes to see it, this is a true copy of an amendment to the Nassau Point covenants under which they recite that the house on these two parcels was built too close to the southerly line of the northerly most parcel, and so the original subdivider of all of that land assigned his name on this document in 1959 saying that this parcel, 327 and 328, so far as the Nassau Point Club Properties, Inc. is concerned, the subdivide of the property, may have two houses on 327 and 328. So I don't know again what research Mr. Stahel has done, but I suggest that if he checks tbs Suffolk County Clerk's Office he is going to find that document, and if he had bothered to check this town's records, he'll find that that document was handed up as long ago as 1984 to this Board's part of earlier proceedings here. The next point that makes this, that there is something that he calls parcelization. I didn't look that up in the dictionary, but I have a fair understanding of what he is trying to say. He says that he does not like--that those two lots, the small lots that are unbuildable, on the seaward side of Lowland, are somehow going to become part of the landward lots--the larger of the two lots. To be honest with you, I'm not sure that the gentleman understands the direction he is arguing in. If the Board doesn't ~P~age ~ Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 want those two lots- to become unbuildable, either by a larger lot easement, or prohibition, by covenant, or by any other means, a merger condition--however it is done, if this Board doesn't want that, then that's the way it is going to be. I don't remember that my client bought that particular proposal. My understanding, the history will show, that the Board suggested that that is a fair way of avoiding criticism because the two parcels are on the other side of the road. The argument was also made some years ago, that the merger of the two parcels on the seaward side with the landward side would somehow eliminate the access of people along Lowland Road to the extent that it existed. That's absolutely not possible and not the intention, and if somebody wants that in writing, they'll have it. The next point is that Mr. Stahel objects that the two parcels somehow are not going to be characteristic of the area and he points up that his parcel is 0.7 acre(s). I'm not sure what the gentleman is trying to say again, but 0.7 acre(s) is less than 40,000 sq. ft. and the size of the two parcels here is 40,000 sq. ft., without reference to the seaward side of Lowland Road. The final opinion, and now I think we get to Mr. Stahel's point, is that Mr. Stahel says that in the 18 months that he has bought this property and lived on it, he has come to enjoy looking across Mrs. Holland's property and he enjoys the view to the water, and he would like that view to the water to remain. And he would like it, I think, on our back, and without opening his checkbook. And I know that the Board is not here to see that he has some kind of a visual easement across our property, and so I assume that's not the kind of thing that's going to cause any problem. And the second letter again, we did not get a copy of it, but kindly the Clerk of the Board sent a copy to us. It's from the Nassau Point Property Owners' Association. I'll confess that like Mrs. Maguire, who expressed some impatience before with the style of the Nassau Point Property Owners' Association, my stomach, with its stomach acid that sometimes habits my stomach, generally had a reaction to the Nassau Point Property Owners' Association as expressed in this letter. The first point is that they are raising a question in the first paragraph of their comments with respect to salt-water intrusion. My clients spent a lot of money obtaining the Health Department's approval. They had to have a test hole dug. They had to have a test well drilled. They had to have a series of water samples taken. They had to pay VanTuyt and Son a lot of money. They had to pay me a lot of money. They had to attent a public hearing at the Suffolk County Center conducted by the Board of Review of the Suffolk County Health Department, and as a result of that process, which involved the analysis of people who have some knowledge, I understand, with respect to water quality, ~Page ~ Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 they received the approval of that agency that this Board in the last decision on this application said ought to be the ones to speak to the issue. Having spoken to the issue, I think that we should all stand, and I submit that we're required to stand on what that Health Department said. The second point is that this group again objects to the merger of the two small unbuildable parcels on the sealand side of Lowland Road. Now, again, I don't understand why anybody would object to making those parcels permanently unbuildable in any way at all. If I owned property adjacent to those parcels as the Nassau Point Property Owners Association does, I would be here asking you to please make that the result of any determination. They're not. I don't understand. We'll do whatever the Board says. The next point is that you should not grant this application because Mrs. Holland is sitting here to my left upon her husband's death moved out of the home onto Vanston Road. I find that really petty. I find it suggestive of an indifference as to what should concern us seriously here tonight. If everybody is here as a property owner, and the measure of our involvement is contained in this book, and in the zoning ordinance, and in the hours of effort of this Board, with no fat paychecks at the end of the year, then I think that that is the limit of the comment. And if it makes sense within the regulatory scheme whether or not she lives on Vanston Road and chooses to avoid some memories in a house in which her husband died, then the answer is none of the Property Owners Association's business. It's none of my business. It's nobody's business. The next point is that they say we cannot demonstrate hardship. I have no quarrel with this one. Hardship is not the standard legally. We're simply following the forum of the Zoning Board, and the Zoning Board I'm sure understands that. The standard here is at best, practical difficulty, and it may not even be that. This is a resubdivision, at best, of merged parcels and not more. The next point that they make is that they created our own difficulties by straddling the line and coming close to straddling the line. It's the same point that Mr. Stahel made and anybody can check the Suffolk County Clerk's Office and find that covenant from the Nassau Point subdivider saying that that simply is not the case and that it was the Nassau Point subdivider's intention by that document to amend the covenants to Nassau Point so that 327 and 328 notwithstanding that house been so close to that southerly line and have two houses on it. The next point was a variation on Mrs. Holland's place of residence. We now have on page three an analysis by Mr. Feaker of Mrs. Holland's tax return. Page 7 Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. TOHILL, continued: I don't think that~he's seen that tax return. I know that as a professional, I have training fn the preparation-of tax returns and I know that I respect the process enough not to babble at the mouth of things like that. So I would respectfully request that the Board disregard any comment about Ms. H~lland's tax return to the extent that they absolutely are made entirely out of context Assuming that they had any relevance under ~J that book or what the Trustees have'adopted or the Town Board has adopted as regulations in this municipality. The final point they make is that if ygu were to approve this application, you would open the flood gates. That's.the exact expression, that's the exact words ~sed. I haven't seen it in writing for anumber of years, but you will open ~he flood gates. We've been here in this building since.December of 1983 trying to get this application approved. ~We've been to the D.E~.'C. We've been to the Health Department. We've spent more time in Mr. VanTuyi's office than we care to report to you. I don't think this Board- can report that the flood gates have been open and I know that we're not reporting to you that the flood gates have been open. And if anybody wants to go through what that gentleman has de- scribed as a zillion steps, then they're welcome to try to do it'and they can have a lawyer in their Vest pocket, Mr. VanTuyl in their vest pocket and hydrologists all over their property too. But nothing that ~ know of in the Town of Southoid requires this many regulatory approvals is going to open any flood gates unless the participant who wishes to enter was just born yester- day and I'm certain there's no one a£0uhd~fn 'that ~on~ition. As part of the record, I'm going to hand up at this time the mailing re- ceipts all attached and in order, a..copy of Mr. Lessard's notice of disapproval of December 8, 1983, the copy of your determination of number 32-30, a copy of your determination number 33-61, a copy of Mr. Villa's letter dated March 7, 1988. He is of course as you know, the Suffolk County Health Department Chairman of the Board of"Review approving this application. I'm handing up an original signed copy of the subdivision map signed by Mr. Andri01i. I'm handing up a copy of our original D.E.C. permit with a current letter of extension approval. I'm handing up an amitated copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map. I'm handing up a report of the Suffolk County Health Department dated July 14~ 1987. ~i'm handing up a four page, all of the water test'results from the Suffolk County Health Department. I'm handing up a copy of our deed re- corded at Liber 6, 187 page 439. I'm handing up an amendment of the Nassau Point Property Inc. covenants and restrictions dated September 15, 1959. Mr. Chairman, I have received Valerie Sco- pazzi's note to you tonight. I was looking in my file to find the Planning Boardis comments the last time this came through be- cause they did comment. The notion that the hea~ing should be held open because they have nothing under Mrs. Holland's various names. It was not, in my opinion, a basis to hold the record open. The application has been here for some time now and I think there was adequate opportunity for the Planner to comment. And of course, if they had a problem of finding the record, they could have called me and I could have sent to them a copy of their file for the last three and a half to four years. So to be honest with you, if there was a b~sis for holding open, I'd be the first to jump in and say hold it open. But I don't find that this is a basis for holding it 6pen.and I think that therefore the record should be closed. Page 8 Matter of Jean C. H°lland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August I8, 1988 In summation, I think that we're here standing by all of the offers and assurances that we have made to you in the past with respect to complying with any dondition that would permit the property to be restored to its original subdivision status. If that means that there would be a covenant prohibiting any further development of those seaward parcels, that is fine. If you wish to have a large lot easement, that's fine. However~y0u wish to have it written or however the Town Attorney ~wishes to have it writte ~ is acceptable to us. The appli6ant has now at this point, taken every'step that it can and that it has been asked to take and~we're respectfully 'requesting that after this long haul and all these different agencies, that we be p~rmitted to look a~ that vadant parcel as a separate'parcel as it was originally planned. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ts there anybody else wh© would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak ~gainst the ap- plication? Sir, would you kindly state your name for the record. GRANI PIARRISON: I'm the owner of lots 329, .330 just south of the pe- tition's lots; 327 and 328 and I also own lot 34 and 33 on Meadow Beach. As was stated, in rec~nt annual meetings of the Nassau Point Property Owners Association ahd included in~ the Southold Water Ad- visory Committee Report, our water supply including Nassau Point, is in jeopardy and conservation measures have been suggested. I feel that increasing the number of'~building lots on Nassau Point would therefore be in the least general interest and would further infringe on a fragile water system. The property ~arailel to the Holland property along the bluff overlooking the Meadow Beach are all of simi- liar size and configuration. And like the Holland property, contain a single multi-story dwelling. These are from the Suffolk County Tax Map; 104, 107, i18 and 119. Lots 319, 320, 321 owned by Bert Lewis, lots 327 and 328 owned by the Hollands, lots'329 and 330 are owned by the Harrisons, lots 331 owned by Blair. And lot 332 which is unde- veloped. The only other properties in the immediate vicinity are not only land locked but are considerably smalle~ in size and ~onfi~ura- tion. Each of which however, has a greater than one foot frontage, 100 foot frontage. These parcels each contain a single-story build- ing. These lots include lots; 322 owned by the McLaughlins, lots 323 owned by the Stahels, lots 326 owned by the Longneckers, lot 326A owned by the Behans and lot 324 which is undeveloped. I therefore, feel that these smaller properties are not preferrable to the Holland property. The requested change would actual.ly create a building lot of less than 100 foot frontage. The requested change in my opinion would not create two oversized parcels as he stated but one undersized and one oversized parcel and would definitely offend the character of the neighborhood and dO substantial injustice to the neighbors. As stated in the applicant's proposed lots, would not be nearly twice as large as the other lots in the immediate vicinity. It is obvious that I am strongly opposed to this petition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Mr. Gardener. Page 9 Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. GARDENER. I'm with the Nassau Point Property Owners Associa- tion but not in any office. But I did some research on this. I was going into your office, Linda gave me a request for a variance. And I/looked it over and talked to some people who knew a lot more about the situation than I did. And this was the only thing we had to-go on which was a request for a variance. Shouldn't we depend on the accuracy of this or the statements that are made in this statement? Now all the papers are being put in tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Gardener? Are you referring to the application, Mr. MR. GARDENER: Yes, with the map. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the prior hearing? This is for this particular hearing and not MR. GARDENER: I have something about the prior hearing stated. But this is~on this hearing. This is the appplication with the map that they propose with their reasons for getting the variance. Now, am I not correct that my f~iends in the association, are we not correct that we should rely on this wording and this map to make our statement? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would assume so. MR. GARDENER: That was our assumption too. Now, there are many errors in this. The lawyer says that they got a good report on the water. Well, that's fine right now but we know we have salt water intrusion on Nassau Point. You ge~ a couple of years of drought, that water that was fine in many places on Nassau Point is not going to be fine. It's happened before. The head of the Water Auth6rity, Frank Baerden, he recognized it. He's an authority. So we quote that. Also, it said that the lots are not the way they appeared on the map. How are we supposed to know that? This is what we were given to read, to look at and comment on. The present house is a straddle~of the line'that's on this map, the lot line that's on th~s map. Certainly the predecessor put it too close. He put it right on the line. Somebody put it right on the line. That some- body indicated that he wanted to keep those two lots as one parcel of property. So we thought we had to call attention to that because that's what was in this document. And it says that the huge parcel is a burden on the owner.. Now, the only talk we have tonight is they want to divide it in to two properties but they're not going to do anything with the other one. How is that going to ease the burden? The only way they're going to ease the burden is to sell that property with the house on it, to sell the new redeveloped or newly reorganized lot'if~you grant the variance or to sell the whole piece of property. We say if there's a hardship, sell the whole piece of property. The reason the tax figures are in here is we show you that the tax cost and that's the only thing it is is the tax cost on that newly set off piece 6f property averages thirty dollars a month and that's not a hardship. Another point here that this hardship is unique. It's not shared by all properties in the immediate vicinity because the appli- cant's proposed lots are twice as large as the other lot's markers in the'immediate vicinity. Now, the immediate vicinity always means to me next door. Sure there are some small lots. When Nassau Point Page 10 Matter of Jean C Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1'988 'was organized, the inland lots were made small. But the other lots have been kept large. We have in the immediate vicinity, Iots from three acres to twelve acres. They're in the immediate vicinity. 'This proposal says their lots are going .to be twice as large as any other lots. We have to call attention to that fact. That's our job. That's'why we've made directors of Nassau Point Association. I can't say any more. I haven't read all 'those papers. I haven't had an opportunity to.' This is what I'worked on with my f~ie~ds and I think they should be allowed to justify w6rking on it, on~ just his property, this piece because this was the only thing we had available. Thank you. CHAI~LAN GOEHRINGER: Thank You Mr. Gardener. Ma'am you had a question or a statement. Could ~ask you to use the mike, I should have ~sked Mr. Gardener, and kindly state your name. MRS?.MARYBSkk CAR~ listened to the Nassau Point Association criticize tonight, down talk tonight these people. These people receive no fee. They receive no compensation. They do it in their spare time and they're bus~ people. They have a civic feeling and duty to respond to the needs of the area. I~ maybe true that the water now r~ns fine. And as far as the water Peo~l~ are concerned, the water is there. It's so far from the Bay or the Cove in spots. But they do not look at the overall picture. And the overall pic- ture is that Nassau Point has a very very fragile aquifer. One more house here, another house there, we are already over the num- ber of houses we should have on Nassau Point at this point. Please stop the bleeding. We need to conserve our water and see that all of use live together with an adequate amount. And there is saline intrusion. We know. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. g0$[PH B[R~[R : I".m on the Board of Directors. Oh,'of my ~ · ~ is water. This passed week I've had two complaints. People call me, what can I do for them? They are getting salt water up not in this area where this lady is concerned but on the east side o~ Nassau Point. They can't use the water. He's getting salt water. He's got a house that's worth $100,000. He can take a shower with the water, he can't drink it, he can't cook in it. I have had two complaints in that area. So this is one reason why I would object to it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ma'am. MS. GILLEYS : We certainly did hear Nassau Point Property Owners and Nassau P6int bellified tonight. To characterize w/ Nassau Point as the map was drawn by the developers, is incrediably naive. I'm with community relations for the Nassau Point Property Owners Association and past president of Nassau Point Property Owners Association. I'll begin again and try not to get emotional. To charac- terize Nassau Point as the map is drawn by the developers, is incre- diably naive. As the developers planned Nassau Point, the properties were to surround the hotel which burned was envisioned as serving many cottages. The tax collector in Southold knows very well that such is not the case. Nassau P~int has developed' with large homes on the water straddling two lots and in some cases three. And I · Page 11 ~Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 forgot about Maggie Bradford's which is much more than that. The concerns we have here is we are dependant on the water collected beneath us. We know there are'some buildable lots. And if those who encompass two lots, decide to redraw the line, we would certain- ly effect the water level and the character of our area. I for one, have a garage built on my second lot. I can come in here and ask you to just set off that other lot.. You gave us an exception as far as the map when you did the two acre zoning. So we are allowed to build on.'each one of our lots. A number of us have built a ga- rage or 'a bath house or something on the lot. And everybody could come in and start doing this if this were allowed. If there were no water, maybe they would start your wagon very soon. So this is why we are concerned. We are not greedy adverse people. 'The people who built these homes ~built' them in the '30's and the ~40's and the '50's. They were not fat cats. They worked hard and the achieved~ and they're not some greedy people. They're some peo- ple who can afford to buy the homes and theyire coming out and buy- ing the homes. And Mr. Stahel, incidently, is related to a woman who has lived on Nassau Point for more years than I can think of. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank yQu Mrs. Gilley. I have your first name sir? Sir, Mr. Berger, could MR. BERGER: Joseph. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. would like to speak? Yes Doctor. Is there anybody else who DR. HARRISON: On part of the submitted material, I have a copy of a map of proposed setoff property surveyed for Jean Longnecker of Nas- sau Point, To%m o~ Southoid. On parcel B there is an indication of a house. Now, that I didn't put in and yet we're told that there is no intention of putting a house on it. May I show it to you? CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: with you. I think I have the same thing Dr. to be honest DR. HARRISON: Well, I question it. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Would you like to rebutt any-of this Mr. MR. TOHILL: I would like the Chairman's permission to supplement the record and I'll supply it within a few days, with a little information on the number of building permits which have been issued on Nassau Point since December 8, 1983 which I think is the date of Mr. Lessard document, the notice of disapproval. So I think that will be an in- teresting statistic. The second point that I would like to make and I'm asking for permission to supply that to the Board. The second point that I would like to make is that I don~t think anybody in his right mind living on the East End of Long Island can ~bject to some- body have a legitimate concern about water and the supply of drinking water. I don't think Mrs. Hollander is here tonight to champion some kind of a statement that there is no problem with drinking water any where in the Town of Southold. At the same time to the extent that Page 12 Matter of Jean C. Holiander/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 we personally, Mrs. Holland and I, had the personal opportunity to go to through the Health Department's review proceeding after the last determination of this Board in order to determine from their professional perspective what the quality of water was in this particular area, this particular. 'I think that we under- stand that there's more involved in that process. We would then comment in the same breath, in the same Ietter and at the same time and of the same signature about Mrs. Holland's personal tax return, about Mrs. Holland's husband's.death, about Mrs. Holland"s residence on Vanston Road and similiar comments. I don't think that they help Go leave a message'with anybody, this Board or to me or anyone else that somebody would like to leave. So that anybody who suggests thatwe're supposed to take it on the chin and roll to the ground when that kind of comment is made in the context of a zoning proceeding, should not expect that to happen. Not from my client, not from anybody that I ex- pect to serve. The last point and then I'll sit down. All of the comments aboUt water; water has been well addressed to the Suffolk County t{ealth Department as we went through our public hearing in Suffolk County Center which is located on Center Drive in Riverhead which was a publicly noticed proceeding at which ~ime there was information taken with respect to the issues that are now before the Board. It isn't as if.this group didn't know that that was going to happen. After ali, :'this Board received a letter the last time this matter was before the Board from the same group objecting to the subdivision. And the Board made a very specific denial without prejudice saying go get Health De- partment approval. We set about doing that. It took us some time, some energy, some money, some effort to do it but we did it. It's a tad unfair to have Nassau Point group to show up to- night and suggest tonight in August 1988, two and a half years into the effort just with respect to the Health Department that we are on a fool's errand. I don't think anybody wants the sys- tem to work that way. We relied on what the Board said in writing to the puDlic in that determination and we spent dollars and time doing what we thought we were told respectfully to do. And we got through the gate and it's too late after the Health Department has held its public hearing to make this Board in to a super Board of Review over the Board of.~Review of the Suffolk County Health De- partment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you sit down, could I just go over a couple of the figures on the survey if you would? MR. TOHILL: That's what's cited, by the way, in decision number .... The last one because it was cited exactly, 33-61. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Where we have the number 327, the lot number and we 47,500 square f~et. That is the old lot line that straddles the house. So now with changing the lot line at 4 feet, we now have parcel A at 55,660 square feet. MR. TOHILL: Right, because of the setoff. Page 13 Matter ofJean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CHAI~LAN GOEHRINGER: Now, parcel B would have been 48,160 square ~eet but it straddles the house that's now 40,000 square feet. MR. TOHILL: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Lot number 37 which is on the beach, on the cove I should say, is 5,865 square feet and that's used to- gether with lot number 36 which is 16,350 or is it .... ? MR. TOHILL: Depending upon how you want to say it. 37 becomes part of 327 and 36 becomes part of 328. So that 40,000 on 328 becomes .... I'm going to have to 10ok at that original decision again. What does 33-61 say? Because this is confusing to me. When I read through the decision, I literally understood it in one sentence better then than any other time. But it's part of the exhibits that I handed up. CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: It shows as 15,242. MR. TOHILL: Ok. Then he's using the lot line number rather than the high water mark which would be correct. That would be the consistant way to do it because he's not talking about buildability. He's just talking about area and heis also making it unbuildable. So you'd want the larger of the areas rather than the smaller. CHAI~{AN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you. MR..TOHILL: Could you comment with respect to~;my ability to add that statistic because I think all the people saying that they were the last ones in the door .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you be including any mergers in that on the .... ? MR. TOHILL: No. Ail I want to do is demonstrate.what's an ob- vious point. That the building that has been taking place on Nassau Point over the last five years during the light of our ef- forts to get this parcel subdivided and get'through what that gentleman called a zillion steps. What got this group here to- night quite angry is not our application. It's not the division of our lot. It's what they're observing day in and day out all over Nassau Point. It strikes me that in the merit, for a long time and I hope a long time to come, if'we're going to visit all of an area's problems on one property line the way it's being done here tonight, it's time to reassess how we do things. And I don't think the group intends to do that. ! think they are trying to send a message but they get caught, that message gets caught in a strange way when you're before a-quasi-judicial board such as a Zoning Board of Appeals which has a mandate under state law to do things iX certain things come together and are not in the rede- signing order. You're not conducting the rules of the law here. CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: We can do it in two ways. The only thing that concerns me is that it does not give the Nassau Point Associ- ation time to comment on the letter that youire going to give us with the statistics in it. Page 14 Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. TOHILL: I'm going to give you the number. have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 digits on it. That's all. It's going to CHAIR~AN GOEHRINGER: Sir, the only thing I might suggest is that if we .... I'm going to suggest that we take about a two minute recess here for one minute. But I'm going to suggest that if you do that, that we will close the hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting with no comments. We'll just close it. So if they wanted to comment on what you're placing or the numbers that you're placing, that the accuracy if they have any question on what ever is going... What ever it is, I can assure you that this works out very nicely. There's no input. There's no anything. We just close the hearing except for in writing if they want to comment on what you place in the file. So I'm going to suggest that. I'll be with you in one second Mrs. Gilleys. And Mrs. Gilleys you had a question. MRS. GILLEYS: The only comment that I was going to make is that it is obvious that Mr. Tohill received all our letters that we had. He was notified. And if anything happens with the Board, it would be nice if we wer. e informed. If. we knew that there had been water hearings and so forth. And I regret that you were curt to me in public. But just the same, I think that this is an issue that is concerning everyone. That,s why we are hereo CHAIP~.~4AN GOEHRINGER: Yes ma ' am. MRS. HARRISON: I have two comments I'd like to make. And one is that the water may be very pure now and DEC may have approved now. But what's going to happen to'our supply of water if we keep building, building, building on Nassau Point? If we continue this building, we're not going to have any water, that's decent. And the other is that I don't quite understand the purpose of this subdivision if there's absolutely no intention of building. Unless it's the selling of the property and then the property is sold. Someone else can apply to build. I really donit see the point of it. MR. TOHILL : When municipalities do what this municipality did in 1983 which was over. the course of five months, adopt local law number 9 and then number 11 that became i00-30 and 100-31.1 I think or 100-31 and 100-31.1. Whenever that happens in any munici- pality and it's written in every textbook on planning..on the sub- ject, it causes people to become insecure about their real property rights. And it caused people to wonder whether or not ~ it'makes sense to put off and put off what otherwise they would not put off. And so as a result, they consult lawyers'and they consult land planners and they get advice. And eventually they find their way at Mr. Lessard's counter and it happens here every day. It's been happening increasingly in .this municipality more than any other on the East End over the last five years. CHAI~A1N GOEHRINGER:~' For the group here from Nassau Point, you're referring to the inception of two acre zoning. There was a ques- tion. Mr. Ferge, you had a question. Page 15 Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. FEKER: As the president of the association, I feel the need to comment since we've been groundly nullified here this evening. It is most unfortunate that Mrs. Holland's lawyer has chosen to take our comments in a personal vain. They were not intended to do so. 'And if they were taken that way, I would certainly apologize to everyone that was involved in the process in this light. But that was certainly not our inten- tion. Our comments regarding where Mrs. Holland lives was only -relative to the~'~comment in the appiication that this application had something to do with hardship and the fact that ~he property was being rented and not~ lived in. And that was the~only point that we were making rel~ative to that and that was our single con- cern. Relative to the water supply, I would certainly not argue with the water department that the water in the area of the Hol- land property is good. However, .for those of you who are not aware of it, Nassau Point sits above an aquafer. And we do not get spring water. Our water, comes from the rain and it sits there and does not by anybody else. My immediate neigh- bor lost his pump a month ago as a result of the Fire Department pumping a practice well. Practicing to pump water to make sure it was out of one of their wells and it created an air vacuum and he lost his pump as a result of that.' The comments that Mr. Berger got from the people on the Point are factual. They have salt water intrusion and it doesn't make a difference whether the water at the Holland property is good or not. That water 'that is being taken and continually being taken by the continuous building is going to effect.all of us at a later date. Not just the. two people who now have salt water intrusion. Relative to the comment regarding 'the building; of course we're concerned about the over population .of Nassau Point and the building. But we wouldn't consider commenting on a case where a person has a 'lot and owns a single lot and decides to build.on that lot. It's ludicrous that we would make a comment and suggest that that per- son not build. What we're concerned about is the splitting of these multiple lots and there are many which would increase the number of houses on Nassau P6int significantly. -I can't ~ive you a figure on that. And as far as commenting on Mrs. Holland's tax return. Again, we certainly were not attempting to do that and that was not our intention. We mad~ no reference to her tax re- turn. We talked about the fact that if you break her tax assess- ment or her tax payment over the course of'the year and you con- sider the fact that it's a deductible expense for'almost all of us that was our comment. So just for the general public who is here, we are not the ogres that we were made out to be and this certainly was not a personal attack as her la~er has chosen to make. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Gardener, you had one more point? are going to take a short recess. MR. GARDENER: Again, you have copies of these two past denials. And for the group, I'd like to read what they were. The first one was denied because this proposal would not be within the character of this neighborhood because of its configuration. Being the setback of the existing dwelling would be insufficient. It would not meet the requirement of zoning of 50 foot rearyard. Page 16 M~tter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 C - The evidence submitted is not sufficient to justify the grantihg of the relief as requested. It was turned down. That's the first one. The reasons'for the first turn down. The second turn down was denied because additional relief was necessary for the setback of existing dwelling from the amended division line. Such amend- ment was beyond the scope of the original notice of hearing. TWO; the water table in this area is fragile. Such a division of land will require a approval of Article VI of the Water De- partment-. I read the letter fromthe Water Department. It says sure you can put water there now. It doesn't say that you should give this variance because of that. It doesn't say it. So .... One other thing. We understand that ir'would be nice to divide their lot. But we have so many buildable lots on Nassau Point and there's not a d--- thing we can do about it. But when other people start to break up properties, then we've got to do something. Just because something is legal and we can't do anything. But for some- thing that's not quite legal, we're going to do something. That's all we're doing. We have no personal animosity towards this. We are fighting a good cause for everybody, the 300 households on Nas- sau Point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment, I'll make the mo- tion closing the hearing reserving .... I'm sorry. I make the mo- tion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meet- ing with no public comment. And we would ask either the president or one of the directors of the Nassau Point Association to get in touch with us in about two weeks to review what ever supplemental information that is placed in the file by Mr. Tohill representing his client so that~you might comment on it prior to the next hear- ing in writing. MR. TOHILL: I understand that the comment will be as to those digits that I'm going to put in. I'm going to send you a letter that says the number of building permits issued since September 8, 1983. I don't want to hear .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. And I would ask you to please restrict your comments, this is again for the association, to any additional information that's being placed in the file sub- sequent to this particular hearing. And hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEAL~ AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3753 Matter of VINCENT GEROSA Location of Property: 315 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion County Tax Map ID No. 1000-21-2-3 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:18 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of survey dated September 24, 1969 and updated June 3, 1988 indicating a one and a half story framed house. The nature of this application are two additions. One to the rear of the house and one to the east side of the house. And I have a copy of the Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard sir? Is there anything you'd like to say for the~.'record? MR. GEROSA: I'm'the owner of~the house. My family has been in that area and on that property for over 30 years. I believe the purpose of the restriction is to protect the environment, particu~ larly the bluff and the potential for erosion. I'm very sensitive to that. The application that I've made and the building that I would like to proceed with is an addition that extends to the side of the house. And in fact, is set back further from the bluff then the house itself. It's breakfast room addition about 9 by 8. And in fact, it is about five feet further away from the bluff than the house itself. It, in my opinion, has no danger of causing erosion or danger to the environment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the approximate size of the Proposed addition on the east side? MR. GEROSA: On each side, about 9 by 8. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it not? That's going to run the length of the house. MR. GEROSA: No. The lengl'h of the house, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean I should say the width of the house. Page 2 ~Matter of Vincent Gerosa Transcript of Hearing- August 18, 1988 MR. GEROSA: 'The structure itself is about 9 feet wide. About half the width.of the house~is a platform beyond that but that's not a permanent structure. I'm not sure that's included.~ The platform plus the breakfast room would be the width of the house. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: something there. So in other words, ~here will be a deck or MR. GEROSA: A deck. Not a raised deck. CHAIP~AN GOEHRINGER: J~st let me point something out to you.~if you wouldn't mind Mr. Gerosa. You see he's got the whole area boxed in in reference to the area that's going to be your left. The deck is going to be over on this side. This is going to be a deck and then from this point here would be the actual breakfast room. I didn't ask you that on Sunday when I was out there. Ok. I thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? You've got to raise your.hand fast because I'm going to run right through this. Anybody like to speak against the application? 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 AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. ~SE Matter of TIMOTHY COFFEY ~D THE COVE Location of Property: S/s Main Road, Southold County Tax Map ID No. 1000-75-06.3 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Lind'a Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:21 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a tax map indicating a di- rectional sign of where this is going to be placed. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax. Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. And I have a letter from the most immedi- ate neighbor to the east, Mr. and Mrs. Terry that they could not be here to comment on the sign and they would like us to postpone the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. 'So the Board usually does grant one recess. But I do know that there is at least one person who would like to comment tonight; Would you like to say anything Mr. Klatsky?_ MR. KLATSKY: Vice President of the Cove. We would desire an ac- tion this evening. We adhered to the requirements of the Board and we'd really like to put that sign up during the season. Thank you. ~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: in favor? Against? Is there anybody else who would ]Xike to speak MR. STANKOWICZ: I live on the east of this property. I'm against it. The first thing, the zoning ordinance should speak for itself on signs. I'm also agains~ that If Mr; Coffey, who owns property next door, wanted a sign for him- self, is one thing. But if heis. going to rent out to all the peo- ple that want directional signs throughout the town, there's got to be hundreds of them. When this gentleman, when they put this place up, they spent millions of dollars. They should have realized that they can't commercialize with this sign next door to us or any place else. I can't see any justification of any reason this Board should approve of this sign.' They tried to put it up on the east of it, the stockwood. And Mr. Terry questioned him on it and they Page 2 Mat%er of Timothy Coffey and The Cove Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. STANKOWICZ: Continued put it down and he wasn't even notified like you have a letter from him. Unless i told him about it when we had a letter. But I think we have an ordinance.on this and if they want to start putting directional signs up every place, then I'll get a piece of the action too. I'll start renting my property. But I'm completely against it. CHAIR~AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearingno further comment, make a motion recessing the'hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No.3756V Matter of HENRY J. SMITH AND THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC. Location of Property: S/s Main Road, Southoid County Tax Map ID No. 1000-70-07-007 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles ~rigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman the hearing at 9:25 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN' GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a tax map indicating the approximate location.'~ In fact it does not indicate the approxi- mate location but I do have a copy of a letter indicating the approximate location of the sign which is more toward the easterly side of the property. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Again, Mr. Klatsky, is there.something you would like to say? MR. KLATSKY: The only additional piece of information that I think has some bearing is that there is another sign on this property pre- sently. Mr. Smith has agreed to remove that sign if this sign were approved for its direction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against this? Ok. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing, thiS until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Well, we'll close it. We're closing this and making com- ments further. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3774 Matter of WILLIAM BAXTER, JR. Location of Property: N/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No. 1000-72-2-2.1 and 3 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:28 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. ' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick VAnTuyl, P.C. dated March 10, 1987 indicating a parcel to be set off from parcel number one which is 151,301 square feet. The parcel in question is 67,000 which is parcel number two on the map, 67,483 square feet. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indi- cating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard Ms. Wickham? MS. WICKHAM: Thank you. I'd like to speak on behalf of the appli- cant. I think if anybody asked me to give them an example of prac- tical difficulty in the extreme, this would befit, particularly'since the two proposed lots are both each of considerable size ~nd'dimen- sion. And also this configuration was created since at least the early 1940's and a single separate search was submitted. And I think the practical difficulty is so evident that it compels the granting of this variance. As far as the comments of the Planning Board, I think that, I do want to state it publicly, my client has given me no indication that he does intend to ask, in the future to subdivide that larger lot. But the size of that lot being almost 4 acres, would be consent to any provision against future subdivision for a couple of reasons. Number one; I don't think it's necessary. Particularly since the application of that nature would require the approval ot at least three Boards; your Board, the Plan- ning Board and the DEC at the time. And in that case, the practical difficulty or hardship would be considerably greater than it would be in this case because with respect to the insufficent area and pos- sibly how you wouldn't divide the line. I'd be glad to hack this issue out with the Planning Board but at this point, I don't think it's one of your conditions. As far as the road goes, the strip of land coming up from the public road is owned by the applicant, it is subject~to ~a..'~ig.ht-0f,way in ~favor of"~the Gallagher parcel which is the empty parcel. And i think because of that, the Planning Board would have jurisdiction and it would be a 280-A in front of your Board. ~Page 2 Matter of William Baxter, Jr. Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes sir. MR. GALLAGHER. I'm the owner of the parcel in between. to know where it's going<to be divided. I'd iike CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me show you the map. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this hearing? Seeing no further comment, no further raise of hands, 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 AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3754 Matter of ANDRE AND THO~iAS CYBULSKI Location of Property: W/s Depot Lane, Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No. 1000-96-5-1.2 and 1.1 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles G rigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:33 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAI~%~N GOEHRINGER: I have a cut down survey indicating the na- ture of this particular application, placement of the barns and the existing right-of-way. 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? MR. CYBULSKI: As mentioned in the application, my brother Tom and I would like to use these barns as general storage. I would like to enter into the minutes of this hearing, the transcript o~ minutes from a previous appiica~ion number 367. I hope you would overlook the adverse comments made at that time but it does give the descrip- tion oi the boundaries and how they are zoned and how they are used and also the comments as to our hardship in having these barns and not having adequate income from them to cover the taxes, insurance, maintenance and what have you. Briefly, I would like to state that presently the barns are zoned residential/agricultural. They are basically in a residential area but there is business property to the east and industrial property across the tracks to the north.' Now, we have all been told of the need for general storage in the tov~. Presently there are storage buildings be constructed in the town. And the buildings we have are basically well built. They're sound and ideally suited for general storage. They have concrete floors, high ceilings, loading docks, water, heat and o~ course, they're thoroughly insulated. They are very easy to heat and keep cool as desired recently. And we~ve tried to rent and sell these barns to the agricultural community but there is no interest at this time. There are more agricultural barns built right now than there's a need for. And if you have any questions, we~d be glad to hear them. Page ~ Matter of Andre and Thomas Cybulski Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: Do you have any objection to us limiting the amount of trailer truck bodies that are stored on the back of the property? I think I counted .... MR. CYB~LSKI: Those trailers there right now? Right now Mr. Glover is using one of those barns. And well, a couple of days ago, there were none and then there has been as many as eight back there. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: I think when I was back there I counted six but that was last Saturday. But do you have any objection to us putting a limit on the amount? MR. CYBULSKI: I don't have any objection to it. But there are five acres of property there. I think the property could sustain quite a few trailers. CHAI~.tAN GOEHRINGER: I just liked the way they were parked because they were parked-in back of the barn so there was no visual .... I don't even want to use the word. You couldn't even see them from the road. MR. CYBULSKI: If you notice in the application, that's were we show parking the trailers. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: It's abSolutely perfect. It's a perfect spot. MR. CYBULSKI: Excuse me. There are two buses back there. long to Cutchogue Fire Department, not to us. They be- CHAIP~N GOEHRINGER: We noticed them. I noticed them. I should say. As for the actual storage of the materials we're talking about, we're talking about dead storage which would not be used or moved on a daily basis but will be brought in and deposited there in any one of these three buildings and kept there for a certain period of time and then extracted or taken out. MR. CYBULSKI: Yes, that's our idea. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any objection to the Planning Board's recommendation about limiting the hours? MR. CYBULSKI: I don't know just who we are going to rent to. In a storage type of business, at times the night time hours are the hours to load and unload. If you'll notice the loading docks are not facing any houses. If in some time if the future, the woods should be de- veloped, they will be about 400 feet away from any house back there. So it could be worked out but I'd hate to see too many restrictions placed on it. CHAI~.~N GOEHRINGER: I think that about takes care of it. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would bike 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. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3766 Matter of WILLOW TERRACE-FAP~IS, INC Location of Property: Major's Pond Road, Orient County Tax Map ID No. 1000-26-2-39.5 and 39.1 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:38 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER': I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated November 25, 1977 updated APril 20, 1988.' The nature of this subdigision, pardon me, there's three one acre lots and one... I should go down it. Lot number 20 at 41,238 square feet; lot number-19, 40,988 square feet; lot number 18, at 42,571 square feet and lot number 17 at 76,800 square feet. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Walker woUld you like to be heard? MR. WALKER: I think the position of the application which you have kind of says everything that I would say and the hour is getting late. So I don't want to be repetative and repeat everything in there. I have Mrs. Douglas who is president of Willow Terrace. And of course the cause of the application is the son Rodney who are both here. If you have any.questions on it, Mrs. Kowalski gave me the comments of the Planning Board. And parenthetically, she and I had gone over some of those very same things today. Some of the questions they're raising in there. So if you have any questions, I think that would be the way to go. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Well, what is actually left of usable proper- ty after we have, or after we're dealing with this application? MR. WALKER: You have to define usable. If you're, going to define it as building permit property, something to build on, I don't think so. I think there's nothing but slivers and doors left. When this application first came to me to help them out because of the house problem which you have referred to as lot number 19 and we had to get it squared away because of what the Building Inspector had done. I had, through my office records and what I had gotten from Bob Paster, the previous attorney that represented the Douglas family, is that the deed dated which I subsequently gave to the Board, Liber 7421, page 285 which was from Robert and Nancy Douglas to Willow Terrace Farms back in '73. I had assured myself that everything ~ which these four lots comprise of, are in that deed. I also became ~Page 2 ~atter of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. WALKER: Continued aware of that there was some slivers of property additional. I talked to Mrs. Douglas at length about that both at that time and subsequent. And it is her intention that once we get this thing squared away with VanTuyl and we'll have to go back to his original surveyor's notes, the way they put this deed together because it. included all of the Douglas holdings which included Willow Terrace which Qe call~.Section I to Section II pa~ts of Which you're deal- ing with and it incurred two or three pieces of property which had conveyed out back in the '70's primarily. Because I pointed out to her that the tax map was in error. I think it showed 9.1 acres. And when you add these lots up, it don't add up to 9.1 acres. And there's several reasons for it. One is the sliver and also the tax map treats it as one piece of farm property. And when you take out the acreage for roadways which are the Major's Pond Path, Nelson Drive, Row Drive. When you take those out, the acreage does shrink down to the proper amount which assured me at the time, Mr. Goehringer, that there were only some slivers.. So what she intended to do once she gets the estate squared away, there's a property that's shown on that map that you were referring to in the northeast corner saying Robert G. Douglas of which her son is living. She wants to convey that to him and then she intends to add all the surrounding property because if you've ever been down there, that house is on a very very small piece of property. And the house and the garage consume al- most the entire'property with the right-of-way which goes across the front of it. And she was going to add that all to the one lot. Down in the southeast corner where it says Robert J. and Nancy R. Douglas, that had always been treated.by Mr. VanTuyl and Bob Douglas as a two acre parcel. Mrs. Douglas after talking today, went down to VanTuyl and said what is exactly the size of that? And he came up with 1 and 3/4 acres. Rather it shows on the tax map as 1.3 acres. So I know there was certain inaccuracies with the tax map. It didn'~t bother. me. And we can represent to the Board that those slivers that remain in Willow Terrace because of this carving up that took plaCe in the '70's, we will add to th~se which I call the family lot. There's 3 places I can add them. One; is to the home she's going to convey to Robert G. That's up in that northwest corner there of the map where you see right on Perkins Road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the barn piece? Before you go any further, RD and NR, is that MR. WALKER: No. The barn piece is actually on the south side of what they refer to as Nelson Drive there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The south side. Ok. MR. WALKER: And there's a sliver there that I know I'm going to add onto the barn piece to straighten that out. I pointed that out to Mrs. Kowalski. Because I discovered that when I was checking some of the original section which was a half acre and then the Health Department made it an acre and it became as Mr. Lessard has now found out, an incomplete submission is what had happened. And I found a little jib piece there. That's the kind of little jib pieces that we end up with here. And so, but I can assure'you that what is ap- plied for is owned by Willow Terrace. They're all contained within .Page 3 Matter of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. WALKER: Continued those four corners of the deed. VanTuyl also confirms that but it's going to take a considerabl~· amount of time to go back and straighten out from that three or four page deed with all those meets and bounds just exactly where everything was and where everything is today. BUt we will represent that she will not be in for any hdditional building parcels other than what are there now which is an add on to that piece down in the southeast corner and an add on to the house piece up in the northwest corner and then an~add on to the barn piece. The roadways which comprise, believe it or not, substantial acreage when you start multiplying them Out, 50 feet wide bY the lengths involved. They will probably either be d~ded out to the center line to each one of the property owners to get rid of the problem. Or, as what you refer to as Willow Terrace Lane which is in Section I will be probably over to, if they have a property owners association there to elimihate that problem. Because that's going to be a problem two or three· years down the line. Bob was unwilling to do that because he felt that if he owned it, he had control over it and he agreed to file it and maintain it and disc it which he did. over the years, But she's not in a position to do that. So I think we're going to have to convey those out. Again, you can call that a sliver piece too. We will be conveying them out to adjacent landowners or the property owners association. That's trying to make the best out of a bad situation there. This is what's happened. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's a question I wanted to ask you and I kind of lost it in the talking there. Is the nature of this ap- plication to legalize lot number 19 at this particular time? MR. WALKER: At this particular time, that's the urgency. What hap- pened here is that a building permit was issued. He got Health De- partment approval. You saw that map there, it's in the file. He went down and got a building permit for it and ~told him that every-. thing was going to be okay for that. Now, it turned out that when the application w~nt to the bank and the title company which th~ title company searched it, it wasn't okay. And when Mr. Lessard was confronted, he said~ I can't issue a c.o. Interesting question. How do you issue a building permit, get the construction up sub- stantially which'it is today, I've got pictures of the status of it today if you want for the file. And then say, well I can't give you a c.o. for it unless I give you a c.o. for the whole piece. But what he fails to realize is that the whole piece is intersected by roadways down there. And you just don't cut up the whole piece. So that's what laft her in the dilemma. And then of course, the untimely death of Mr. Douglas right' in the middle of all this and this is what she was left with. And right now, Rodney tells me his construction has come to a screeching halt because he has no money until he can close with the bank and he can't close with the bank until I can get him a legal lot. That's the urgency of'it right at the present time. July 19th is what the urgency is. The rest is not an urgency in the sense that sure once it's squared away, she'll no doubt convey them out and settle the estate but that's not the urgency. The urgency is Rodney's lot. For the record, Page 4 ~atter of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. WALKER: Continued did you want to know the status of the construction? I do have a picture of the front of the house. I'll just file it for the record So that's the dilemma that we're in now. CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: You don't have a copy of the map of what you went to the Health Department and got approval. MR. WALKER: Yes, I think you have it in the file. CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: I do have one. MR. WALKER: That's the one. He was in good faith. That's the one fOr that house there. He did not know. MR. : How wide is the house? MR. WALKER: How wide is the house? MR. DOUGLAS: With the two car garage, I'm 72 feet. MR. WALKER: That includes the breezeway? MR. DOUGLAS: That includes the whole house. MR. : 72 feet. MR. WALKER: In width. I did not know that without .... MR. DOUGLAS: 34 feet deep'j,. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I don't think we have.any more° MR. WALKER: glad to. If there's anything I can furnish you with, I'd be CHAIRbLAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Would you like to say something ma'am. MRS. : We're all in favor of it. CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? Yes sir. MR. ISRAEL : I'm not speaking for or against. I hope they get their subdivision. I just have a question here. Was this minor subdivision approved and at what time was that approved? Pag~e 5 Matter of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Transcript of Hearing - August 18,~ 1988 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you mean the application? First of all, I need your name sir. MR. ISRAEL: My name is Richard Israel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Israel, are you referring to Section II in its entirety as being approved? MR. ISRAEL: You seem to say in your thing here tonight is it's a minor subdivision of Willow Terrace Section II. And I just ques- tion it. How can you have a Section II of a minor and... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' It's now a minor. It was probably going to be a major at one point. MR. ISRAEL: That is correct. Was part of this property subdivided prior to this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just Section I. MR. ISRAEL: So wouldn't this have to be a major subdivision? CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily. Because that's as far as they went at the time which was Section I~which was a major subdi- vision. MR. ISRAEL: I'm previoUsly developing the property by a subdivision. Does that automatically make any subdivision.past that point, a major? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily. We don't make that determina- tion any way. We refer to it as a minor subdivision because it only had four lots. That was the reason why we use the terminology as minor as opposed to over four lots which would be~a major. MR. ISRAEL: Was this minor approved before the two acre zoning which was in '83? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, maybe Mr. Walker could shed some tight. MR. WALKER: Back in the early '70's the Planning Board treated, ac- tually the late '60's, Section I and Section II which was a complete half acre situation. Mr. Douglas then filed Section I which is on Willow Terrace Lane which is half acre. He then right after that was filed, went to the Health Department to finalize the plans for Section II of half acre lots. The Health Department, at that time, had up- graded their water requirements for lot size from 20,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet right at that time. And then said we will not approve the 20,000 but we will approve a 40,000. So he went back to the surveyor, VanTuyl, and made r~drew which explains some of these little slivers and pieces to juggle the size of the lots basically from 20,000 to 40,000. He then got Health Department approval for that. And then... MR. ISRAEL: What year is this? ~"Page 6 Matter of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. WALKER: We're talking about '78 for that second one. Then what happened, he started his construction up there on Section II. A house that was being built by the name of Cowart at the time. Figuring he was going to go through now with the one acre. That never got fina- lized because what had happened he would have to put in a major road system in there which is now Major's Pond Lane. Major's Pond Road. I'm sorry. And he did not want to do that at the time because he did not want 'a major road in that area. }{e wanted it' dead ended the way Willow Terrace Lane was for the residents protection. So he never finalized that with the Planhing Board. It just kind of laid there. And the barn which is on the front of the property, continued to be actively used which eventually I understand now, he has a junkyard permit for it under the to~ law. And some of his family like his son I was pointing out, lived up in one corner and they were using the property, portions of it, for boat storage and everything and- those plans never got finalized. But in the mean time, the house that he had constructed got finalized and then he constructed one more house on the property and ~hey were given setoff treatment by the Planning Board at various times. MR. ISRAEL: MR. WALKER: There was more than one setoff on this piece of property? I think so. I think there were two total. MR. ISRAEL: ~s that legal. MR. WALKER: Yes. He just applied for it and he had the acreage. They were on public roads. MR. ISRAEL: In today's world you can get one setoff. MR. WALKER: They were on public roads, that's why. They were com- pletely independant. They were slivers of property that were sur- rounded by houses on both sides and on public roads. So that's why that happened. All right. And then it left which is this piece that's left here that was bisected by this road which had received 280-A approval. And the thing just kind of sat there and sat there and sat there. It had which you would say for an acre at the time, approval by the Planning Board but it had never been finalized. It had Health Department approval which it had never been finalized and the thing ended in limbo. And as you indicated in 1983, they upgraded the whole area and the whole town to 1,000. What Mr. Douglas should have done at that time which he didn't because when the Town Board did that, they allowed a period of time where an applicant could come in and still get the one acre because he had stuff in the works for prior'years. Mr. Douglas never did that. And the reason he did not do that is ~he was a~member now, of the ~oning Board Of Appeals ~and he did not want to go in and ask for special treatment because'he deemed it as a conflict as he built his own mousetrap so to speak. This is really what happened. TAPE ENDED Page 7 .,~ ~Ma~ter of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Transcript of Hearing - August 1'8, 1988 MR. WALKER: Continued .... give his son a lot. He agreed to the lot Rodney was building on. Rodney went down and got all the Health Department approval and they said sure, we've given approval fo~'this. Everybody's given approval for this. And Rodney was completely under the assumption that every- thing was okay after he had gotten the Heath Department. Especially when he came back to the Building Department and got a building per- mit for it. And this thing only came to light in two circumstances. One, when the title search was done and the bank application was done, it came to light. And before Mr. Douglas could straighten it out, he passed away. And so this is where Mrs. Douglas is at the present time with a house literally half finished. And this is where we are. So that's the history of it. MR. ISRAEL: What's going to happen to Major's Path Road? MR. WALKER: That is going to stay exactly the same. Apparently peo- ple are happy with that. If it meets the approval 6f a minor subdivi- sion road with the base and everything that was put in years ago by Mr. Douglas and has been maintained by him and his family since. Isn't that correct? You're going to live there Rodney, not me. MR. DOUGLAS: People in the neighborhood want it to stay that way and I want it to stay that way. MR. WALKER: Does that answer your question? MR. ISRAEL: Yes. I wish everybody to get whatever they should get. MR. is concerned? Rod, have you got a time limit as far as your bank MR. DOUGLAS: Yes. MR. : Or you had one? MR. WALKER: When it was explained to the bank, yes the committment ex- pired and it had to be renewed. They've given him an extension 6n it. MR. : How long? MR. WALKER: They were nice enough to renew it when they realized the problem that was involved here. It's just that he's going to have to suffer the higher interest rate. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Richard, 'could ~ just ask you a question. You don't have any copy of that 1978 in any of the files that Bob might have retained of the Health Department approval on Section II? MR. WALKER: house? Did you hear him'Nancy? Do you have anything down at the MRS. DOUGLAS: I may. PaRe 8 .~atter.of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Transcript of H~aring - August 18, 1988 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you can find them, we'd appreciate it. MR. WALKER: They're at VanTuyl's office. I know it existed be- cause he waffled it by with'me. It wasn't stamped on the map as my memory is. What was attached to the map was a letter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you've got it. Well, that's what we would like to see if MR. WALKER: At one time I saw one. MR. DOUGLAS: When I was up at the County Center with my father- just before he passed away when I went for my county permit, my water permit, they had a copy of it on county record. That's why the boss went down and came back and he stamped my papers because he went and verified it himself. MR. WALKER: You saw it there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'd appreciate it if you could get a copy of that. We'd really like to see it. MR. WALKER: That might be the easiest place to find it as a matter of fact. I saw a letter attached to a map at one time. CHAIR~CAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak either pro or con regarding this hear- ing? Hearing no further question, I'll make a motion closing the hearing until later. And hopefully you'll get us a copy of that and we'll have a special meeting shortly and we'll be able to try and take care of everything as quickly as we can. We thank you very very much. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3740 Matter of CAROL P~GUIRE Location of Property: 2500 Nassau Point ROad, Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No. 1000'i~04-12-i4.i Board Members Present: Gerard Po Goehringer, Chairman; Charles ~rigonis~ Jr., and Joseph H. Sawickio Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski~ the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience~ The Chairman oppned the hearing at 7~35 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIP~N GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey in the p~ior owners name dated May 5, 1970 on behalf of-Robert VanTuyl and Son. And I have a copy of the SuffOlk County Tax Map as indicated. Is there somebody who would like to speak on behalf of this applica- tion? This is the Maguire application. How do you do? MS. MAGUIRE: I'm Carol Maguire. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there something you would like to say? MS. MAGUIRE: First of all, I~ve never been to a Zoning Board be- fore. So I don't know what the procedure is. Secondly, I'm sorry that ~'m first on the agenda. I would like to have seen somebody else come up first. But since I'm number one, I'm here. I would like to say that the fence and the storage accessory building there is already in place. And I wo~td like to preface it with an exPla- nation of why I'm going for a variance after the fact. We purchased our house three years ago, placed themetal storage building in its present location. W~re unaware that it was illegal for a variety of reasons. Number one, if you look at the map, you'll notice that we have three frontyards. Well, we ~didn't know that when we bought the house. When we bought the house, we figured the front of the house is the frontyard, the back of the house is the backyard and the sides of the house is the sideyards. So we placed it in what we considered our backyard. And wh~re we use to live, you only needed a building permit that was on a permanent foundation~ on a ceraent foundation. So these are metal sheds that are not on a per- manent foundation. So therefore, we did not apply for a building permit. The fence also was ignorant on our part. The fence is well within the property line. It's anywhere from 38 to 84 feet within the property line. And where we lived previously, you only needed a building permit for a fence that was on the Property line or ob- structed the view of traffic like on a corner plot. So the first that we knew that we were illegal was when we got a letter from the Building Inspector in May and our ~irst reaction was that he Page 2 Matter of Carol Maguire Transcript of Hearing ~ August 18, 1988 CAROL MAGUIRE: Continued meant the accessory building that was ~here~when we bought the house. Because when we bought the house, that had not gotten a building.permit or a c.o. and money was left in escrow until that was cleared by the previous owners. So we said well, they didn't get that information. So my husband came in with a c.o. and a building permit for that building. Then of course, we found out that we have three frontyards and that we have a build- ing ih the ba~k frpnt~ard. Now, we-call it~the froh~ frontya£d",~the side frontya~d and the back frontyard. First we were just going to correct it and then we thought we'd apply for a variance.~-And up until this past Monday., I did not expect too many problems with the variance. But on Monday I was given a copy of a letter from the Nassau Point Property Owners Association .which you probably have. And I think that a lot of the things in here are a little misleading and I would like to address myself to that letter. May i do that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MS. MAGUIRE: The first statement there, number one is correct. Number two, they have words in here that I'm not quite sure what they mean. It says after numerous complaints from association members on the property. NoW, .I don't know ifpnumerous complaints are many people' or the same people giving the complaint many times. Is it ten people or a hundred people? I was never contacted by anyone from the Nassau Point Property Owners Association to advise me that there was complaints being registered. Then it says in- v61ving storage sheds. Well, the accessory building that is in our front frontyard has been cleared and okayed by the previous owners. The accessory, building that's in question on the variance, is in the back. And when I came in to apply for the variance, I explained that it was two buildings attached to be one building. So therefore, it was put through as one accessory, building. So we're really only talking about one.~accessory building here. And it's 20 feet wide, 10 feet deep, 7 feet high. And then we have storage of numerous boats. Well, we have a Boston Whaler and an Oday Marinar which we use. The Oday Marinar has not been used for various reasons for the past two summers but they are boats that we use. They've been in our possession for over 25 years. We're not storing other peoria's boats by any means. It also says numerous automobiles. We have two vehicles. My husband has a pick-up truck. I have a station wagon. My daughter lives with us, has a car but she's not home all the ~ime. I would calll, her only. like semi-per- manent. So there are three cars. I don't know if that's numerous vehicles. My son.comes~home from college. He lives~with his brother in the summertime that comes out on weekends. So occasionally, his car might be there. The recreational vehicle is not a bi~ motor home. It is' one of these square high low things with a box. We did store it outside under a blue tarp. And in May when we found out we were so objectionable to the area, we stored it in the ga- rage. It's been stored in the garage since May. I~m going on to number three. Again, they said that we are in full view of every- one that's entering the point. That's true. We live on a little Page 3 Matter of Carol Maguire Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CAROL MAGUIRE: Continued piece o ~ ta~d that's between Vanston and Nassau Point Road. So anybody that comes on to the p~int either has to pass the front front or the back front. And the boats are stored year around and not ~just seasonally. I really don't understand what that means. These are our personal boats. We do use them. We don't ~.ust .... The Oday Marinar was originally kept at our summer home up in Maine and we brought it home two summers ago and it may go back up to Maine again. It says here also in point number three, the last sentence;~ t~e ~pplication for'variance states that this is not practical but it certainly is if the stored boats would be legally relocated ahd moved off the property and so forth to make room for the shed. Now, I don't think it is practical for us to move it into what is the side backyard. It's a very small area. It's presently a n'~asberry patch which we're going to do away. with because we find out now that we need that ar~a. It's possible to move the shed but to me, it's more practical where they're situat~dl That's where we choose to put them in the first piece before we knew it was illegal. Comment number four; it says that the fence is not compatible with property in the immediate area. On Monday after I received this letter I just took a ride down Nassau Point Road and I found three properties that have over 4 foot stockade type fences. Not just on theiz~ property in the way ours is but actually on the boundary of their property in-~he.~frontyard. What would be considered their front- yard. So our fence is barely visible. %I think it was more visible when it first went up last April because it was new wood and the new wood stood out amongst the..~trees. A~ i~'~ ~weath~ring, you cab barely see it. I took some pictures which I put in the folder there and those pictures were taken. I had to Walk into the property on to the woods to get those pictures. Because from"the road, you can't really see it. On point number five, they' make reference to a wood pile. Yes, w~ do have a wood pile. We had gotten some free wood which we're seasoning. We use a lot of wood for our fireplace. And in order for~it to air-dry, we piled it in a very neat pile. I see piles of wood still from HurriCane Gloria just in a mess. Ours is piled very neatly, very evenly. And it is 42 inches. We measured it after we got this letter. And the wood will be used eventually. I would say there's about two inches worth of wood in.that pile. The summation paragraph, I took ex' ception to because I think it really makes our property sound as if we have j~nkyard there. I would be ashamedlY, to li~e ~here if it really looked like this. It says the general3/ result of the condi~iohs described above,~ is a property which is being used as a storage area with all sorts of flimsy storage sh~ds, unattrac- tive fencing and a collection of motor~vehicles and boats. That is pretty strong. And th~n the final paragraph, the association hopes that the Board of Appeals ~ill.deny this variance request so that the Building Department, the association and the owners of the property may confer and reach agreement as much as possible. P~ge 4 Matter of Carol Maguire Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CAROL ~iAGUIRE: Continued May I say that I am a member of the Nassau P6int Property Owners Association and never once did I get a phone call from these num- erous and many.complaintS. I am very hurt by that. I think it would have been a courteous and neighborly, if when the associa- tion received these complaints, ~ had been notified. I certainly don't want to disturb the neighborhood or offend anyone. And I would have gladly complied with whatever they had suggested. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you a couple of questions? What is the purpose of the fence which encloses the .... ? MS. MAGUIRE: As a privacy screen around that building there. My husband uses that building that was put there ~by the previous own- ers as his worksh6p. He's a hobbyist. He makes picture frames for me and repair~ lamps and so forth~ He has his machinery in there and tools. And he just wanted to put up a little fence around there for no particular reason other than his own benefit. He did not think it would offend anyone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the storage .... MS. MAGUIRE: The only thing that I must say to be very very truth- ful; we had on our boat.s, these blue tarps which I don~t like these blue tarps. And when my husband put the blue tarps on the boa~, I said gee. The blue tarps are terrible. He says; well, I hunted all around for khaki colored ones or beige and they don't make them. They just have the blue tarps. And he said he didn't .... We have a very wooded piece of property and the boats are underneath the trees and he didn't~want the oak trees staining the boats and so forth and that's why we had the blue tarp. Now in ~ay. when we found that this was offensive, we put them in ~the rasberry paceh. So hence, the boats are now in the rasberry patch where I don't think they can be seen too..easily because of the woods around. So they have been relocated. CHAI~.~AN GOEHRINGER: AS for the storage building, do you have any objection of screening those from the road with either plantings or anything of that nature? MS. MAGUIRE: Not at all. Actually, if you look at the pictures... If-you just drive by down the road without trying to really look for something, you really don't take notice of those buildings. If you slow your car down and you strain and you look, then you can see them through the trees. They're in quite a bit from the road if you look at the dimensions on.the map there. They're about 29 feet in from"the property line and there's like a buffer zone between the property line and the road of about 4 or 5 feet. So it's like over 30 feet in and it is wooded. The front of the build- ings face our backyard. I look out my.~kitchen window at them. I don't consider them flimsy or unattractive. I look at them all the time. I had made a list of ~at we store in there if that's of any interest to anyone. CHAI~RMAN GOEHRINGER: You can give us a copy ~f you wouldn't mind. Page 5 Matter of Carol Maguire Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MS. MAGUIRE: in. Well, I just wrote it by hand but I can turn that CHAIRMAN ~OEHRINGER: Ok. That's fine. MS. MAGUIRE: I just have the contents of these buildings. I hope you can read my writing because I just jotted this ali. Tdown this afternoon. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Is there a spokesperson from the Nassau Point Property Owners Association or whatever? How do you do sir? MR. BAKER: I'm the person who signed that letter. I'm sorry that Mrs. Maguire feels that we're being harsh on this issue. We have had numerous 'complaints. What numerous is is that in upwards of 20 calls that we have received, directors have received regarding this. And admittedly at this time of year, the sheds and the fence is iess noticeable than it is in the Fall. It is a wooded piece of property. When the Spring and Summer is here there is foliage around, it is less noticeabl~e. Ir'is in the Winter and the'~-~ll that the storage buildings, ~there are three of them. And individual- ly if you look at these things it doesn't, sound like it's very very important. But when you add three storage buildings and four boats and four vehicles that are immediately at the access of Nassau Point, it really does become an eyesore. And I think that's what the property owners have been complaining to me about a~d that's why we asked that the variance be denied. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In total the variance be denied? your feeling regarding the fences or the fence? What is MR. BAKER: The fence really, didn't do anything as far as helping the property. We assume that when the fence went up, it was used to'disguise the boats or the sheds or hide them. Our sense is that it just made matters worse. The same thing could halve been accomp- lished with plantings as somebody had suggested. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you~ like to speak. Yes sir. Is there anybody else who would MR. SLATTERY: Vic~ President of the Association. And I'd like to speak to Ms. Maguire's point about not having contact with. us. Be- ing a long standing policy of the association to ask the town to enforce the zoning laws and that's exactly what we attempted to do in this case. From the complaints that I received, the straw that seems to have broken the camel"s back is the arrival of what I would describe as.a 3.0 foot panelled truck about the size of the George Braun oyster truck whidh remained on the property for an extended period of time in excess of 90 day's. That brought-rumors that busi- ness was being conducted on the site. As to one of the buildings PaGe 6 Matter of Carol Maguire Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. SLATTERY: Continued that was spoken about by Mrs, Maguir~ be temporary in nature and not having a foundation, ~ would hasten to add that the building has a chimney on it, has electrical service and has outdoor and indoor lighting. And I think that that should be brought ou~ and considered as part of the application. CHAIR~N GOEHRiNGER: Slattery. But that's the building that's legal Mr. MR. SLATTERY: I'm not exactly sure what is legal and what is not. CHAI~.~N GOEHRINGER: Well, that's the'one that she claims she has the cio.. for and I'm looking at one.right now. I didn't review that. But again, the nature of this particular hearing is the fence and the two storage buildings which I wo~ld basically refer to on the west side of the property. The storage building. So, thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? In rebuttal Mrs. Maguire. I have to ask you. I don't know why I'm so tongue tied tonight. I've got to apologize. MS. MAGUIRE: I'd like to explain that panel truck. That is my son's truck. He lives in Jericho. He was bringing the wood out for the wood pile and he broke down in Riverhe~d by Carl's Nursery there. We towed him as far as our property and it took him about two weeks to get the truck running and it was not there more than three weeks. The idea of 90 days is ridiculoHs. He needed that truck for his business. He's in the trucking business. He could not have afforded to have left it on our property for that length of'~ime. He would have been out ~f business. CHAIP~{AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody who would like to say anything either pro or con regarding this hearing? The only question that I would like-to ask the president if I might, where do you propose-the storage sheds be placed or relocated? MR. BAKER: Where the boats are~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: house supposedly? That's in the rasberry patch in back of the MR. BAKER. That's the side that's least visible. CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: Sir, you had a question. MR. ROMMAN: I'm a neighbor. I live down Vanston Road. ItLseems to me'~that we have a long series of procedures that we have to .go through to get a legal building permit. Just addihg on to my house I went through 9 billion inspecti6ns and had a building permit, cer- tificate of occupancy. ~If you can just walk into this committee and make everything legal by moving a building around or talking about a fence, then what's the point in the rules. And we all do it tlhat way. The remedy is to take it out, Move it. Page 7 Matter of Carol Maguire Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CHAIRMAN GOEP~RINGER: Thank you sir. 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 AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3750 Matter of SEYMOUR AND MERLE LEVINE Location of Property: 460 Private Road %8, East Marion County Tax Map ID No. 1000-23-1-3.2 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles grigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman~oPj~ned= the hearing arS:00 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAt~.iAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated July 13~ 1983 by Robert VanTuyl & Sons, P.C. indicating a parcel of propecty along the right-of-way of Main State Highway with a storage b~ild- ing off of the right-of-way approximately 100 feet in, 15 feet off of the west property line. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is the~e somebody who would like to be heard on behalf of this? Mrs. Levine. How do you~do? MS. LEVINE: I'm also nervous. I've never done this. And we did place that shed where we understood was a legal placement and we also had this problem, I know it sounds a little strange, about what is the front and back of the house. We face one_to Dan Pond. So therefore, we feel that is the front of our'house. The shed, I think'is sort of cute and it is new and it's tucked in among trees. We did confer with our 'neighbors. And as far as I'm aware, there has been no complaints. They certainly didn't complain to us. As you can see from the pictures, it's not visible from the rear property in back of us, from the Campbells in front of us and the new homse which has just been built facing this. But it's their garage that faces that shed. If it were to be moved to what someone might call the back, the pond side; it seems to me that that would be very offensive because then it would be in full view of the three houses that are at the head of the pond and look down towards it. We were able to camftouge it better placing it here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRING~R~% I was just looking for the size. Do you hap- pen to know the size? I didn't measure it when I was out there. Page 2 Matter of Seymour and Merle Levine Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MS. LEVINE: W~ bought it from the North Fork people. size it is that they make. Whatever CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: Maybe you can call us with the size. It's not on the bUilding permit~ If you wouldn't mind. When I was up there last Sunday morning I was up kind of early and I did take a picture of it. But I did not want to bother you that early, iIt wasn't early early. Ir'was about 10 o'clock.- 'But I didn't get out. But if you would call us with just the size, we would appre- ciate it so that we can write it into the findings. And we 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"m~mbers? 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 AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal Noo 3751 Matter of JEAN C. HOLLAND-LONGNECKER Location of Property: Sunset Road, Beach Lane, and Lowland Road at Nassau Point, Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No. 1000-111-10-18, 1 and 2. Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants, the Applicants' Attorney, Anthony B. Tohill, P.C. and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:05 p.m. and read the notice of hearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we have a survey, most recent date June 29, 1987 indicating Lot 9327 of approximately 47,500 sq. ft. without Lot ~ 36, which is on the other side of Lowland Road, and Lot 9328, which is Parcel B, approximately 40,000 sq. ft., again without the lot on the other side of the road. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this property and the properties in the surrounding area. Would you like to be heard, Mr~ TOhill? ANTHONY Bo TOHILL, ESQ.: My name is Anthony B. Tohill, and I'm an Attorney with Offices at 12 First Street in Riverhead, and I represent the applicant before the Board this evening, And as you earlier indicated, this is an application for a resubdivision of Lots 327 and 328 on the Nassau Point Subdivision Map filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in 1922. Part of the new subdivision process is the attachment, I believe, historically, at the Board's suggestion, of the two seaward small, unbuildable parcels across Lowland Road with each of the upland parcels. This process began on December 9, 1983, when Mr. LesSard rendered a Notice of Disapproval to the property owner indicating that in ~Page ~ Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 his opinion, the parcels had merged° I'm not sure that Mr. Lessard was then correct, or would be correct today, to the extent that 100-112 of the Zoning Code would appear to except this subdivision map as to lot area and width requirements under the language of the Zoning Ordinance, and 100-31, adopted in 1983, or at least Subdivision b of that subsection of the law, would appear to continue that exception. And that was done by design, but that's the plain reading of the Ordinance, therefore, the property owner, during 1983, when the Board will remember, there were a flurry of local laws dealing with upzoning in the Town generally, one adopted in the Spring and one adopted in the Fall, later to become 100-31 and 100-31.1 of the Zoning Ordinance--the property owner had two alternatives: 1, either to agree with Mr. Lessard and come here and attempt a set-off, which they're doing, or 2., I believe they have the option of moving the house that straddles the line between 327 and 328, as a result of which they would have probably fallen back within 100-12 as one of the exceptions. As I mentioned, they chose to come here, and by appeal 3230, decided on December 5, 1984~ the Board denied the application. The reason for the denial as stressed in that determination is that the Board did not like the series of lines, the multiple lines, that were used to divide 326 and 327. The Map~ and I think everybody would agree, appeared to be too busy, too many lines, and not following the sense of expectations with respect as to how a line would be drawn to divide two lots, certainly wasn't consistent with the original 1922 subdivision map, and so as a result, the Board said, "this is a denial without prejudice to a new drawing." Thereafter, and under Appeal 3361, a further appeal was made to the Board, a line was redrawn, the line is essentially the way it is tonight, and at that time the Board highlighted in its denial, again without prejudice, that there was some concern for water quality in that particular area, that that concern had been expressed by the Nassau Point Property Owners Association, that had filed a written letter of protest as part of the proceedings, and so the Board at that time and on June 27, 1985, denied the application without prejudice to resubmission until the applicant were able to obtain Suffolk County Health Department approval with respect to the sanitary systems and water-supply system on the parcel, in other words, with respect to the subdivision. On March 7, 1988, after effort that reminds me of that gentleman's zillions steps to obtain the approval of municipal government, the property owner was able to obtain after a Board of Review hearing, a determination from the Health Department, which says that they will approve the subdivision and the sole condition of the approval of the subdivision is that those two lots seaward of Lowland end up merged effectively with the two lots landward of Lowland. I have here in my hand and will hand up as part of the proceeding tonight both the letter of the Health Department approving that and an original signed copy of the subdivision map that's before the Board tonight which bears the original stamp Page~ Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 and signature of Aldo Andrioli of the Suffolk County Health Department approving this subdivision as it stands before the Board tonight. In addition to the Suffolk County Health Department approval, we also have the approval for this subdivision as it appears before the Board tonight from the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation; and that approval continues to be in place, It has been in place right now three and one-half yearsr and still in place expiring at the end of this year, at which time it is going to be renewed by the Department of Conservation again. I also have in my hand, and I'm going to hand up as part of this proceeding tonight, a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map which shows the subject parcel and shows the area of the four lots as well as Lowland Road. The intention of handing up the subdivision map is to make clear a number of points. One, the character of the area is established by the Tax Map° People can write letters to the Board all they wish but the character of the area is established by the Tax Map. That's what the Supreme Court of the State of New York has ruled on, repeated occasions, and we will stand with the character of that area as it is set forth on this tax map, and there is simply no question that to the naked eye, not to a surveyor's eye, the parcels that we're talking about, all four an constituted together, are Somewhat out of place with the original scheme of the 1922 subdivision map, mapped with its various (changed tape) ( ). The Board has received, and I assume it's part of the record, a letter which was not delivered to us, by the writer, a Peter J. Stahet, but was kindly sent on to us by the Board, and we've had an opportunity to review it. The letter is dated August 16~ 1988, and it makes a number of statements with respect to this application, which I'd like to comment upon. The first statement is that somehow we have misrepresented any intention of building on the set-off parcel, on the new parcel, or at least the short or long term of a building intention. We've been before the Town of Southold since December 1983. We had no intention in 1983 of building, and we have no intention in 1988 of building, and we came to the Town because in that year, as everybody will remember, there was a great deal of activity in this building with respect to upzoning and changing what people perceive to be their rights with respect to vacant lots adjoining existing houses. That's why we came. That's why we're here. That's why we are pursuing what we perceive to be our rights, but we have no intention of engaging any builder or any lumber company or anyone else to build a lot on which we hope will be the vacant lot as a result of tonight's proceeding. So I don't know where Mr. Stahel got his information, but it wasn't from us or anybody who has personal knowledge of anything. It's news to us. Page ~ Matter of Jean C. Hotland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 ~ne second problem is that Mr. Stahel is raising the point that there are water problems in the area, and he wishes to obtain with respect to the salinity intrusion. I am going to hand up and make part of the proceedings here tonight the Suffolk County Health Department records, which include a report dated July 14, 1987 from Peter Acryss, which says that our water' quality is acceptable under N.Y.S. and Suffolk County Health Department standards. I'm also going to hand up and make part of the record here tonight a complete water sample, including the location of the test wellr including the chemical examination of the water by the Suffolk County Health Department on June 12, 1987 and including a trace organic analysis of the water, all as a result of which the Suffolk County Health Department ought to know something about water quality, as said that the water quality on our property is completely acceptable under current, legal standards. Now, the third question that Mr. Stahel raises is that "Mrs. Holland has self-created her hardship. She self-created her hardship by buying a parcel of land where the house that's already on the two lots straddles and is too close to the southerly line of the northerly of the two parcels." I'm going to hand up and make up part of the record here tonight a copy of the deed in 1967 into Mrs. Holland. That's a few more years than Mr. Stahel, who in his letter says that he just bought in the area 18 months ago. That's three years after we started this process of getting to the zillion that that gentleman mentioned of getting our approval for our set-off° Also, in addition to that deed, I'm going to hand up and make a part of the record a true copy -- I have the original in my file here tonight if the Board or anybody else wishes to see itt this is a true copy of an amendment to the Nassau Point covenants under which they recite that the house on these two parcels was built too close to the southerly line of the northerly most parcelr and so the original subdivider of all of that land assigned his name on this document in 1959 saying that this parcel, 327 and 328, so far as the Nassau Point Club Properties, Inc. is concerned, the subdivide of the property, may have two houses on 327 and 328e So I don't know again what research Mr. Stahel has done, but I suggest that if he checks the Suffolk County Clerk's Office he is going to find that document, and if he had bothered to check this town's records, he'll find that that document was handed up as long ago as 1984 to this Board's part of earlier proceedings here~ The next point that makes this, that there is something that he calls parcelization~ I didn't look that up in the dictionary, but I have a fair understanding of what he is trying to say. He says that he does not like--that those two lots, the small lots that are unbuildable, on the seaward side of Lowland, are somehow going to become part of the landward lots--the larger of the two lotso To be honest with you, i'm not sure that the gentleman understands the direction he is arguing in. If the Board doesn't 'Page~ Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 want those two lots- to become unbuildable, either by a larger lot easement, or prohibition, by covenant, or by any other means, a merger condition--however it is done, if this Board doesn't want that, then that's the way it is going to be. I don't remember that my client bought that particular proposal. My understanding, the history will show, that the Board suggested that that is a fair way of avoiding criticism because the two parcels are on the other side of the road. The argument was also made some years ago, that the merger of the two parcels on the seaward side with the landward side would somehow eliminate the access of people along Lowland Road to the extent that it existed. That's absolutely not possible and not the intention, and if somebody wants that in writing, they'll have it. The next point is that Mr. Stahel objects that the two parcels somehow are not going to be characteristic of the area and he points up that his parcel is 0.7 acre(s). I'm not sure what the gentleman is trying to say again, but 0.7 acre(s) is less than 40~000 sq. ft. and the size of the two parcels here is 40,000 sq. ft., without reference to the seaward side of Lowland Road° The final opinion, and now I think we get to Mr. Stahel's point, is that Mr. Stahel says that in the 18 months that he has bought this property and lived on it, he has come to enjoy looking across Mrs. Holland's property and he enjoys the view to the water, and he would like that view to the water to remain. And he would like it, I think, on our back, and without opening his checkbook. And I know that the Board is not here to see that he has some kind of a visual easement across our property, and so I assume that's not the kind of thing that's going to cause any problem. And the second letter again, we did not get a copy of it, but kindly the Clerk of the Board sent a copy to us. It's from the Nassau Point Property Owners' Association. I'll confess that like Mrs. Maguire, who expressed some impatience before with the style of the Nassau Point Property Owners' Association, my stomach, with its stomach acid that sometimes habits my stomach, generally had a reaction to the Nassau Point Property Owners' Association as expressed in this letter° The first point is that they are raising a question in the first paragraph of their comments with respect to salt-water intrusion° My clients spent a lot of money obtaining the Health Department's approval. They had to have a test hole dug. They had to have a test well drilled. They had to have a series of water samples taken. They had to pay VanTuyl and Son a lot of money. They had to pay me a lot of money. They had to attent a public hearing at the Suffolk County Center conducted by the Board of Review of the Suffolk County Health Department, and as a result of that process, which involved the analysis of people who have some knowledge, I understand, with respect to water quality, Page ~ ~atter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 they received the approval of that agency that this Board in the last decision on this application said ought to be the ones to speak to the issue. Having spoken to the issue, I think that we should all stand, and I submit that we're required to stand on what that Health Department said. The second point is that this group again objects to the merger of the two small unbuildable parcels on the sealand side of Lowland Road. Now, again, I don't understand why anybody would object to making those parcels permanently unbuildable in any way at all. If I owned property adjacent to those parcels as the Nassau Point Property Owners Association does, I would be here asking you to please make that the result of any determination. They're not. I don't understand. We'll do whatever the Board says. The next point is that you should not grant this application because Mrs. Holland is sitting here to my left upon her husband's death moved out of the home onto Vanston Road. I find that really petty. I find it suggestive of an indifference as to what should concern us seriously here tonight. If everybody is here as a property owner, and the measure of our involvement is contained in this book, and in the zoning ordinance, and in the hours of effort of this Board, with no fat paychecks at the end of the year, then I think that that is the limit of the comment. And if it makes sense within the regulatory scheme whether or not she lives on Vanston Road and chooses to avoid some memories in a house in which her husband died, then the answer is none of the Property Owners Association's business. It's none of my business. It's nobody's business. The next point is that they say we cannot demonstrate hardship. I have no quarrel with this one. Hardship is not the standard legally. We're simply following the forum of the Zoning Board, and the Zoning Board I'm sure understands that. The standard here is at best, practical difficulty, and it may not even be that. This is a resubdivision, at best, of merged parcels and not more. The next point that they make is that they created our own difficulties by straddling the line and coming close to straddling the line. It's the same point that Mr. Stahel made and anybody can check the Suffolk County Clerk's Office and find that covenant from the Nassau Point subdivider saying that that simply is not the case and that it was the Nassau Point subdivider's intention by that document to amend the covenants to Nassau Point so that 327 and 328 notwithstanding that house been so close to that southerly line and have two houses on it. The next point was a variation on Mrs. Holland's place of residence. We now have on page three an analysis by Mro Feaker of Mrs. Holland's tax return. Page 7 Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. TOHILL, continued: I don't think that-he's seen that tax return. I know that as a professional, I have training fn the preparation-of tax returns and I know that I respect the process enough not to babble at the mouth of things like that. So I would respectfully request that the Board disregard any comment about Ms. H~lland's tax return to the extent that they absolutely are made entirely out of context Assuming that they had any relevance under ~ that book or what the Trustees have-adopted or the Town Board has adopted as regulations in this municipality. The final point they make is that if ygu were to approve this application, you would open the flood gates. That's the exact expression, that's the exact words nsed. I haven't seen it in writing for a number of years but you will open the flood gates. We've been here in this building since December of 19.83 trying to get this application approved. -WE've been to the D.E%'C. We've been to the Health Department. We've spent ~ore time in Mr. VanTu~l's office than we care to report to you. I don't think this Board can report that the flood gates have been open and I know that we're not reporting to you that the flood gates have been open. And if anybody wants to go through What that gentleman has de- scribed as a zillion steps, then they're welcome to try to do ir'and they can have a lawyer in their vest pocket, Mr. VanTuyl in their vest pocket and hydrologists all over their property too. But nothing that ~ know of in the Town of Southoid requires this many regulatory approvals is going to open any flood gates unless the participant who wishes to enter was just born yester- day and I'm~certain there's noon~ a£0uhdi~n 'that ~on~ition. As part of the record, I'm going to hand up at'this time the mailing re- ceipts all at~ached and in order, a~.copy of Mr. Lessard's notice of disapproval of December 8, 1983, the copy of your determination of number 32'-30, a copy of your determination number 33-61, a copy of Mr. Villa's letter dated March 7, 1988. He is of course as you know, the Suffolk County Health Department Chairman of the Board of"Review approving this application. I'm handing up an original signed copy of the subdivision map signed by Mr. Andri~li. I'm handing up a copy of our original D.E.C. permit with a current letter of extension approval. I'm handing up an amitated copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map. I'm handing up a report of the Suffolk County Health Department dated July 14~ 1987. ~'m handing up a four page, all of the water test results from the Suffolk County Health Department. I'm handing up a copy of our deed re- corded at Liber 6, 187 page 439. I'm handing up an amendment of the Nassau Point Property Inc. covenants and restrictions dated SeptEmber 15, 1959. Mr. Chairman, I have received Valerie Sco- pazzi's note to you tonight. I was looking in my file to find the Planning Board's comments the last time this came through be- cause they did comment. The notion that the hearing should be held open because they have nothing under Mrs. Holland's various names. It was not, in my opinion, a basis to hold the record open. The application has been here for some time now and I think there was adequate opportunity for the Planner to comment. And of course, if they had a problem of finding the record, ~ey could have called me and ~ could have sent to them a copy of their file for the last three and a half to four years. So to be honest with you, if there was a b~sis for holding open, I'd be the first to jump in and say hold it open. But I don't find that this is a basis for holding it 6pen~and I think that therefore the record should be closed. Page 8 Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August I8, 1988 In summation, I think that we're here standing~by all of the offers and assurances that we have made to you in the past with respect to complying with any dondition that would permit the property to be restored to its original subdivision status. If that means that there would be a covenant prohibiting any further d~evelopment of those seaward parcels, that is fine. If you wish to have a large lot easement, that's fine. Howevers. you Wish to have it written or however the'Town Attorney .wishes to have it writte ~ is acceptable to us. The applicant has now at this point, taken every step that it can and that it has been asked to take and we're respectfully requesting that after this long haul and all these different agencies, that we be p~rmitted to look at that vacant parcel as a separate parcel as it was originally planned. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak hgainst the ap- plication? Sir, would you kindly state your name for'the record. SRANI HARRISON: I'm the owner of lots 329, 330 just south of the pe- tition's lots; 327 and 328 and I also own lot 34 and 33 on Meadow Beach. As was stated, in recent annual meetings of the Nassau Point Property owners Association ahd included in the Southold Water Ad- visory Committee Report, our water supply including Nassau Point, is in jeopardy and conservation measures have been suggested. I feel that increasing the number of~.building lots on Nassau Point would therefore be in the Least general interest and would further infringe on a fragile water system. The property Darailel to the Holland property along the bluff overlooking the Meadow Beach are all of simi- liar size and configuration. And like the Holland property, contain a single'multi-story dwelling. These are from the Suffolk County Tax MaP; 104, 107, 118 and 119. Lots 319, 320, 321 owned by Bert Lewis, lots 327 and 3'28 owned by the Hoilands, lots 329 and 330 are owned by the Harrisons, lots 331 owned by Blair. And lot 332 which is unde- veloped. The only other properties in the immediate vicinity are not only land locked but are considerably smalle~ in size and ~onfigura- tion. Each of whichhowever, has a greater than one foot frontage, 100 foot frontage. These parcels each contain a single-story build- ing. These lots include lots; 322 owned by the McLaughiins, lots 323 owned by the Stahels, lots 326 owned'~by the Longneckers, lot 326A owned by the Behans and lot 324 which is undeveloped. I therefore, feel that these smaller properties are not preferrable to the Holland property. The requested change would actually create a building lot of less than 100 foot frontage. The requested change in my opinion would not create two oversized parcels as he stated but one undersized and one oversized parcel and would definitely offend the character of the neighborhood and dO substantial injustice to the neighbors. As stated in the applicant's proposed lots, would not be nearly twice as large as the other lots in the immediate vicinity. It is obvious that I am strongly opposed to this petition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against the application? Mr. Gardener. Page 9 Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. GARDENER. I'm with the Nassau Point Property Owners Associa- tion but not in any office. But I did some research on this. I was going into your office, Linda gave me a request for a variance. And I~looked it over and talked to some people who knew a~'iot more about the situation than I did. And this was the only thing we had to~ qo on which was a request for a variance. Shouldn't we depend on the accuracy of this or the statements that are made in this statement? NoW all the papers are being put in tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you ~eferring to the application, Mr. Gardener? MR. GARDENER: Yes, with the map. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the prior hearing? This is for this particular hearing and not MR. GARDENER: I have something about the prior hearing stated. But this is'on this hearing. This is the appplication with the map that they propose with their reasons for getting the variance. Now, am I not correct that my f~iends in the association, are we not correct that we should rely on this wording and this map to make our statement? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would assume so. MR. GARDENER: That was our assumption too~ NOw, there are many errors in this.. The lawyer says that they got a good report on the water. WEll, that's fine right now but we know we have salt water 'intrusion on Nassau Point. You get a couple of years of drought, that water that was fine in many places on Nassau Point is not going to be fine. It's happened before. The head of the Water Auth6rity, Frank Baerden, he recognized it. He's an authority. So we quote that. Also, it said that the lots are not the way they appeared on the map. How are we supposed to know that? This is what we were given to read, to look at and comment on. The present house is a straddle~of the line'~that's on this map, the lot line that's on th~s map. Certainly the predecessor put it too close. He put it right on the line. Somebody put it right on the line. That some- body indicated that he wanted to keep those two lots as one parcel of property. So we thought we had to call attention to that because that's what was in this document. And it says that the huge parcel is a burden on the owner.. Now, the only talk we have tonight is they want to divide it in, to two properties but they're not going to do anything with the other one. How is that going to ease the burden? The only way they're going to ease the burden is to sell that property with the house on it, to,sell the new redeveloped or newly reorganized lot~if~you grant the variance or to sell the whole piece of property. We say if there's a hardship, sell the whole piece of property. The reason the tax figures are in here is we show you that the tax cost and that's the only thing it is is the tax cost on that newly set off piece 6f property averages thirty dollars a month and that's not a hardship. ~nother point here that this hardship is unique. It's not shared by all properties in the immediate vicinity because the appli- cant's proposed lots are twice as large as the other lot's markers in the~'immediate vicinity. Now, the immediate vicinity always means to me next door. Sure there are some small lots. When Nassau Point Page 10 Matter of Jean C. 'Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 was organized, the inland lots were made small. But the other lots have been kept large. We have in the immediate vicinity, Iots from three acres to twelve acres. They're in the immediate vicinity. This proposal says their lots are going to be twice as large as any other lots. We have to call attention to that fact. That's our job. That's why we~ve made directors of Nassau Point Association. I can't say any more. I haven't read all 'those papers. I haven't had an opportunity to. This is w~at I'worked on with my f~ie~ds and I think they should be allowed to justify w~rking on it, on just his property, this piece because this was the only thing we had available. Thank you. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Gardener. M~'am you had a question or a statement. Could i~ask you to use the mike, I should have ~sked Mr. Gardener, and kindly state your name. MR$?~M^RYBSk[ CAR~ listened to the Nassau Point Association criticize tonight, down talk tonight these people. These people receive no fee. They receive no compensation. They do it in their spare time and they're bus~ people. They have a civic feeling and duty to respohd to the needs of the area. It maybe true that the water now runs fine. And as far as the water peo~l~ are concerned, the water is there. It's so far from the Bay or the Cove in spots. But they do not look at the overall picture. And the overall pic- ture is that Nassau Point has a very very fragile aquifer. One more house here, another house.there, we are already over the num- ber of houses we should have on Nassau POint at this point. Please stop the bleeding. We need to conserve our water and see that all of use live together with an adequate amount. And there is saline intrusion. We know.. Thank you. CHAI~LAN GOEHR~NGER: Thank you. MR. ~0$[PH BSRSSR : I--'m on the Board of Directors. Oh~ of my -- is water. This passed week I've~had two complaints. People call me, what can I do for them? They are getting salt water up not in this area where this lady is concerned but on the east side o~ Nassau Point. They can't use the water. He's getting salt water. He's got a house that's worth $i00,000. He can take a shower with the water, he can't drink it, he can't cook in it. I have had two complaints in that area. So this is one reason why I would object to it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ma'am. MS. GILLEYS : We certainly did hear Nassau Point Property Owners and Nassau P~int bellified tonight. To characterize Nassau Point as the map was drawn by the developers, is incrediably naive. I'm with community relations for the Nassau Point Property Owners Association and past president of Nassau Point Property Owners Association. I'll begin again and try not to get emotional. To charac- terize Nassau Point as the map is drawn by the de~elopers, is incre- diably naive. As the developers planned Nassau P6int, the properties were to Surround the hotel which burned was envisioned as serving many cottages. The tax collector in Southold knows very well that such is not %he case. Nassau POint has developed~ with large homes on the water straddling two lots and in some cases three. And I P~ge 11 'Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 forgot about Maggie Bradford's which is much more than that. The concerns we have here is we are dependant on the water collected beneath us. We know there are some buildable lots. And if those who encompass two lots, decide to redraw the line, we would certain- ly effect the water level and the character of our area. I for one, have a garage built on my second lot. I can come in here and ask you to just set off that other lot. You gave us an exception as far as the map when you did the two acre zoning. So we are allowed to build on'each one of our lots. A number of us have built a ga- rage or a bath house or something on the lot. And everybody could come in and start doing this if this were allowed. If there were no water, maybe they would start your wagon very soon. So this is ~ny we are concerned. We are not greedy adverse people. 'The people who built these homes built them in the '30's and the '40's and the '50's. They were not fat cats. They worked hard and the achieved'and they're not some greedy people. They're some peo- ple who can afford to buy the homes and they're coming out and buy- lng the homes. And Mr. Stahel, incidently, is related to a woman who has lived on Nassau Point for more years than I can think of. Thank you. CHAIRNLAN GOEHRINGER: Thank yQu Hrs. Gilley. I have your first name sir? Sir, Mr. Berger, could MR. BERGER: Joseph. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. would like to speak? Yes Doctor. Is there anybody else who mR. HARRISON: On part of the Submitted material, I have a copy of a map of proposed setoff property surveyed for Jean Longnecker of Nas- sau Point, To~ o~ Southold. On parcel B there is an indication of a house. Now, that I didn't put in and yet we're told that there is no intention of putting a house on it. May I show it to you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: with you. I think I have the same thing Dr. to be honest DR. HARRISON: Well, I question it. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Would you like to rebut~ anFof this Mr. MR. TOHILL: I would like the Chairman's permDssion to supplement the record and I'll supply it within a few days, with a little information on the number of building permits which have been issued on Nassau Point since December 8, 1983 which I think is the date of Mr. Lessard document, the notice of disapproval. So I think that will be an in- teresting statistic. The second point that I would like to make and I'm askin~ for permission to supply that to the Board. The second point that I would like to make is that I don't think anybody in his right mind living on the East End of Long Island can object to some- body have a legitimate concern about water and the supply of drinking water. I don't think Mrs. Hollander is here tonight to champion some kind of a statement that there is no problem with drinking water any where in the Town of Southold. At the same time to the extent that Page 12 Matter of Jean C. Hollander/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 we personally, Mrs. Holland and I, had the personal opportunity to go to through~the Health Department's review proceeding after the last determination of this Board in order to determine from their professional perspective What the quality of water was in this particular area, this partiCular. I think that we under- stand that there's more involved in that process. We would then comment in the same breath, in the same letter and at the same time and of the same signature about Mrs. Holland's personal tax return, about Mrs. Holland's husband's death, about Mrs. Holland"s residence on VanSton Road and similiar comments. I don't think that they help Go leave a message with anybody, this Board or to me or anyone else that somebody would like to leave. So that anybody who suggests that we're supposed to take it on the chin and roll to the ground ~n'en that kind of comment is made in the context of a zoning proceeding, should not expect that to happen. Not from my client, not from anybody that I ex- pect to serve. The'~las~ point and then I'll sit down. All of the comments aboUt water; water has been well addressed to the Suffolk County Health Department as we went through our public hearing in Suffolk County Center which is located on Center Drive in Riv~rhead which was a publicly noticed proceeding at which time there was information taken with respect to the issues that are now before the Board. It isn't as if this group didn't know that that was going to happen. After ali,-this Board received a letter the last time this matter was before the Board from the same group objecting to the subdivision. And the Board made a very specific denial without pre3udice saying go get Health De- partment approyal. We set about doing that. It took us some time, some energy, some money, some effort to do it but we did it. It's a tad unfair to have Nassau Point group to show up to- night and suggest tonight in August 1988, two and a half years into the effort just with respect to the Health Department that we are on a fool's errand. I don't think anybody wants the sys- tem to work that way. We relied on what the Board said in writing to the public in that determination and we spent dollars and time doing what we thought we were told respectfully to do. And we got through the gate and it's too late after the Health Department has held its public hearing to make this Board in to a super Board of Review over the Board of ~Review of the Suffolk County Health De- partment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you sit down, could I just go over a couple of the figures on the survey if you would? MR. TOHILL: That's what's cited, by the way, in decision number .... The last one because it was cited exactly, 33-61. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Where we have the number 327, the lot number and we 47,500 square feet. That is the old iot line that straddles the house. So now with changing the lot line at 4 feet, we now have parcel A at 55,660 square feet. MR. TOHILL: Right, because of the setoff. Page 13 Matter ofJean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Now, parcel B would have been 48,160 square feet but it straddles the house that's now 40,000 square feet. MR. TOHILL: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Lot number 37 which is on the beach, on the cove I should say, is 5,865 square feet and that's used to- gether with lot number 36 which is 16,350 or is it .... ? MR. TOHILL: Depending.upon how you want to say it. 37 becomes part of 327 and 36 becomes part of 328. So %hat 40,000 on 328 becomes .... I'm going to have to 10ok at that original decision again. What does 33-61 say? Because this is confusing to me.. When I read through the decision, I literally understood it in one sentence better then than any other time. But it's part of the exhibits that I handed up. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: It shows as 15,242. MR. TOHILL: Ok. Then he's using the lot line number rather than the high water mark which would be correct. That would be the consistant way to do it because he's not talking about buildability. He's just talking about area and he's also making it unbuildable. So you'd want the larger of the areas rather than the smallerD CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you. MR. TOHILL: Could you comment with respect to';my ability to add that statistiC because I think all the people saying that they were the last ones in the door .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: on the .... ? Would you be including any mergers in that MR. TOHILL: No. Ail I want to do is demonstrate~'what's an ob- vious point. That the building that has been taking place on Nassau Point over the last five years during the light of our ef- forts to get this parcel subdivided and get through what that gentleman called a zillion steps. What got. this group here to- night quite angry is not our application. It's not the division of our lot. It's what they're observing day in and day out all over Nassau Point. It strikes me that in the merit, for a long time and I hope a long time to come, if-we're going to visit all of an area's problems on one property line the way it's being done here tonight, it's time to reassess how we do things. And I don't think the group intends to do that. I think they are trying to send a message but they get caught, that message gets caught in a strange way when you're before a quasi-judicial board such as a Zoning Board of Appeals which has a mandate under state law to do things i~ certain things come together and are not in the rede- signing order. You're not conducting the rules of the law here. CHAIR~AN GOEHRINGER: We can do it in two ways. The only thing that concerns me is that it does not give the Nassau Point Associ- ation time to comment on the letter that you're going to give us with the statistics in it. Page 14 Matter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. TOHILL: i'm going to give you the number. have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 digits on it. That's all. It's going to CHAIP~{AN GOEHRINGER: Sir, the only thing I might suggest is that if we .... I'm going to suggest that we take about a two minute recess here for one minute. But I'm going to suggest that if you do that, that we will close the hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting with no comments. We'll just close it. So if they wanted to comment on what you're placing or the numbers that you're placinq, that the accuracy if they have any question on what ever is going... What ever it is, I can assure you that this works out very nicely. ThereWs no input. There's no anything. We just close the hearing except for in writing if they want to comment on what you place in the file. So I'm going to suggest that. I'll be with you in one second Mrs. Gilleys. And Mrs. Gilleys you had a question. MRS. GILLEYS: The only comment that I was going to make is that it is obvious that Mr. Tohill received all our letters that we had. He was notified. And if anything happens with the Board, it would be nice if we were informed. If we~knew that there had been water hearings and so forth. And I regret that you were curt to me in public. But just the same, I think that this is an issue that is concerning everyone. That's why we are here. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Yes ma'am. MRS. HARRISON: I have two comments I'd like to make. And one is that the water may be very pure now and DEC may have approved now. But what's going to happen to our supply of water if we keep building, building, building on Nassau Point? If we continue this building, we're not going to have any water, that's decent. And the other is that I don't quite understand the purpose of this subdivision if there's absolutely no intention of building. Unless it's the selling of the property and then the property is sold. Someone else can apply to build. I really donit see the point of it. MR. TOHIL5 : When municipalities do what this municipality did in 1983 which was over the course of five months, adopt local law number 9 and then number 11 that became i00-30 and 100-31~1 I think or 100-31 and 100-31.1. Whenever that happens in any munici- pality and it's written in every textbook on planning on the sub- ject, it causes people to become insecure about their real property rights. And it caused people to wonder whether or not ~ it<make~ sense to put off and put off what otherwise they would not put off. And so as a result, they consult lawyers'and they consult land planners and they get advice. And eventually they find their way at Mr. Lessard's counter and it happens here every day. It's been happening increasingly in this municipality more than any other on the East End over the last five years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the group here from Nassau Point, you're referring to the inception of two acre zoning, There was a ques- tion. Mr. Ferge, you had a question. Page 15 Matter offJean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. FEKER: As the president of the association, I feel the need to comment since we've been groundly nullified here this evening. It is most unfortunate that Mrs. Holland's lawyer has chosen to take our comments in a personal vain. They were not intended to do so. And if they. were taken that way, I would certainly apologize to everyone that was involved in the process in this light. But that was certainly not our inten- tion. Ou~ comments regarding where Mrs. Holland lives was only relative' to the~comment in the application that this application had something to do with hardship and the fact that the property was being rented and not'lived in. And that was the only point that we were making relative to that and that was our single con- cern. Relative to the water supply, I would certainly not argue with the water''department that the water in the area of the Hol- land property is good. However, for those of you who are not aware of it,'Nassau Point sits above-an aquafer. And we do not get spring water. Our water comes from the rain and it sits there and does not by anybody else. My immediate neigh- bor lost his pump a month ago as a result of the Fire Department pumping a practice well. Practicing to pump water to make sure it was out of one of t'heir wells and it created an air vacuum and he lost his pump as a result of that~ The comments that Mr. Berger got from the people on the Point are factual. They have salt water intrusion and it doesn't make a difference whether the water at the Holland property is good or not. That water 'that is being taken and continually being taken by the continuous building is going to effect all of us at a later date. Not just the. two people who now have salt water intrusion. Relative to the comment regarding the building; of course we're concerned about the over population of Nassau Point and the building. But we wouldn't consider commenting on a case where a person has a lot and owns a single lot and decides to build~.'on that lot. It's ludicrous that we would make a comment and suggest that that per- son not build. What we're concerned about is the splitting of these multiple lots and there are many which would increase the number of houses-on Nassau P6int significantly. -I can't ~ive you a figure on that. And as far as commenting on Mrs. Holland's tax return. Again, we. certainly were not attempting to do that and that was .not our intention. We made no reference to her tax re- turn. We talked about the fact that if you break her tax assess- ment or her tax payment over the course of the year and you con- sider the fact that it's a deductible expense for almost all of us.] - that was our comment. So just for the general public who is here, we are not the ogres'that we were made out to be and this certainly was not a personal attack as her lawyer has chosen to make. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Gardener, you had one more point? We are going to take a short recess. MR. GARDENER: Again, you have copies of these two past denials. And for the group, I'd like to read what they were. The first one was denied because this proposal would not be within the character of this neighborhood because of its configuration. Being the setback of the existing dwelling would be insufficient. It would not meet the requirement of zoning of 50 foot rearyard. Page 16 M~tter of Jean C. Holland/Longnecker Transcrip~ of Hearing - August 18, 1988 C - The evidence submitted is not sufficient to justify the grantihg of the relief as requested. It was turned down. That's the first one. The reasons for the first turn down. The second turn down was denied because additional relief was necessary for the setback of existing dwelling from the amended division line. Such amend- ment was beyond the scope of the original notice of hearing. TWO; the water table in this area is fragile. Such a division of land will require a approval of Article VI of the Water De- partment~. I read the letter from-~the Water Department. It says sure you can put water there now. It doesn't say that you should give this variance because of that. It doesn't say it. So .... One other thing. We understand that it-would be nice to divide their lot. BUt we have so many buildable lots on Nassau Point and there's not a d--- thing we can do about it. But when other people start to break up properties, then we've got to do something. Just because something is legal and we can't do anything. But for some- thing that's not quite legal, we're going to do something. That's all we're doing. We have no personal animosity towards this. We are fighting a good cause for everybody, the 300 households on Nas- sau Point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment, I'll make the mo- tion closing the hearing reserving .... I'm sorry. I make the mo- tion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meet- ing with no public comment. And we would ask either the president or one of the directors of the Nassau Point Association to get in touch with us in about two weeks to review what ever supplemental information that is placed in the file by Mr. Tohill representing his client so that/you might comment on it prior to the next hear- ing in writing. MR. TQ~LL: I understand that the comment will be as to those digits that I'm going to put in. I'm going to send you a letter that says the number of building permits issued since September 8, 1983. I don't want to hear .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. And I would ask you to please restrict your comments, this is again for the association, to any additional information that's being placed in the file sub- sequent to this particular hearing. And hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3753 Matter of VINCENT GEROSA Location of Property: 315 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion County Tax Map ID No. 1000-21-2-3 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:18 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of survey dated September 24, 1969 and updated June 3, 1988 indicating a one and a half story framed house. Th~.nature of this application are two additions. One to the rear of the house and one to the east Side of the house. And I have a copy of the Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard sir? Is there anything you'd like to say for the~.'record? MR. GEROSA: I'm the owner of the house. My family has been in that area and on that property for over 30 years. I believe the purpose of the restriction is to pro~ect the environment, particu~ larly the bluff and the potential for erosion. I'm very sensitive to that. The application that I've made and the building that I would like to proceed with is an addition that extends to the side of the house. And in fact, is set back further from the bluff then the house itself. It's breakfast room addition about 9 by 8. .And in fact, it is about five feet further away from the bluff than the house itself. It, in my opinion, has no danger of causing erosion or danger to the environment. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: What is the approximate size of the proposed addition on the east side? MR. GEROSA: On each side, about 9 by 8. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it not? That's going to run the length, of the house. MR. GEROSA: No. The leng~t'h o'f the house, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean I should say the width, of the house. Page 2 ~'Matter of Vincent Gerosa Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. GEROSA: The structure itself is about 9 feet wide. About half the width of the hOuse is a platform beyond that but that's not a permanent structure. I'm not sure that's included.' The platform plus the breakfast room would be the width of the house. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: something there. So in other words, ~here will be a deck or MR. GEROSA: A deck. Not a raised deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: J~st ~let me point something out to youj_i.f you wouldn't mind Mr. Gerosa. You see he's got the whole area boxed in in reference to the a~ea that's going to be your left. The deck is going to be over on this side. This is going to be a d~ck and then from this point here would be the actual breakfast room. I didn't ask you that on Sunday when I was out there. Ok. I thank you. Is ther~ anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? You've got to raise your hand fast because I'm going to run right through this. Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving d'ecision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. ~SE Matter of TIMOTHY COFFEY AND THE COVE Location of Property: S/s Main Road, Southold County Tax Map ID No. 1000-75-06.3 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer~ Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:21 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a tax map indicating a di- rectional sign of where this is going to be placed. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. And I have a letter from the most immedi- ate neighbor to the east, Mr. and Mrs. Terry that they could not be here to comment on the sign and they would like us to postpone the hearing until the next regularly schedUled meeting. So the Board usuall, y does grant one recess. But I do know that there is at least one person who would like to comment tonight. Would you like to say anything Mr. Klatsky? MR. KLATSKY: Vice President of the Cove. We would desire an ac- tion this evening. We adh'ered to the requirements, of the Board and we'd really like to put that sign up during the season. Thank. you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: in favor? Against? Is there anybody else who would.I/Like to speak MR. STANKOWICZ: I live on the east of this property.. I'm against it. The first thing, the zoning ordinance should speak for itself on signs. I'm also against that If Mr. Coffey, who owns property next door, wanted a sign for him- self, is one thing. But if he's going to rent out to all the peo- ple that want directional signs throughout the town, there's got to be hundreds of them. When this gentleman, when they put this place up, they spent millions of dollars. They should have realized that they can't commercialize with this sign,- next door to us or any place else. I can't see any justification of any reason this Board should approve of this sign. They tried to put it up on the east of it, the stockwood. And Mr. Terry questioned him on it and they Page 2 Mat%er of Timothy Coffey and The Cove Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. STANKOWICZ: Continued put it down and he wasn't even notified like you have a letter from him. Unless i told him about it when we had a letter. But I think we have an ordinance.on this and if they want to start putting directional signs up every place, then I'll get a piece of the action too. I'll start renting my property. But I'm completely against it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, ~I"ll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No.3756V Matter of HENRY J. SMITH AND THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC. Location of Property: S/s Main Road, Southoid County Tax Map ID No. 1000-70-07-007 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles rigonis, Jr.~ and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman the hearing at 9:25 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: I have a copy of a tax map indicating the approximate location. In fact it does not indicate the approxi- mate location but I do have a copy of a letter indicating the approximate location of the sign which is more toward the easterly side of the property. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this' and surrounding properties in the area. Again, Mr. Klatsky, is there_something you would like to say? MR. KLATSKY: The only additional piece of information that I tlhink has some bearing is that there is another sign on this property pre- sently. Mr. Smith has agreed to remove that sign if this sign were approved for its direction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against this? Ok. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing this until the next regularly.scheduled meeting. Well, we'll close it. We're closing this and making com- ments further. All in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No.3756V Matter of HENRY J. SMITH AND THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC. Location of Property: S/s Main Road, Southoid County Tax Map ID No. 1000-70-07-007 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer', Chairman; Charles rigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman the hearing at 9:25 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a tax map indicating the approximate location. In fact it does not indicate the approxi- mate location but I do have a copy of a letter indicating the approximate location of the sign which is more toward the easterly side of the property. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Again, Mr. Klatsky, is there_something you would like to say? MR. KLATSKY: The only additional piece of information that I think has some bearing is that there is another sign on this property pre- sently. Mr. Smith has agreed to remove that sign if this sign were approved for its direction. CHAI~{AN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against this? Ok. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing this until the next regularly- scheduled meeting. Well, we'll close it. We're closing this and making com- ments further. All in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3774 Matter of WILLIAM BAXTER, JR. Location of Property: N/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No. 1000-72-2-2.1 and 3 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at-9:28 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey prodUced by Roderick VAnTuyl, P.C. dated March 10, 1987 indicating a parCel to be set off from parcel number one which is 151,301 square feet. The parcel in question is 67,000 which~is parcel number two on the map, 67,483 square feet. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indi- cating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard Ms. Wickham? MS. WICKHAM: Thank you. I'd like to speak on behalf of the ~ppli- cant. I think if anybody asked me to give them an example of prac- tical difficulty in the extreme, this would befit, particularly~since the two proposed lots are both each of considerable size ~nd-dimen- sion. And also this configuration was created since at least the early 1940's and a single separate search was submitted. And I think' the practical difficulty is so e+ident that it compels the granting of this variance. As far as the comments of the Planning Board, I think that, I do want to state it publicly, my client has given me no indication that he does intend to ask, in the future to subdivide that iarger lot. But the size of that lot being almost 4 acres, would be consent to any provision against future subdivision for a couple of reasons.. Number one; I don't think it's necessary. ParticUlarly since the application of that nature would require the approval of at least three Boards; your Board, the Plan- ning Board and the DEC at the time. And in that case, the practical difficulty or hardship would be considerably greater than it would be in this case because with respect to the insufficent area and pos- sibly how you wouldn't divide the line. I'd be glad to hack this issue out with the Planning Board but at this point, I don't think it's one of your conditions. As far as the road goes, the strip of land coming up from the public road is owned by the applicant. It is subjectuto.~a~.~t-df~w~y.in !f.a'vor~f-~e 'Gallag.h~r.pa~cel 'which is the empty parcel.. And i think because of that, the Planning Board would have jurisdiction and it would be a 280-A in front of your Board~. Page 2 Matter of William Baxter, Jr. Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes sir. MR. GALLAGHER. I'm the owner of the parcel in between. to know where it's goin~g~ to be divided. I'd like CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Let me show you the map. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this hearing? Seeing no further comment, no further raise of hands, 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 AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3754 Matter of ANDRE AND THO~AS CYBULSKI Location of Property: W/s Depot Lane, Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No. 1000-96-5-1.2 and 1.1 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:33 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a cut down survey indicating the na- ture of this particular application, placement of the barns and the existing right-of-way. 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? MR. CYBULSKI: As mentioned in the application, my brother Tom and I would like to use these barns as general storage. I would like to enter into the minutes of this hearing, the transcript o~ minutes from a previous application number 367. I hope you would overlook the adverse comments made at that time but it does give the descrip- tion of the boundaries and how they are zoned and how they are used and also the comments as to our hardship in having these barns and not having adequate income from them to cover the taxes, iusurance, maintenance and what have you. Briefly, I would like to state that presently the barns are zOned residential/agricultural. They. are basically in a residential area but there ms business property to the east and industrial property across the tracks to the north. Now, we have all been told of the need for general storage in the town. Presently there are storage buildings be~'construct~d in the town. And the buildings we have are basically well built. They're sound and ideally suited for general storage. They have concrete floors, high ceilings, loading docks, water, heat and of course, they're thoroughly insulated. They are very easy to heat and keep cool as desired recently. And we~ve tried to reht and sell these barns to the agricultural community but there is no interest at this time. There are more agricultural barns built right now than there's a need for. And if you have any questions, weld be glad to'hear them. Page ~ Matter of Andre and Thomas Cybulski Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: Do you have any objection to us limiting the amount of trailer truck bodies that are stored on the back of the property? I think I counted .... MR. CYBULSKI: Those trailers there right now? Right now Mr. Glover is using one of those barns. And well, a couple of days ago, there were none and then there has been as many as eight back there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think when I was back there I counted six but that was last Saturday. But do you have any objection to us putting a limit on the amount? MR. CYBULSKI: I don't have any objection to it. But there are five acres of property there. I think the property could sustain quite a few trailers. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: I just liked the way they were parked because they were parked~in back of the barn so there was no visual .... don't even want to use the word. You couldn't even see them from the road. MR. CYBULSKI: If you notice in the application, that's were we show parking the trailers. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: It's absolutely perfect. It's a perfect spot. MR. CYBULSKI: Excuse me. There are two buses back there. long to Cutchogue Fire Department, not to us. They be- CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: We noticed them. I noticed them. I should say. As for the actual storage of the materials we're talking about, we're talking about dead storage which would not-be used or moved on a daily basis but will be brought in and deposited there in any one of these three buildings and kept there for a certain period of time and then extracted or taken out. MR. CYBULSKI: Yes, that's our idea. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any objection to the Planning Board's recommendation about limiting the hours? MR. CYBULSKI: I don't know just who we are going to rent to. In a storage type of business, at times the night time hours are the hours to load and unload. If you'll notice the loading docks-are not facing any houses. If in some time if the future, the woods should be de- veloped, they will be about 400 feet away from any house back there. So it could be worked out but I'd hate to see too many restrictions placed on it. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: I think that about takes care of it. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would ~ike 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. Ail in favor - AYE. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 18, 1988 Appeal No. 3766 Matter of WILLOW TERRACE FARMS, INC Location of Property: Major's Pond Road, Orient County Tax Map ID No. 1000-26-2-39.5 and 39.1 Board Members Present: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.~ and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to family illness). Also present was the Assistant to the Board, Linda Kowalski, the Applicants and approximately 80 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:38 p.m. and read the notice ofhearing as published in the official newspapers of the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated November 25, 1977 updated April 20, 1988.' The nature of this subdivision, pardon me, there's three one acre lots and one... I should go down it. Lot number 20 at 41,238 square feet; lot number 19, 40,988 square feet; lot number 18, at 42,571 square feet and lot number 17 at 76,800 square feet. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Walker woUld you like to be heard? MR. WALKER: I think the position of the application which you have kind of says everything that I would say and the hour is getting late. So I don't want to be repetative and repeat everything in there. I have Mrs. Douglas who is president of willow Terrace. And of course the cause of the application is the son~Rcdney who are both here. If you have any~questions on it, Mrs. Kowalski gave me the commen~s of the Planning Board. And parenthetically, she and I had gone over some of those very same things today. Some of the questions they're raising in there. So i~ you have any questions, I think that would be the way to go. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Well, what is actually left of usable proper- ty after we have, or after we're dealing with 'this application? MR. WALKER: You have to define usable. If you're going to define it as building permit property, something to build on, I don~t think so. I think there's nothing but slivers and doors left. When this application first came to me-to help them out because of the house problem which you have referred to as lot number 19 and we had to get it squared away because of what the Building Inspector had done. I had, through my office records and what I had gotten from Bob Paster, the previous attorney that represented the Douglas family, is that the deed dated which I subsequently, gave to the Board, Liber 7421, page 285 which was from Robert and Nancy Douglas to Willow Terrace Farms back in '73. I had assured myself that everything which these four lots comprise of, are in that deed. I also became Page 2 ~atter of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. WALKER: Continued aware of that there was some slivers of property additional. I talked to Mrs. Douglas at length about that both at that time and subsequent. And it is her intention that once we get this thing squared away with VanTuyl and we'll have to go back to his original surveyor's notes, the way they put this deed together because it included all of the Douglas holdings which included Willow Terrace which We Call, iSection I to Section II pa~ts of which you're deal- ing with and it incurred two or three pieces of property which had conveyed out back in the '70's primarily. Because I pointed out to her that the tax map was in error. I think it showed 9~1 acres. And when you add these lots up, it don't add up to 9.1 acres. And there's several reasons for it. One is the sliver and also the tax map treats it as one piece of farm property. And when you take out the acreage for roadways which are the Major's Pond Path, Nelson Drive, Row Drive. When you take those out, the acreage does shrink down to the proper amount which assured me at the time, Mr. Goehringer, that there were only some slivers.. So what she intended ~to do once she gets the estate squared away, there's a property that's shown on that map that you were referring to in the northeast corner saying Robert G. Douglas of which her son is living. She wants to convey that to him and then she intends to add all the surrounding property because if you've ever been down there, that house is on a very very small piece of property. And the house and the garage consume al- most the entire'property with the right-of-way which goes across the front of it. And she was going to add that all to the one lot~ Down in the southeast corner where it says Robert J. and Nancy. R. Douglas, that had always been treated by Mr. VanTuyl and Bob Douglas as a two acre parcel. Mrs. Douglas after talking today, w~nt down to VanTuyl and said what is exactly the size of that? And he came up with 1 and 3/4 acres. Rather it shows on the tax map as 1..3 acres. So I know there was certain inaccuracies with the tax map. It didn't bother me. And we can represent to the Board that those slivers that remain in Willow Terrace because of this carving up that took-place in the '70's, we will add to th6se which I call the family tot~ There's 3 places I can add them. One; is-to the home she'~s going to convey to Robert G. That's up in that northwest corner there of the map where you see right on Perkins Road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the barn piece? Before you go any further, RD and NR, is that MR. WALKER: No. The barn piece is actually on the south side of what they refer to as Nelson'Drive there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The south side. Ok. MR. WALKER: And there's a sliver there that I know I'm going to add onto the barn piece to straighten that out. I pointed that out to Mrs. Kowalski. Because 1 discovered that when I was checking some of the original section which was a half acre and then the Health Department made it an acre and it became as Mr. Lessard has now found out, an incomplete submission is what had happened. And I found a little jib piece there. That's the kind of little jib pieces-that we end up with here. And so, but I can assure you that what is ap- plied for is owned by Willow Terrace. They're all contained within ~Page 3 Ma~ter of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. WALKER: Continued those four corners of the deed. VanTuyl also confirms that but it's going to take a considerable amount of time to go back and straighten out from that three or four page deed with all those meets and bounds just exactly where everything was and where everything is today. But we will represent that she will not be in for any hdditional building parcels other than what are there now wl~ich is an add on to that piece down in the southeast corner and an add on to the house piece up in the northwest corner and then an~add on to the barn piece. The roadways which comprise, believe it or not, substantial acreage when you start multiplying them out, 50 feet wide by the lengths involved. They will probably either be deeded out to the center line to each one of the property owners tO get rid of the problem. Or, as what you refer to as Willow Terrace Lane which is in Section I will be probably over to, if they have a property owners association there to elimihate that problem. Because that's going to be a problem two or three years down the line. Bob was unwilling to do that because he felt that if he owned it, he had control over it and he agreed to file it and maintain it and disc it which he did. over the years. But she's not in a position to do that. So I think we're going to have to convey those out. Again, you can call that a sliver piece too. We will be conveying them out to adjacent landowners or the property owners association. That's trying to make the best out of a bad situation there. This is what's~happened. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's a question I wanted to ask you and I kind of lost it in the talking there. Is the nature of this plication to legalize lot number 19 at this particular time? MR. WALKER: At this particular time, that's the urgency'. What hap~ pened here is that a building permit was issued. He got Health De- partment approval. You saw that map there, it"s in the file. He went down and got a building permit for it and told him that every'- thing was going to be okay for that. Now', it turned out that when the application went to the bank and the title company which th~ title company searched it, it wasn't okay'. And when Mr. LeSsard was confronted, he said~ I can't issue a c.o. Interesting question. How do you issue a building permit, get the constr~ction up sub- stantially which~it is today, I've got pictures of the status'of it today if you want for the file. And then say, well I can't give you a c.o. for~it unless I give you a c.o. for the whole piece. But what he fails to realize is that the whole piece is intersected by roadways down there. And you just don't cut up the whole piece. So that's what left her in the dilemma. And then of course~ the untimely death of Mr. Douglas right in the middle of all this and this is what she was left with. And right now, Rodney tells me his construction has come to a screeching halt because he has no money until he can close with the bank and he can't close with the bank until I can get him a legal lot. That's the urgency of~i% ri~h~ at the present time. July 19th is what the urgency is. The rest is not an urgency in the sense that sure once it's squared-away~ she'll no doubt convey them out and settle the estate but that's not the urgency. The urgency is Rodney's lot. For the record, Page 4 ~atter of willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Transcript of Hearing- August 18, 1988 MR. MR. WALKER: MR. DOUGLAS: MR. WALKER: MR. DOUGLAS: MR. MR. WALKER: MR. DOUGLAS: MR. WALKER:'Continued did you want to know the status of the construction? I do have a picture of the front of the house. I'll just file it for the record So that's the dilemma that we're in now. CHAI~iAN GOEHRINGER: You don't have a copy of the map of what you went to the Health Department and got approval.. MR. WALKER: Yes, I think you have it in the file. CHAIRSiAN GOEHRINGER: I do have one. MR. WALKER: That's the one. He was in good faith. That's the one for that house there. : How wide is the house? How wide is the house? With the two car garage, I'm 72 feet. That includes the breezeway? That includes the whole house. He did not know. : 72 feet. In width. I did not know that without .... 34 feet deepk.. If there's anything I can furnish you with, I~d be CHAI~,~N GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Would you like to say something ma'am. MRS. : We're all in favor of it. CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? Yes sir. MR. ISRAEL : I'm not speaking for or against. I hope they get their subdivision. I just have a question here. Was this minor subdivision approved and at what time was that approved? MR. WALKER: glad to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I 'don't think w~ have any moreo Page 5 Matter of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Transcript of Hearing - August 18,~ 1988 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you mean the application? I need your name sir. First of all, MR. ISRAEL: My name is Richard Israel. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Israel, are you referring to Section II in its entirety as being approved? MR. ISRAEL: You seem to say in your thing here tonight is it's a minor subdivision of Willow T~rrace Section II. And I just ques- tion it. How can you have a Section II of a minor and... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's now a minor. be a major at one point. It was probably going to MR. ISRAEL: That is correct. Was part of this property subdivided prior to this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just Section I. MR. ISRAEL: So wouldn't this have to be a major subdivision? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily. Because that's as far as they went at the time which was Section I which was a major subdi- vision. MR. ISRAEL: I'm previously developing the property by a subdivision. Does that automatically make any' subdivision past that point, a major? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily. We don't make that determina- tion any way. We refer to it as a minor subdivision because it only had four lots. That was the reason why we use the terminology as minor as opposed to over four lots which would be a major. MR. ISRAEL: was in '83? Was this minor approved before the two acre zoning which CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, maybe Mr. Walker could shed some light~ MR. WALKER: Back in the early '70's the Planning Board treated~ acm tually the late '60's, Section I and Section I1 which was a complete half acre situation. Mr. Douglas then filed Section I which is on Willow Terrace Lane which is half acre. He then right after that was filed, went to the Health Department to finalize the plans for Section II of half acre lots. The Health Department, at that time, had up- graded their water requirements for lot size from 20,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet right at that time. And then said we will not approve the 20,000 but we will approve a 40,000. So he went back to the surveyor, VanTuyl, and made r~d.rew which explains some of these little slivers and pieces to juggle the Size of the lots basically' from 20,000 to 40,000. He then got Health Department approval for that. And then... MR. ISRAEL: What year is this? Page 6 Matter of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. WALKER: We're talking about '78 for that second one. Then what happened, he started his construction up there on Section II. A house that was being built by the name of Cowar~ at the time. Figuring he was going to go through now with the one acre. That never got fina- lized because what had happened he would have to put in a major road system in there which is now Major's Pond Lan~. Major's Pond Road. I'm sorry. And he did not want to do that at the time because he did not want -a major road in that area. He wanted it dead ended the way Willow Terrace Lane was for the residents protection. So he never finalized that with the Planhing Board. It just kind of laid there. And the barn which is on th~ front of the property, continued to be actively used which eventually I understand now, he has a junkyard permit for it under the town law. And some of his family like his son I was pointing out, lived up in one corner and they were using the property, portions of it, for boat storage and everything and~ those plans never got finalized. But in the mean time, the house that he had constructed got finalized and then he constructed one more house on the property and ~hey were given setoff treatment by the Planning Board at various times. MR. ISRAEL: MR. WALKER: There was more than one setoff on this piece of property? I think so, I think there were two total. MR. ISRAEL: ~s that legal. MR. WALKER: Yes. He just applied for it and he had the acreage. They were on public roads. MR. ISRAEL: In today's world you can get one setoff. MR. WALKER: They were on public roads, that's why. They were com- pletely independant. They were slivers of property that were sur- rounded by houses on both sides and on public roads. So that's why that happened. All right. And then it left which is this piece that's left here that was bisected by this road which had received 280-A approval. And the thing just kind of sat there and sat there and sat there. It had which you would say for an acre at the time, approval by the Planning Board but it had never been finalized. It had Health Department approval which it had never been finalized and the thing ended in limbo. And as you indicated in 1983, they upgraded the whole area and the whole town to 1,000. What Mr. Douglas should have done at that time which he didn't because when the Town Board did that, they allowed a period of time where an applicant could come in and still get the one acre because he had stuff in the works for prior'years. Mr. Douglas never did that. And the reason he did not do that is he was a~member now, of the-Zoning Board ~of App~alS ~and he did not want to go in and ask for special treatment because he deemed it as a conflict as he built his own mousetrap so to speak. This is really what happened. TAPE ENDED Page 7 ~Mafter of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. Transcript of Hearing - August 18, 1988 MR. WALKER: Continued .... give his son a lot. He agreed to the lot Rodney was building on. Rodney went down and got all the Health Department approval and they said sure, we've given approval fox'this. Everybody's given approval for this. And Rodney was completely under the assumption that every- thing was okay after he had gotten the Heath Department. Especially when he came back to the BuiLding Department and got a buiIding per- mit for it. And this thing only came to light in two circumstances. One, when the title search was done and the bank application was done, it came to light. And before Mr. Douglas could straighten it out, he passed away. And so this is where Mrs. Douglas is at the present time with a house literally half finished. And this is where we are. So that's the history of it. MR. ISRAEL: What's going to happen to Major's Path Road? MR. WALKER: That is going to stay exactly the sameo Apparently peo- ple are happy with that. If it meets the approval 6f a minor subdivi- sion road with the base and everything that was put in years ago by Mr. 'Douglas and has been maintained by him and his family since. Isn't that correct? You're going to live there Rodney, not me. MR. DOUGLAS: People in the neighborhood want it to stay that way and I want it to stay that way. MR. WALKER: Does that answer your question? MR. ISRAEL: Yes. I wish everybody to get whatever they should get. MR. is concerned? Rod, have you got a time limit as far as your bank MR. DOUGLAS: Yes. MR. : Or you had one? MR. WALKER: When it was explained to the bank, yes the committment ex- pired and it had to be renewed. They've given him an extension 6n it. MR. : How long? MR. WALKER: They were nice enough to renew it when they realized the problem that was involved here. It's just that he's going to have to suffer the higher interest rate. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Richard, could i just ask you a question. You don't have any copy of that 1978 in any of the files that Bob might have retained Of the Health Department approval on Section II? MR. WALKER: house? Did you hear him Nancy? Do you have anything down at the MRS. DOUGLAS: I may. Paqe 8 ,Matter.of Willow Terrace Farms, Inc. ~ranscript-of H~ring - August 18, 1988 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you can find them, we'd appreciate it. MR. WALKER: They're at VanTuyl's office. I know it existed be- cause he waffled it by with me. It wasn't stamped on the map as my memory is. What was attached to the map was a letter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you've got it. Well, that's what we would like to see if MR. WALKER- At one time I saw one. MR. DOUGLAS: When I was up at the County Center with my father- just before he passed away when I went for my county:~permit, my water permit, they had a copy of it on county record. That's why the boss went down and came back and he stamped my papers because he went and verified it himself. MR. WALKER: You saw it there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'd appreciate it if you could get a copy of that. We'd really like to see it. MR. WALKER: That might be the easiest place to find it as a matter of fact. I saw a letter attached to a map at one time. CHAI~CAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak either pro or con regarding this hear- ing? Hearing no further question, I'll make a motion closing the hearing until'later. And hopefully you'll get us a copy of that and we'll have a special meeting shortly and we'll be able to try and take care of everything as quickly as we can. We thank you very very much. Ail in favor - AYE.