Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/06/1988 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. NO.: 3765 Applicant(s): JOSEPH SPITALIERE Location of Property: ROW off E/s Cedar Beach Drive, Southold Tax Map ID No.: 1000- 90-4-14 October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHA!P~AN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating the pro- posed placement, of this particular structure which of course, is a dwelling with an attached garage. And I have a minimum setback of approximately 50 feet shown on the survey. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding proper- ties in the area. Would you like to be heard sir? '~{R. SFITALIERE: My name is Spitaliere. I'm the applicant. I'm not sure ! u~erstand the way it was presented. We're requesting a five foot variance on the front rather than the rearyard. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: What kin~-_of map do you have with you? MR. SPITALIERE: vey. I don't have-~'it with.me. You had the latest sur- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, you take one of these and-we'll ques- tion you on that one because I'm glad I took it out of the file. I apologize. We were so... In the past we have always done the setbacks from the wetlands and I had failed to realize, and of course I did look at the property, that there is no bulkhead there and that is in the jurisdiction of the Town Trustees. So we would usually deny it for !19-2B which is a setback from the water be- cause you're 50 feet from the water. And I immediately looked at the survey for that reason. MR. SPITALIERE: With all the surveys that we submitted trying to straichten this thing out, I don't blame you. CHAItLMAN ~G©EHRINGER: You '~e on. Page 2 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 PHblic Hearing - JOSFPH SP!TALIERE Southold Zoning Board of'~Appeals MR. SPITALIERE: I just wanted to make myself availabe for any questions the Board or any of the people here might have. CHAI~LAN GOEHRINGER: When I went down there, it's completely impossible to try and figure out where the right-of-way starts and Where.~the right-of-way stops. And so in taking a reading from the property owner to the one side of you which is the only existing house which I saw down there at the end .... MR. SPITALIERE: That would be opposite. CHA!~.~AN GOEHRINGER: It indicates that he's a little bit far- ther away of course, then you're proposing at this time. MR. SPITALIERE: He's actually setback 30 feet according to the surveys from the'right-of-way which is 30 feet wide itself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now the right-of-way that we granted the 280-A on was I think 10 or 12 feet wide. MR. SPITALIERE: Ten to 12 feet. Twelve feet. CHAI~{AN GOEHRINGER: W£tt that right-of-way primarily be in the center so that the actual distance .... MR. SPITALIERE: It can be moved. I wouldn't want to go all the way to the center because there is quite a few large trees there~' and I wouldn't want to remove them. But I think we can pick Up 4 or 5 feet, I'm sure, for the aesthetics of it. At least to give the appearance of being 35 feet rather than 30 on a setback. CHAI~CAN GOEHRINGER: Did you say 35 feet? MR. SPITALIERE: Well it would give the appearance of being 35. In actuality if granted this variance, it would be 30 feet. I'm requesting a five foot setback. CHAI~.N GOEHRINGER: A five foot reduction. You're five feet from the septic tank to the cesspool. That's where the five feet mistake was if you look on the map. ~R. SPITALIERE: Well, that's required by the Board of Health. CHAIRMAN GOE}!RINGER: That's correct. MR. SPITALIERE: This whole situation I was kind of pushed into by the D.E.C. They're telling me to move the house forward and the Board of Health is telling me to move it back. You know the situ- ation, the way it works. Right now what I've got is a stalmate. I can't move it anywhere. That's what I'm requesting here is to satisfy, hopefully, everyone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this a buildin~ envelope or is that ac- tually what the house is g6ing to look like? page 3 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Public Hearing - JOSEPH SPITALIERE Sou%hold ~oning Board of Appeals ~R. SPITALIERE: That's more of an envelope. By the time we square it off, the square footage of the house will be a lot less~because of the angles involved. CHAIP~AN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I don't have any particular ques- tions. We s~ent some time down thereon the 280-A. So I'm ~uite well aware of the parcel. I did get stuck in the pricker bushes down there and I'm well aware of it. _Any questions from Board members? No. Well' I guess we'll deal with the application. We don't see it a particular problem to be honest with you. Is there anybod~else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving deci- sion until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. No.: 3768 Applicant(s): FRANK AND SANDRA CURRAN Location of Property: 780 Haywaters Road, Cuthogue Tax Map ID No.: 1000- lil-l-16 October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer: Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey of pretty much of all of Fisherman's Beach from Roderick VanTuyl P.C.-dated September 6, 1988 indicating the approximately placement of a pool 30 feet from what they call Haywaters Road. Basically a private road and an extension of. And 12 feet from the west property line. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I have a sketch of the individual piece of property which appears to be drawn to scale requesting a swimming DOO1 of approximately 21 at its widest point and 27 at its longest pool with an enclosed deck area around the pool of approximately 30 by 34 and as wide as 37. Peter, would you like to be heard on behalf of this application~ MR. STOUTENBURGH: We were hoping that the market survey there that VanTuyl had done to give you some definite setbacks off of that private road where there are garages and dwellings in the area. Just so that you could see that we weren't asking for an awful lot on the five~foot reduction of the frontyard. And we just hit the ones that were very obvious. There are a couple of others in there that are"~ithi~.a few feet. -I think the biggest thing there is the amount of land that actually were in the original deeds, were not looking for pool or deck area unless you got about a 25% lot coverage. As you can see, some of the lot and I believe you have the survey that indicates where the original property had been before the erosion problem in that area. What we're asking now and the exact sizes of the pool, the deck is very slightly. Although we're not looking to occupy any more land even though the pool is wider. The area that is indicated by the deck is as extended as far as we'd like to go. We're only asking for 20% or 21.4% of the overall deeded land. I think that's pretty much the way it was presented to you. Do you have a copy that gives you the percentages? Page 2 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 public Hearing FRANK A~]'D SAND~RA CUR.~e_AN ~Southold Zoning--Board of Appeals CHAI~LAN GOEHRiNGER: Yes I do. It says 19% existing house and 25% house and pool. Is that it? It's broken down to percentage. MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes that's the one. CHAI~{AN GOEHRINGER: How deep is the pool? MR. STOUTENBURGH: The pool is probably just going to be six foot as best we can get do%m there because of the heighth above water. CHAI~{AN GOEHRINGER: Amd is it going to be built at grade or above grade? MR. STOUNTENBURGH: Basically it's going to be as low as %~e can get it. I don't know if we can go all the way down there. If you no- tice we have a pipe to determine the depth that we can go with the gunite pool there. It appears to be 18 to 24 inches out of the ground but it would appear to be out that much because of the deck structure that's built around it. CHAI~{AN GOEHRINGER: Will there be any screening around the pool? ~{R. STOUTENBURGH: Yes. I believe the one survey that you've got there shows where the driveway will not be the complete "U-shaped" driveway. It will be landscaped there. C}{A!~,N GOEHRINGER: Well, there-is no one specifidally to the west because that's a marshy piece on the west side. It's just that if the pool stuck four foot out of the ground, it would be rather obtrusive to the neighbors and to the owners too I suppose. Ok. And there's no indication of enclosing the pool. Did I ask you that question? MR. STOUTENBURGH: No sir. CHAI~LAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. · I guess that pretty much covers it. I thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing ~he hearing reserving deci- sion until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. NO.: 3763 Applicant(s): JOHN J. JESSUP Location of Property: 90 East Road, Cutchogue Tax Map ID No.: 1000-110-7-1'5 October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehrlnger: Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated April 15, 1975 and updated ~ecently indicating a diagonal penned in area of approxi- mately 6 by 21 widening out toward the rear of the porch and enclosing the porch on the west side of the structure or dwelling. A proposed setback which is an existing setback of approximately 13 feet from East Road. Pardon me. Fifteen feet from the west property line, pro- posed and approximately 3 feet from the east property line. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard again Peter? We're on a roll tonight. MR. STOUTENBURGH: Thank you. I think you pretty much summed up the dimensions on the survey there. We're not trying to reduce the 15 foot sideyard setback to one individual side. We're looking to hold that. The Jessups, when they were evaluating what had to be done to that porch area which encloses a small room and a bath, felt that what they would like to do is increase~the size of that. It is a property that they use as rental property and they can fit in a little bit more. with the rest of the homes in the area. They felt that that area sho6id be increased in size a little bit for a better bath and kitchen ~cility. When they looked there, they could really move on the property. We felt that homes of 15 setback, that was then the best solution and it Created the square footage that was needed'inside the house. You noticed I'm sure when you were down there, that it's a very small area and quite a small property. The parcel to the west has a very very small rearyard and that's that corner house. In fact, that's the house that is two maybe three times the size of a. piece of property of almost the same identic&i size. So when these were divided up, some prior zoning'exceptions were made. And what they were looking for is a reduction of the overall sideyard setback. .Any possible questions that I could answer? Page 2 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Public Hearinq - JOHN J. JESSUP ~outhold Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: No. Just as long as you hold to the 13 foot setback.- That there be no protrusion into the frontyard area because we know it's a non-conforming frontyard area. It should be 35. The house has been there for a long time. We thank you again. IS there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like.to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further 'questions, I'll make a motion closing the h~aring and reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. NO.: 3759 Applicant(s): TONY SCARMATO Location of Property: 235 Huckelberry Mill Road,East Marion Tax Map ID No.: 1000-31-16-9 October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ! have a copy of a survey.:!,The date is cut off but it was produced by Roderick VanTuyt, the date is cut off. Showing the approximate placement of the gazebo approximately 6 feet from the edge of the. bulkhead and approximately 46 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Great Peconic Bay. And I have a letter from Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. wh6 indicates that he wishes that we hold this particular hearing over until the next regularly scheduled meeting so that he can appear on behalf of his client. His client is not going to be here also. Is that correct. Is Mr. Scarmato here? No. Alright. So we'll ask if there's anybody in favor of the application. Anybody against the application? I'm not going to say it's going to be an easy night because I know what's going to happen. So I won't say that~ So I'll make a mo- tion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. All in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. No.: 3755SE Applicant(s):TiMOTHY COFFEY AND THE COVE AT SOUTHOLD, INC. Location of Property: S/s Main Road, Southold Tax Map ID NO.: 1000- October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer: Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: 'Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll go on with the Cove hearing which was a~hearing that'was rescheduled from August 18th~ And I'll open that~up. Is there anybody here that would like to either speak pro or con on the Cove hearing at Timothy Coffey's property in Peconic? How are you doing Mrs. Terry? MRS. TERRY: My property is east of where this sign is supposed to go up. I feel that if it was Mr. Coffey's property, I would say by all means put the sign there. But the Cove has nothing to do with Mr. Coffey's nursery. All it is is commercialization, adver- tising his Cove on Bayview and I don't feel that that sign should be there. It's commercialization along Route 25. Route 48 looks bad enough without 25 looking like 48. Also,. I thought there was a zoning ordinance or a town ordinance against signs going up along the highways. And as I say, if it was~Mr. Coffey's business, I'd say by all means, I Wouldn't argue it. But where it's the Cove, every where yo~..ride you see these little signs. We're getting swamped with them and I don't think it's necessary. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak either for or against this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decisioh until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. No.: 3758 Applicant(s): THEODORE KUDLINSKI, JR. Location of Property: 605 Highwood Road, Southold Tax Map ID No.: 1000- 78-9-50 October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absenu was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board ASsistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of survey produced-by Roderick VanTuyl P.C. dated November 1, 1983 .indicating a one-family house pencilled in the rear is a deck approximately 12 by 36, approxi~ mately 28 feet from the rear property line. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax 'Map indicating this and ~surrounding proper~ ties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? Is ~r. Kudlinski here? Yes. MRo ~' ~- ' ~iILEN,.RI. I m his neighbor. He was calie6~out of town. They had to go to a college with his son. So I came here at short notice. /CHAI~MA~ GOEHRINGER: We are very rarely and this Board is really not an accusatory Board~ But could you explain %o us how that deck is built already and ha~ gotten there and so on and so'~'forth? Are you familiar with that at all? MR. WILENSKI: Yes. It's attached to the back of his house. It has 4 by 4 footings into the ground with cement. I think it's t by 6~CVX planking with a rail around it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was a building permit applied for for the construction of this? MR. WILENSKI: That I could not answer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: in anyway. Ok. ~And he has no intention of roofing it MR. WILENSKI: None whatsoever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~' We thank you very much for coming in for him. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this ap- plication? Anybody like to speak against the application? I should Page 2 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Public Hea~ing - T~EODORE KUDLINSKI, JR. ~So~thold To~ Zonging Board of Appeals CHAI~4AN GOF~HRINGER (continued): Pause in between. Please feel free if anybody wants to raise their hand in the meantime. I apologize. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor -AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. No.: 3760 & 3761 Applicant(s): ELSIE D. YOUNG Location of Property: 480 Grissom Lane, Southold Tax Map ID No.: 1000- ~8-1-10.3 October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: And I have the affidavit in the file from Curtis W. Hort0n indicating the nature of what I had read in the legal notice. I have a letter from the next door neighbor. And I have a copy of a survey dated April 8, 1985 indicating the ap- proximate placing of the house on said parcel. I have the plans of the house and we'll ask the applicant questions concerning the accessory apartment. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the ~rea. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on behalf of this appli- cation? Mrs. Young, is she available? Mr. Young. How do you do sir? MR. YOUNG: Mrs. Young is my mother. I'll try to answer whatever questions you might have. ~n addition, I might say before you start, there should also be an affidavit from Ed Williams. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes there is. The nature of this applica- tion is for an accessory apartment for what use sir? Is it a rental use? ~{R. YOUNG: Yes it would be a rental to provide lessee accommoda- tions for one or a maximum of two adults. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: garage area? And this is primarily the utilization of the MR. YOUNG: It will be strictly the garage. It's just a matter of converting a two-garage to a one bedroom, one living room, bathroom and combination kitchen/dining room. The exterior, there should be some diagrams here included in the application. It shows essenti- ally the only alterations visible from the road would be two sliding glass doors that replace an 18 foot fiberglass garage door. And es- sentially the driveway remains the same except for a sweep across the front of the porch to provide a turn around. But again, from the i~'~?c~ Page 2 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 PUblic Hearing - ELSIE D. YOUNG Sonthold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. YOUNG (continued) road, those would be the only visible differences to the present ap- pearance of the house or garage. . CHAIRSZAN GOEHRINGER: Will there be any fireplace or chimney added to the structure at all? MR. YOUNG: No. At present we're contemplating electric heat and that will not involve an additional furnace or gas heating system. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the bathroom facilities or lavatory fa- cilities will be utilized, you'll be utilizing the same cesspool system that exists. MR. YOUNG: Yes. I called the Department of Health to inquire as to the possibility of using the current septic system and they in- dicated that they had no problem with that as long as the Building Department found it acceptable. In addition, the same thing with domestic water from the well in the front of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much for coming in Mr, Young. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this appli- cation? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motio~ closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. No.: 3739 Applicant[s): JOHN T. BEEBE Location of Property: Beebe Drive, Cutchogue Tax Map ID No.: 1000- October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated amended August 19, 1986 indicating parcel one at 48,855 square feet with a one-family dwelling on it and parcel two of 48,180 square feet with a one-family dwelling on it. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Wickham would you like to be heard on this par- ticular application? MS. WICKHAM: Thank you. On behalf of the applicant, I'd just like to say that since we do have two existing houses on two lots, it seems only sensible that we ask that they be divided. In terms of... For the Board's information on the other proceedings, we do have a permit from the D.E.C. The Health Department application is pend- ing. And if ~ou have any questions, perhaps Mr. Beebe or I could answer them for you. CHAIRMA~N GOEHRINGER: I just wish they were all this easy. MS. WICKHAM: ~. I should add, Mr. Beebe just told me the only reason he didn't divide them earlier. He thought the second lot in 1959 or '60, somebody in the town told him it was cheaper tax wise to keep them together and now it's costing him a lot more. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the ap- plication? Questions from Board members? I wish I could change that boiler plate but there's no other way to change. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. NO.: 3762 Applicant(s): ROBERT AND DiANNA BAKER Location of Property: 2900 Boisseau Avenue, Southold Tax Map ID No.: 1000- 55-6-9 October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating a two story frame house on a parcel of approximately 129 by 200. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the ar~a. And specifically the floor plan of the house and sketches and so forth. Are the Bakers present? Where are they? Hi, how do you do. You!re requesting a recess because your attorney is not here. So we won't ask you any ques- tions tonight. We'll just see if there's anybody in the audience that may not be here at the next regularly scheduled meeting. We did receive a letter and I knew there was one in the file but I con- fused it with another file. But we are requesting a recess on this particular hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. So if there's anybody in the audience who would like to speak either pro or con concerning this application at this time, I would be very happy to entertain any statements from you. Seeing no hands raised, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. No.: 3779 Applicant(s): PETER AND DESPINA MARKOPOULOS Location of Property: Lot %16 S/s sound Beach Drive, Mattituck Tax Map ID No.: 1000- 99-1-24 October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (dUe to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a final survey, most recent update is June 19th. I apologize. It's September 1, 1988 indicat- ing a two-story framed house and garage. _And I believe the nature of this particular~application would be the steps on the west side of the building. We have a Building Inspector here. Is that true Mr. Fischer on Markopoulos? MR. FISCHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Om the prior decision what we had dong it restricted the steps. So we'll go with the people and ask them why they're here. HOw are you tonight? The nature of this appli- cation is what?- The steps on the west side. Ok. And you have only built the steps that lead to the deck area. You have not built the remaining steps that go alongside the building. Is that correct? MRS. MARKOPOULOS: No. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: What you basically want to do is build the remaining steps that lead into the house. Is that correct? MRS. MARKOPOULAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: record? Is there anything you'd like to say for the MRS. MARKOPOULOS: that we've taken. It's got to go all the way around in the fashion CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It appears that you have 6 feet of steps as opposed to 3 feet which you are allowed and that was the reason, I assume, the denial by the Building Inspector. So it appears to be a little more sophisticated than what you have. The only other page 2 - Thursday, October 6~ 1988 Public Hearing - PETER AND DESPINA iVLARKOPOULOS SouthQld Zoning Board of ApPeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued): question that I wanted to ask you is; what is going on the east side of the building basically adjacent to the wood deck? Is there a shower or something that's going to be installed there. I saw some- thing ...... MRS. MARKOPOULOS: No. Not there. Yes it is on the east. CHAI~N GOEHRINGER: No, no. On your property~ is there anything that's going to be built on the east side of the building at all? MRS. MARKOPOULOS: No. Just a shower. CHAI~.~N GOEHRINGER: know? How big is that shower going to be? Do you MRS. MARKOPOULOS: It's about 4 by 4. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: We just wanted to know that because I did see the steel grommets in the cement. We thank you for discussing that with us. I's there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? The question about the retaining wall in the back of the building, you had some logs back there that are used or utilized fora retaining wall. Are they going to be moved at all or are they going to remain stable? MRS. MARKOPOULOS: They're going to remain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They're going to remain there. MRS. ~ARKOPOULOS: It's the retaining wall. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's the retaining wall to stop the erosion of the sand coming toward the house. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak against this application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I~ll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. NO.: 3769SE ApplicantCs): CUTCHOGUE FARMS LTD (AKA) GRISTiNA VINEYARDS Location of Property: N/s Main Road, Cutchogue Tax Map ID No.: 1000- October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge_Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a, actually it's a site plan of the entire property but indicating the footprint of the proposed winery produced by. Donald A. Denis, Architect, dated 6/30/88 indi- cating the placement of the proposed winery and parking area and I have the actual site plan of the construction of the building and the plans of the actual building. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in~-th~-~.areao Mr. Lark, would you like to be heard on behalf of this application? MR. LARK: I'm appearing here on behalf of Dr. Gristina and~ his 'family who are the owners of the vineyard. Dr. Gristina has been the owner of this vineyard since about 1982. The application, as you indicated in the site plans, for a winery for the production, retail and whole- sale growing for grapes that'are growing on the Gristina Vineyard which at present, one of the site plans shows that he has some 29 acres planted of the 48 on this parcel. There is a mixed variety. Ten of which are Chardonnay, 18 which are Caburey, 5 of Rolet and 4 of Caburey prime. We are under Section 100-30 of B14. The use of a portion o~.~the premises is permitted in this residential dis- trict providing a special exception is granted by the Board of Ap- peals and of course subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. Application.has also been made to the Planning Board. And as I understand it, they will not act formally on the site plan with all the criteria until the Board acts on the special exception. How- ever, on October 4th, they did find that the overall plan was ac- ceptable and I think they submitted a letter to you to that effect. The location of the proposed winery on the property is shown on the site plan which you have before you. Dr. Gristina has also submitted to you plans that were drawn by the architect, Donald Denis who will answer any questions that you might have showing the layout of the building with the elevations. Also, I believe that the Planner passed over to you a landscaped plan which shows how he intends to put some supplements in with some evergreens and things like that to protect the neighboring property, Page 2 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Public Hearing - CUTCHGOUE FARMS LTD (aka) GRISTINA VINEYARDS Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. LARK (continued): Dr. Gristina is here also. And If he can answer any questions that the Board might have. Ok. As the Board knows, the special excep- tion is nothing more than a special permit to allow the construction of this proposed building for the use of the winery. In considering the criteria in the ordinance, I submit to you that the character of this particular district which is A Residential and Agriculatural for the development of the vineyard which is presently 29 acres as I indicated to you under cultivation. And considering the surround- ing properties, submitted that the special permit for the erection of the winery in this location to allow the making and sale of wine from grapes grown on the property is not only logical but an ideal use of the property. To the south of the building, due to the topo- graphy, the old building or any planting or any agriculture is con- templated so it will provide a very nice setback which nature has already provided. And i f you look on the landscape drawing which I think was submitted to you, that they do show some of the plantings and everything all in there. Ok. So it is submitted that the con- struction of the winery in this location is the most appropriate And if we were looking at the topography of the Site where the ac- tual building is located at the highest point of the property and that ample parking for off-street parking is provided in the front of it which will not create any traffic congestion on the Main Road. In fact, with the off-street parking the way it is tucked in, it will alleviate the possible traffic congestion on the Main Road in this area. The winery will have ample water from private wells to be located on the property and the normal cesspools which will be approved by the Department of Health. In fact, the grapes and everything, I~am informed, that after they fall from the vines, the grape skins as they call them, they are returned back into the field and used as fertilizer. So the only use of the cesspools would pro- bably only be for the help or the public using it for the various toilet facilities in the facility. Table B from what I can under- stand from the use of the winery, no production of gases, odors or smoke or sootr nor will there be any electrical discharges, dust or lighting or noise from the property due to the operation of the winery. In fact, all the lighting is proposed by the architect will be low lighting, probably the low voltage variety and will be internal shining on the .parking lot. No light will be emitted from the ~ property itself on those particular occasions where the public might be there during the evening. Also, the location of the winery on this property will not interfere with any proposed recreational facilities of the town. And as I indicated, the off-street proposed location is ideal. Because not only will it provide access to our winery for public tasting and viewing as well as the sales, but the parking lot itself will not be visible from the Main Road nor will the building, where it's located, be visible to the Main Road due to the existing vegetation and the layout of the property as it is. Also, there will be readily access for fire, police or other emergency vehicles in case the need arises. The p6int being is that it is readily accessible. The erection of the 'winery in this Page 3 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 ~ublic Hearing - CUTCHOGUE FA~S LTD. (aka) GRISTINA VINEYARDS SouthOld Zoning Board of Appeals MR. LARK (continued): location will not cause any overcrowding of population. If any- thing it will ensure the continued success of the vineyard itself because it will provide an outlet for the source of supply which are the grapes themselves. The size of the property and the loca- tion of the proposed winery is ideal for this operation. And as I said, it's located on the highest part on the property so that it overlooks the vineyard. And when the grapes are harvested, they will be brought right from the vineyard-.to the crushing pad as indicated on the diagram that you have on the site plan. The location and the whole set up was done with Donald Denis and Dr. Gristina with the aesthetics of the property in mind, to keep it from view of the Main Road and to use the natural topography and the existing vegetation there. So very little will be disturbed from what you see on the land today except the actual location where the ~nole will be dug for the foundation of the building. Lastly, it's not near any church, school or any places of public assembly. So in summing up, the location of the winery on the Gristina property has been given a great deal of thought by not only Dr. Gristina but as well as his architect, Donald Denis. And by placing it in this location~ it will keep both the winery parking lot obscure from the Main Road but in fact, the only thing the motorists will see is the existing sign which is presently there on the property. Further, when any visitors 'f~0m ~he ...... public come to the winery, they will drive up the road as you see on the site plan, and Will curve off to the right and the road elevations there will not provide any unduly, steep grade to get access to it. And it is submitted that the health, safety and welfare for the order of the town will not be adversely ~fected. But rather agricultural or.¥intage cultural as they call it now, will be promoted by~'allowinq the installation of the winery for the vineyard. As I understand it, there was one le~er put in from the neighboring property owner, Petro Stations, Ltd. voicing some objections. Normall~ I don't comment on things like that but I did want to point out some inaccuracies of the left.er be- cause I was somewhat baffled by the objections. They point out in the letter that the building will be located less than 50 feet from the property. ~his ~s not so. If you'll look at the land- scape plan, I had the architect locate the location of the build- ing from that property line and it's 73 feet west of the property line. Further, the closest spot of the parking area to this property is 42 feet, not 25 as the allegation in the letter. So if the Board has any questions of either myself or Donald Denis, I'd like Donald to come forward since he did submit to you the, you wanted the building plans, he did submit them to you. And he's also got an architectural rendering of this building and he can comment on how it's going to work because I think you need to know that. Donald. Page 4 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Phblic. Hearing - CUTCHOGUE FARMS LTD (aka) GRISTINA VINEYARDS S®uthold Zoning Board J Appeals MR. DENIS: My office is in Riverhead. This is a cardboard model. It's a preliminary model of the winery. I would just like to come forward and show you briefly how the winery works. As Mr. Lark said, the building is placed here at this location for a very specific reason& The property has a drop from the start of the vineyard back toward the road and this is one of the one few areas where the property has a drop. We wanted to get the winery in a location where the people could be in the winery, sit on the back and experi- ence the vineyard. And this is about the only location where we could do that. You could argue the point that it could be anywhere along this ridge line or along parallel to the vineyard which is true. We selected the position on the east portion of the property in.~order to get it away from the operations of the barn which is on the west part of the property. The other advantage of being on a hill, it's a natural position for a winery because a good processing area can be below grade including the storage area below and the fermentation tanks. So the building sits facing the winery this way and the road is this way, the general public will come up this way to the winery, enter onto a deck here and then into a tast- ing room. From the tasting room, there will be windows looking down into the fermentation tank area. There will be stainless steel tanks along both walls and will be open from view from the tasting area. From the tasting area you can also look out across the deck. There will be seating out here out to the vineyard. The back area over here is a receiving area for case storage and storage of wine once it's been processed. Over here is a crushing pad with a cover. The grapes are brought down from the vineyard, brought onto the crushing pad and crushed and processed here. The liquid is then pumped into the fermentation room into the tanks. In the area right directly be- low the tasting area is the storage area for the kegs. There's a mechanical room on the back side. There"Sa small kitchen here for the wash up and clean up of the processing of the glasses for the tasting. There's also public toilets. The building will remain accessible by a ramp ~oing into the building. The doors will be properly sized for that and so will the toilets. As Mr. Lark said, the actual site plan is before the Planning Board and has had a review by them. I think it's in the process of being approved. I would be willing to answer any questions about the building. The building total area is a little over 5,000 square feet with the public area being a slightly over a 1,000 square feet. CHAI~.4AN GOEHRINGER: the questions? Would you like to lay that down while we ask TAPE ENDED CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: In other words, it remains kind of strange to me to have the work area facing the road as opposed to... I can understand that you want to have the viewing area toward the vine- yard. I don't understand why you're making it directly perpendicu- lar to the road, the work area of the vineyard itself. Page 5 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 P~blic Hearing - CUTCHOGUE FARMS LTD (aKa) GRISTINA VINEYARDS Southotd Zoning Board of Appeals DONALD DENIS: As I explained initially, we thought there's two parts of this thing. There's the public area which I think is very important and there's also the processing area which is probably more important. We wanted to get the processing area on a lower level and partially submerged into the grade. Now in order to do that, you can't have the entrance to the lower area on the high side of the building. It's a logical place to have~'it on the low side. I think the concern about that may be that you may think that's-visible from the roadway and I can assure ~0u it's not. And that was the logic of the layout. I think it works in that way and I think it's a proper layout and a good layout. Also, the thing was that we didn't want to have the cars up by the building. The thought was; we were trying to make an experience here for people who come to the winery. It was not supposed to be a rushed experience. It was supposed to be a pleasureable experience. We wanted them to walk up through the woods to go to the winery. We didn't want to have them Walk in like a supermarket where you just walk in.through the door and fly in through the door and you're there and you leave. So it was trying to make it a little bit of a happening and that was the logic of the layout of the parking and the layout of the building. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: There is no screening between the parking lot and the ingress and the egress of the work area of the build- ing? Mr. Lark: No. But I'd like to remind you that ..... Do you have this. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: No. I never got that. Mr beni~: The Planning Board said they sent that over to you. This is the area that you're addressing yourself to. I think you have to remember that it's a product that's harvested in the Fall. ~nd the actual processing of the wine, the crushing and the trans- portation of the liquid into the tanks is a very short process. Dr. Gristina could probably elaborate on that. But I would think it only occurs over a one or two week period. So it'~s not-an ongoing operation that would be creating a product or processing a product on the outside of the building on a 52-week basis. It's a very short period of time. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: The reason why I asked that question Mr. Denis, is because all the wineries we ~av~_recently~.granted special exceptions to are basically directly reversed. This is probably th~ first one that we've had that we have a viewing area that's actually viewing the Vineyard itself and the, which I refer to, as the work area. Probably a poor phrase to use but facing the parking lot and that's the reason basically, why i asked the question. Rage 6 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 PBblic Hearing - CUTCHOGUE FARMS LTD. (aka) GRISTINA VINEYARDS Southold Zoning Board of Appeals MR. DENIS: Well if I could state, we did the Palmer Winery in Riverhead up on Sound Avenue. And that particular building, you actually approach the building and it's open. So you can look into the processing area and the deck actually extends over so you can look into the area and see the equipment and see how the process begins. So we think that's also important that you see it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So again, I will say that this is probably the first application that we have where we're utilizing new con- struction as opposed to the manipulation of existing construction. Although the Pinder Winery was a vast transformation of an exist- ing fallen down building and you can almost say that it's new con- struction now. It was basically the utilization of an old build- ing for the upsurge of a new building. Ok. The evergreen buffer area is used basically to buffer the property from the surrounding property because you are getting legimately close to the surround- ing properties on the east side. And in the discussion of ingress and egress to the winery itself is mainly done by the use of agri- cultural equipment. Is that correct? MR. DENIS: That's correct. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: So we would not have any fast moving cars of that nature,~anything other than a slow moving tractor. MR. DENIS: I think that's very infrequent too. CHAI~NLAN GOEHRINGER: Only during that period of time they .... Is there anything that may be added to this building in years to come that might not be shown on the plans that you might be considering? MR. DENIS: We have indicated on the drawings that as a possibility that we've left clear is the only thing that possibly expand would be the fermentation area because you may need more tanks and that's this area right here to the east. CHAt. RMAN GOEHRINGER: So that would go over to the road maybe. MR. DENIS: Yes. And that would be something that would be far in to the future if at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is Dr. Gristina here. thing for the record? Ok. We thank you very much. It's very nice. Dr. how are you? Would you like to say some- DR. GRISTINA: Yes. I think Don Denis has very well expressed my personal feelings about the vineyard and the feelings of my family. This is a vineyard that's owned by me and my wife and our son is the vineyard manager and he runs the vineyard. When I met with Don Denis and we spoke about this property, he asked me what sort of building I wanted and I said I wanted something very much in keeping with the buildings of the North Fork. If you look at this building, this is not at all like, for example, the building in Southampton that's brick with a copper roof. I wanted to preserve the beauty of that property and blend the building in with the Page 7 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Public Hearing - CUTCHOGUE FARMS LTD. (aka) GRISTINA VINEYARDS ~outhold Zonin~ Board of Appeals DR. GRISTINA (continued): property and keep the parking lot completely out of view from the road itself. I don't want people to drive by and see a big build- ing and a parking lot. I want them to see the beauty of the proper- ty, drive in and then see the beauty of that buildinG. And those are my feelings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anything you'd like to ~dd Mr. Lark? No. Is there anything else anybody would like to add in way of support of this particular project? Anybody like to speak against the projeCt? Yes sir. Kindly state your name for the record although we know you. Irving Pri e'~ E I'm a counsel to Kevin J. McLaughlin. Our addresses are ~o%~ %~ Front Street, Greenport and we represent Petro Sta- tions Ltd. of which Thomas J. Gorman is the principal and I believe you have a latter from him dated September 9, 1988. I'd like to reaffirm all the objections he makes therein and assert that there is no objection to the use of the property as a vineyard. But I've been struck by the presentation of the applicant, all three gentle- men who spoke. The aesthetics of the public, the aesthetics of the property and the view from the road has been taken into considera- tion but not one of them ha~e mentioned the view from the property on the east which is owned by Petro Stations Ltd. who are objecting to this. The vineyard is more or less a right. We have no objec- tion to that. But actually the applicant is asking for a favor to build a commercial building in a residential zone and a nice one~ and in a location, that for no reason, red%ces the value of the property of the objectant to the east. I still contend from ob- serving the site plan, that that east boundary, that east wall of the proposed building is within 54 feet or 50 feet of Mr. Gorman's boundary. In fact, there's no distance on there from the corner to that. You have to do it by deducting. We have the same objec- tion with the parking lot. We want to have this building located further to the west and preferrably near the road. The property to the east is the subject of a three lot subdivision which appli- cation has been made and all that we are awaiting is the article six approval. And the location of this winery whidh does not have to be located in that present proposed .location reduces the value of our property. And Mr. Denis himself said it could be located along the ridge but got away from the barn for aesthetic reasons but he didn't get away from our property for aesthetic reasons. They just said; don't worry about that property, just worry about that property and see that the aesthetics are in favor of the vineyard who are asking for a favor to build a'commercial build- zng in a residential district. We ask that the location be not here and that it be put closer to the road and further from our boundary including the parking lot. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Price. Would you like to react to that Mr. Lark. MR. LARK: Well, from a legal point of view, the next door neigh- bor, Petro Chemical did file a subdivision application. They did on February 20, 1987. It was granted sketch plan approval on March 30,1987 and given a further extension on September 28th to March 28th of this year. So from a legal point of View, there is no Pa~e 8 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 public Hearing - CUTCHOGUH FARMS LTD. (aka) GRISTINA VINEYARDS Scutho!d Zoning Board of Appeals MR. LARK (continued): application before the Planning Board. It's expired. Here are the letters to the Planning Board to that effect. Furthermore, I've got a copy of that application that had been previously sub- mitted. And when you compare the properties, the one of Petro Chemical and this one when they-line up, not only did I p~int ~o~t the building is some 73 feet and the parking lot at the closest spot, I pointed out to you is some 70 feet. But when you look at lot number one which is the only effected lot in question which is a five, I believe, acre parcel. It has a ravine running through the middle of it. And there's only two possible spots that you could locate a house, looking at the layout on that. Down in this area which would put it about 120 feet from its own property line or if they located a house up in this area here, it would locate it back some 50 feet. And .when you line up the scales on the two maps, I don't believe when you consider the existing disiduous plants that are already there, it is quite thickly forested. 'And with what Dr. Gristina didn't tell you; he's got a stand of ever- greens, douglas firs and stuff on his property now which he intends to move over and supplement as the architect has indicated on the landscape plan, to fill any voids that might occur, especially in the wintertime. And with the location of the building over here, it's submitted that you probably won't even see it especially if they locate the house doWn in the southerly portion of the lot be- cause you'll be looking up the hill. You would never see it from down there. The only possible spot you would see it if they de- cided to build their house with his permitted sideyards and 20 feet from it and then you~'d still have the thickness of the tress. And the architect did take that into consideration in locating and putting the screen planting there right along as a buffer to take that into the effect along with the disiduous trees and the same thing that happens down here in the parking area. I don't know if Mr. Price has seen the landscaped plan but we had to submit that to the Planning Board and I thought the Planner had sent a copy over to you. But I'm giving you one here tonight which is a dupli- cate of that. That's a duplicate of the one that she has on record. CHAIrmAN G©EHRINGER: Anything in rebuttal Mr. Price? MR. PRICE: That's an ingeniuous argument. That O~r property owner should locate his building so that he can't see what they've done instead of leaving o~r property alone and having his buildings lo- cated so that we don't have to locate ours in any certain place. As long as we don't bother them, why should they bother us. MR. LARK~, That's not what I said. I said there's an existing ~/ravine on that lot which would be an obstruction. And if you look at the topography, it won't happen. MR. PRICE. Why can't a person build on a ~vin~ if he wants to? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else that would like to speak either for or against this application? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. We thank you all for coming in. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. No.: 3764 Applicant(s): DENIS O"BRIEN Location of Property: Private Road, Fishers Island Tax Map ID No.: 1000-3-3-3.5 October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman., Inc. CHAI~AN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a site plan indicating the proposed tennis court and its proximity to the existing rights-of way and Private Road dated December 1, 1987. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding proper- ties in the area. Mr. O'Brien who is to my left, has afforded us with pictures of the existing placement of the tennis court and the existing area of the proposed gazebo or viewing area. Is there anything you'd like to add to the record Mr. O'Brien. MR. O'BRIEN: No, it speaks for itself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the first time you're not going to say anything. Is Mr. Shoppe here? I'm sorry sir. MR. SHOPPE: I think this application is fairly self explanatory. The one thing that I would add to it is that we made an effort to choose a location for this tennis court. And although it is for- ward the front of the front of the property, it was the only place on the property that we could pUt it that it would be in fact, in- visible from all adjacent properties and invisible from the O'Brien resident itself. I think if you visit Fishers and see this site, you'll find it both during winter and summer, from the street as well as the adjacent property owners, that this is an invisible proposal. Not screened, it's invisible. MR. O'BRIEN: In other words, ' more than five feet beyond what I call the apron of the tennis court, you can't see anything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What about lighting~ Pag? 2 - Thursday, OctOber 6, 1988 Public Hearing - DENIS O'BRIEN ~"~SoUthold~Zoning Board off'Appeals MR. SHOPPE: court. There's not going to be any lighting for this tennis CHAI~AN GOEHRINGER: The square building which is not really a gazebo is basically going to be the viewing building. MR. SHoppE: A small viewing area. I believe it's a bUilding about 12 by 15. Again, without power, without walls. It's just a small covered area to protect people from the sun. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much for coming in. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? I'lt~make motion granting this as applied for. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. No.: 3778 Applicant(s): BRETT AND JANET KEHL Location of Property: 5500 Main Bayview .Road, Southo!d Tax Map ID No.: 1000- October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer: Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated June 12, 1987 by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. And in that survey we have a two-story framed house. And by the nature of this application as mentioned in the legal notice, we had allowed the Kehls to construct a two story garage of a rather large structure somewhat northwest of this particular dwelling. And in the nature of this application, they a~e requesting that we amend specific restrictions that we have placed on that. Would you like to be heard Mr. Kehl? MR. KEHL: No. I think it's well stated in the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to ask you, from the time that I met with you in the office, what is the approximate time limit of the actual construction of the house? MR. KEHL: WEll if everything worked out financially, hopefully start this summer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So right now you'd be taking the kitchen off the rear part of the dwelling or taking the kitchen out of the rear part of the dwelling, placing that .into the second story of the garage. Would you be utilizing the dwelling at all? MR. KEHL: Basically no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: garage? So you're basically going to move into the MR. KEHL: Yes. ~Page 2 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Public Hearing - BRETT AND JANET KEHL ~out~old Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How much of the building do you have to take down to start the construction of the house that you want to add on to the garage? MR. KEHL: Just the kitchen. Well, that's the kitchen and underneath the kitchen is only the basement which contains the furnace, electric panel and water pump. CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Do you think you'll dispose of the house, the existing two-story house when you actually start the construction? MR. KEHL: No. I'll have the other house up prior to the demolition of fha other one in order to make the bank happy with the mortgage. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I see. That's the purpose of it. We thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of tkis application? Anybody against the application? Questions from Board members? H~aring no further questions, I'll make a motion closing ~he hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. NO.: 3774SE Applicant(s): H&S ASSOCIATES Location of Property: N/s Main Road, Cutchogue Tax Map ID No.: 1000- October 6, 1988 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a site plan produced by the applicants dated 7/23/88 indicating an addition to the rear of the building of, ~ can read the square footage but it's off, but they really... Unless 'you see the site plan. A proposed engine rebuild- lng shOp of 32,164 square feet and a proposed storage area of 1,636 square feet and an enclosed portico joining the two buildings that exist now which .appear to be Cutchogue Auto Parts. Would you like to be heard Mr. Freeman concerning this application. MR. FREEMAN: I think it's self explanatory. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? While I have you here, how important is it to maintain that westerly sideyard? MR. FREEMAN: So that we can maintain the ample parking provisions on the other side, on the east side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Any questions from Board members? No' questions from anybody concerning this application? I'll make a motion approving it as applied for. Ail in favor - AYE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR HEARING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 Appl. NO.: 3776 Applicant(s): HOWARD AND MARGARET BRODIS Location of Property: 435 Eastward Ct., Mattituck Tax Map ID No.: 1000- October 6, 19~8 Regular Meeting Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Member Serge Doyen, Jr.; Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent was: Member Sawicki (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. The Chairman read the Legal Notice for this hearing, as published in the suffolk Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Anthony J. Lewandowski dated December 24, 1986. It doesn't really make any difference other than I'm referring to it. We have penned in on the southSide of this existing one-family dwelling with attached garage and deck an addition of approximately 33 by 35. A proposed addition of 33 by 35. And a deck area to be added to the rear of the structure. Again proposed. But there was an existing deck there. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard sir? Would you like to use the mike? MR. BRODIS: Good evening. I'm Howard Brodis, I'd just like to express my displeasure with my neighbors over there with their untimely fashion in which they submitted their letters of com- plaint concerning the extension that we're proposing. We cer- tainly, gave them plenty Of notice. A good months' notice that we were planning this extension. And they seemed to find no time to come and express their complaints to us. After all, they do live~ ~ext door to us. In fact, in one case, one of our neighbors said that they certainly did not mind the extension when my wife asked them. And I'm hurt when I find that they filed their let- ters of complaint the date of the hearing, giving me absolutely no time to address their complaints. So I just wanted to express that displeasure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Have you read the letters. MR. BRODIS: I have. I certainly have. This is the first that we've seen of them because the were filed the day of th~ hearing. That certainly is discourteous and inconsiderate~to act in that fashion and I want to make sure that they understand that. certainly wouldn't do that unkind to them. To go beyond that, I want to make sure that everybody is aware of the fact that this extension is for the purpose of providing living space for my elderly in-laws. My father-in-law being 82 years of age, who Page 2 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Pubtic Hearing - HOWARD AND MARGARET BRODIS SoutPeld Zoning Board ~f Appeals HR. BRODIS (continued): suffers from a back condition and suffers from emphezema and his wife who is age 87 and has it impossible to continue look after my father- in-law. So for those reasons, we wish to put the extension on the house and provide living space for my in-laws so that we can allow them to live in top fashion. I think you'll see by the plans that we submitted to you, that the extension~,is done in good taste. It main- tains the integrity of the cul-de-sac. And that there would be~no way of.anybody knowing that my family was living in the extension because it looks as if it is truly a one-family house which I believe it really is a one-family house because it's only family that's moving into it. So under those circumstances, I feel that the extension that's proposed is not going to hurt the appearance of the neighborhood.~ And it's cer- tainly well intentioned for the benefit of my parents that can no longer live on their own. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It would be unkind of me Hr. Brodis to let you leave this hearing without indicating to you the problem that we have with this particular hearing. And I'll do it as quickly as I can. The purpose of the accessory apartment law was basically the utilization of existing structures. There was no provision in the law to actually add to a structure. And this is a difficult application for us. In the respect that you are making an addition to your dwelling for the pur- pose of utilizing, and in all due respect, I understand your problem and we sympathize with you and we know that situation. And I don't really like to compare it to other applications that we have had to-. night, but it is somewhat similiar to the Young application that we had and I'm not talking about the merits of that application other than the fact that in that application they were Utilizing the existing structure. And we will definitely take a hard look at this. But I really don't know how far we can go under the guise of the special excePtion in reference to an addition. If you were asking to convert the garage area and a portion of the house, I would have absolutely no objection to that. But because of the addition to this particular dwelling, again, which I agree with you, is tastefully done. It's just not within the particular per,meters of what we can deal with on the special exception and I hope you understand that. But we are going to take a hard look at it and see what we can do. But I hope you understand that and please... It's a problem that we have, not so much with the nature of the accessory apart- ment law, but it's definitely a situation that we are dealing with based upon the intent of the law. And the intent of the law' was to utilize the existing structures in town as they exist today. So we were not... And it's my understanding that when the law wes originally put into place, that it was to deal with the houses that could be utilized for this particular purpose without additions to the house. But go ahead, I've spoken enough. HR. BRODIS: The way I understand what you're 'saying is that the inten- tion of the law was to only provide space within the existing dwelling for the purpose of a mother/daughter type of situation. Yet~ after reading the list of regulations that you have to abide by, I think it clearly states that you can certainly add an addition to your house for that purpose as long as it meets certain criteria. Page 3 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Public Hearing - HOWARD AND MARGARET BRODIS Sout~ld Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I can go down the law with you at this par- ticular point. But I think because of the agenda that we still have to follow, you're welcome to look at it. The only thing you can't do is add to the file after I close the hearing. But we will definitely out- line that and I will tell you that'if for some reason there is a dis- approval of this application, it would be done without prejudice and we would entertain that you come back and utilize the existing struc- ture which would basically be the garage. That would not preclude you from building anOther garage someplace else for the housing.'of your vehicles. But that's what 1 would suggest. I'm not saying that that's the case. I'm saying that that's the way the intent of.the law was and that's what I'm looking at at this particular time. I don't have no idea how my fellow Board members feel and that's basically the situation as it stands. But I don't want you to leave here understanding the fact that we are definitely going to approve this application. Because at this particular point, that's the problem that I have with it~ I have, not them. I have no idea about them. We have not discussed it. we have not gone out and looked at it ' ~ I'm independently, sorry, together~- And discussed. We look at it independe~htly and we go down and ride down the road as I had done. So I just wanted you to he aware of that. We will see what developes throughout ~the hearing. And think about that situation for a little while while other people speak~and then you're welcome to come back and react to it~ Thank you sir. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes s!r. Dro Levey~ November, '86. In November of '86, my wife and I ~ubmitted a set of plans not identiCally in structure but identical in intent to Mr. Brodis' plan, to this Building Department. Plans-were given to or I discussed with Mr. Lessard to begin with. I was very concerned about everything that you were just talking about. His response to me was; if this is to house your in-laws, you're talking about a one-family house. You can put any kind of an addition you want on your house. I was some- what surprised by that presentation. We submitted the plans for a permit on Monday. The permit was granted on a Thursday. We built the house. We built the addition where my wife's mother is currently living. I think anyone who would look at the house could see that it did not create an eyesore. If you would like, I would show you pictures of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you, it's Dr. Leavy. the house utilize two kitchens? Doctor, does Dr. LeVey: There is a second kitchen in the addition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And was that placed in the plans of the house? Dr. Le~ey: Yes sir. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: In my partic'ular opinion, and I'm not here to degre- gate anybody, but in my particular opinion as I sit here and you tell me this, I think that the Building Inspector was misconstrude in-basically approving '~hose plans and this is basically what I'm trying to soften with the Brodis' is that that situation he~e Of people that have come ~ ~-~ forward attempting to do this under the special exception situation and they have not. Under the present situation, I can't approve it. I can't personally but I'd be very happy to see the pictures. Bring us it all. In fact, Doctor if you don't mind, we'll borrow it and give it back to you. ~age 4 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Public Hea~ing - HOWARD AND MARGARET BRODIS Soutkold Zoning Board of Appeals Dr. Levey~ As long as you promise to give it back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll just take a look at it. I'll band it right up. I won't look at it right at the moment. Is your address on ~ere. It's probably on the c.o. Dr. Levey:~ Here is the c.o. Here are the pictures. You've got plans and I think the approval for the cesspool. It's all there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much sir. Could I just ask you one other quick question doctor? In dealing with this, there was no religious reason to have a second kitchen or anything of that nature. It was mainly for the utilization of basically a two-family type of structure. Is that correct? There was no religious reason for a second kitchen or anything of that nature. Dr. Levey: No. CHAIP~MAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes sir. Kindly use the mike and state your name. MR. BURDEN: I live at 265 Eastward Court. It's the adjacent property to Mr. and Mrs. Brodis. I would like to comment on Mr. Brodis" state- ment that we came down today and turned in our letters because he did not think it was timely of a neighbor. I would have liked to have had Mr. Brodis come over and say something to me that he was even consider- ing putting on an addition rather than just getting a certified letter and be told that it's no big deal. You don't even have to read it. Just throw it in a drawer and that would be the end of it. I also feel that besides what I wrote in my letter, I feel that if this addition is put on.this house, it would devalue my property as a one-family house on one acre which is every house in that deveto~r~nent is one-family on one acre. I can sympathize with his situation. I was in a very simi- liar situation but we had to find alternative methods to resolve the problem that we did have. I just think he could have come over and said this is what I want to do besides sending me a certified letter. CHAI~iAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir.. like to speak against? Yes sir. Is there anybody else who would Tom Rempe: I live to the south of Mr. and Mrs. Brodis. And again, this is the invitation that I got. No mention was made that this was going. And excuse ourselves on doing this today Howie. I~m not a white collar worker with a secretary. My wife's mother is terminally ill. So we had a lot to do tO get this together. And my exceptions are in the letter or my opposition to what is really going on. And the thing I don't think has been dealt with here~ I think it's a great thing that he's trying to do and that's something that we all have. We all have parents and everybody wants to take care of them. But in the event that they get to the point that they have to be in a nursing home or the obvious thing happens, what happens to that apartment? Are you g6ing to disassemble it? Or are we going to have nine people living on an eight family road? Page 5 - Thusday, October 6, 1988 ~ubLic Hearing - HQ~ARD AND ~ARGARET BRODIS South~ld Z~oning Board of Appeals CHAIk~LAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to have pose those questions up here and he can reflect the answers to those questions later. MR. Rempe: This is a situation that's obvious that somewhere down the line we don't know what kind of line that will be or how long this will be vacant. There no 1Hnger will be people living in there. What is g~ing to happen to the apartment? That's the big concern. When we bought this property 13 years ago, I paid a good price for this proper- ty and it was because everything was spread out. And now you get to the point where 13 years later, supposing everyone on that block wanted to put an efficiency apartment on it? You'd have 16 families living on the original 8-family, 8-acre cul-de-sac. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. MR. Rempe: That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much sir. who would like to...? Yes ma'am. Is there anybody else MS. DELANEY: I also live on Eastward Court directly across the street from the Brodis' Originally when I' was told about the extension, I spoke very nicely about it because I know what it's like to have to take in your parents. However, I did not know the extent of the extension. Ahd when I saw the plans, I came to Town Hall and looked through the file. As a property owner, I feel I have rights. And what bothers me most is the fact that some day if their parents are not there, will there be a rental? Or if they sell that house, can the new owner rent it? We live in a one-family dwelling and that's exactly the way I would like to keep it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would ~ike to speak against the application? Ok. Would you like to reflect any- thing Mr. Brodis or Mrs. Brodis? I would just like to keep it non-ac- cusatory. Don't point to anybody please. At the same time, MR. BRODIS: house ..... That was notice of our intent to put the extension on the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Br©dis. MR. BRODIS: You kept quiet for the last 30 days. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just wait one second. We just want to mention the certified mail situation. That of course is a requirement in the nature of the application. As for the Other, thatWs purely voluntar~ on the part of the property owner basis. But go ahead and reflect what you were going to say in rebuttal. MR. BRODIS: I think that gi~ing notice of our intention to put'an ex- tension on the house, that if ~here were any complaints by our neighbors, they had more than enough time to walk 50 feet to our house and voice their objections. To say that they didn't have time in 30 days to voice their objections in a form of a letter, I think is simply a ploy. I think it's a pretty obvious ploy as well. We certainly have had no chance to respond to any of their complaints. I would like to reassure Page 6 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Public Hearing - HOWARD AND MARGARET BRODIS Sout~ld ~oning Board of Appeals MR. BRODIS (continued): any legitimate concerns which I heard tonight concerning possible use of that space which we want to provide for my in-laws, it's against the law to turn the house into a two-fanCily house. Those rules are already laid down. The special exception doesn't give use the right to rent out that apartment and we have no intention to do so. We Would certainly be breaking the law if we did and I'm sure that our neighbors would be very much aware of any other family living in our house. So our intent is not build a two-family house. Our intent is simply to provide space for our parents which is nothing more than a mother/daughter situation. We have no inten- tion to rent out to anybody or provide space for th~ purpose of having an apartment for rent. So I hope that you. understand that we are not that it's never been and never will be our intention to rent out that space. So that 1 believe is a legitimate concern that our neighbors might have. And I just want to re-enforce the fact that it's never going to be our intenti6n to rent out that space and it's an illegal use and we understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not really illegal. That's the purpose of the accessory apartment law. The intent of the law was to utilize an accessory apartment in what~ we refer to as a white elephant house. A large house, single-family, single-person family left. That was the original intent. And of course it's gone into other areas at this particular point as We assumed it was going to go into other areas. But you could actually rent it to someone else assuming that your parents moved out Of the house~as long ~s you remain the occu- pants in the primary structure. So that's the only... You miscon- strude it in that particular area. MR. BRODIS: On tha sale of the house CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It would be terminated. MR. BRODIS: Is it possible to sign a letter of intent that would state that we have no intention or that we will not or that the special exception is contingent on the fact that we will not use it for any other purpose other than providing space for my in-laws? CHAI~%~N GOEHRINGER: Well, you could give us an affidavit indicating that. MR. BRODIS: We would certainly be wiltihg to do that. CHAIrmAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything else? Your wife wanted to say something. You forgot what you wanted to say. Well we thank you. Is there anything else anybody would like to reflect on this application? Yes ma'am. MS. DELANEY: I would just like to comment on the rental because that is what bothers me a lot. I mean I believe they have the intent not to rent it. That's not what I'm worried about. I'm worried about that five years down the road, he changes jobs or if something hap- pens and he sold the house. The new owners .... ~Page 7 - Thursday, October 6, 1988 Public Hearing - HOWARD AND MARGARET BRODIS South~Qld ~oning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's terminated upon the sale of the house. MS. DELANEY: Then what would someone do with two kitchens? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: be legal. They would have to remove it. It would not MS. DELANEY: That's ok. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And they would have to come back to reaffirm the special exception under their names and their names only as owner occupier. MS. DELANEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Any other comments? Yes sir. MR. Burden: : I have a question. You said they would have to re- move it and then reapply. What would happen if the property was sold and they reapplied? They wouldn't have to remove the kitchen right? As the new owner, theywould await a decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals, right? CHAIRM~ GOEHRINGER: They could do it contingent. Basically as con- tract vendees subject to receiving another special exception. MR. Burden: : And if they didn't receive the special exception, then the new owner could indeed rent the apartment and be perfectly legal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. Hearing no further questions, i'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. We thank you all for coming in and being courteous. Ail in favor - AYE. BY