Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/26/1988 HearingTRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 26, 1988 REGULAR MEETING Appl. No. 3773 Matter of GRETCHEN K. HEIGL. Request for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for permission to connect deck to porch, leaving an insufficient setback from the south(westerly) property line. Location of Property: Private ROW extending off the North Side of Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 68, Block 1, northerly part of Lot 14 (now 14.1). Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer, Charles Grigonis, Jr. and James Dinizio, Jr., constituting a quorum of the five-member Board. (Absent were: Serge Doyen due to serious family illness, and Joseph H. Sawicki.) Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 30 persons in the audience at this time. ~.~.-The Chairman read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record and proceeded with the public hearing, as follows: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey, most recent date is October 6, 1988 indicating the approximate placement of the house and the deck, which is affixed to the house on the property, and showing the specific nature of this particular appplication -- which is the stoop and the porch on the west side. And that was produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C., and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. And I have letters in the file in opposition. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? Sir. How do you do? How are you this evening. MR. FREDERICK HEIGL: I'm Mr. Heigl, Mrs. Heigl's husband. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I remember you from the last time. Page 2 - Hearing Transcript Matter of GRETCHEN K. HEIGL- Appl. No. 3773 October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting MR. HEIGL: With respect to the application, I would like to point out that the deck which is referred to in the application is standing - it isn't attached to the house- and is within the building envelope. The proposed section which adjoins the deck and the porch is four feet in length. At its closest point to the building envelope, that additional section would still be within the building envelope, 15 feet from the line. The point at which it would flout the law, if you will, the regulation-- is that by virtue of it being connected to the porch. The porch is closer to the line than the 15 feet; and while that is permitted, because it is a porch- and so I am lead to understand, it would not be permitted simply because it's attached to the deck, which I also understand. The reason I asked to be heard on this particular subject is one of the letters of opposition that I am aware of, the only one that I am aware of by the way, apparently was received just moments ago from Mrs. Lytle and alleges --certain allegationswere made which are not entirely correct and I'd like to give you my understanding of what they are. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. HEIGL: In the first paragraph--the second paragraph she states that the proposed deck would be within the setback. I presume she means it would be closer to the line than the 15 ft. setback calls for. That's not very clear. At the end of the third paragraph, she states that additional construction closer to the property line will further increase the difficulty in her sale. I cannot address the difficulty of her sale nor is it my intention to try to do so. But any additional construction that we propose is simply the 4 ft. bridge, if you will, between the existing deck and the existing porch. And none of that will be closer to the property line than what is there now. Finally, the deck was removed and rebuilt--the deck has not been removed. The 4-ft. section had been removed. It was removed twice. It was put back once because I was told that it didn't make any difference and then when my misunderstanding was corrected, it was removed the second time. It is now removed. Ok? As far as her other comments concerning fill, which is on her property, the drainpipe part was correct. There was a drain that was lead to her property and when it was pointed out to me, I had it corrected by the builder. And that was long before the Certificate of Occupancy was even considered, let alone issued. Page 3 - Hearing Transcript Matter of GRETCHEN K. HEIGL- Appl. No. 3773 October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting MR. HEiGL, continued: As far as fill on her property, that would be a matter of dispute. And it there was any there, you'd be hard-pressed to find it today because the property is in fact returned to its natural state. In fact, if it was any more overgrown, we wouldn't be able-- it's tick-heaven up there now. So there's plenty of woods. Believe me. I would be glad to try to in any way satisfy any questions the Board might have, either now or at a later time. CHAIRMAN: What we're in effect talking about then is basically a four ft. reduction of the side yard, the -- I'm going to refer to it as a stoop. You referred to it as a porch, I believe. MR. HEIGL: sir. It's a set of steps going up to the back door. Yes, CHAIRMAI{: That's approximately four feet wide? MR. HEIGL: Three-and-one-half. Four feet. CHAIRMAN: Ok. The edge of the house is approximately right on the edge of the side yard, so that basically it's a reduction of 3-1/2 feet then into the actual side yard? Instead of 15 feet, it's really 11-1/2. MR. HEIGL: Yes. the corner. Actually, accordingly to VanTuyl, it's 10.2 at CHAIRMAN: Right. Ok. we know it exactly. Just so we have that for the record so MR. HEIGL: That's ok. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I thank you, Mr. Heigl, and we'll see what develops after this next gentleman speaks and you may want to come back and rebut something that he says. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Sir, would you like to speak concerning this letter at all? No? Page 4 - Hearing Transcript Matter of GRETCHEN K. HEIGL- Appi. No. 3773 October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting MRS. VIRGINIA LYTLE RUMPLER: I'd like to speak, not in favor. Good evening. My name is Virginia Lytle Rumpler. I'm speaking on behalf of my mother, Mabel Lytle, and as a taxpayer in the Town of Southold. My mother's land adjoins the Heigl property. The Heigls were granted a variance for a subdivision with an undersized plot. They then proceeded to erect a 2-1/2 story house without a building permit 15 feet from the line. The permit was then granted. A deck was added and was built with the house. When the deck went up, it was within this 15 ft. setback. I spoke with a builder. I went down to Town Hall. Curt Horton showed me the law that the steps from the kitchen, which you're calling the back porch the stoop, under the law, are allowed. The deck would not be allowed because it was within the setback. The deck would have to be removed. The deck was removed -- the four foot bridge was removed. The bridge went back. The Town said it must come out. The bridge came out -- the seal, I believe had been granted. I believe the Town has been more than lenient in this case and on behalf of my mother and as a taxpayer myself, request that this variance be denied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else like to speak in opposition? (None) Is there anything you would like to say in rebuttal, sir? MR. HEIGL: I would just like to make one comment. I can appreciate and perhaps even be sympathetic with Mrs. Lytte's concern abOut what she perceives as a potential detriment to her capacity to sell the piece of property which has been subdivided. As to the references to the fact that the house has been built on a parcel that was undersized--a building permit was issued, the subdivision was permitted under a variance. That's history. And I really don't see what it has to do with the question at issue before this Board with all due respect. If there was merit in denying those requests, then again in my humble opinion and in all due respect, those respects should have been denied then. Let's not go back over ground that was covered once--the issue's settled. That's the only comment that I have to make. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. Anything else? Yes, sir. Just state your name again for the record if you wouldn't mind. Page 5 - Hearing Transcript Matter of GRETCHEN K. HEI~L- Appt. No. 3773 October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting BILL CHAMBERLAIN: My name is Bill Chamberlain, and I'm Mrs. Lytle's son, in-law. She had asked me to make some comments because of my close association with the real estate business. She is concerned, largely because the parcel is for sale and she needs the proceeds in order to continue the maintenance of medical bills and continue being able to live where she lives now. And every party that has looked at the property to date has sighted the proximity of this house as a draw back, and it being a detriment to buying this parcel. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, Sir. MR. HEIGL: Can I respond to that please. I can't quarrel with you, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm in the real estate business., and I would be hard-pressed to comment one way or the other. The presence of that may or may not affect the saleability of that parcel. Short of taking the house down, which is not the subject that we're discussing tonight, I don't see how that's going to be resolved. Nor do I see the deck is going to seriously in any way impede or detract from the value of the adjacent parcel. I think it's a specious argument. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. And we thank you all for your courtesies. That's both families. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried, the hearing was declared closed (concluded) pending deliberations at a later time. The hearing was concluded at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~etary Southold Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTMOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 26~ 1988 REGULAR MEETING Appl. No. 3784 - JAMES YOUNG. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with insufficient front yard setbacks from. the westerly and southerly property lines. Location of Property: NE/s Minnehaha Boulevard at "Laughing Waters," Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, SeCtion 87, Block 3, Lot 8. Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr., constituting a quorum of ithe five-member Board. (Absent were: Serge Doyen due to serious family illness, and Joseph H. Sawicki.) Also present :were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 30 .persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting. The Hearing commenced at 7:44 p.m. and the Chairman read ~the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey with a most recent date of August 26, 1971 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. It indicates a proposed ~-- - - addition to the dwelling in this particular case of approximately 16 by 24, approximately six feet protruding into the front yard area, leaving it approximately 27 feet from Minnehaha Bouelvard and eight feet from the -- I assume that's the east property line. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this nd surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that like to be heard in behalf of the Young Application? Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. No. 3784 - JAMES YOUNG hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: How are you, Sir, tonight.7 GERRY HORTON, BUILDER: We find our problem with the garage. The right-of-way is just a mapped right-of-way. Dr. Styver next door is right on the right-of-way now', and it's supposed to go to Minnehaha Boulevard. Dr. Styver would be closer to Minnehaha also. CHAIRMAN: We kind of felt that too. We thank you for putting the stakes there. It was very helpful. Rather than getting out and traipsing all over the lawn. It was very helpful. We'll do the best we can to give you a decision as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. Horton. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of this application? Anybody to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried, the hearing was declared closed (conclude), pending deliberations. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC' HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 26~ 1988 REGULAR MEETING Appl. No. 3772 - JOHN G. PHILIPPIDES. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition at rear of existing dwelling with an insufficient setback from the existing bulkhead. Location of Property: South Side of Old Cove Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 52, Block 2, Lot 10.1. Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr., constituting a quorum of the five-member Board. (Absent were: Serge Doyen due to serious family illness, and Joseph H. Sawicki.) Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 30 persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting. The Hearing commenced at 7:47 p.m. and the Chairman read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey with a most recent date of July 29, 1970 prepared by Roderick VanTuyt, P.C. indicating a one-story framed dwelling with an attached patio area 18 feet, approximately, from the bulkhead. That's with a cement slab, and partially roofed by an awning. And a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding in the area. Is there somebody that would like to peak in behalf of this application? (No one responded.) Is anyone wishing to speak against the application? (No . ) Any questions from anyone here. (None). We went down and inspected it. Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. iMotion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and iduly carried, to conclude the hearing at this time, pending !deliberations. Respectfully submitted, 2- ' . retary Southold Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 26, 1988 REGULAR MEETING Appl. NO. 3785SE - Matter of RAYMOND NINE and CHARLES ZAHRA. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30B(16) for permission to establish "Bed and Breakfast Use," "an owner-occupied building, other than a hotel, where lodging and breakfast is provided for not more than six casual, transient roomers, and renting of not more than three rooms. Location of Property: North Side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 114, Block 11, Lot 20. Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Member Charles Grigonis, Jr. and Member James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were Members Joseph H. Sawicki and Serge Doyen, Jr. (due to serious family illness). Also present were: Board Assistant Linda Kowalski, and approximately 40 persons in the audience. 7:51 p.m. 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 January 14, 1986 indicating a two-and-one-half-story frame dwelling, approximately 54 feet from New Suffolk Avenue (property line), and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and the surrounding properties in the area. Good evening, gentlemen. CHARLES ZAHRA: Good evening. My name is Charles Zahra. I'm partners with Mr. Nine on the subject property before you this evening to establish a Bed and Breakfast. I think before I go into anything I prefer to get some questions from the Board regarding it, if you have any. CHAIRMAN: Well, there are only two things that I have that had been brought to my mind basically in reference to thoughts on this, and that is, the nature of the owner-occupancy. Maybe you can clear that up for us first. Page 2 - Hearing Transcript Matter of ZAHRA & NINE - Appl. No. 3785 October 26, 1988 Z.B.A. Regular Meeting MR. ZAHRA: Well, basically, what stands before you is, we have a contract subject to your approval. No, that's not before you right now, but we do have a contract subject to your approval,-that's why it may not look as clear as you would like it. Obviously, Ray and myself aren't going to share to same room. He's not my type (jokingly). Does that answer your question now? CHAIRMAN: To a certain degree, Charlie, except that you had mentioned to our Assistant here that you will have a family member in the house at all times. This person will be living on the premises? Is that the case? 5~R. ZAHRA: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Is that what's going to exist here? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. In other words, the contract would transpire between her and Ray and myself. CHAIRMAN: I see. all times? And there would be a family member living there at MR. ZAHRA: Definitely. CHAIRMAN: That particular person may not be on the deed. MR. ZAHRA: If need be, no problem. SECRETARY (ASSISTANT): We usually ask for a copy of the Contract. CHAIrmAN: Can you furnish us with a copy of the contract some time? MR. ZAHRA: Sure. CHAIRMAN: Ok. That's great. The only other thing was the more or less type of shared driveway effect that you have at this premises. Although I know that the driveway is primarily on your property, I understand that the two prior owners of this piece and the piece on the tefthand side at one time were relatives or something, and that's the reason why the driveways are ultimately contiguous. They're actually -- the asphalt is actually one piece and it just spreads right across. MR. ZAHRA: You're speaking toward the rear. CHAIRMAN: No, I was talking about-- MR. ZAHRA: Just forward--from the road back, I'm going to guess-timate, i00 feet. The road is split by trees and grass. Page 3 - Hearing Transcript Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No. 3785 October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN: Yes, I was talking mainly in the back. RAYMOND NINE: That's actually a joint parking area. It used to be in front of a two-car garage, and we gave the two-car garage to our neighbor, and basically the driveway is still there. It still goes around. But if there's a problem with that, we certainly could do something to -- MR. ZAHRA: We could rectify that. MR. NINE: Rectify that so that they wouldn't be able to go around. CHAIRMAN: nature. By the nature of a split-rail fence or something of that MR. ZAHRA: Absolutely. Could put any type of fence you'd like. MR. NINE: Split-rail fence. Whatever you have to do. Trees. Concrete wall. Whatever. CHAIRMAN: Let me just say that parking has been one of the major issues --not necessarily in this application -- necessarily in the applications of the Bed and Breakfasts. MR. ZAHRA: I don't see that we this property because there's more than adequate Property. CHAIRMAN: I'm aware of that. I was over there. you actually going to utilize for this? But how many rooms are MR. ZAHRA: You're speaking of bedrooms? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. ZAHRA: Well, I went by what Linda explained to me, and it's four bedrooms. She said one needed to be naturally owner-occupied. So it would be three bedrooms. CHAIRM~q: Ok. So at any one time probably six people? MR. ZAHRA: Whatever the Code provides for. CHAIRMAN: That's basically the questions that I had at this particular time, so if you'd like to continue with whatever you wanted to deal with on the -- MR. ZAHRA: I don't think it's going to be necessary as long as I've answered your questions, that's all I'm concerned with. Page 4 - Hearing Transcript Matter of NINE & ZAHRA Appl. No. 3785 October 26, 1988 Z.B.A.-Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN: Good. I thank you. We'll see what else develops. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone to speak against the application? Yes, Mr. deReeder? JOHN DeREEDER: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, and staff of the Board. My name is John DeReeder. My family and I are the owner and occupants of the house adjacent (to the west) to that jointly owned by Mr. Zahra and Mr. Nine--the house under consideration this evening for a Bed and Breakfast. I'm not used to speaking publicly, as a result I'll be relying heavily on my notes. Please forgive my inexpert delivery. I do have two concerns regarding this Bed and Breakfast that I would like to share with you and share with the applicants. They both have been spoken about since they started speaking. If you'd just let me continue I'll get it over in pretty short order. Should the Zoning Board of Appeals see fit to grant a Special Exception permit, I would ask that they consider the specific relationship of my home to the house belonging to the applicants in determining how best to provide for their intended use to my family's own continued quiet enjoyment of our home. My house was built in 1919 by Herbert Reeve for his own use convenient to his greenhouses, which were located adjacent to the west of the house and across New Suffolk Avenue where the Tolendal now stands. In 1923 Herbert's partner and brother built a similar house for his family that's now jointly owned by Mr. Zahra and Mr. Nine. As the owner-builders of these homes were brothers, as well as partners, as might have been expected, they built their homes different from what they might have if they had purchased tract lots and built among strangers. In 1988, as it was in 1923, the houses have only each other for adjacent neighbors. In 1964, Mr. Nine purchased a half-acre of property to the west of his own home since merged, providing him with a large privacy buffer more than 160 feet between his residence and the house he owns with Mr. Zahra with their Bed and Breakfast as proposed. To the west of my family's home are two vacant lots. As would be expected in houses of this age and type, the formal entrances to both homes face the street. However, the entrance is designed to be used and almost invariably used by family and friends both in 1923 and as now, directly face each other across a common loop driveway. When my family purchased from Herbert Reeve in 1986, the homes shared not only the use of the driveway, but a common garage which straddled the property line. Of necessity, we live close by our only neighbors, who are renting the house from Mr. Zahra and Mr. Nine. The current tenants are family people are our nearness has been an advantage I believe to my f~ily and theirs. We watch each other's kids and use each other's driveways as if both drives were our own. Page 5 - Hearing Transcript Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No. 3785 October 26, i988 ZBA Regular Meeting MR. DeREEDER, continued: My family would prefer the opportunity to make similar accommodations with the eventual purchaser of the Zahra-Nine house. But the closeness of the homes to each other becomes a significant liability to my family if the neighbors were taking in borders. Obviously we neither wish nor intend to foster personal or family attachments with our neighbors up to six casual, transient roomers. I would ask that the Zoning Board consider a modification to the applicants' plan that will minimize the effect on my family of our loss of privacy and guest-related, vehicle and pedestrian traffic resulting from the greater-than-normal closeness of my family's home to the house owned by the applicants. Specifically, I would ask that Bed and Breakfast guests be required to drive onto the premises on its east side, park their vehicles along the lot-line nearest Mr. Nine's generous side yard, and enter the Bed and Breakfast out through any of the three existing doors that face away from my family's home. Should the Zoning Board see it fit to grant the Special Exception permit, I believe that this alternative site design will greatly reduce my family's loss of our rights of quiet enjoyment without affecting the applicant's enjoyment of and ability to operate their Bed and Breakfast home. I believe that the criteria for a Special Exception use permit are fairly straight forward. I'm going to quote briefly from New York Town Law, from McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York: "...Granting of a Special Exception does not entail making an exception to the ordinance but rather permits certain uses which the ordinance authorizes under special stated conditions, and such exception is allowable when facts and circumstances specified in the ordinance are found to exist .... " If the conditions are met for the Special Exception, and now I'm quoting from the Town of Southold Special Exception application, "...the approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance," which is the bed and breakfast use, "it would not be detrimental to the property or persons in the neighborhood, is compelled to grant the Special Exception use permit, without regard to hardship, though they are free to mandate conditions that they believe will protect the public welfare." Importantly, the Zoning Board has no power to waive or modify any of the conditions specified in the ordinance. Page 6 - Hearing Transcript Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No. 3785October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting MR. DeREEDER, continued: My family would prefer the opportunity to make similar accommodations with the eventual purchaser of the Zahra-Nine house. But the closeness of the homes to each other becomes a significant liability to my family if the neighbors were taking in borders. Obviously we neither wish nor intend to foster personal or family attachments with our neighbors up to six casual, transient roomers. I would ask that the Zoning Board consider a modification to the applicants' plan that will minimize the effect on my family of our loss of privacy and guest-related, vehicle and pedestrian traffic resulting from the greater-than-normal closeness of my family's home to the house owned by the applicants. Specifically, I would ask that Bed and Breakfast guests be required to drive onto the premises on its east side, park their vehicles along the lot-line nearest Mr. Nine's generous side yard, and enter the Bed and Breakfast out through any of the three existing doors that face away from my family's home. Should the Zoning Board see it fit to grant the Special Exception permit, I believe that this alternative site design will greatly reduce my family's loss of our rights of quiet enjoyment without affecting the applicant's enjoyment of and ability to operate their Bed and Breakfast home. I believe that the criteria for a Special Exception use permit are fairly straight forward. I'm going to quote briefly from New York Town Law, from McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York: "...Granting of a Special Exception does not entail making an exception to the ordinance but rather permits certain uses which the ordinance authorizes under special stated conditions, and such exception is allowable when facts and circumstances specified in the ordinance are found to exist .... " If the conditions are met for the Special Exception, and now I'm quoting from the Town of Southold Special Exception application, "..tthe approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance," which is the bed and breakfast use, "it would not be detrimental to the property or persons in the neighborhood, is compelled to grant the Special Exception use permit, without regard to hardship, though they are free to mandate conditions that they believe will protect the public welfare." Importantly, the Zoning Board has no power to waive or modify any of the conditions specified in the ordinance. Page 6 - Hearing Transcript Matter of NINE & Z~RA - Appl. No. 3785 October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting MR. DeREEDER, continued: While drafting the Bed and Breakfast law, the Code Committee of the Town Board requested that members of the Town Board, Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals, submit to them criteria that each thought was important to the structuring of the prospective Bed and Breakfast Ordinance. The concerns of the variance Board personnel were numerous. Recommendations included: minimum lot size, restrictions on signage by size and type, question of compliance with N.Y.S. Building Codes, the question of compliance with Suffolk County Health Department standards, limitation of number of guests and length of stay, licensing and renewal of licenses, enforcement of zoning compliance, preclusion from major subdivisions where law may conflict with covenants and restrictions, parking standards, and jurisdictions under which the review process would take place. Laws, especially controversial laws, are generally written as compromises; and the surviving specific conditions of the Southold Bed and Breakfast Special Exception permit are as follows, simply: 1. Not more than three rooms or six guests is allowed; 2o Only breakfast may be served; 3. The premises must be owner occupied; 4. Adequate additional off-street parking must be provided; 5. The bed-and-breakfast use is not allowed in conjunCtion with an accessory apartment which was added by Local Law ~2-1987. The sign restrictions are addressed elsewhere in the Code. So: 1. if the applicant meets these specific conditions, 2. is "in harmony with the intent and purpose of the ordinance, bed and breakfast ordinance, and 3. and the granting would not be detrimental to property and persons in the neighborhood, the Zoning Board must grant the application. But once again, they are free to specify limiting conditions that they believe will protect the public welfare. Also, once again, the zoning board has no power to waive or modify any of the conditions specified in the ordinance. I believe the zoning board cannot grant the requested Special Exception permit for either one of two specific reasons, both related to the owner's occupancy or intent to occupy the property under consideration. Page 7 - Hearing Transcript Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No. 3785 October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting MR. DeREEDER, continued: The owners have made it plain that they have no intention of occupying and obviously they presently do not occupy the structure. Mr. Zahra lives on Pike Street, and Mr. Ray Nine lives in his own house adjacent on the other side. This house is all the earmarks of a property purchased for speculation. It is tenant-occupied, and the real estate for-sale sign which was placed on the proDerty more than two years ago remains there still. Mr. Zahra and Mr. Nine purchased this house for $126,000 on June 5, 1986. It was immediately listed for sale for $225,000 and has remained available continuously at that time at the $225,000 price. Originally the house was available for sale "as is" as it had been purchased by the present owners. It was vacant for seven years since it was last occupied byEvelyn Reeve, the previous owner. Over their two years of ownership, the owners have constantly improved the house. They have made serviceable the well, septic system, and heating equipment, and they painted the exterior trim. But still they have been unsuccessful in attracting a purchaser. So what else can they do. I believe, and I feel that it is transparent, to anyone remotely familiar with this application, that the approval is being sought solely so that the owners may sell the house at a price higher than it has otherwise been able to command. As they must, in Section B of their Special Exception Application, the applicants allege that their use would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Bed and Breakfast Zoning Ordinance. I allege otherwise. If the owners indeed have no intent to occupy this house and operate and Bed and Breakfast use, then I believe that this Special Exception use is no longer--and I quote from the Ordinance-- "clearly subordinate to the principal use of the dwelling" as it must be by law. This property is sold conditioned upon or on the strength of a successful Bed and Breakfast permit, granted to these applicants, then the protections inherent in the specific ordinance and in the zoning law have been grossly perverted in favor of the owners' private gain. When the house is sold, let the new owners after establishing occupancy, apply for the Special Exception use permit for a Bed and Breakfast, should they desire that use for their home. In the meantime, as neither owner occupies or intends to occupy this dwelling; and as a sale of this property for a Special Exception to another party renders a Special Exception use clearly not subordinate to its primary use as a dwelling, and is outside the spirit and intent of the ordinance, I respectfully submit to you that the granting of this permit application can only be denied. Thank you. Page 8 - Hearing Transcript Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No. 3785 October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anything in rebuttal, Mr. Zahra? Mr. Nine? MR. ZAHRA: I'd just like to say a couple of things. First of all, with respect to the sale, I don't think that has any bearing on whether or not we're granted the variance. And I'm not going to go into the different contracts that we have had come forth and falter. I don't think it has any bearing here. I would like to say one thing with respect to the area in general. This provision was put in the Code to help with transient tourists. And to prevent the further development of motels, hotels, whatever you want to call it, which seem to be more disfavorable. I also think that this provision in the Code came at a time where --saying the youth of the area leave because it has become too costly to live in the area--due to high costs of taxes, low wages, and the like, which we are all aware of. I think this affords an opportunity to a young person just starting out, whether it be a single person, young married couple, to be able to again look at the feasibility of living in the area. And bringing up a family. I can understand Mr. DeReeder's feeling. He's entitled just as we are to ask for it. He's entitled to ask to be denied. And I hold no animosity towards it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. NINE: Jerry, I would just like to say something too. CHAIRMAN: Sure, Mr. Nine. MR. NINE: When the figures that Mr. DeReeder gave, are the correct figures. And we did buy the house, and the house has been on the market, as Mr. Zahra said, we have had several deals to sell the house but nobody has been able to come up with enough downpayment as of yet. As a matter of fact, we even had one offer of $235,000 for the house if we could wait two years for the man to sell his house to buy it. So there is a good possibility to sell the house. It's not the idea that we're stuck with the house and we're doing this strictly to. generate income in the house. We have had people look at the house and ask us if it's possible to have a Bed and Breakfast, and we have said, yes, that it probably would be possible, and we thought about it and we have dumped money into the house, and had it fixed up, and we feel it again would be an asset to the Town to have a Bed and Breakfast. Michael Herbert has one in Mattituck, and I've seen no problem with that at all. And we have more parking right now on the property than he has, and as far as the property that John had mentioned of parking being a problem, he's been very fortunate because since we've owned the property, the driveway has been there and there's been no tenants in the house at all until Dr. Tom Mercier's house burned down back in August, and his family had no place to go, and Charlie and I told him and his family that they could live there rent-free until they have their house rebuilt. And so now, of course, he has to share the driveway with them, so I can see him being concerned about the driveway having more action because since Page 9 - Hearing Transcript Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. N©. 3785 October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting MR. NINE, continued: we've owned the thing, there has been no action in the driveway at all. Mr. DeReeder has had the complete use of our parking area, and our driveway, and has used it and we have not said a word. Also the two-car garage that was jointly on both properties when we purchased it, we gave that to Mr. DeReeder, free of charge., and he moved the building over because it was shared with both properties; and we wanted to get the property and boundary line cleaned up. So as far as dividing the driveway, if it's a requirement that we divide the driveway and put up some kind of a concrete wall or shrubs or a fence and make the blacktop so that a driveway will not be jointly used, I'd be very happy to do that, and if it's a case of expanding the black-top behind the house a little bit more to give adequate parking, I'd be very happy to do that. Any requirements that you folks have just mention it to me, and I certainly see that we would do it. But I can see Mr. DeReeder being upset, now having to share the driveway with someone else since he has had the full use of both driveways, and we've said nothing about it since we've owned the property. I can see that being a concern with having kids. But if we sell the property, it's very possible that a young family could buy it with four or five teenagers and they could each have a car, and you could wind up selling it to a family that would have more traffic coming and going in that yard that we would ever generate by a Bed and Breakfast. I have never seen any of the Bed and Breakfasts that are approved in Southold Town yet -- the one in Peconic and the two in Mattituck -- I've never seen any traffic problems, or an abundance of cars in any of them. And I think it certainly does meet the need and nobody wants to see more condominiums and more motels and these types of things built. The Bed and Breakfast was the answer, and I think we have a house in a neighborhood where it won't really affect anything. And also, all the property around this property are like Mr. DeReeder had said, to the west of him and both to the north of him, to the north of our property, is all B-Business property. And we don't know what's going to be there. But with our Bed and Breakfast, we certainly cannot make this into commercial property. It's not a commercial zone. So I think that that would certainly be more of a threat. The business property to the north and west of him, than to have a Bed and Breakfast on the east side. Do you have any questions, the Board Members? CHAIRMAN: My only thought was the possibility of re-routing the driveway on the east side. Page 10 - Hearing Transcript Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No. 3785 October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting MR. NINE: I would say this, Jerry, in all honesty. When I was a young boy about ten years old, I used to go over a mow Reeve's lawn, and at that time the driveways were on the outside of the houses. They were on the outside of the properties and they came across and joined in the center where the garage was, and then at one point when they had to blacktop it was much cheaper to have them blacktop straight going into the parking area on each separate property, instead of going all the way around the house, and that's why it was done, so at one time the driveways were there. But I certainly would not demand, if we had the Bed and Breakfast, that Mr. DeReeder move his driveway; and I don't see why I should be forced to move that driveway. I certainly would make it adequately safe if you require a fence or a wall, you require a little more property. I certainly would be very happy to take care of that problem. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN: No, that's all I have. MR. NINE: Thank you. MR. ZAHRA: I would just like to reiterate with respect to the driveway situation question. If we're talking the concern is the numbers of people and vehicles entering and exiting the property again, Ray brought up a situation which I have to agree with-- if you had a family of say ten people living in the house, eight, nine, whatever, and they were all of the driving age--would you object to them living in the house or ask them to move the driveway? I mean I have five people that drive in my family, and my neighbors aren't complaining for me to move my driveway. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anything in rebuttal, Mr. DeReeder? MR. DeREEDER: I welcome Mr. Zahra and his five cars to come owner-occupy the house and apply for a Bed and Breakfast. In the meantime, I think it puts me at a disadvantage if the property is sold contingent upon that, with the use in place with a stranger, than I have nothing to say about how the driveways are used together. I have no means of establishing precedent. As I said earlier, I think the present situation works out to the advantage to my family and the Mercier Family. We~ve made the best of an otherwise bad situation because the houses not only share the driveway but the main access to both houses faces that driveway directly opposite each other. If someone goes into this with the idea that they're buying it as a Bed and Breakfast, I think whether or not it's in a residential area, they're concerns only secondary that it's a residence. I believe that a proper application would be submitted by someone who intends to occupy the house and preferably occupies the house at that time so that the Board can meet the concerns knowing the intent of this ordinance under a restriction is to protect the neighborhoods and not protect Mr. Zahra or Mr. Nine's $99,000 profit. Page 1t - Hearing Transcript Matter of NINE & ZAHRA - Appl. No. 3785 October 26, 1988 ZBA Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. ZAHRA: I fail to understand why he keeps bringing up the profit. He himself is in a real-estate business. Would you care to submit your W-2 form for last year? It has no bearing on it. CHAIRMAN: Charlie, the questions have to be presented up here, please. Thank you. Anybody else like to commsnt concerning this application? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much gentlemen. Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried, to close (conclude) the hearing and reserve decision until a later time. The hearing was concluded at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals Pp~ 1-11 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 26~ 1988 REGULAR MEETING Appt. No. 3777 - CARL J. AND RUTH V. NELSON. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 and 100-32, and Article XI, Section 100-119.1 for permission to construct tennis court with six-ft, high fencing in the frontyard area and total lot coverage in excess of the maximum-permitted 20 percent. Location of Property: 1060 Moore's Lane, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 33, Block 2, Lot 43. Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr., constituting a quorum of the five-member Board. (Absent were: Serge Doyen due to serious family illness, and Joseph H. Sawicki.) Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 40 persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting. The Hearing commenced at 8:15 p.m. and the Chairman read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRM~ GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick VanTuyi, P.C. dated June 30, 1979 indicating a one-story framed house and swimmingpool, wood deck and board walk. The swimmingpool is on the one side and the wood deck and boardwalk are in the rear. The proposed nature of this application is a fenced-in area to be used as a tennis court, primarily on the north side of the property and adjacent to Inlet Pond Road. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area, and I have letters of objection in the file. Are the Nelsons here? How do you do, Sir. CARL J. NELSON: We are here to answer questions per your request. I think the application speaks for itself. We're just requesting an opportunity' to put in a non-permanent clay tennis court, private, which is not the only type we have in Southold Town now. You did make a correction on the typo there (six ft. Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (AppI. No. 3777 - NELSON hearing, continued:) MR. NELSON, continued: high fence, not ten ft.). I would also just call to your attention in the letter of objection of October 16th by Mr. Gillian. I believe he refers to some sort of restriction in the deed. I don't know that to be an accurate statement and you should just consider that in your decisions. If you have any questions I might answer. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to mention, Mr. Nelson, that as a matter of -- I really hate for people to leave here thinking that there's a 50-50 chance, or a 40-30 chance, or you now, 70-30 chance, I realized that 40 and 30 don't add up to a hundred (jokingly). But sometimes there are these types of situations. We did have an application, and the particular applicant's name does escape me, but it was on Arrowhead Lane in Peconic. And it was a very similar type of application to yours. The lot was maybe a little bit larger. The Board did see it to deny that application because of the excessive lot coverage. We did at that particular time indicate that the enclosure itself really did effectuate lot coverage, and we thought that partiCular amount was too excessive, too severe in the nature of the application. I'm not saying that that's the way I feel at this time; but that was the most recent one that I can remember in a situation that was somewhat similar to this one, ok? And I just want you to be aware of the fact that there is a maximum that we usually go over in reference to lot coverage. Ok? MR. NELSON: we're here. I'll leave that to your discretion. That's why CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? (None) Anyone to speak against the application? Mr. Arnoff. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ.: Good evening. My name is Harvey Arnoff. I'm an Attorney from Riverhead. I'm also a resident of the Town. Addressing the application sort of in a cursory manner in the beginning, I have for the Board's consideration a petition signed by 45 neighbors opposing this, and I would like to read the petition. It's very brief. It said, "We, the undersigned residents of Stirling Eastern Shores, oppose the application Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. No. 3777 - NELSON hearing, continued:) MR. ARNOFF, continued: of Carl and Ruth Nelson for a variance to construction a tennis court on their property at 1060 Moore's Lane North, Greenport, New York for the following reasons: 1. the granting of this variance would be creating precedent in Southold Town by allowing the road setbacks to be eliminated on Inlet Pond Road and Moore's Lane North. This plot is a corner one fronting on both roads. 2. Inlet Pond Road is presently only 20 feet wide and the fence proposed to enclose this tennis court would cause hazardous conditions to routine traffic, snow removal, road repair, and emergency vehicles. 3. If this variance is granted, this corner plot will be encompassed by recreational areas. It will contain their home and enclosed porch, decking and swimmingpool presently surrounded by a six-ft, stockade fence as well as the proposed 76 by 38 ft. tennis court, also to be enclosed by a six-ft, stockade fence, all this on a lot of less than one-half acre. The undersigned feel this application should be denied since the density of this lot will be unsightly and unwarranted in a residential area. Recreation of this type is certainly available elsewhere in $outhold Town." So I'd like to hand up this. It's three pages long and there are 45 signatures on it with the addresses of the various people. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Arnoff. (Received petition). MR. ARNOFF: Now my recollection of the applicable law is that in order for there to be a variance, they must have some sort of hardship. In this instance it's a completely self-imposed hardship by the Nelsons. They were the ones that built the house. No one else. They situated it in such a way as to put their swimmingpool right behind ~t and to leave themselves with large front yards. Had they mowed their house in such a way, or position their house in such awl expansion of a swimmingpool and/~ opposition of the neighborhood we think under the circumstances, I by virtually everyone in the nei~ consistent with the neighborhood' Board chooses to tour the area, ~ tennis court in anyone's front y~ ~y initially to allow for the )r tennis court, perhaps the )uld not be as great. But I think there is clear opposition ;hborhood. It is certainly not either. I don't believe if the ~at there's any swimmingpool or Lrd. Which is exactly what's Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. No. 3777 - NELSON hearing, continued:) MR. ARNOFF, continued: desired here. The question crossed my mind as I drove out -- I was in Hauppauge all day and I was coming out here that had the Nelson's decided they liked golf, would they be here for an application for a golf course in the front yard. There has to be a time when the Board says enough to the recreational use of one's own property at the expense of the neighbors. And I think this is one of those instances where this application should be denied. There is one other thing, and Mr. Nelson mentioned it. There have been, up until 1984 covenants and restrictions. And this application would have been barred by the covenants and restrictions in everyone's deed. However, in 1984, the application merely on fences along, and those covenants and restrictions did in fact expire as a matter of law -- or at least I am lead to believe they expired. No one has said they still exist. However, the spirit and intent of those covenants and restrictions is shared by at least 45 people who have chosen to place their names on this petition. And I think for all those reasons, the application should also be denied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else like to speak against the application? Anything in rebuttal, Mr. Nelson? (None) Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. ~rigonis, and duly carried, the hearing was declared concluded (closed), pending deliberations and decision at a later time. pectfullysubmitted, ~ K~o~~ t ar y Southold Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BO~/{D OF APPEALS OCTOBER 26, 1988 REGULAR MEETING Appl. No. 3786 - MARION SACCONE. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to replace nonconforming trailer with new single-family dwelling, in addition to the established dwelling structures and uses. Location of Property: 66075 C.R. 48, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 40, Block 2, Lot 7. Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr., constituting a quorum of the five-member Board. (Absent were: Serge Doyen due to serious family illness, and Joseph H. Sawicki.) Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 40 persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting. The Hearing commenced at 8:24 p.m. and the Chairman read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEPiRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated August 19, 1988 indicating the normal structures and dwellings on this particular parcel of property, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? Mr. McLaughlin. J. KEVIN McLAUGHLIN, ESQ.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. I am here representing the applicant, Marion Saccone, the owner of the subject premises. The property is currently improved by two one-family residences and one permanent trailer for a total of three dwelling units on the property. There's a C.O. that I believe you have in your possession to cover all of these structures. The application before the Board this evening is for an approval to replace the existing nonconforming trailer, with a small house, which Ms. Saccone intends to occupy as her own residence. It's our position that the proposed house would be much more attractive and appealing in appearance than the existing permanent Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appt. No. 3786 - SACCONE hearing, continued:) MR. McLAUGHLIN, continued: trailer° It would help to get rid of a nonconforming trailer on the premises. It would not be any increase in the density of the use on the property since there are already three existing dwelling units thereon. We're simply going to be replacing one with another. I think understandably this is a fairly unique situation. Unique in the number of units that are there now on the property. Then I think it requires a unique approach to it. I think it's also important to notice that the property is serviced by Greenport Water, and the existing trailer, I believe, is still using a well, but it would be our intention to hook up the house if we got approval to put it up with the Greenport Water System. That's basically what we're here for, asking for your approval to do this, both myself and Marion Saccone are here to answer any questions you might have about this application. CHAIRMAN: I have stopped walking up to people's houses in early morning and late in the afternoon and measuring them. I would like a measurement of the trailer if you could give it to me. You don't have to give it right now, but if you would call the office if you wouldn't mind. We still measure setbacks and so forth, but in this particular case, because of the fact that the trailer is in the rear of the property, both myself and Mr. Dinizio did not go into the rear of the property and measure it. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Did you want to measurements for the existing trailer and the current setbacks from the property lines? CHAIRMAN: Yes. That would be helpful. This is a unique situation in the respect that the proposed dwelling, which is a third dwelling on the premises, appears to be quite a bit larger than the existing trailer--so that's something we're going to have to rationalize ourselves in dealing with this particular application. And it's all I can really say at this particular time. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I think we have provided you with plans for the proposed house-- CHAIRMAN: That's correct. Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. No. 3786 - SACCONE hearing, continued:) MR. McLAUGHLIN: It's approximately a 1500 sq. ft. house. CHAIRMA~N: Right. So if you would just call those other coordinates in to us, we would appreciate it. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? How do you do? MARION SACCONE: Mr. Chairman and to the Board. And the staff. I just wanted to say that ever since I purchased the property in 1979, I have sought only to improve it. I painted the buildings. I re-roofed the buildings. Hooked up to Village Water. And, you know,.continued to try to make it look better than it did when I purchased it. I have retired and have become a Greenport resident in the last two months. And I'm living right now in a summer place, but I do need a permanent residence, and from the moment I bought it in 1979, it was my plan to retire here. I have the tenant in the front house. They're old. I don't want to dislodge them, and these are the reasons why I would like to have a nice new house replace that old trailer-- CHAIRMAN: And who is in the second house, Ms. Saccone? MS. SACCONE: I'm in the summer place. CHAIRMAN: You're in the summer place, referred to -- MS. SACCONE: I have the original owners of the property in the front house. And as I say they are old and I didn't want to dislodge them, so I thought we would get the trailer out of there and I would build a nice new house for me to retire. My thought is only to improve and make it look better. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in favor? (None) Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, i988 (Appl. No. 3786 - SACCONE hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN, continued: Anyone against? (None) Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving' decision until later. On Motion made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried, the hearing was declared concluded (closed), pending deliberations and decision at a later time. Respectfully submitted, Lin~a F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 26~ 1988 REGULAR MEETING Appl. No. 3762 - ROBERT 8. AND DIANNA BAKER. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30Bt16) for permission to establish Bed and Breakfast establishment in an existing dwelling. Location of Property: 2900 Boisseau Avenue, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 55, Block 6, Lot 9. Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr., constituting a quorum of the five-member Board. (Absent were: Serge Doyen due to serious family illness, and Joseph H. Sawicki.) Also present were: Linda Kowatski, Board Secretary, and approximately 40 persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting. The Hearing was reconvened at 8:32 p.m. and the Chairman read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. WILLIAM D. MOORE, ESQ.: Good evening. William Moore with Offices at Suite 3, Clause Commons, Main Road, Mattituck. I thank the Board for opening and quickly (recessing) the hearing the last time around to get an opportunity to get involved in this matter in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Baker. I do appreciate that consideration. As you're well aware, we're here to seek your permission, of a Special Exception to permit a Bed and Breakfast operation in their residence located at 2900 Boisseau Avenue, Boisseau heading north--it's on the right hand side--just before you get to the curve in the road. We will, of course, if granted approval, comply with the requirements of the Code, which requires renting of not more than three rooms, that the house be owner-occupied, at no time we have more than six transient or casual guests, that we maintain this as an incidental and secondary use to the primary use, which is in fact a single-family residence. They would provide adequate off-street parking, and finally that we provide and have no accessory apartment. Obviously, we must comply with each and every one of those requirements of the Code, and if granted we will of course do so. As you consider the Special Exception use, the Code sets forth Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. No. 3762 - B~ER hearing, continued:) MR. MOORE, continued: an entire laundry list, if you will, of things you have to consider prior to granting the Special Exception use. Now among the things that you should consider or must consider before granting such a use is whether or not the proposed use will affect the orderly use of surrounding properties. And I suggest the use does not -- I had Mr. and Mrs. Baker illicit from their neig~hbors on Boisseau and Yennecott a series of letters. They prepared a form letter signed by 16 individuals, various property owners, supporting this particular application. I'd like to give you these letters at this time. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Received letters for the file.) MR. MOORE: When you have a neighborhood's support for a proposed use like this, I think it makes the Board's job an awful lot easier because many of the things you've got to consider is how this proposed use will impact upon a neighborhood. With support like that, I think many of those concerns can be alleviated. To that extent, you've got to look at the existing character and surrounding uses of the property. Again, this is a single-family residential area. This happens to be on a very well traveled road. I noticed that the speed limit on Boisseau is 40 miles an hour on other north-south roads in Southold it's 30 mph. I think it's recognized that this is a rather well-traveled road. The reason I bring that up is the increased number of cars from this use will not dramatically impact an already well-traveled road. Similarly, the use will not affect or be an impact such as it might on a secondary street in a quieter residential area. I think that's important to consider by way of traffic, parking cars, and movement along the property. Some of the things the Code requires you to consider by way of a Special Exception use is whether or not we are going to conserve property values and whether this is an appropriate use of land. Again I think by bringing the letters of neighbors, they have not said, by granting their support to this, that their property values will be negatively impacted by this proposed use. I think that support goes to that as well. We are and will be served by the Greenport Water Supply System, so the availability of water should not raise question or concern. Other considerations that don't even apply in this case or whether or not this proposed use would somehow create gasses, odors, noise, light, emissions of those types of noises and those things would not, of course, apply in this case. Nor Would we disturb any Town facilities, existing or proposed. They don't exist in this particular case. Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. No. 3762 - BAKER hearing, continued:) MR. MOORE, continued: As you can tell, I'm just working my way down that list of considerations in the Special Exception area that you must consider before you grant such use from you apply to do so. Adequate off-street parking. CHAIRMAN: Good point. MR. MOORE: Yes. And that's the most important discussion here. We'e got a couple of proposals, and I've spoken to the Bakers and they reatlywould leave it to your discretion. They had considered as one alternative, a circular driveway in the front yard. As an alternative, they have a grassy area to the side of the driveway that could easily accommodate the three cars. In addition to the driveway, they can park their two cars back there. ( ) to the Board on that one, we've thought of two ways we would be more than happy to accommodate your preference on that one. I explained to them that if we do, or you prefer the grassy area that you would probably request and require, there be some type of screening along the property line, and if that takes away the trees or shrubs of some sort, that may be able to be done, or it would be done. CHAIRMAN: My particular opinion on that is that I kind of like to superimposed flag-lot effect, ok, and the only problem I have with that is I did notice there's some really nice trees on their property so they might want to sketch where the trees are before our November 16th Special Meeting so that we don't have to see any destruction of any trees or anything of that nature. MR. MOORE: The superimposed flag-lot thing with the parking at the rear of the house? CHAIRMAN: Well, no, parallel to the house. FiR. MOORE: Can I see your drawing there? CHAIRMAN: Sure. Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. No. 3762 - BAKER hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: Basically in this area, coming over like that. MR. MOORE: But to take effect of the trees. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please tell us where the trees are. MR. MOORE: Ok. Thank you. The only other considerations are whether or not this proposed use are going to create some kind of a hazard to life, limb or property, and the use, if it would somehow impact or may affect the ability of an emergency vehicle to access the property, we're talking more of a slight variation to the use of an existing structure to the extent that vehicles can presently service it for emeregency purposes--that will not change. Finally, looking at overcrowding of land or undue concentration of the population. The pieces of property in this area run from approximately 10,000 to 22,000 sq. ft. in size with the exception of the 37-acre piece that runs behind that area. This parcel is more than half acre in size. Among all the other parcels in this specific area, it is one of the larger ones and the biggest concern, I believe, for the Board is the adequate provision for parking, and I think we've addressed that concern so that -- as far as numbers of people that will be coming here-- I think we've already kind of dictated in our Code that six is the number that we find acceptable by way of a policy decision. We don't want to have more than six, and of course, that's the limitation we've put upon it--to insure that we don't have that overcrowding. The final considerationd doesn't even apply. Are we unreasonably close to a school, church, or area of public assembly, and that criteria really wouldn't apply in considering this property, and besides the answer on that one is no. We have a well-traveled road. The development of retail on the North Road has increased, I believe, the traffic up and down there, so that the cars that will frequent, hopefully a successful Bed and Breakfast will not negatively impact an existing situation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. Page 5 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. No. 3762 - BAKER hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: No. That's basically the issue. The parking. MR. MOORE: Parking. Very well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. of this application? application? Is there anybody else to speak in favor Anybody like to speak against the LORNA TUTHILL: To Members of the Board and Staff. I'm Lorna Tuthill, resident-owner of the property adjacent to and north of the Baker property. My husband and I were not home on the afternoon that the Bakers solicited the letters that were presented to you, so one of ours is not included in there. I do not object to the concept of a Bed and Breakfast establishment. I'm pleased that our Town has written a code that permits this kind of use for the some of the large old houses in our town, and gives young families a means of coping with real estate and cost of living hardships that this community puts on them. I have many pleasant memories of Bed and Breakfast experiences in my youth, and from travels with my husband when I've stayed in this type of a facility. I've no objection to an attractive well-run Bed and Breakfast that meets the local requirements and continues to pass its inspection and which draws friendly, courteous people to the neighborhood. I have no opposition to such a place next door to me. I do have some apprehension and anxiety, however, because of the fact that starting nearly a year ago and continuing up until just recently, if I tried to call these neighbors on the phone, I always received the following recording: "2900 - Dutchess Chateau Bed and Breakfast. Home of the clever hawks. Antiques and collectibles, nostalgia gifts, specializing in fox-hunting memorabilia and depression-era glass. Please leave your name and number and a brief explanation of who and why you are calling and have a lovely day." End of quote. During this same period and for months after we had discussed with them the fact that ours is a residential neighborhood, and retail businesses are not permitted, signs reading "antiques and gifts" remained at the front door. I realize this is an issue aside from the Bed and Breakfast request, but inasmuch as their phone number is listed under The Clever Fox, and we are aware of their original desire to make this a place for retail business as well, I want it understood that my voice of approval is limited to a complying Bed and Breakfast and that alone. Page 6 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appi. No. 3762 - BAKER hearing, continued:) CRAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Tuthill. DONALD TUTHILL: I'm Donald Tuthill and I live with my wife in the house to the north of the Bakers. As far as a Bed and Breakfast goes, I have no opposition to it. I do not foresee that parking will be any problem to us. Basically the original homes, the Baker home, our own and some others are the old homes in the vicinity. As you know, most of the old farm homes do not have circular drives in front. They almost all had their circular drives in their backyard. And this, the Baker home has the same. And I would myself, I feel a circular drive, put in the front would not be fitting this old-type home. We have enough trees for our protection. I don't feel that's -- the only thing I will bring up is the fact that it's made a hard situation between our neighbors is the fact that first they assume that they didn't have to pay attention to local laws. I hope this lesson's been learned and that they will cooperate with this legally. In that case, I have no objection to having a Bed and Breakfast, and I don't feel, to us, that the parking would be any problem. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Moore. MR. MOORE: I will make one very quick response, and that is I thank him for the kind words for the Bed and Breakfast, and I assume them it will be run in the best possible manner, in the best financial interest in Mr. and Mrs. Baker. I had an original conversation with the Bakers about the fact, "Well we have a very nice rural town out here." We do in fact have a zoning ordinance. And a lot of uses they had hoped to put their property, and they presumed they could put their property--could not be done. Especially the retail uses in a retail area. And I was advised that many of the things were done by way of advertisement and that they had not gotten into a full-blown retail use there actually. They made it very clear they live in a residential area, they will do the Bed and Breakfast, and they will comply with the Zoning Ordinance, which in fact exists out here. So~ to that extent, we hope you can we allay your fears and thank you for the kind comments about Bed and Breakfasts, generally. Page 7 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. No. 3762 , B~ER hearing, continued:) CHAIRF~: Thank you, F~. Moore. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. On Motion made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried, the hearing was declared concluded (closed), pending deliberations and decision at a later time. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowatski, Secretary Southotd Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS SOUTMOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 26, 1988 REGULAR MEETING Appl. Nos. 3783SE and 3782V - JOSEPH A. STOCKEN/M & N AUTO, INC. Location of Property: South Side of Front Street (Route .25), Greenport, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 45, Block 6, Lot 5: Appl. No. 3783SE - Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80 for expansion of the present property by the addition of a new building to be utilized for the existing automobile service station and public garage, in addition to the continued sales of gasoline and proposed retail (grocery) store uses, all as shown on the August 4, 1988 Site Plan. Appi. No. 3782V - Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80 for permission to convert existing building to retail (grocery) store, which is not listed as a permitted use in this "C-Light Industrial" Zone District, in addition to the existing sales use (of gasoline and proposed retail (grocery) store uses, all as shown on the August 4, 1988 Site Plan. Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr., constituting a quorum of the five-member Board. (Absent were: Serge Doyen due to serious family illness, and Joseph H. Sawicki.) Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 40 persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting. The Joint Hearing commenced at 8:56 p.m. and the Chairman read the Legal Notices of Hearings for the record. CHAIRMAN: I'll open both hearings at the same time because one really does relate to the other. I have a copy of an architect's rendering of the site plan indicating the existing building, which of course is a public garage, and the nature of that particular use and the dispensing of gasoline. And the proposed -- basically, what it is, is the moving of that existing garage to the rear of the property and utilizing the quite large building in the front for the purposes of selling retail groceries. And the date on that is, as mentioned in the Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Southotd Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (STOCKEN hearings, continued:) legal notice 8/4/88 in behalf of Garrett A. Strang, Architect. Who is representing the applicant, Mr. McLaughlin? J. KEVIN McLAUGHLIN, ESQ.: Yes. I am here representing Joseph Stocken, who is the contract vendee on the subject property. As the legal notice states, the property is presently improved by an automobile repair shop, and along with a gasoline sale - the pumps, and there's a small office on the westerly side of the building that's currently under a lease. This is an approximately 4900 sq. ft. building place on about a 1-1/2 -acre parcel. Our proposal is to build an approximately 1500 sq. ft. building in the rear of the property to house the existing automobile repair shop for R & R Auto and to convert the existing repair shop into a convenience store and to continue the lease for the small office in the westerly side of the building for the gasoline sales, along with the lease of these pump areas. We have before you tonight both a Special Exception to allow us to - the prior nonconforming automobile repair shop to be relocated into that 1500 sq. ft. building that would be located in the rear portion of the property. And we also have a variance to allow us to convert the existing building into the retail grocery store. That building would, at least on the exterior, remain virtually the same as it is. No expansion in size. The existing automobile repair shop is basically larger than necessary for the people that are running the operation. They were forced a few years ago to move out of the space that they had and really were kind of forced into taking the property that was there and utilizing it. It has become apparent to them over the course of the last few years that the building and its accompanying costs are too great for the operation that they have and finally it's not feasible for them to continue. This automobile repair shop, would under the terms of the proposed, the contingent contract, lease that 1500 sq. ft. building in the rear of the premises. The lease, as I said with the oil company, would continue with the gasoline pumps and the office. However, if you look at those two rentals, the income from those two rentals would not even cover the depth service that Mr. Stocken would undertake to pay under an existing mortgage. In fact, there would be a short fall on an annual basis, some where between 14,000 and 15,000 dollars. It's not feasible to have those two rentals coming in and nothing else would be done Page 3- Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. Nos. 37835E and 3782V - STOCKEN/M & N AUTO hearings, continued:) MR. McLAUGHLIN, continued: on the property. Financially, it just doesn't work. That's not even taking into consideration the cost of constructing the new 1500 sq. ft. building and a cost of alterations to the existing building to make it suitable for a use other than as an automobile repair shop. So it becomes obvious that in order for this property to realize a reasonable return on the investment, that there has to be some sort of use for the existing automobile repair shop building. And the problem that we have, we're in a C-1 Zone and there are really only a couple of permitted uses in the C-1 Zone, two-family residences and one other that escapes me right now. And then there's a list of Special Exception uses that come before this Board and get a Special Exception, you can do it. Unfortunately, this list doesn't encompass a grocery store and the uses that it does encompass are either marine related and this property doesn't front on the water, so they're really out of the question, or there are other uses that frankly there's just no available buyers that are interested in utilizing for that purpose, nor does the building itself render itself useful for that type of business. The nature of the existing building is such that Mr. Stocken, who is very knowledgeable and in the grocery business, and has been involved in it successfully for many years, in different locations, it could be converted to that use relatively easily. As a result, the current owners are in a situation where they're not making a reasonable return on their investment. In fact, they are here this evening, and I think they'll tell you-- they've been losing money at the site for some period of time, and they're in a relatively desparate situation where they have to do something. Just making their mortgage payments, especially during the winter months - are becoming more and more tenuous. They've had the property on the market for a considerable period of time and no one is coming forward to purchase it for any of the uses in the C-I Zone. Therefore, it doesn't appear as if there could be a reasonable return on any of the uses that are allowed either as a permitted use or as a Special Exception use under the C-1 Zone for this building. As a result, both the present owners and my client, the contract vendee, are in a position where unless this variance is granted, there's never going to be a reasonable return made on this property. Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. Nos. 3783SE and 3782V - STOCKEN hearings, continued:) 5IR. McLAUGHLIN: I think the situation here is unique, not generally conditioned in the neighborhood--the building in itself is unique. The location of the building is somewhat unique. We're within a very few feet of a business zone where a grocery store type use would be a permitted use. All of the uses in the area essentially are not of an industrial nature, per se. Celic Realtors is a couple of doors away. We've got Fleet Lumberyard. We've got the 7-11 a few doors down the street, which is a similar type use. We've got the Sunrise Bus Lines. But most of the area is of a business nature and certainly not of an industrial nature. And that makes our situation kind of unique. If I could just address for a second the Planning Board's-- I know they provided you with a letter as to their position in this matter. It would appear that the main basis for their not being totally in favor of our application as a concern over the mixed uses that we propose for this property. However, I think there are some examples of very similar mixed uses of area gas station convenient-type stores. The Mobil Station on the North Road and there's one in Mattituck that have very similar mixed uses which I would assume have gone through the Planning Board and obtained their approval. I think Mr. Stocken would like to make a short presentation to the Board this evening, and the present owners from M & M Auto would like to make a short presentation and then all of us, and also Mr. Strang is here, who is the architect on the project, and would be available for any questions that the Board might have. Thank you. MR. JOSEPH STOCKEN: A very brief description of myself, my company, and what I plan to do. My name is Joe Stocken. I've been in my own business for 12 years and presently have seven stores. I would like to point out. I don't cater to the teenage market, and I'm not open 24 hours a day. I cater to the adult community. I carry a full line of groceries, produce, dairy, frozen food, and the only thing that I don't carry is fresh meat. And my place is very competitive. CHAIRMAN: While you are there, Mr. Stocken. What will happen with the gas pumps? Will you continue to operate those within the grocery store? MR. STOCKEN: I hope to. Page 5 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. Nos. 3783SE and 3782 - STOCKEN/M & N hearings, continued:) CHAIRM~: And what will happen with the -- I noticed there was no parking plan for the front part of the building except for the easterly side. Will there be a parking plan there provided that, if you do continue or if you don't continue with the gas pumps, what will happen with the front lot, sort of speak? What are you intending to do there? MR. STOCKEN: pumps. Well, it has to -- you have to have access for the CHAIRMAN: What about the west side of the front lot, where it's-- I see no parking spaces etched out on the site plan. MR. STOCKEN: Well, the way it's set up there's ingress on the east side and it's an exit. CHAIRMAN: So that would be just an alternate site for additional parking if it were required on that side? MR. STOCKEN: Right. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. NORMAN REICH: I'd like to say, my name is Norman Reich. I moved out here about twelve years ago now trying to establish myself in my business and providing an income for my family. But what I've run into is -- during the su~er months, everybody knows that you can make a living and then in the winter, you fall behind. And every year it gets to be the same thing. And it's been twelve years now, and I still haven't got to the point where I can relax in the winter. And without this mixed use, I can't see me being able to stay out in the area much longer. That's really about it. CHAIRM~: Thank you, sir. Can I ask Mr. Strang a couple of questions? How are you tonight, sir? GARRETT STRANG, R.A.: Quite fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN: store. The parking plan in the rear of the proposed grocery MR. STRANG: Yes. Page 6 - Transcript of Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting of October 26, 1988 (Appl. No. 3783SE and 3782V - STOCKEN hearings, continued:) CHAIRMAN: Is that primarily for-- I noticed there's one planting and one area which divides the two areas in particular. Is that an additional parking area for the grocery store or is that mainly for the auto repair business? MR. STRANG: To answer your question, the parking that is shown diagonally, what I would deem to be the northerly half of that, is pretty much going to be used as overflow parking as necessary' for the grocery store. The southerly half of it, along with the other four spaces, witlbe allocated for parking for the service station for an automobile repair section. So we could meet the zoning criteria with respect to how many parking stalls are required for each of the uses. CHAIRMAN: The most recent application that we have -- and I hate to keep going back on this -- was one in Mattituck, down just before the bridge about three or four places before it - Tyler's Garage. We had asked at that particular time that any dismantled vehicles, or any vehicles that were not operating or if any vehicles that were in the area of larger than a car or a pick-up truck be housed in the rear of the building. Is that a possibility, if we were so inclined to grant this application, that parking could be provided in the rear of this building? MR. STRANG: I don't see that that is a problem. Again there was an intention to maybe address that issue if it became necessary, if you'll note we have the building off set 48 feet from the rear line, so we do have some room allocated back there. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Mr. McLaughlin, anything else? (None) Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? (None) Anyone to speak against the application? (None) Questions from Board Members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll. make a motion closing (concluding) the hearing, reserving decision until later. Thank you very much gentlemen. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Seconded. AYES: Ail. Respectfully submitted, Southold Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 26, 1988 REGULAR MEETING Appl. No. 3708 Matter of DAVID WALKER/TURTLE ASSOCIATES Request for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, for approval of parcel as exists with insuffi- cient lot area and width and more particularly described in Deed at Liber 8721 page 433 dated October 25, 1979, having been set-off without Planning Board approval. Location of Property: 1300 Marratooka Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 115, Block 3, Lot 18.3 (previously part of 18.2). Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer, Charles Grigonis, Jr. and James Dinizio, Jr., constituting a quorum of the five-member Board. (Absent were: Serge Doyen due to serious family illness, and Joseph H. Sawicki.) Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 28 persons in the audience (including Councilpersons Ruth Oliva and Ellen Larsen). ~/t~The Chairman read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record and proceeded with the public hearing, as follows: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map dated July 14, 1988 indicating Lot 18.3 at 89.50 feet on Marratooka Lane, approximately 373.87 feet on the south side, and variable on the north side, and 58 feet on Marratooka Lake. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. McLaughlin would you like to be heard? ' J. KEVIN McLAUGHLIN, ESQ.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it may please the Board--I'm here representing this evening, Turtle Associates, the contract vendees on a conditional contract to purchase from the current owner, David Walker. As the legal notice and I think as your file will reflect, the subject lot is a part of an originally larger lot that has in fact been Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of WALKER/TURTLE ASSOCIATES Z.B.A. Regular Meeting - October 26, 1988 MR. McLAUGHLIN (continued): subdivided by Mr. Walker, and one of the pieces sold to Lowells, who are adjoining landowners, and I believe one of the pieces sold to Mr. Cuddy. The remaining lot --the subject lot is approximately 25,000 sq. ft., does have approximately 90 feet of road frontage, and is a very long, relatively narrow lot. We're seeking tonight from you an area variance for relief from the Bulk Schedule for both width and area for this lot. I have with me a copy of the Tax Map for Section 115 that I had marked up, and basically, I'll hand it up to the Board. What it shows is that within half mile of the subject property there are well over 200 lots of approximately equal or smaller size as far as square footage, as to the subject lot, and I'd like to hand that up to the Board at this point. (Marked copy of portion of Section 115 was submitted for the record.) CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. McLAUGHLIN: As I said, it's well over 200 lots in the general area that are of equal or even smaller size than is the lot on which we seek our variance. We do have practical difficulties here-- without this variance, this lot is basically an unusable lot for any type of improvement. There's no other way of being able to improve this lot, but to obtain the variance that we seek. I don't feel that especially in light of the numerous lots in the area that are of similar size that the granting of this variance would possibly have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. The neighborhood as a general rule is of lots of substantially similar size that are certainly -- not all lots are of this size, but a large proportion of them are. And as I said before, we really don't have any alternative that this lot is ever going to be utilized for anything other than as a vacant piece of property. We need the relief that we seek tonight. Thank you. I do have some of the people here tonight that are involved in Turtle Associates, and if the Board has any questions of either them or myself, I~d be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN: (No one). Thank you. Is there anybody else to speak in favor? Anyone to speak against this application? CHARLES ZAHRA: Jerry, I want to speak. My name is Charlie Zahra. I don't want to speak in favor or against. I just want to bring something Upo I'm no lawyer, so I don't want to use the term as a matter of law. But I would like to ask you a question. Do you hold a license with Bob Celic, a current license? CHAIRMAN: No. MR. ZAHRA: Do you sell real estate? Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of WALKER/TURTLE ASSOCIATES Z.B.A. Regular Meeting - October 26, 1988 CHAIRMAN: No. My license was resigned to the Commissioner of Real Estate. And I'm glad you brought this up, Chartie, because this particularly has an endearing effect upon me tonight, I happen to know all these people in Turtle Associates. As you can see, however, we have a minor little problem here tonight. We have one gentleman (member) in Florida, and we have one whose wife is terminally ill. And what has basically happened here was, I have been forced to officiate at this particular hearing. I had all intentions of asking Mr. McLaughlin if he had any objections to that, but the hearing could not continue if this was not the case. But to answer your question, upon my starting employment with the Commissioner of Real Estate, who at that time was Robert Skroy. He asked that I terminate my license. And the way I did that, the license is still in effect but it is held by one of the members of the Organization of which there are approximately 74 in the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate. These people are still all my friends. I have been with them, and I socialize with them at certain times, and I have no intentions of voting on this application. As early as this evening, I did mention to Mr. Grigonis at exactly 7:27 that I had all intentions of asking him to run this meeting. And he asked me at that particular time that he felt that he really didn't want to, and I said to him, "Well I really have no problems running it." So that's basically the reason why I'm here and I didn't ask Mr. McLaughlin mainly because I feel that that's really my job and you really can't get personalities into it. MR. ZAHRA: I didn't mean it to be -- CHAIRMAN: No, no. That's all right. My wife -- MR. ZAHRA: Ail I was looking to do was constructive criticism. I've been on Town Board Meetings. I've had matters brought before Judges that have had to step down because they were a member of the firm representing the other party. I've seen George Penny give a disclosure on matters where he was supplying the town--not the town, the contractor with materials. I just thought it would be in the best interests of the Board - Southold Town, and the audience, if it were the fact that you had a license, that you would just make a disclosure. Not step aside. I realize that would be impossible. That's all. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRo ZAHRA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Ail right, we'll continue. anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody to speak against the application? Mr. Cuddy. Is there Yes~ Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of WALKER/TURTLE ASSOCIATES Z.B.A. Regular Meeting - October 26, 1988 CHARLES R. CUDDY, ESQ.: My name is Charles Cuddy. I speak in opposition to the application for three people. My neighbor~ Mrs. Woodhull; she~s one lot to the north of the Lowells, who own the lot immediately adjoining the subject one. I speak for my wife, Elaine Cudd¥; she owns the lot immediately to the south of the subject lot. And together with myself, she owns the parcel upon which we both reside, which is the one to the south of that. I speak particularly because I was involved in the creation of the lot that's the subject of this application. I was involved in 1976 with a former owner of the property, Robert Rehm. Mr. Rekm came to me -- and I would like to relay, if I may to the Board, the history of what happened. In 1976, in the Summer, he telephoned me. He said to me that there was a parcel between our houses that is entirely wooded on the road to the Lake, some 400 feet in depth, 50,000 square feet, give or take a few feet. That parcel was in an one-acre zone. It was entirely possible that that would be a parcel that would be developed. He said to me that in order to keep that as a separate buffer between both our houses, and both our houses are relatively close to the respective lines, that it would be a good idea if I would purchase part of it, and he would retain part of it, and our lives would be that much happier--which was very true. I was very happy to have the opportunity to do it, and I purchased it in my wife's name. When I say I purchased it in her name, she is in fact the owner of the parcel. We did that deliberately. We've never had a parcel until that time that we owned without a mortgage on it. Our house parcel is in both our names that has a mortgage, and we just kept it separate. And that was the reason we have it in her name as opposed to both our names. There came a point in time when I got the deed, which was in October of 1.976. Mr. Rehm kept the other half of the parcel in his name. I would like to point out to the Board that the purpose of doing this was to keep both pieces, both one-half-acre parcels just as they were, and as they today are, 12 years later. Neither one of us, Mr. Rehm nor myself, had any intention of developing or using it for building purposes whatsoever. I would hope that the Board would keep it just as it is. I would point out, and like Mr. McLaughlin who believes that a lot of the lots in that area are half-acre lots, or less than an acre, that around the Lake that is not true. The lakefront is composed of lots that are at least an acre or bigger. One of the motivating factors for my keeping this half-acre as a buffer zone, was that in 1975, just prior to 'Page 5 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of WALKER/TURTLE ASSOCIATES Z.BoA. Regular Meeting - October 26, 1988 MR. CUDDY (continued): this time, 14 acres of the lakefront were given to Nature Conservancy. And that's just on the Main Road. The people's name are Hagen. Another factor that I think is significant in keeping it as it is, is that the School, the Mattituck High School, owns a parcel that has been kept open and preserved for more than 30 years, and that is greater than an acre. That's right on the Road. The third parcel that's preserved on that Lake is by the Mattituck Part District, and that's across on an angle from the subject parcel tonight. The parcels on that Lake are not half-acre parcels. They're acre parcels. The Tax Map shows some of them as smaller because they were put together, but the use of those parcels as one unit, and they're all greater than an acre. I would like to go into -- I just relate this personal history because I think it's important. What happened subsequent to Robert Rehm~s breaking this property up. One parcel was conveyed to Elaine Cuddy. The price $17,500. Mr. Rehm kept his parcel, and subsequently conveyed it to Mr. Walker for $12,000. Mr. Rehm got his parcel from the Estate of Marguerite Goldsmith, who owned the entire piece at one time. For $28,000. I have three deeds. I would like to put them all before you. Those are the three deeds I just mentioned. Mr. Rehm made no profit on this essentially. He paid $28,000 and three years later he got $29,500. There's no question, I think in my mind, that he wasn't trying to make a profit. He was essentially saying, this is exactly what I'm explaining to you, and that is that the two pieces were to be kept separate, they were not to be used for anything. He sold them on that basis. He sold the parcel that's a half-acre in size in 1979 for $12,000 with lake frontage. That was not the going price at that time for usable property. It was not usable. It's never intended that it would be usable. I never intend~ so the audience will know, that my piece was to be built on. My wife's piece. I would like to eventually put those three deeds into evidence. But I would like to do a little bit more. We're here tonight asking the Board--I am--to oppose and deny an area variance, and I think you've got to have some proof before you that accords with the case of Wachsberger verses Michalis, which is the case that sets forth five standards that must be met in order to grant an area variance. Page 6 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of WALKER/TURTLE ASSOCIATES Z.B.A. Regular Meeting - October 26, 1988 MR. CUDDY (continued): The first standard is how substantial is the variance in relation to the request. In this case, you're being asked in a two-acre zone to take a piece of land that's 25,000 square feet and to endorse it as a buildable lot. That means that you have a 35% ratio between what's going to be there and what the requirement is, which is 80,000 sq. ft. It's much, much too small to grant an area variance. The second standard is the effect of the increased population density on governmental facilities. Here I guess it's a toss up question because you can either have one family or no family. I give the other side a half a point for that, but when we get all through, the points don't add up on their favor. The next criteria is a substantial change in the character of the area or is there a substantial detriment to the adjoining property owner. This is a 60-ft. wide lot at its building point. If there's a house put on this lot, these people, whoever they would be, would essentially be in the side yard of the Lowells, who are the people immediately to the north. You wouldn't just have suburbia here--in fact you'd have city-life here because you have about a 10-ft. difference between the pool and the garage of the existing and the new house. It would just be wrong to do something like that. The fourth criteria is whether the difficulty can be obviated by some method other than a variance. I think in a few minutes Mr. Olsen is going to speak, but not to take something away from him, but I would point out to the Board that there are at least two possible purchases of the parcel - one are the Lowells to the north; the other the Cuddys to the south. Both of us have from time to time indicated we would be willing to purchase the parcel. I still am. As far as I know, the Lowells still are. This is not a man who is in desperate straits. But this is a person who now, in the form of Mr. Walker, has decided that he wants a windfall. And it's unfortunate that he does, but that's why I guess we're here tonight. Because what he is really asking the Board to do, is to take a lot that was created for the purpose of a buffer zone and change it now into a lot that can be used for a dwelling. And there's really no basis at all to do it. Page 7 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of WALKER/TURTLE ASSOCIATES Z.B.A. Regular Meeting - October 26, 1988 MR. CUDDY (continued): I would like to get to the last item, how the difficulty arose. And whether justice is served by allowing a variance. To proceed just a little further, with the thought that I last had, this is a person who created and participated in the creation of this bad lot--not because he himself created it, but because he sold off the adjoining property to the Lowells, and retained this parcel. And he knew, and I think Mr. Olsen will point out to you well that he knew, that at the very time he was selling to the Lowells to the north, this was not a good parcel to the south. In other words this half acre that we are now talking about, he was fully aware, and if not by the price, I think by the applications that were made to the Building Department. So there is virtually no criteria or a standard met by this application. I would also point out to the Board that, and I haven't heard it, but there's apparently no indication of financial loss. And I'm not talking about financial hardship. I'm talking about financial loss. Under Cowan verses Kern, which is a New York Court of Appeals Case, you must have much more than just saying there is some financial harm. You must show that the price that was originally paid really put you in jeopardy at this point and having a terrific financial loss, and that's not true. This is a man who bought this property at $12,000. He could easily sell it to his neighbors, recoup his loss, and in fact I'm sure, make a lot of money. There is no instance where I can think that this application merits this Board's endorsement. If in fact you were to grant this application, I think to the Members of the Town Community, you would be saying, "Go out, create a lot from your existing lot, come in to the Zoning Board, ask the Zoning Board to endorse it, and then you'd get a building permit, and you can build on small lots." This would go on indefinitely. It would be an amazing approach to zoning and building. I ask the Board for myself, my wife, and Mrs. Woodhull, to deny this application. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cuddy. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Mr. Olsen. GARY FLANNER OLSEN, ESQ: How are you. My name is Gary Olsen. I'm an attorney having my offices at Main Road in Cutchogue, and I represent Mr. and Mrs. Jackson Lowell, who own the adjoining Page 8 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of WALKER/TURTLE ASSOCIATES ZoB.A. Regular Meeting - October 26, 1988 MR. OLSEN (continued) property to the subject premises on the north. Mr. Cuddy pretty much summarized what the Lowells feeling is. They certainly object strenuously to this application. They feel that none of the criteria that the Board must listen to in order to make a determination have been met by the presentation made on behalf of the applicant tonight. I also wish to point out that they have authorized me to speak to the Board and tell the Board that they are willing to purchase this vacant parcel as a nonbuildable lot. They understand that if they purchased it, it would not be buildable, and that it would merge with their existing parcel--which was the intention of the division by Robert Rehm in the beginning. So for what it's worth, if Mr. McLaughlin would like to contact me afterwards, I would be happy to sit down with him and try to work out something so that this parcel could be sold by Mr. Walker to Mr. and Mrs. Lowell. The other thing I would like to point out is that Mr. and Mrs. Lowell bought the house parcel to the north of the subject premises. They entered -- from Mr. and Mrs. Walker. They entered into a contract on July 7, 1986, and if the Board wishes, I can provide you with a copy of that contract. But my review of the Zoning Board file indicates that David Walker knew prior to July 7, 1986 that the lot was not buildable--that was the subject of this hearing. So he knew at the time that he conveyed the house parcel away that the lot wasn't buildable, and so I don't see -- he has created his own hardship. Other than that I think that I'll just state that I agree with everything that Mr. Cuddy said and go on the record that Mr. and Mrs. Lowell are opposed to this application. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Cuddy. MR. CUDDY: I just wanted to say -- I forgot initially, but I have no objection -- I think the objectants have much more at stake than the proponent of your officiating or your participating in this matter. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Can I just ask you a question, Mr. Cuddy? As you know, we have been empowered at certain times to swear people in and very rarely do we swear attorneys that come before us at all times, and we haven't sworn anybody in at this hearing. But I would like to ask you as if you were sworn in, did you at any time have any intentions or your wife of buildable on that particular parcel of property which now appears to be 18.4, ok, and is in your wife's name? Page 9 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of WALKER/TURTLE ASSOCIATES Z.BoA. Regular Meeting - October 26~ 1988 MR. CUDDY: The answer is unequivocably no. We had no intentions originally. We have no intentions now. It never occurred to me until I saw this application that my neighbors, who would do otherwise and then sell it as one unit. When we sell at some time in the future, or when we die and it's sold, I would anticipate that it would be sold as one unit, and that's why I explained it was taken simply in her name because frankly at that time, it was the first piece of property we owned without a mortgage on it. And that's the only reason. But we do not, and I put on the record for the Town, for whoever wants to use it at any time in the future, that I have no interest in development, I do not intend to develop, my wife whom I speak for does not intend to develop it, and we never did. I also would ask you -- I have three deeds-- CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you. (Copies of three deeds: Liber 8721 cp 433 dated 10/25/79 from Rehm to Walker; Liber 8122 cp 212 dated 10/6/76 from Rehm to Cuddy; Liber 8045 cp 420 dated May 28, 1976 from the Executors of the Estate of Marguerite W. Goldsmith to Rehm, were all submitted for the record.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else -- Mr. McLaughlin, do you have anything in rebuttal? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Just very briefly. A couple of points. I think that the criteria that have been mentioned are in the cases cited are fairly accurate. I think the issues that were not directly spoken about are issues that the Board can take cognizance of themselves, the degree of the percentage of the area variance being requested and that sort of thing. I think we have provided you with sufficient evidence of no harm to the neighborhood. I think we have provided you with sufficient evidence that it's not going to impose any hardship on any governmental facilities, and I think we have basically fulfilled all of the requirements that Mr. Cuddy mentioned. Concerning the lot and the potential for a house being built on it, as you can see, it is a long lOt. I think there certainly is the ability to utilize that long lot to stagger any proposed house that would be placed upon it so as not to unduly interfere with --especially with the Lowells. I think that any house on that lot could be so situated that it would not be directly opposite where their house is, and in fact as Mr. Cuddy mentioned, their house is basically along with a swimmingpool right on or almost very close to the property line. Page 10 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of WALKER/TURTLE ASSOCIATES Z.B.A~ Regular Meeting - October 26, 1988 MR. McLAUGHLIN (continued): My understanding, and I say this basically upon information and belief without any personal knowledge, but it is my understanding from speaking to Mr. Walker's attorneys, that in fact when the Lowells purchased their property that portion of Mr. Walker's property that is improved with a house, they were in fact offered this parcel as part of that purchase, and at that time, chose not to accept that offer. And it's my understanding that is one of the reasons Mr. Walker has attempted to sell it otherwise. Now at this point, people are coming forward and saying, "Yes, we're interested," but in fact the attorneys for Mr. Walker said this property was offered to them in the past and was not accepted. Thank you. CHAIrmAN: Anything else, gentlemen, in rebuttal? Mr. Olsen. MR. OLSEN: I'm not privy to all the conversations that took place when my client was purchasing the house parcel from the Walkers; however, it's my understanding that they were told that the parcel was a valid building lot. And of course the price that, if there was a conversation I wasn't a party to it. If there was a conversation, it was based upon the fact that it was a valid building lot when in fact on May 21, 1986, there was a Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department on this piece, and my clients entered into a contract to purchase the house parcel on July 7, 1986, so Mr. Walker knew darned well at the time that this was not a buildable piece, and if my clients were not willing at that time to pick it up, then he shouldn't have sold the house to them. He should have waited until he could sell the whole kit and boodle to somebody that was willing to pay whatever price he was looking for at the time. I'm saying now that they are willing and they've told me to purchase this vacant parcel. Obviously, the price isn't going to be what it would be if it's a buildable lot. They would buy it strictly as a buffer, just like the Cuddys did and quite frankly, I don't think Mr. Walker ought to make a profit on it just like Mr. Reb~ didn't make a profit. He sold it for what it cost plus $1500 extra for closing expenses--that's the way it looks to me. And I have a feeling that he knew darned well when he took the lot in his name alone that he knew it wasn't buildable at the time. And he knew it when he entered into the Contract that it wasn't buildable. With the Lowells. And if he knew, he shouldn't have signed the Contract. And also if you look at the Tax Map, there's no question that this lot--this narrow lot--is not in keeping with the general size, shape and area of the other lots on that Lake. just isn't. Thank you. It CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir. Page 11 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of WALKER/TURTLE ASSOCIATES Z.B.A. Regular Meeting - October 26, 1988 MR. CHAIRMAN: Now I have a problem, gentlemen, and maybe you can all help me with it. And my problem is that we have two Board Members here that will vote on this application as I mentioned before in the discussion with Mr. Zahra, I will not be voting on this application. However, in fairness to the two Board Members who are not here, I'm going to suggest that we recess this hearing and close it with no verbal testimony at our Special Meeting on the 16th of November. And it will be at that particular time that there will be a full vote to close the hearing, or at least three members other than myself to close it. And if those particular members who are not here have any respective questions concerning this hearing, then they can either vote to continue the hearing until December 1st, which is our regularly-scheduled (open hearings) meeting or close it on the 16th. So I think in all fairness to those two gentlemen, that's what I'll do. And if anybody has any objection to that, we'll do that at this particular time. SECRETARY: And you won't accept any written testimony? CHAIRMAN: No written testimony. No written or oral, other than the fact that this hearing was held and they basically will be filled in by the other two Board Members what occurred at the hearing because I don't think the transcript will be done by -- SECRETARY: Yes it will be done. CHAIRMAN: It will. Ok, great. Then they can read the transcript and make a determination if they want to close the hearing at that particular time. And I think that's the best way to deal with the situation here. As I said if it wasn't for the fact that one is out of State and the other one has a very severe health problem with his wife, which is terminal, and I were voting on it, then I would continue this situation right now--I'm sorry, not continue it and close it at this time. Since that is the situation, I think we'll wait until the i6th when at least both or one of the other Board Members will be back. So hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion carrying or reserving this particular hearing over until the 16th of November, which is a Special Meeting, and you are welcome to call our office that day or the day before to find out exactly what the time is, we usually meet at 7:00 in the Town Hall, and we'll probably be sitting right down here at the table, which will be moved out in the center and at that particular time-- it will be up to the Board Members what they want to do. So I'll offer that as a resolution, gentlemen. MEMBER GRIGONIS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN: Thank you all very much for coming in and thank you for your courtesy. ectful. ly ~ubmitted, · nda Kowa'l~ki, Board ~ecretary////p///p Southold Town Board of Appeals